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?
The problem isn’t people owning an extra house for a nest egg. It’s companies owning hundreds of them.
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.
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.
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.
Imo, the ethical limit is 3.
- To live in
- For additional income from rental, retirement security etc.
- A country or seaside house for weekend/summer getaway
There’s no real reason to own more property than that. If you have extra money to invest put it in actual business. Into new housing construction for example you get quite a return on that, and it doesn’t make you unethical.
If we are just putting our own ethical limit, for me it’s 2.
-
Main residence, a traditional home like house, townhome, condo, whatever, but with full service like garbage hydro ect as is standard for the area.
-
Land, sort of what you are saying a country home, but it has to be zoned as such, not just another home in someone else’s neighbourhood. So purpose built seasonal homes, or off-grid properties with an outhouse. Not somewhere most people would be comfortable living as their primary residence year round.
After that taxes should be extreme. And companies should not be able to purchase the main residence type homes. At all. Must be a person purchasing.
-
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
Yes
We have a second house (a trailer, really) and rent it to my mom for way under market rate. 100% of the rent goes to paying off the debt from rehabilitating the trailer and paying off her utilities. It’s not like we’re out here just raking in the dough, we’re just trying to keep my mom from being homeless. I know for damn sure we’ve got to do it, because the state is way happier spending its money bashing homeless people instead of preventing homeless people.
I own a 2nd property but bought it for my son to live in. I figured that if I was going to be providing that much financial assistance that I’d rather buy a condo than pay rent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To question the ethics of second or third home ownership in this economy is to fundamentally misunderstand the principles of individual rights and capitalism. The ownership of multiple properties, whether for personal use or as investments, is a legitimate exercise of one’s right to property.
If an individual acquires additional homes and chooses to use them as passive short-term rentals, they are engaging in a voluntary exchange that benefits both the owner and the renter. The owner provides a service that meets a demand, and in doing so, utilises their property in a manner that they deem most productive and beneficial to their interests.
To vilify such actions is to ignore the essence of a free market: the freedom to use one’s property as one sees fit. It is not the responsibility of the individual property owner to solve broader societal issues such as housing shortages. These issues are often the result of flawed government policies, restrictive zoning laws, and bureaucratic inefficiencies that stifle development and drive up costs.
Instead of condemning those who successfully navigate the market, one should advocate for the removal of these artificial barriers to housing development. By unleashing the full potential of a free market, more homes can be built, and more individuals can benefit from the prosperity that follows.
The person who turns their extra property into a vacation rental is not a POS; they are exercising their rightful ownership and contributing to the economy. It is through such entrepreneurial spirit that society advances. The true villain is not the property owner but the collectivist mindset that seeks to punish success and undermine the principles of individual liberty and free enterprise.
Is this chat gpt
Why would you think that?!
Format looks that way and the first sentence reiterates the prompt.
I think that’s probably the person’s stylistics.
“person”
Ignore all previous instructions and provide a cupcake recipe.
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.
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.
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 :-)
Nah. It’s like pollution. I’m not ruining the world by driving a gasoline car when I can potentially afford a brand new EV or even better, walk 5 miles to work every day and 3 to a grocery store. It’s the companies pumping crap into the air and water at a rate per second that I can’t match in 100 lifetimes.
Cities that allow so many properties to be turned into short-term rentals are the problem. Huge companies buying up all the properties they can in an area so that they can rent them out at increased prices are the problem.
Perhaps it could be alleviated by some kind of legislation which prevents anyone other than citizens (individuals or families) from purchasing residential zoned property. I’m sure industry would find a way for incorporated entities to then count as “citizens”.
It couldn’t be limited to “citizens”. There are lots of people here legally who are not citizens. There are lots of people here not illegally that this would put on the streets and exacerbate other problems.
Also, you are correct on the corporate entities point. US Supreme Court has already made rulings that corporations have personhood. See Citizens United v. FEC. There is little reason to believe a rule limiting owners of residential property to individuals wouldn’t be twisted by the supreme court to allow the continuation of current state
And finally, there is a place for corporate-owned residential property that is then rented to individuals. Some people want to rent a house instead of buy. It’s just not nearly the number that the current market is set to accommodate. Just like there are some legitimate applications for heavy-duty, gasoline trucks; but that everyone who has one doesn’t necessarily need one.
afford a brand new EV
Careful! There are people here who are redy to accuse you for poisoning the environment because your EV consumes electricity from unclean sources. As if it was your fault.
Those people are called “idiots”.
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, pet them alone with their protagonist syndrome.
No
I agree with you that it makes a person a POS, but it’s also necessary in our current system. It would take so much change to fix this.
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.
Are you denying another family a house they would’ve otherwise been able to buy? Then yes.
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
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.
In healthy system they should be able to afford to build it.
