...giving them temporary access to something they will only need for a short period of time. This is also true of rental cars, Blue-Ray disks, skis at a ski lodge, etc. The need is temporary, thus it is in the best interest of the consumer to rent instead of buy.
-
Show this thread
-
By contrast, no human being will ever go a day in their life not needing shelter. At no point do you not need a place to live. The need for shelter in a specific area may be temporary, as in the case with hotels, but we always have to have somewhere to call home.
9 replies 81 retweets 1,325 likesShow this thread -
Another distinction comes in the value of the thing being rented. When I get my rental truck back from the customer, it is worth less than it was when it went out no matter what I do to it. As the truck is used more and more, it's value continues to drop. There inevitably...
1 reply 35 retweets 1,015 likesShow this thread -
...comes a point where I must either scrap the truck or sell it for far below what I bought it for. Homes, however, hold the potential to not only maintain their value but see it grow. When I rent a truck, I'm essentially paying for the part of the value that I'm using up.
3 replies 38 retweets 1,065 likesShow this thread -
When I rent a home, no value is being depleted by my usage of it. There is no actual exchange taking place because the landlord is not losing anything by my occupying a space they weren't themselves occupying. To the landlord, it's essentially a magic money machine: they...
17 replies 68 retweets 1,167 likesShow this thread -
...continuously draw income from the property without losing anything as a result. A stock is not being depleted and an asset isn't being devalued as a direct result of the transaction. And if a tenant occupies the space long enough to where they've paid you a sum equal...
3 replies 36 retweets 1,040 likesShow this thread -
...to or greater than the value of the property itself, the moral thing to do would be to transfer ownership of it to them. But even before that, morality would suggest the tenant always be entitled to a percentage of ownership of the property equal to the amount they've...
2 replies 39 retweets 1,011 likesShow this thread -
...paid. Because, again, there is no exchange. Nothing is being used up in terms of property value between rent payments.
13 replies 32 retweets 949 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @RoseOfWindsong
There's plenty being used up in terms of monetary value. Mortgage interest, factor fees, safety certification (gas and electric), maintenance, accounting, advertising, viewings.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FloraMcShortbr1
Yeah it's been specifically established in landlord/tenant law that landlords have to eat the cost of "routine maintenance" and "ordinary wear and tear", they can only take your deposit for damage beyond what a "reasonable person" would consider "ordinary"
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Landlords abuse this all the time, of course, but it's still supposed to be baked into the system, they can't just make you pay for everything that goes wrong with the apartment while also charging you rent
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.