Trump is person of the year for 2024, yes. He was previously named person of the year as well. Putin, Stalin, Kruschev, Reagan, Nixon, Kissinger, and Giuliani have all been named person of the year, most multiple times.

It’s a rather notorious group.

Land contracts are an actual “thing”. They are legal agreements, recorded in the county register like a deed or a lien. You can buy or sell a home through a land contract right now, if you want. Currently, they aren’t particularly common, but they aren’t unknown either.

I mentioned how I would like to eliminate rent entirely, by establishing exorbitant tax penalties for people who own multiple residential properties. Land Contracts are how I would meet the needs of people who need the flexibility of a rental arrangement, rather than just buying with a private mortgage.

There is an interesting method of “rent” in use in South Korea that is far less parasitical. I don’t know of it being used in the US, but we could adopt it if we wanted. "Jeonse or “Key Money” is where the tenant makes zero monthly payments. Instead, they put down a large deposit. The landlord invests their deposit (there are limitations on what they can invest in), and keeps any interest. At the end of the rental period (usually 2 years) the landlord returns the entire deposit to the tenant. The tenant is protected by taking out a lien against the property. If the landlord cannot or will not return the deposit, the tenant takes ownership of the property.

The Jeonse deposit is typically 50% to 80% of the purchase price of the house, but it can be externally financed if necessary.

Unempathetic implies a certain disdain or malevolence toward the plight of the parent commenter.

Emotionless does not.

My judgment and contempt is reserved for the concept of renting, not the parent commenter’s condition or actions.

What you’re talking about, I wouldn’t call parasitism.

The owner of a home has “freedom”. When you buy a home, you are free to do with it what you want. What makes landlords parasites is that the tenant is paying for that landlord’s “freedom”, but they are not receiving it themselves.

and that is impossible without landlords

I reject this premise. It certainly is possible to establish a system that allows for what you describe, without undue burden on people who choose to “settle down”.

“Land Contracts” could replace “rental agreements”. In the short term (<1 year) they function identically to a typical, annual rental agreement: you agree to a fixed, monthly payment. If you break the contract and leave early, you pay a penalty.

In the medium term (1-3 years), the only difference is that your payment doesn’t change (or changes only per the terms established in the initial agreement). You don’t face a sudden, unexpected increase in your monthly payment. You do not owe a penalty if you break the agreement before three years.

The real difference between rent and a land contract is that after three years, the land contract converts to a private mortgage, in which your first three years of payments are considered the down payment. You continue to make monthly payments, but now, you have equity in the home: you are the owner; you are free to sell the home on your terms, you merely owe the outstanding balance on the loan.

Because equity (eventually) transfers to the tenant/buyer/borrower, this agreement is fundamentally less parasitical.

How do we switch to this model? Well, first you need to understand that the tenant/buyer/borrower is the “owner” of the home; the landlord/seller/lender is not the owner; they are a “lienholder”. The “owner” - not the lienholder - is responsible for the property taxes.

So, what we do is massively increase the property taxes on all residential properties, while allowing exemptions to owner-occupants. If you reside in the property, you qualify for the exemption. If you do not reside in the property, you owe the whole tax.

With that change, “rent” basically stops existing. Typical landlords will switch over to land contracts instead of rental agreements to avoid being hit with the exorbitant property tax. The only properties that will continue as actual rentals are those where the landlord lives on-site, (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes) making them eligible for the owner-occupant credit.

This owner-occupancy exemption also affects commercial lenders: if they attempt to foreclose on a traditional borrower, they owe the higher tax from the time they evict, until they re-sell the property. This gives them an incentive to negotiate with the borrower, and greatly reduce foreclosure rates.

Fake ID’s are not unique.

“Land contract”.

A land contract starts out similar to a rental agreement. You make fixed monthly payments. If you stay in the home for 3 years, it automatically converts to a private mortgage, and the first three years of “rent” becomes your down payment. If you leave before a year, you forfeit your “security deposit”, just like renting. If you leave before 3 years, you gain no equity; again, just like renting.

If you ever do decide to settle down in one spot, you’re already well on your way to ownership.

I would solve the rental problem by creating a massive, punitively high tax rate on all residential properties, and issuing an equivalent tax exemption to owner-occupants. A land contract is recorded with the county, much like a deed or a lien, and the buyer/tenant would be considered the “owner” for tax purposes.

deleted by creator

Emotionless is the better term. I am trying to focus on the argument. I am assuming the best intentions of the parent commenter.

Parent comment argued they were making less money from renting than they would from investing in the stock market. They could be making more money elsewhere. Think about that for a moment:

• They have the option of making $100 from the customers of a business. They could buy shares of a company making luxury products. Their return on their investment could come from people using disposable income to make discretionary purchases.

• Instead, they are making $90 from a tenant’s housing budget. (They are also creating extra demand on the housing market, inflating prices in that market, thus increasing costs for every person seeking housing, including their own tenant.)

Somehow, that actually seems worse to me. If money was the point, they’d choose the option with the higher return. If they are choosing a “rent” option, then that is either the option with the higher effective return, or they are acting irrationally, or they are paying for the privilege of exploiting a tenant.

Regardless, all three cases demonstrate the parasitical nature of landlording. The argument in the parent comment does not rebut a claim of parasitism.

If you are operating rationally and you actually believe your ROI on the rental property is lower than the stock market, you would transfer your wealth to the market. Since you are not, you are either behaving irrationally, or you don’t actually believe your ROI is lower than the market.

Your ability to move back into the property is a return that you have not included in your evaluation. The 10% cost of selling is a sunk cost fallacy.

For some reason everyone views being a landlord as easy money. But in reality returns on investment are worse than the stock market for being the landlord of a single family home.

Then sell it, and put your money into the market. Now you’re no longer a parasite, and you’re making more money. Win/Win.

If that’s not a reasonable option, then what are you not counting in the entire return on your investment?

Edit: in response to your lengthy edit, I will note that you have expanded your “return” to include more than just the financial benefits. I will focus on one thing:

Now what does a house get you then if there are all these downsides? Freedom.

Correct. You are gaining freedom, literally at the expense of a tenant. That is exactly what we are talking about when we say that landlording is parasitical. They are buying your “freedom” rather than their own.

I would say that if you live on site, in one of the units of the rental property, then no, you are not a parasite. So, live in one side of a duplex, or in one unit in a quadplex that you own, no problem. But, if you’re renting out a unit where you don’t live, you’re some degree of parasite, yes. Maybe you’re just an an annoying little gnat, rather than a 40’ intestinal worm, but yeah, you’re still a parasite.

There are other, less-parasitical methods of investing involving real estate. Your aunt could offer the propert(y|ies) for sale with a private mortgage, or under a “land contract” (a sort of rent-to-own arrangement). Because equity is transferring to the occupant, and the terms are fixed for the life of the agreement, this arrangement is mutually beneficial, rather than parasitical.

As bad as lenders are, lenders are far less parasitical than landlords.

They can be sued if they act contrary to their shareholder agreement, articles of association, or other conditions made before the shareholder gain a stake. There is nothing that requires a health insurance company to protect profits by denying 30% of claims. There is nothing requiring a company to focus on short-term profitability at the cost of damage to its reputation in the marketplace, or other negative consequences that could arise from attempting to maximize profitability at all costs.

*Radical center.

So, the pool of suspects contains not just everyone who has been denied coverage as well as their friends and family, but also the friends and family of everyone who has ever been terminated by the company.

This all makes me wonder why this company is even allowed to be in business.

Prosecutors need to follow that advice.

Catching and prosecuting this guy will make healthcare barons feel that much safer and more likely to kill more Americans.

How safe do they feel when the jury acquits him?

Yes, I do.

I want the state to make it crystal clear that this guy was the shooter. That he did it. That he had no legal justification to do it. That his actions were undeniably criminal, and that his crime was clearly premeditated.

And then I want a jury of his peers to return a “not guilty” verdict, and every scumbag business executive across the country suddenly deciding to take an early retirement.

His jury can’t return that not guilty verdict if he isn’t prosecuted.

Oh no.

Anyway…

Sounds like it should break off into its own state, getting us two more senators and EC votes.