this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
1019 points (94.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
15391 readers
2617 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When someone rents that apartment and they pay the landlord rent, the landlord is making money without working. The landlord isn't actually providing any value or service, they're only refraining from using the state to remove the person living in their property because that person is paying them.
If a person were to occupy the property without that landlord's consent or awareness, it would cost the landlord literally €0 barring damage to the property. If you factor in damage, the "fair" price of rent would be nonzero but negligible, in the order of several hundred euro a year.
Is there any reason why this landlord ought to receive payment for providing 0 value? Let alone enough payment to fully finance the property over the course of a couple of decades, during which time the tenants are effectively paying for the landlord's mortgage without receiving any stake themselves.
No property is free to own, at least in the USA. All property owes tax to the state, and 99% of dwelling units needs utilities and upkeep
Say you pass down all the recurring costs (I said damage in my comment above but sure, include utilities and upkeep too) to the tenant.
As for property taxes, consider that the purpose of property taxes is to slow down the rate at which the owners of land accrue wealth. Without them, there is no friction on land speculation, and landownership becomes too attractive as a source of income, which impedes the flow of capital to industry. This means that (in theory) property taxes correspond to appreciation of land. This means that paying property taxes on property ought to fall on the owner because they're the ones that benefit from the appreciation anyway.
If you disagree with that, then say you pass down the property taxes to the tenant as well.
In total, you'd be making 0 profit, with some debate on the subject of the appreciation of the home. This situation is more or less fair. Any profit that you would be making is what comes out of appropriating surplus value, that was my point.
I'm sorry but I myself bought my first property and I'm looking forward to buy a second one (a studio) as we plan to have children, that studio will be rented out for 10+ years. Bought paid with cash from my own business after working my ass in factories for many years. Property on which I'm paying taxes nonetheless and I'm paying taxes on the rent that I will charge as well. Where's the theft on my part in this situation? The fact that I managed to earn some money and locked it in a property for my future generations? The fuck.
Also not to mention that the studio is 50k and the rent is about 250, not even getting my money back on it anytime soon.
When you rent it out, will the rent be less than or equal to the sum of the depreciation of the property and the maintenance? And about the taxes: youl pay taxes for the property that are intended to make up for the value the property is gaining to limit the rate at which landlords' wealth grows. If it doesn't gain value then you can run the numbers again allowing yourself to pass down the taxes to the tenants.
If not, you will be making a profit. That surplus amount corresponds to no actual value. The tenants would be paying for nothing, and you'd be getting money for doing nothing.
Whether that's theft or not depends on your definition of theft. I personally subscribe to the idea that if someone get an euro that they didn't work for, that's an euro someone else worked for and didn't get to keep. I don't believe this situation to be different from if you were to buy a stake in your local grocery chain which is making money out of putting commodities on the market which have in them the objectified human labor of everyone in the supply chain, and paying those people less for their labor power than what it's worth. The common term for that is "exploitation."
I also don't mean to make this a moral judgment. I don't know if you're gonna go to heaven or not, that's really not the crux of the issue here. I'm trying to give you an analysis of the economic forces at play, and if you ask me, the solution to the problem isn't for individuals to change how they behave on an individual level, it's for the working class to seize political power and abolish private property. But being a landlord aligns your class interest with the class that would prefer to keep the status quo.
Mate, you're talking an awful lot but still not prove how its theft for me to rent a property I own and I bought and I pay taxes for? I'm not forcing you to live in my fucking studio apartment, its a service. An accommodation. I'm not stopping you from buying your own.
Receiving payment for living space is the same as slave labor, that's a pretty wild take.
If the payment received exceeds the costs a profit is generated. That profit represents appropriation of surplus value. Surplus value corresponds to the uncompensated (or in this case, compensated but later misappropriated) expense of labor power.
What specific part of this argument do you think is objectionable?
The part where you call any and all profit theft. Also the part where you are attacking individuals for trying to improve their lives while the entire mess is caused by corporations and billionaires.
Who is generating the surplus value, then?
I'm not attacking anyone, I'm explaining how the system works. I explained in another comment that I believe the solution to this problem is the abolition of private property, not stringing up anyone who has ever made any profit in a transaction.
Uhh the renter can refuse the agreement and build a house if that's what they wanna do... you don't have to rent?
You're right. It's also true that if I don't wish to expend my labor power in exchange for compensation, I can also buy a factory where I buy materials and labor and sell them for more than they cost.
Can you think of any reason why, when done at scale, these sorts of activities create a class system where not everyone can simply buy a plot of land and build a house, or be an industrial entrepreneur? That there will actually have to be many times as many people who have to sell their labor and pay rent?
Can you think of a way in which the possibility to create profit out of land adds value to that land that is unrealizable to someone who buys it and just lives in it, and is realizable for someone who plans to rent it at market price?