Especially when those 2nd, 3rd, + properties are being used as passive short term rentals. Observing the state of the housing situation “Hmm there aren’t enough homes for normal families to each have a chance, I should turn this extra property of mine into a vacation rental.” does this make said person a POS?
It depends.
I think 1 home per adult is fine, for instance.
I also think some places are designed to be short term rentals and have a heavy tourist local economy.
I personally would like to tie some extra taxes to people that own more than one home.
I’m thinking of buying a property near a lakeside town. Ideally it would be a townhouse or have 2-3 separate houses or cabins on the property; one for me and my SO to live in 2/3rds of year, the others for rentals or guests.
Does that make me an asshole?
Tax multihome owners on an exponential curve.
Curve gets relaxed as the housed proportion of the population nears 100%.
Yeah, a second house for traveling workers or seasonal migrants is fine, bit luxury but fine, but renting them out is where you’re starting to be a dick.
I hope you are aware that people exist who can’t afford home ownership, and rental is their only option. If nobody owns a rental house for them to occupy, they have no chance of living in a house whatsoever.
Can’t afford or simply don’t want the trouble that comes with it
Oh sure, like myself. I hate the idea of ownership. Ties you down and comes with a ton of extra bills and upkeep… I prefer the flexibility and ability to f-off if something bothers me at any given time. But that’s not the point the OP tried to make, so I didn’t even want to bring that argument :-)
I hope you realize that they only can’t afford housing because land lords create artificial scarcity.
There’s more empty units in this country than unhoused people.
Basic Supply and Demand says people ought to be paying people to take houses off their hands because they’re an oversupplied product.
Rent collectors are literally the only reason housing is unaffordable to so many right now.
Housing is unaffordable because someone has to pay the construction.
Check out this breakdown of a fairly low-end cost estimate: https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/cost-to-build-house/#financing
Excluding land, you’re looking at about 135k USD. Land, whatever. Labor estimate is 30-50% according to the article, so let’s say around 190k (using ~40% and some rounding).
And that gives you a bare-bone structure without a lick of paint, furniture, carpets, curtains or any other interior (and exterior) decoration.
So even if you do everything by yourself on a gifted piece of land, I hope you can somehow understand that there are people out there who simply don’t have and/or qualify for a loan of >130k USD.
TL;DR: Rent collectors are
literallyfar from the only reason housing is unaffordable to so many right now.Love how ya just skipped right over the whole part where there’s more empty units than there are unhoused people to fill them.
You literally just completely ignored the actual substance of what the landlords are doing that makes housing unattainable in an oversupplied market.
Building entirely new houses is a luxury for people who’ve lucked out big, we’re talking about the supply of housing that already exists, which in numbers alone, should be providing an all time low of prices adjusted for inflation.
The “shortage” is an invented crisis to not acknowledge that we’d have no problems if we took a closer look at how much those landlord parasites actually need that fifth unit they also don’t live in.
Whenever this comes up I find people are incapable of grasping the scale of the issue.
Owning a second home isn’t unethical. I think a rental market in an economy is healthy. This can be provided by individuals or companies.
The issue is supply and demand. The houses cost that much because people will pay it. Why? Well there isn’t enough for everyone. If renting was banned housing numbers would drop. It would short term help some people buy a house but more people would be out on their arse than magically in a house they own. The issue is then increased in the next generation. Banning renting is not the answer.
Why is there a supply and demand issue? Because people with wealth want to keep it that way. If someone lives in a house and intends to say in it until they die it doesn’t matter if their house is would 0 or value of an entire country. People buying and selling for a profit in the future is the issue not renting. That profit is only their with supply and demand issues getting worse so no new houses can be built. This means zoning laws, no higher density when a city gets 100x more people and no building on greenery meaning the city can’t go up or out (going up is much, much better). No new cities are built. Then for demand issues population must go up at all costs, so immigration is a must. These same people have businesses usually so this is good because it can also keep wages down by getting people in from the third world and keeping house prices high and wages low.
Then there is the issue of debt and intergenerational transfer of wealth from the young to the old. Which really fucks with an economy and society at large when you think about it.
The solutions are this. The world and countries are finite, population would ideally go down. There is demand for high density buildings. Build it, knock down entire areas and rebuild. Build a new city, build more public transport to nearby towns that can be commutable. Just build! The young start off in debt and give money to corporations or the older generations that have no debt and everything they need for life. The youth need things so give it to them. Even low government loans or even better money. You need 20% deposit get a cash transfer from the government at say 25 worth 20% of an average house national wide. That will sort out the problem.
There is so so much money held up in mortgages and rent that if houses prices collapsed a lot more people would have a lot more discretionary income to spend and that would grow the economy.
I don’t think so. People need homes, but not all people can buy homes. If you can afford to maintain the property to a reasonable level without completely gouging your tenants, I think you’re providing a valuable service to your fellow citizens.
We don’t get along, but my landlord is an old lady who bought 2-3 blocks of apartments after her husband left her a bunch of oil money. She keeps up the grounds (for the most part) and my rent has been pegged to inflation since I moved in. If people like her didn’t exist, people like me would be stuck renting from a big property company.
The problem isn’t people owning an extra house for a nest egg. It’s companies owning hundreds of them.
If housing is an investment (“a nest egg”) then the people and policies that support it as an investment will stand directly opposed to people and policies that want housing to be affordable and a right.
Housing cannot be an investment vehicle akin to stocks in a society that meaningfully values housing for everyone as an objective to strive for.
Real estate as an investment, retirement provision or object of speculation is precisely the problem. Every home that gets bought as an investment in an inflated housing market directly contributes to the problem, by cutting people out of the opportunity of ownership and making them dependent on paying rent.
I think owning anything more than your primary home as a residential unit is unethical.
I don’t consider it unethical. For example if my father dies and I inherit his house where I grew up, he grew up, his father grew up and his grandfather built. That house has a lot of sentimental value in it. I have settled down very far from there. What am I supposed to do? Throw away the family legacy or uproot my entire life?
I think as long as I don’t rent it out it’s acceptable to own it. It’s just extra cost for me to keep something of sentimental value in the family. I’d even be okay with paying extra tax on it considering I think every house you own that you don’t live in should be taxed extra.
Ah yes, your family legacy of a house no one lives in is more important than a human beings ability to have shelter
Perfect is the enemy of good. You’re not at home while you’re working and if you do full time then a third of the day you’re not using your home, why don’t you let others use your home while you’re not using it? You’re also putting your individual needs above giving someone else shelter, the only difference is where you’ve drawn the line.
You’re gross
Right, so tell me what is the course of action?
Don’t own more than one house. Why is that so hard for you people to understand
This is why nobody listens to people like you. Someone has a legitimate grievance trying to do what you want them to do and what is your response? Completely ignore the grievance and go “I can’t believe how fucking stupid you are, just do the thing.” Really helpful.
I wouldn’t mind that also. I think a decently sized land value tax is the way to go so that land area isn’t just used as parking because the person still makes a ton with increase in land value.
I would say owning it while not using it very much and not renting it out is the least ethical choice as no one can use that house.
The most ethical option besides not owning it is renting it out at a reasonable price, so someone else can live there and you are not squeezing every last dollar out of them.
I guess I should’ve specified. I don’t think it’s rent-able. It’s more than a 100 year old house in the middle of nowhere with more than 100 year old plumbing (hint, no plumbing), no internet outside of mobile network which is also very flaky since there aren’t many cell towers nearby, water comes from a nearby well which limits the amount of water you can use because it’s not a deep well and the list goes on. It’s not a modern house that’s going to just sit empty, it’s a relic from a different era where the main value the house has is of sentimental value. If it was to get sold the next “owner” would most likely tear down the house and turn the entire plot of land into agricultural land.
If it was a decent apartment somewhere where people would actually want to live I’d absolutely “rent” it out. Not take any profits from it, put a bit to the side in case something breaks and if they leave without breaking anything they get their money back.
Ok, thats a bit different, if the house is somewhere where noone wants to live anyway (and if they want there are enough options available), then it really is ok morally, at least for me.
One could argue that the space should be used for farming, but that depends on how big the property even is if that makes a difference at all.
If it has a really big property with lots of grass it would be a good thing to rent that part out to a farmer. If it is more of a forest its probably better if it stays that way.
Yes
I might be on the fringe here, but I think second home ownership is always unethical in any economy. It is, however, a necessary evil in our current society.
Edit: I don’t feel like responding to everyone, so I’ll elaborate a bit here. Profiting off of something another person requires in order to live a happy/healthy life is unethical. In the current society we live in, landlords are a necessary evil. This is broad strokes, there are fringe scenarios where one might end up with another and not use it for profit. To be clear, I also think owning a second home to live in part time is unethical as well.
That seems weird, the opposite position makes more sense to me. You can’t think of any possible economy where you could morally have two houses, and in this situation it’s somehow necessary? Could you elaborate further, because it seems reasonably plausible that there could be an economy with significantly more houses than households, to the point of warranting multiple ownership. And of all the things to call second house ownership (convenient, luxurious, smart, excessive, warranted), necessary isn’t the one that comes to mind.
What about in an economy with more houses than people?
So it was unethical for us to buy a cottage that had been for sale for months and that we got for peanuts at the peak of COVID rural exodus? No one wanted it, we’re trying to sell it now and no one wants it even though we’ve lowered the price again and again and it’s priced under what it would cost to recreate the same setup even if you got the lot for free.
Mh, I agree, but also disagree to some extent. I am a Democratic socialist and think that means of production should be used for the greater good, so keeping a house in order to make profit is exactly that: private property of means of production with the goal of $$$.
However, I think the question goes deeper than that. I think it’s absolutely valid for a family to have a secondary home, e.g. when they want to go to a vacation. Sometimes renting out a hostel is difficult, one might not like the hostels available, or a plethora of other reasons. As soon as the person owning the house uses it for themselves for a significant amount of time, it isn’t really a means of production anymore, but a private property. What is important in my opinion is that the time when the house isn’t used by the owner, other people have a chance to use it - cheap AirBnB covering the costs maybe?
Tl;DR - renting the house out to others to make profit: yes, unethical. Earning money by a human necessity is, in my opinion, not right. Using the house yourself and/or renting it for sustenance cost: absolutely valid. You don’t use the means of production to take money from the people, you use it for your own (and society’s) benefit.
Here’s the problem. Second homes (one that is lived in part time) tend to increase property values of the area where they are. Additionally, short term rentals also increase property values. On top of this, that is a home that is unavailable to folks who live there full time. This compounds to create a higher barrier of entry for people that want to purchase a home. Rising property values and nearby short term rentals also increase long term rent for people that live in the area. This isn’t even to mention negative impacts on the environment, an additional tax burden for the area the second home resides, or additional carbon footprint being created.
On top of all of this. If you are renting a home to another person, this is exploitation. You are demanding money for providing something essential to modern life and increasingly to even exist in an area. Rent prices have also become a cabal and are constantly increasing due to landlords fixing rent prices. I think being a landlord is unethical, but they are necessary with the way housing is structured today.
We require massive revisions to housing policies and zoning laws, at a federal level, to solve these problems.
TL;DR Second homes are bad but there isn’t a lot we as individuals can do about it right now.
Thank you for your reply! I will think about the first point. I didn’t consider that second homes tend to increase property values in the area - that’s a valid point.
I disagree with your second paragraph. When you rent a house at its price, aka only and exactly the price for electricity, water, and repairs of the building, I don’t see any exploitation in it because you effectively aren’t making any profit from the person living there.
However, I’m replying from a German standpoint. I presume that in the USA, the situation is different and in an advanced stadium of dystopican capitalism, so probably my thoughts aren’t fully applicable.
Thank you for replying! I appreciate it.
I would agree with that. If you aren’t making a profit, or if you are making enough profit to perform maintenance it sounds fine. If maintenance is a job, you should be obviously be compensated. That value doesn’t seem to represent the level of work I see being put in.
I am writing specifically from an American point of view. All of the landlords set prices based on a data set that combines property values and rent cost. This basically means that rent prices have been rising rapidly, a long with home prices. It’s all inflated value and the government doesn’t seem interested in doing anything about it. Rent in my area specifically has more than doubled in the past decade and this is not uncommon.
Are you denying another family a house they would’ve otherwise been able to buy? Then yes.
In healthy system they should be able to afford to build it.
Not necessarily. We were a young family that had to move quite a bit for my job. We made due with apartments, but we preferred renting a house. We were in no position to buy, and we knew we were only in the area short term, so we appreciated house rentals.
Honest people with a second or third home for rent aren’t doing any harm.
How do you answer that question honestly though? Say I’ve got enough liquid cash/ income to buy a second home, if I decide to just sit on this money or throw it in the stock market, does it magically make the family of four able to afford it? No, the house remains the same price, the family has the same amount of money, and the seller moves to the next buyer and sells it to them instead of me.
If anything I’d rather my landlord be someone who owns 2 or 3 homes and rents them than a huge real estate company
I’m far less concerned about individuals buying an extra house they can rent out. I’m more concerned with hedge funds buying up cities with cash offers that normal people can’t compete with.
I personally wouldn’t own multiple homes for many reasons, but for people trying to eject out of the corporate grind, I get it.
I have a second home but I inherited it. It would need 100s of ks in renos to rent out. It wouldn’t bring me much money to sell it - would probably need to sell for land value only.
But - it’s a place of refuge for my family member in an emotionally abusive relationship, a friend struggling with her marriage, a crash space if anyone I love is in a rough spot. It’s brought my family together and it’s where we gather.
I don’t think this is wrong because I am using it for net positive purposes in the long term, and someone otherwise probably couldn’t use it - it would be a tear-down.
If it’s legally habitable, someone could be living there imo. Just price the rent adequately low for the value. I’m not saying it’s morally evil for you to have it, but it’s definitely a luxury.
It is likely not legally habitable. And to make it so for a renter would be beyond my current financial capabilities.
Ah, in that case I think you’re looking at it the right way.
To be honest, the mix of it is, I understand the concept of your hardwork going to essentially a pension for yourself. Which is what historically reliable invests typically amount too, but I also see removing access to liviable land and the houses on them as unethical in a world where people don’t have housing.
I would prefer more modest investments like loans to cooperatives, government bonds, and mural funds over it and instead choose to take the surplus value to create things like community land trusts or housing coops to make where you live more safe and sustainable.
There is also the choice to invest in micro generation of energy, community or personal gardens, home effeciciny, and making your home handicap friendly (which is a huge help as we age). Of course paying off debts can also be a great place to invest in to lower your liability.
Just my plans and thoughts.
Fuck what anyone else think mate, if you can do it go for it. 99% of people spend a lot of time complaining about everything, let them alone with their protagonist syndrome.
Not really. It is ethical to build multiple units on the same property, but owning two individual units isn’t.
The city of Tacoma has recently made it a law that adjacent dwelling units, basically tiny homes that you build on your own property, are permitted as long as you follow the other rules about living places.
Yep, and I feel that secondary dwellings like this are ethical because it means a greater overall housing supply while still not becoming a slum lord.
We have this nightmare in the UK. I’m very fortunate to have a small house just about paying mortgage on a tiny wage, but not really big enough to rent a room. I feel bad for people in their 40s (even couples) who can’t afford a starter home because all the properties are locked up in a rental market.
