No Stupid Questions

If you do it for side money, you're only accomplishing that by fucking someone else over. Otherwise you wouldn't make money.

Lots of perfectly nice, pleasant, and moral people do jobs that make the world a worst place because of the circumstances they find themselves in. I would separate out how you treat and judge people, from the problematic systems that they might operate in.

But unless your aunt is only charging them what it costs her to operate the buildings + a reasonable hourly wage for the actual time she spends on the house every year, then yeah it's immoral.

If she puts in 10 hours a month and charges rent that is equal to her costs (not the property / mortgage costs, but just the ongoing operating and maintenance costs) + 120hrs of her time per year x ~$25/hr (or whatever wage is livable in your area) then it's fair, but realistically, assuming $6000 of property taxes, that would mean she would be charging ~$800 / month for that town home, and I'm guessing she's charging a lot more. In effect, that means that she is making renters pay for her mortgages while she's not working, and at the end of the day she will end up a multimillionaire off of her tenants' hard work.

On top of the fact that there are undoubtedly renters who would want to buy those townhomes but can't afford to only because landlords have bought up a limited supply and driven up prices.

I have no problem with landlords.

Those who own apartments are also taking some big risks I’m not comfortable with. When something requires maintenance, it’s usually something very expensive.

This means that either the landlord has to have like 50 k€ ready for emergencies or be willing to borrow money from a bank and pay back with interest.

if the rents > mortgage, or youre doing some mostly non-existant rent to own plan, then parasite. Fundamentally speaking, its pretty fucked up that fundamental basic needs are treated as investments. At least with food, theres virtually always alternatives to get something cheaper, but that doesnt exist with some of the other forms of basic needs, and shelter is arguably the most important one of them.

The stock market was meant to be the location where people put money into investment. it's just housing got lucrative that parasites decided to pool their money into that instead of business. A consumer has the power to refuse to fund a specific business, they have very little control over keeping a roof over their heads, which is a huge problem.

You can be less of a leech against people by of course, like you mention, charging less, but using property as an investment is part of the reason why the system is fucked to begin with.

For example, even if you're charging less for rent vs other players, landlords are still likely voting against the public favor in terms of local measures in order to get places cheaper, in order to protect their "investment". It's a system designed to keep some people in while keeping others out.

Based on the amount of vitriol I've personally received on this site for renting one property while I am temporarily relocated to attend school, the answer is yes.

For some reason everyone views being a landlord as easy money. But in reality returns on investment are worse than the stock market for being the landlord of a single family home.

Edit: Isn't it funny how the critics below didn't even ask questions about a specific situation where it does make sense to rent out an owned home? Instead of trying to understand why someone might make the choice they make, they sling insults and make wide sweeping assumptions to reinforce their skewed world view. Honestly it's this shit that's why Trump won. Leftists can't see the forest for the trees and are willing to engage in ever escalating purity tests that only alienate other sympathetic voters to leftist causes.

I worked hard to be able to own my own house. Saved money and took out a loan. I never received a penny from my parents or some inheritance from a family member that died. A greater return on investment can absolutely be made by investing in the SP500, returns on investment for single family homes will be worse. The SP500 can be expected to rise an average of 10% per year. A single family home on the other hand will increase by 4.3% per year. With interest rates being higher than that level appreciation, there is effectively no profit from the leverage that can be typically seen by borrowing money. Renting is typically 37% cheaper than buying on a month-to-month basis. Owners don't expect to Break-even on a home until after 5-10 years of ownership (depending on the city). Over 2/3 the cost of a mortgage go towards loan interest and taxes. Now what does a house get you then if there are all these downsides? Freedom. Freedom to decorate how you choose. To remodel, to build a deck, install Ethernet throughout the house, add an extension. But most of all, it gives long-term stability. After that 5 year period where a homeowner is taking a loss because of buying, they are finally ahead financially of a renter. This is why it doesn't make sense to sell a home due to short-term circumstances, because owning a home is inherently a long-term benefit. Especially when one loses 10% of the the value of a home selling it when it would take 3 years for the home to even grow to the point where that cost is covered by increases in home value, which is not even remotely guaranteed, as evidenced by home values only increasing 0.12% after falling by 5% the previous year.

In order for there to be any rental property at all, someone has to own it and be the landlord. Unless they think it should be the state. Or unless they think that everyone should always own the property where they live.

I didn't think there is much of a logical argument for having no landlords whatsoever.

Who owns a hotel? Isn't that just another type of landlord?