If I’m understanding you correctly, I disagree. Homeowners aren’t providing a service to renters by allowing them to live “risk free”. The “risk” that a homeowner is incurring is the risk of becoming a renter, same as the risk that an owner of a company incurs is just the risk of having to become a worker.
If the place you’re renting gets struck by lightning and burns down, or you go to prison and it falls into disrepair, or the properties get raided and seized for some reason: you can just start over at a new place. The person who bought that building, on the other hand, loses maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, likely plunging them deep into debt which is still accruing interest.
That’s true; the landowner is certainly worse off losing property, especially compared to the renter, because the former owned property in the first place. The renter didn’t even have an opportunity to fall like the landowner. They don’t even have enough to lose. I’m not entirely sympathetic to a person who profits off another person’s need for shelter.
We have to fight for our right to be paying the bank for property that no longer exists for the next 30 years. Every human being deserves a chance to suffer this hardship. /sarcasm
I’m not certain I understand this comment, but from the tone it sounds like we’re not on the same page. Nonetheless, I would regard property-owning a privilege rather than a hardship, and that just because a person who owns property has more to lose, doesn’t suddenly make them noble putting that property at risk for the sake of gaining more.
Insurance isn’t a magic fix-all, mate. Also, lmao, I was implying that if any of those three things happened to the property owner it would be worse off, yet you failed to parse that and instead construed something about renters being criminals? Bro those were your words, and I think you’re wrong to think that way about renters.
If I’m understanding you correctly, I disagree. Homeowners aren’t providing a service to renters by allowing them to live “risk free”. The “risk” that a homeowner is incurring is the risk of becoming a renter, same as the risk that an owner of a company incurs is just the risk of having to become a worker.
If the place you’re renting gets struck by lightning and burns down, or you go to prison and it falls into disrepair, or the properties get raided and seized for some reason: you can just start over at a new place. The person who bought that building, on the other hand, loses maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, likely plunging them deep into debt which is still accruing interest.
That’s true; the landowner is certainly worse off losing property, especially compared to the renter, because the former owned property in the first place. The renter didn’t even have an opportunity to fall like the landowner. They don’t even have enough to lose. I’m not entirely sympathetic to a person who profits off another person’s need for shelter.
We have to fight for our right to be paying the bank for property that no longer exists for the next 30 years. Every human being deserves a chance to suffer this hardship. /sarcasm
I’m not certain I understand this comment, but from the tone it sounds like we’re not on the same page. Nonetheless, I would regard property-owning a privilege rather than a hardship, and that just because a person who owns property has more to lose, doesn’t suddenly make them noble putting that property at risk for the sake of gaining more.
That’s what insurance is for.
Ah, the classic “all renters are criminals” while opinioning on the “value” landlords provide.
Insurance isn’t a magic fix-all, mate. Also, lmao, I was implying that if any of those three things happened to the property owner it would be worse off, yet you failed to parse that and instead construed something about renters being criminals? Bro those were your words, and I think you’re wrong to think that way about renters.
“I didn’t say they are criminals! I just said what if something exceedingly rare happens to them that only happens to criminals? Checkmate!”
I’ll go really slow for you.
I said if a landlord goes to prison or the property gets raided and seized then it is worse for them than if a renter has the same circuimstance.
Do you see the part where I singled out renters? No? Then where did that come from? You said that. That was you. You stupid mf.
I made a small edit to my last comment might need to refresh