Wear and tear along with damages are almost always put to the feet of the current renter or they’re reno-victed.
Majority of landlords, both corporate and private, abuse the system to profiteer adding vastly more to the rent price than is actually necessary to cover their costs, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous at best or intentionally malicious at worst.
I didn’t feel it necessary to have to go and explain this in my reply because, as people posting here, we all very likely have the privilege of living (or having lived) in a house or apartment and by virtue of experiencing reality, innately understand that wear and tear occurs as well as damages over time, so pretending like “maintenance costs and mortgages exist bro” is a serious counter argument is unbelievably derivative and completely incompetent.
You assume that they are all overcharging wildly and that all maintenance is trivial. Mortgages are an actual thing, go buy some property and find out. People rent out property to make a profit, not out of love. Also, living in a home or apt you pay for isn’t a “privilege” anymore than the food I buy is.
unbelievably derivative and completely incompetent
You had me thinking you wanted to make an intelligent point until you broke out the shitpost. You got me!
The issue is the profitable part. The landlord purchases and rents a property because it’s profitable. So presumably, with enough starting capital, the tenants could be living there, with their own mortgage, for less. In addition, their mortgage payment would be going towards equity rather than funneling to a landlord. The distaste for landlords exists because for many rental situations, it is literally someone with money, leveraging their money against someone with less money. People don’t have the option to not live anywhere, so they are forced into extractive contracts.
