this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
573 points (98.6% liked)
Showerthoughts
43588 readers
835 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A company would just fire up 2000 subsidiaries to own the homes.
Maybe companies shouldn't be able to own companies. It just allows to much fuckery. Maybe only real human beings should be able to have ownership stakes in companies, llcs, etc.
Companies shouldn't be able to own homes.
I wonder what happens in that case? 🤔 Oh, totally forgot. Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, North Korea. Not sure I want to end up with something like that. How many more times people need to repeat these horrible communist experiments to learn that this is not the good way to live?! Speaking from experience growing up in USSR in the 80s. Yes, capitalism sucks, but other options are often worse.
Why should a landlord be prevented from registering his property under his company?
To hold the landlord personally responsible for the homes they own.
Ok, not sure if you really wanted a response here. Always feel awkward responding to a one-sentence comment with an essay, but to answer your question, this is required. Or TL:DR: companies exist for limited liability, and limited liability is grossly inappropriate for rental housing.
We've really lost the plot with what corporations and limited liability were invented for. The original idea behind incorporation was that it allowed people to invest in something with many other people, and to limit individual investor losses on risky megaprojects.
The early corporations were for things like major canal projects or overseas trading ventures. Let's say a canal would be a good idea somewhere, but the cost will be enormous. The only way to fund it is to have thousands of people pool their investments for it. Those thousands of people aren't going to be involved in running the project. Maybe they're just investing the equivalent of a hundred or a few thousand dollars today. But without limited liability, if the canal project goes under, every investor is fully responsible for the debts of that venture. You may invest only a thousand, but if the canal goes under before it finishes, without limited liability, you could be on the hook for many times your original investment. Limited liability allowed for the democratization of investment. Without it, only the rich are able to truly invest in things.
Historically, this was a huge barrier to investment and economic development. Rome for example didn't have anything like our modern finance system; most things were produced in large family businesses. You couldn't just go buy stock in a venture to invest in it. If you weren't willing to fund the entire thing, run the entire thing, and be responsible for the entire thing, you couldn't invest in it.
This is what corporations were meant to solve - the problem of funding large risky projects beyond the ability of single investors to reasonably afford. Historically, you couldn't just go and register a corporation on a whim. Often they required acts of legislative bodies to create them. They were seen as morally dubious in many ways - after all, shouldn't everyone be responsible for the consequences of their own actions? Limited liability gets away from this. The bargain was made that though limited liability sacrifices some amount of fairness and justice, the prosperity the projects it allows will produce will be worth it on net.
But that isn't how incorporation is used today. Today, landlords will open up dozens of LLCs. They'll put a single property into each LLC. If a tenant is seriously injured due to the landlord's neglect, the most they can ever sue the landlord for is the value of the property they rent. The landlord could own a hundred properties - the most you can ever sue them for is the one you're renting. In a serious injury, you could be on the hook for millions in lifelong medical expenses, and your landlord may be sitting on a fortune of a hundred million of dollars, but you can only ever sue them for the few hundred thousand the property you rent is worth. The company you're renting from doesn't own any more assets than that.
Rent seeking is not the type of risky moonshot venture that incorporation was invented for. Incorporation for landlords is not about encouraging moonshot investments, it's just a state subsidy for landlords. It's not like we wouldn't have rental units without incorporation. Most of the citizens of Rome rented. The concept of renting is likely as old as the concept of a city. The rental market worked just fine without limited liability.
This type of liability risk should not be handled as a subsidy by the state. Landlords can already purchase liability insurance. And that's how they should have to handle all the risks of being sued by their tenants. Someone with a dozen rental units can get a $5 million liability policy if they don't want to put their entire net worth on the line in the event one of their tenants being seriously hurt.
And crucially, such a system would much better protect tenants. We currently just give the subsidy of limited liability to landlords as a gift. We ask for nothing in return. Insurance companies aren't so generous. If you want a liability policy for your rental units, the insurance company is going to want to have a say in how those units are operated and maintained. The insurance company doesn't want to insure a dilapidated death trap of a rental house.
I don't think landlords should be able to put rental houses into LLCs, because I think we've completely lost the plot on what corporations were meant to achieve. Hell, I would set the minimum number of owners for a corporation to be a hundred people (with limits on how much a single individual can own.) Incorporation was meant as a tool for crowd-sourcing daring and groundbreaking infrastructure, research, and other ventures. It was never intended to be a gift to rich people operating ordinary businesses that they have complete individual control and ownership over.
"the most they can ever sue the landlord for is the value of the property they rent" - why?
Because the landlord, i.e. the LLC, only owns that property, and nothing else
Is that how LLCs work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
Landlords shouldn't be able to own homes.
Imagine going to another city to attend university. Can't just rent for a few years, gotta have initial capital to BUY an apartment first.
I hear this argument all the time. I reject it. There are alternatives.
A "Land Contract" functions very similar to a rental, but it is a purchase agreement. You are a buyer, not a tenant. If you walk away in the first 3-5 years, it functions exactly as a rental agreement, with the only exception being that the monthly payment was fixed for the duration instead of hiked annually.
If you stay longer than this initial 3-5 year period, the agreement automatically converts to a 30 year mortgage with the same payment.
So, you take out a "land contract" on your college apartment instead of a rental agreement. You can return it to the landlord after you graduate, or stay put and gain some equity for a few years.
Why would landlords offer such an arrangement? Simple: we're providing owner-occupancy exemptions to property tax hikes. If you live in the house you are paying taxes on, you are entitled to the exemption, and pay a low rate. But If you don't live there, we're going to send your property tax rate through the fucking roof. You're going to be begging your tenants to take a land contract instead of a rental agreement.
When we do this, small-time landlords who live in one of the units of a duplex, triplex, or quadplex will be able to rent out the other units while retaining the owner-occupancy credit. They are occupying the taxed parcel; the additional units are not separately taxes. Corporate landlords won't have the same capability. Corporations may be people, but they don't have a "residence". You'll be able to rent one of these onsite-landlord units, if you really want to rent.
Imagine houses that don't cost nine and a half fortunes, because they are not considered one of the most profitable ways to invest, for the richest people in the world.
Housing doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive, whether temporary or permanent residences.
It's not about temporary living in a place not existing, it's about forbidding the ways that rich people go about making housing scarce, and corner markets.
Publicly owned apartments you can rent. No need for a landlord who just takes money. That money could go to funding public services instead.
Or you know, actual upkeep of the property instead of doing absolutely nothing until it is literally falling apart like most landlords.
The black mould is structural
Bingo !
With the current trend of 2/3rds of housing kept empty for speculation, you'd probably buy and sell a house for uni (and probably make a profit instead of spending like 200k).
And also university already requires a shit load of capital? That's kinda the whole point, so poor people are poor for a "reason".
Also it'd be simple for university residences to explode it quality and quantity without the insane competition of the landlord market.
Nope, university is free.
Where are you getting the statistic of 2/3 of housing being kept empty for speculation? A quick look outside tells me that is utter bullshit.
15 million or about 10% in 2024, I have no idea where they are getting that information from.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/
If I wanted to give benefit of the doubt, maybe they mean that 2/3 of vacancies are caused by being held empty for speculation. Even that doesn't make snes to me, though. It's not like you are unable to sell properties that have tenants.
That works well as a thought terminating slogan online. Less so as a practice in the real life.
I'd hope it was a thought commencing slogan, maybe giving people curiosity as to think:
"How could another sapient person believe something so different from my own beliefs? That person is even making it a joke, therefore they must have had it bouncing around in their brain a bunch, so they must believe it and think about it a lot. Huh, maybe there is something more to know, and think about."
I even made a comment with a small answer, to the other person, who asked like a human.
Clearly didn't work on you though.
When people drop these one-liners that perfectly align with the popular view of the platform, my first assumption is that they in fact have not thought about it and instead are just saying the popular thing for applause.
Perhaps that's a cynical view but in my experience it seems true more often than not. You too walked back on your original statement after being questioned on it. I can't learn from people who don't say what they mean or mean what they say.
Hm, I see your point about clarity.
My original comment "landlords shouldn't be allowed to own houses" was a joke, in the sense that it is an impossible paradox, with the implied statement being "landlords shouldn't exist".
That is indeed the prevailing view on this platform, because it's a leftist/marxist/anarchist platform, mostly.
I might not be the right person to give you a pointer directly into the theory of those, but I have a number of YouTubers I really like, that talk about these issues, and make incredibly good explanations.
Two I'm really into, lately, are NonCompete, and Unlearning Economics, that have some great video essays, the first one about communist perspectives, the second going in depth against things that are considered "common sense" in capitalist economics, and their real results when actually looked at.
I'd say you can click on their channels and click whatever interests you most (NonCompete has a video on thought terminating clichés lol), but I can also recommend a couple specific videos:
On NonCompete, there's a video that contains a pretty good explanation of what is called the class war, that is, what tools the rich use, to keep the poor working. Housing costing so much, is one of those tools.
On Unlearning Economics, there is a personal favorite of mine, Free stuff is good actually. It's more about the adjacent philosophies, but you can easily extrapolate from it, to housing, if you like spending an hour listening to a guy talking about economics lol.
Internet comments are so bad at conveying rich ideas, and so easy to not notice the humanity behind people, that it's refreshing to have people like you answer, with the honest intent behind what they wrote. I hope what I sent interests you!
Why not?
That was a kind of aggressive way for me to express that, but, in all seriousness, the reason is that:
Being a "landlord", that is, very specifically, an "owner of houses you don't live in, but rent to people for profit", is a way to live that is inherently abusive to the people you rent to.
You have ownership of a basic good people need to survive (housing), which is effectively scarce (because it's not allowed for just anyone to build a house without incredible amounts of money, even homelessness is fairly illegal in many places), and you say to people:
"Either give me a monthly fee for me to allow you to have a roof over your head, or I'm calling the police (the only people allowed to be violent in the country) to kick you out"
It's a way of making money, where the owner doesn't do anything helpful to society, except find people who are desperate to survive, and milk them of what they make.
How is it not helpful to society to allow others to live in your house? And it's not landlords who are looking for tenants, it's the other way round.
The problem is being a landlord as a job. The problem is rich people buying up housing (or land and building on it) they don't use, in order to rent for profit.
It's about everyone who has no house. All the people who have no alternative, apart from renting from some rich people.
If someone "allowed" others to live in his house, without demanding half their salary, you wouldn't see me complaining.
And the reason that buying or building a house is so expensive, is explicitly because rich people clamber over each other, to make the best investment of their lives: Housing.
People have a right to invest.
We're saying that maybe, just maybe, basic human necessities shouldn't be the object of speculation.
Agreed but we shouldn't prevent people from buying or selling houses.
Nobody's saying that.
We should however prevent the hoarding of residential buildings
That's like saying people with major medical issues "are looking for" insurance salespeople to fix their medical issues. They "need" insurance because the system is fucked, not because insurance will make them better. Likewise, no one "looks for" a landlord, they look for housing they can afford.
Yes but housing is much more expensive than healthcare. The government can't afford to provide it for free.
Because companies shouldn’t be able to own homes.
Landlords should not exist. Hope that clears it up for you.
Landlords should be prevented from breathing.
Good luck
And that ONE human making the money should also be responsible for any damages his company makes!
You know we could call it "Accountability", sounds good to me I don't know why it's not so already.
Oh these 2000 people own 2000 completely unrelated companies! They all make business with each other because the market is so healthy! All the houses are offered at the same prices because the market works so perfectly by forcing companies to compete with each other so the real value is reached!
Is it troubling that this was my first thought?
No, it shows you know how the world works
Okay, now pay business registration taxes on every single one of those subsidiaries.
AND business upkeep taxes on each of tjem too. These increase exponentially too. By the time you own or your comopany owns three homes? Youre being taxed well over 15 million per a year in taxes alone.
And youre not allowed to give control of these living areas or branching companies to one of your relatives, friends, or coworkers UNLESS they themselves do not have a registered living quarters of some type on file.