• Aussiemandeus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

    A lease is a lease and when its upnits up to the owner not the renter.

    Sure it sucks but thats the way it is.

    Think of it the other way. You own the house and mortgage is 400 a week.

    You rent it for 400 and pay nothing extra beyond repairs etc.

    Then mortgage goes up 100 dollars a week because locked in rates change.

    Why shouldn’t you pass on the cost? The renter now lives in a house that costs 500 a week to live in, so they should pay the cost.

    • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Which section of society needs more help, renters or investors? Let’s say you pay off your rental property and it now costs you $100 per week. Let me guess, for some reason you can’t lower the rent.

      • Aussiemandeus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It shouldn’t be up to one person to support another.

        We all pay taxes the government should provide.

        You treay land lords like investors but you’re lumping everyone in the same basket.

        Have you thought about those who moved from their house because of work so they rent the house and rent where they went?

        To answer your second question, no you wouldn’t lower it, the value is still the value. You want to live in that $500 a week house so you still pay that.

        Thats simple economics.

        • livus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          the value is still the value. You want to live in that $500 a week house

          That doesn’t make any sense. 5 hours ago you were saying the rent had to reflect the cost of repaying borrowing on the asset.

          That cost is dependent on equity and mortgage rate.

          But now you’re suddenly saying living in the house is inherently “worth” a sum of money that isn’t tied to borrowing costs at all. Seems arbitrary.

          In reality, rentals cost what the market will bear, in some markets that’s well below the cost of a new mortgage so those investors have to top up for a few years. In other markets it’s not.

          • Aussiemandeus
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            No im replying to old mate saying that now there’s nothing owed so it should go down.

            Im saying the house is worth what the house is worth, mortgage rates go up rentals go up, mortgage rates go down the buy in cost goes downso rentals go down.

            But sure pick the definition of value to argue on the internet.

            The value is what its worth like i said. Misconstrue me however you want. No one will pay more then what its worth regardless

            • livus@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m not trying to misconstrue you, I was just pointing out that you seemed to be arguing two opposite points of view. This is the crux of it:

              mortgage rates go down the buy in cost goes down so rentals go down.

              @DarkDarkHouse was pointing out that in practice doesn’t really ever happen, and I would agree with them.

    • breakingcups@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because you, as a business owner, took that risk. Mortgage could have gone down too. It’s not the renter’s problem nor fault.

      • Aussiemandeus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Still the market, business owners pass costs on all the time.

        Thats a poor argument.