• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    To play Devil’s Advocate, the people would only still live there without risk of inescapable debt if they had the qualifications to obtain a loan and pay down payment, as well as means to continue making payments until the property sells again or is paid off. Getting evicted by a landlord sucks but it’s still way better than owing the bank money because they can and will come after you for it.

    On the flip side, though, you can still get equity from paying a mortgage, so it’s possible to sell the property and if it sells fast enough you could pay off the loan without excess interest during hard times.

    Buying property comes with risks that renting properties do not have.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      I am so tired of the argument that “renters can’t afford to buy the property.”

      Is the landlord making a profit? If Rent - Costs = Profit then the people who can afford the rent can afford the costs, and the money that would have been profit for the landlord can instead be savings for emergencies (that the landlord would have paid out of the same funds while still making a profit.)

    • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      If I’m understanding you correctly, I disagree. Homeowners aren’t providing a service to renters by allowing them to live “risk free”. The “risk” that a homeowner is incurring is the risk of becoming a renter, same as the risk that an owner of a company incurs is just the risk of having to become a worker.