Do we at least agree that if the landlords sets the rent at $1/month, then the transaction will be to the benefit of the tenant?

No. A tenant never gains anything once the terms of the lease expire. The property owner is the only one that gains, as long as the price of rent is a positive number.

But resources aren’t being distributed fairly.

Right, because the system is broken.

That’s a rather arbitrary rule.

It’s basically co-ownership, which is already an established way to buy and own a property.

Assuming you do have all the right rules in place, what makes this setup more desirable than simply renting at cost?

At the end of your lease, if you choose not to renew, you still have equity in a property which is worth something, rather than ending up with nothing in the current system.

Just so we’re on the same page, we’re still talking about OP’s question, right?

The relationship between a landlord (parasite) and a renter (host) is absolutely a net negative for the renter*, because at the termination of the relationship, the landlord ends up with much more than they started with (equity in a property + profit from rent) and the renter ends up with less than they started with (lost money in rent payments).

The whole system needs overhauling to make it work these changes alone won’t sort it out.

Correct, wholeheartedly agree.

If their rent went toward equity in the home they were renting, when the landlord sells, an equitable portion of the cash made during the sale would go to the renters. Ideally, the renters could then use that nest egg of cash to put a down payment on a home.

If a person is paying money for access to and upkeep of a particular home, I think it’s very fair for them to build equity in that home proportional to what they pay in rent. If landlords find that too risky or not lucrative enough, well, they don’t have to be landlords.

They literally do not provide housing. If they did, there wouldn’t be a housing shortage.

It’s a very big basket. Plenty of room for nuance in there.

People who don’t want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. No one needs to rent anything to anyone, if resources are distributed fairly.

On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?

If a renter pays the same amount of money as the landlord pays towards their mortgage, and the renter has paid rent for as long as the landlord has paid the mortgage, the renter should have as much equity in the property as the landlord does.

You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth lol. Obviously a megacorp that owns thousands of single-family homes is much much worse than you renting out your vacation home. Both things are unethical in my opinion, as long as things are in a state where people are without homes, but the megacorp is orders more unethical than someone renting out a single vacation home.

Builders provide housing. Landlords are nothing more than a middle man.

I think your spending assessments are exaggerated for effect, but ultimately sort of the embodiment of “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”, a leftist slogan that, while maybe oversimplified, I mostly agree with.

I’m not fetishizing anything though. I’m just saying it’s unethical to profit off of your ability to deny access to a basic human need.

Taking away the opportunity of home ownership is not a service.

I’ll let you know after the next leftist meeting lmao.

Real talk though, save it, donate it, or spend it. Burn it for all I care. Just don’t buy real estate you don’t plan on living in.

I don’t understand. You think the only two things one can do with excess money is buy real estate, or give that excess to me? I’m flattered to be sure, but there’s a whole lot of other options out there

No landlords hoard property.

Fine, landlords hoard property ownership.

The property is used by people.

As long as the landlord permits it, and as long as the landlord gets their premium.

Landlords profit off of permitting people access to shelter, a basic right that any human should be entitled to. It’s literally modern day feudalism.

Unless your aunt is transferring equity in those homes to the tenants based on the amount they pay in rent, then yes, she’s a leech. “Providing shelter” isn’t the service your aunt is providing; she’s just preventing someone else from owning a home.

And before anyone says “but renting is all some people can afford, they can’t save up enough to make a down payment” - yes, sure, that’s true. But that’s a symptom of the shitty housing market (really the shitty state of the middle class in general*), and landlords aren’t making it any better by hoarding property, even if it’s “just” 3 to 5 townhomes.

You could make it so that food isn’t wrapped in plastic and that wouldn’t make a dent in our plastic use.

Sure, but it might curb how much plastic ends up in our bodies. I have to assume that food wrapped in plastic has a greater impact in that regard than LEDs.

I guarantee that tank has better visibility than the vehicle pictured

I hear you, but the article is full of dissenting opinions and quotes from people that disagree with what should be a very common sense policy. Like, why even give a platform to someone who says stuff like “If someone doesn’t die because of it, we will never know, while the living have to suffer"? Why disingenuously portray the issue of pedestrian deaths as some back and forth battle between two equal parties, instead of the incredibly one sided bullying it really is?

Dude so many intersections around me don’t even have the stop lines, because they were either never painted in the first place, or they’ve faded or been paved over

I know it’s a one-of-a-kind game, but it still amazes me that Roller Coaster Tycoon released in 1999, a game where you could have hundreds of NPCs on screen at a time, unique events and sound effects for each of those NPCs, physics simulations of roller coasters and rides, terrain manipulation, and it was all runnable on pretty basic hardware at that time. Today’s AAA games could never. I’m glad some indie games are still carrying the torch for small, efficient games that people can play on any hardware though.