Some hoard, some invest. They rent it out at at exactly what it's worth by definition (ie what people will pay for it). If you think being a landlord is easy and a money maker, then become one yourself and win. Oh, you don't have the capital to invest, and if you did you'd rather spend it on other things? Well, yes, the landlord had to find the money to buy the property and not spend it on other things in order to be able to rent it to you. Of course there are some shitty landlords, just as there some shitty tenants. And it's really important that landlords are regulated. But a lot of people would be totally fucked if they could only stay somewhere if they could buy it.
Was gonna type out explanations about how treating housing, something we all need, like capital is inherently evil. But if you don't get why landlords are leeches you're either one of them and/or you've never been anything approaching poor. I can't imagine thinking there is worth derived from hoarding housing and gouging people to live in it .
It's like trying to debate that the Earth isn't flat. You could spend the time and effort doing it, but you know they'll never actually change their mind.
You're making the wrong reading. You're not wrong. They just don't move on that dimension let alone give a flying fuck about the one you think you live in.
They don't learn because they don't care about what you think learning is. I'm not at all defending them either. I'm trying to show anyone willing to learn about perspectives beyond their own experience of what they think is real.
Defending Flat Earthers or Landlording is a lot like Defending Jim Jones. I don't mean to defend any of them. But the sake of expanding perspective one absolute must swallow the perception a good defense would make to do so for them.
So take that and consider this. Jim Jones was doing good shit by showing everyone that Kool-Aid is what it is. Of course, the noose said otherwise and it was just that church that died from his move.
Now go ask Mark Whittaker and watch his movie about what happened shortly after that.
Here, have some High Fructose Corn Syrup with that notion.
What do you think sugar is?
When was the last time you asked a real question about what r
... Show more...
You're making the wrong reading. You're not wrong. They just don't move on that dimension let alone give a flying fuck about the one you think you live in.
They don't learn because they don't care about what you think learning is. I'm not at all defending them either. I'm trying to show anyone willing to learn about perspectives beyond their own experience of what they think is real.
Defending Flat Earthers or Landlording is a lot like Defending Jim Jones. I don't mean to defend any of them. But the sake of expanding perspective one absolute must swallow the perception a good defense would make to do so for them.
So take that and consider this. Jim Jones was doing good shit by showing everyone that Kool-Aid is what it is. Of course, the noose said otherwise and it was just that church that died from his move.
Now go ask Mark Whittaker and watch his movie about what happened shortly after that.
Here, have some High Fructose Corn Syrup with that notion.
What do you think sugar is?
When was the last time you asked a real question about what reality really is?
Money isn't real. But the longer you treat it like it is, even after it eats the soul of every human and continues to not even be a shred of it, you will lose yours.
For many places with poor or no public transit, you can add transit to that list too. And having a phone. Impossible to hold down a job if you can't get there or you don't have a phone number.
Corbyn wanted to do a 4 four day week, a Bank Holiday a month, and free Internet for us over here...instead we got the shit show that are the Conservatives.
Never been a landlord. I own now (well the bank does and I pay my mortgage), but I've spent my time paying rent. I found a place and paid the askiging amount as it was worth it to me And when the landlord upped the rent unreasonably, I told them to fuck off and moved. True, I haven't been poor by many standards. And I'm sure it sucks to not have enough to pay for necessities. I would want the government to provide a safety net, but I think if everyone just gets everything handed to them, we'd be a lot less of a productive society. And that's bad, as a productive society increases quality of life for all.
but I think if everyone just gets everything handed to them, we'd be a lot less of a productive society.
That's what we call a personal opinion that has absolutely zero shreds of historical evidence. AKA a YOU problem.
You think this because that is what you imagine that you would do, and are projecting it onto the rest of us. The rest of us aren't lazy like you want to be.
My laziness is immaterial. I'm not a landlord or a renter. But communism isn't very successful really. Most places that tried it are dirt poor and don't have enough housing and what they do have is pretty shitty. And most are bringing in some sort of 'competitive market place'. And corruptions is a huge problem (even worse than in capitalist states). China is the big example here and Cuba is another.
You projecting that laziness on everyone else is certainly material. Communism hasn't been allowed to even be tried there is no imperial evidence that it doesn't work, and a fair bit of empirical evidence that it does work properly when you stop putting a single person in charge.
My laziness isn't the issue. But yes the laziness of humans is, and it's very real and not a terrible thing - it leads to efficiencies. Communism has maybe worked in small commmunities. But I think you'd find some people still get fucked over in those communities.
If you need a place to live there is no thing as "what people will pay for" because people will pay whatever as long as they can afford it. And they pay because what's the alternative? Live on the street?
The only "fair" rent price is the one where the landlord doesn't make money from it and no, taking enough to pay for the mortgage is still making money.
Yes, people need a place to live. Just like they need food. But if one landlord is greedy and asking too much, then there should be others that you can turn to. If being a landlord was so profitable and had no risk, then more people would build houses and rent them out. There would be a buyers market and the price would drop due to competition. How much should a landlord get back from their investment? It's hard to define exactly because of risks of extra expenses, value drop, damages, changing legislation, etc. So how else should we determine it fairly other than a free market?
If the likely profits are not worth the risk to invest in housing to rent out, then there there will not be any more rental units made.
Yes, people need a place to live. Just like they need food. But if one landlord is greedy and asking too much, then there should be others that you can turn to.
Food is not the same as housing. You consume food, you don't consume a house. If caviar in one store costs too much you might be able to buy it for cheaper in a different store and if you can't afford caviar you can buy something cheaper to eat. But if one house rent is too high you can't find the same house in the same place for cheaper. And even if you do find a similar house in the relative vicinity there's still the cost of moving from one house to another. And finally, if that "good" landlord rents out their house that house is no longer an option which means not everyone will get that "good" landlord.
If being a landlord was so profitable and had no risk, then more people would build houses and rent them out. There would be a buyers market and the price would drop due to competition.
That sounds great in theory but in practice it's much harder. First i
... Show more...
Yes, people need a place to live. Just like they need food. But if one landlord is greedy and asking too much, then there should be others that you can turn to.
Food is not the same as housing. You consume food, you don't consume a house. If caviar in one store costs too much you might be able to buy it for cheaper in a different store and if you can't afford caviar you can buy something cheaper to eat. But if one house rent is too high you can't find the same house in the same place for cheaper. And even if you do find a similar house in the relative vicinity there's still the cost of moving from one house to another. And finally, if that "good" landlord rents out their house that house is no longer an option which means not everyone will get that "good" landlord.
If being a landlord was so profitable and had no risk, then more people would build houses and rent them out. There would be a buyers market and the price would drop due to competition.
That sounds great in theory but in practice it's much harder. First issue is the cost of building new houses. The high cost of building housing may do very little to reduce the cost rent because new houses will cost more than existing houses. Second is the issue that location matters. You can build more houses at the edge of the metropolitan area but it's not going to impact the cost of rent at the center. People want a home where their life is, they don't want to move their life to where the home is affordable. And last point follows the previous point. New houses built in the middle of nowhere are useless because you need Infrastructure to make it into a place people want to live in and that takes time. You can't just build new houses and watch how rent prices drop. New housing takes years to impact rent, if it's even going to have an impact (which it might not do due to location).
How much should a landlord get back from their investment? It's hard to define exactly because of risks of extra expenses, value drop, damages, changing legislation, etc. So how else should we determine it fairly other than a free market?
People who view housing as a basic human necessity have a very simple answer to that question. Nothing. Landlord should get nothing because a house is not a commodity, it's a utility.
So you don't just want free housing, but you want it in the downtown core? But you don't want the people that make the housing to make any money? What about the labourers who build the house - should thay be forced to do it for free so you can have your free house? And what about everyone else who wants to live in that area, but there's not enough room for everyone - why should you get it over them even if you don't contribute anything to society?
I'm certainly lazy yes. Laziness is the mother of invention. I work hard to build stuff that then allows me to be lazy. But then I'm on to the next project! And I'm not a landlord nor a tenant so it's immaterial.
The problem is, that we live in the real world. Someone has to build and maintain the housing. Some people don't have any money for rent. If we are providing affordable housing as a human right, then that means free housing.
That is a good argument. And overall it's been shown that having free healthcare saves money in the long run and leads to better quality of life. As would free basic housing probably. And free food. And free phones/internet. I am personally quite in favour of UBI which covers this. But at some point people are disincentivized to work / be productive. And that's a problem because humans are rather lazy when they can be. And we need people to be productive so that we can produce housing, food, healthcare, phones, internet, etc. Clearly things are out of whack now with housing costs too high compared to salaries. But I just don't think going full communist would work.
Who said anything about full communist? This is about landlords.
I am personally quite in favour of UBI which covers this. But at some point people are disincentivized to work / be productive. And that’s a problem...
'Full communist' as in everyone gets everything for free from the government. Like free healthcare, housing etc. if you don't want landlords but people can't afford to buy, the only other option is free stuff from the government. I like the idea of UBI at a fairly low rate - ie just enough to survive ok - and with no clawbacks (for a certain level) - that way people have a safety net and aren't beholden 100% to employers, but are incentivized to find a job however small to improve their lot. It would be good for people's mental health. It encourages an upward spiral, and employers can't be completely shitty. However you still need landlords - they offer rental arrangements for people who can't buy.
You're steering the discussion elsewhere but to answer your question, affordable housing can be achieved through government subsidies and yes, that would includes free housing. If you're worried about freeloaders the subsidies can be contribution based. A part of your income goes the universal housing fund and with that fund housing projects can be either partially or fully subsidized.
Well the discussion moved yes - did I steer it? not intentionally. I would agree government housing is needed or UBI. But back to the original issue: that still doesn't mean landlords are necessarily evil. It's an important role and regulated and with proper controls a very valuable one.
Many people cants get a mortgage as they cannot afford a down payment and/or they are too much of a credit risk for the bank. So they cannot buy a house. A landlord buys the house using their own down payment and assumes the risk and then provides an arrangement where people who otherwise could not get somewhere to live, now can rent on a monthly basis. Without the landlord, people who could not buy a place to live in would have to live on the streets. So the landlord plays an important roll unless you're ok with poorer people having to live on the streets.
You just pretty much described them as a necessary evil and hardly a benefit to the people who can't afford a house. They will have a roof over their head but that comes at the cost of accumulating wealth as a noticeable part goes to paying for the rent, wealth that could go towards buying a home. I'm not going to pat landlords on the back for essentially exploiting people who are already having it rough.
You can do that without a landlord. Just get a mortgage and buy a house. Why should a landlord get involved and put their deposit and take on risk for you?
That's simply not true. Landlords try to militate the risk as they're not idiots. But they can certainly lose off a rental unit. If tenants don't pay rent the landlord gets no income, but they still have to pay their mortgage. A landlord can sue a non paying renter and go after guarantors, but that's costs a lot in legal costs and doesnt help if there's no money to collect. And housing prices can stagnate or even drop, so there is plenty of risk. In general any investment comes with risk, the bigger the potential return, the bigger the risk or more loss.
The landlord isn't risking their house and livelyhood. They risk not leeching your paycheck. That's not a real risk. Poor people risk both when they start a business, or do anything. That is risk.
Most landlords are leveraged. The house they rent out is collateral against the loan they used to buy the building, which they also had to put up cash deposit, If there's suddenly a big expense ( new roof needs, etc), or a tenant just doesn't pay rent, they still have to make payments on their load. If they can't afford to, the bank can foreclose on the house and take ownership of the house - the landlord loses everything including their initial cash deposit. If they also live in the property, they literally are risking their home too. Being a landlord is a business and like any there are risks. A super rich landlord, or mega corporation that buys properties and rents out has less risk as they can handle short term losses for potential longer term gain.
That's my point. Go ahead and get a mortgage from the bank. You'll need a deposit of course and a decent credit rating and income or they reasonably won't trust you with their money. If you don't have those things, well, that's why we need landlords - someone to put money up and take the risk on your behalf.
Lnadlords increase competition for the property making it more expensive.
Someone putting an offer on a property might be just fine getting a mortgage for that amount, but not for the amount needed if 5 different landlords are trying to outbid them so they can rent the property to them.
That's a very marginal effect - and really only in a sellers market. Right now in most places, there are many properties sitting on the market that anyone could put in a reasonable offer and get.
Not really copy pasta, but it's a common enough sentiment because it's common sense. I understand it will probably get me banned from this sub for not echoing the official line, but I believe in discussion and sharing ideas so I feel it's worth the risk.
I think it defies common sense, but it sounds good if you only think about it for 10 seconds.
Your position seems to be such that many people, like me and probably some of the other commenters, should have to work until the day we die. We have been working full-time our entire adult lives. We're somewhat educated. We're doing the best we can, but there's no way we could possibly afford to purchase property. So when we get old and gray, when we're 85 years old, maybe you're going to see us working the door at Walmart because there's no other option under your system. And who's benefiting from us paying rent our entire lives? Landlords, but more specifically very rich people who invest in real estate. In other words, they are stealing our retirement to get richer when they're already filthy rich.
And that's not the kind of society I will ever support because I don't think the filthy rich bastards deserve any more money than they already have. They only get it by taking it from us and we need it more.
We can't force labourers, engineers, supplies to make houses for free. And people shouldn't have to work past retirement age. So we need higher old age security / social security retirement payments. I agree that the system is currently pulling way too much money to the top. Of course it complicated as the billionaires aren't actually spending much more personally that the multi millionaires - their money mostly is invested in stuff - their worth is just numbers on a computer. The delicate balance on inflation is based much more on the daily spending by the (lower) middle class population. If we instantly distributed the billionaires' money to the working classes we'd cause huge inflation that would negate the benifit.
Just like slavery used to be "common sense." You clearly need Christ. He was a communist. He literally told his followers to live in communes and use their wealth to help everyone, especially the poor and the immigrant, not just those in their own community.
I don't need a made up storey to know that things would be better if people were nicer to each other. Being nice so that a sky fairy doesn't torture you for eternity is ridiculous. I would love it if we could live in a state where everyone worked hard for everyone else. But there's too many people who are lazy and take advantage of other whenever they can. So we need a framework of regulations to make society function, and we need motivation for people to be productive and pull their weight when they can.
No one can hoard the ability to raise one's children to the point that people don't have children. People and corps have hoarded housing to the point that empty homes out number the homeless at a rate of 35:1
The reference to providing for one's children was in relation to to comment about inheritance. Bitching that someone has it easy because they inherited wealth is saying you don't think people should be able to inherit wealth which is saying parents shouldn't be able to leave money and look after their own children. And I don't disagree that empty houses are a problem - they should be taxed to the moon. And a lot of cities have started doin that now. Maybe that will relieve some pressure on the housing / renting market, which is good.
Fair enough. Then put a cap on the amount of properties that can be inherited by a single individual. Anything in excess of 1 should go to a public pool of properties for renters to buy.
I see the downvotes and am choosing to extend the olive branch instead: I understand your perspective about how people who could not afford to buy a home would be shit outta luck, but this perspective limits itself to the boundaries imposed by the capitalist need to commidify basic human necessities. Homes should be guaranteed for everyone. Yes we have the resources and yes it is possible to do. In fact, all the empty homes already exist to house everyone in the states. It has nothing to do with 'good' or 'bad' landlords, the concept of a landlord is directly opposed to housing all people, as they are financially incentivized to maximize rent and to keep a pool of unhoused people in society with which to maintain the threat of homelessness. There is no invisible hand of the market.
Who pays for those government supplied homes? Are you happy to pay 20% of your pay check to pay for housing of the guy next door who doesn't bother to work?
Charity is voluntary taxes. I understand that the idea of taxes is that it forces everyone to pay their fair share. And I get that. But people advocating for higher taxes seem to usually be wanting other people's taxes to go up, but not their own. A lot of people are struggling these days and can't afford higher taxes.
Thanks for proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you also don't understand the economy. Charity is not voluntary taxes. Charity is keeping money in circulation, just through different channels than normal. Taxes is removal of currency from the overall system. We literally used to burn the currency that was collected. Taxes are an anti-inflationary device that ends the government fiscal cycle.
Well I don't know what country you're in, but in western countries the tax revenue is part of the budget where government spending is offset by tax revenue. Pretty much the only way money is destroyed is default loans.
In most western countries (EU aside), governments have central banks capable of literally minting an unlimited amount of currency. The US government can create an unlimited amount of US Dollars, Canada with Canadian, UK with Pounds, Japan with Yen. If the government can, by definition and at a keyboard stroke, create as much currency as it wants, it becomes self-evident that the purpose of taxation cannot be the funding of the state, because the state can get an unlimited amount of funding without recurring to taxes.
Taxes are a form of money destruction, i.e., removal from the private sector. This serves anti-inflation purposes, but also can be used to redistribute wealth (by destroying more currency from individuals with more wealth than others), to discourage behaviors (destroy currency when consuming unhealthy products such as sugar of tobacco through specific taxes), and also importantly, to enforce the usage of your currency (if people are compulsorily and regularly taxed in one currency, they need to earn that currency, and if they don't they'll be subjected to penalties).
That's one way to look at it, but not how the accounts are drawn. If they are creating more than they are 'destroying' then is that really destroying anything? Regardless, to control inflation, or to balance budgets, it's part of a complex system that balances resource availability, and promotes productivity.
That's one way to look at it, but not how the accounts are drawn
The accounts ideologically being drawn otherwise is purely political, and the fact that neoliberalism propagates lies about the way taxes work is a tool to serve the powerful. If people realize we could just create money to make state-funded job guarantees with low risk of inflation, capital is fucked.
it's part of a complex system that balances resource availability, and promotes productivity
Austerity policy has kept Europe at essentially 0 net growth on average since 2008. That doesn't look too productive to me
Not in the US,where I live. It's an anti-inflationary device that happens after the money was printed and spent by the government, then the people. You don't know how the economy works.
I'm in Belgium which is probably worse than much of Europe in terms of taxation, and the only issue I have with the high taxes I pay is that there are way too many loopholes for the people earning a lot to avoid paying. So the strongest shoulders do not bear a proper amount of weight.
Jokes aside, housing should be one those "essential money pits" because it's a place of shelter not some stock on the NYSE. Housing is a human right that we all should have access to.
Yes that would be nice. But someone has to build the housing, maintain it, etc. or should the labourers who build the houses have to work for free? it seems that apart from going full communist, what we really need it more competitive housing options. Like smaller apartments with just minimal necessities in a location that is on cheaper real estate but has transit. Somewhere that people can use as their human right to basic shelter as it's very affordable or fully government sponsored. That would take the pressure out of the housing market at allow rent of nicer places to drop a bit.
The system is made (in theory) to promote productivity. We work to build stuff that other people need and our quality of life as a group goes up. People need housing, so someone can figure out how to build housing and sell it at a profit. That makes them productive and they do well and they provide a necessary service. If it's not profitable, they won't do it. And there won't be houses for people to live in. Conversely, kidnapping people is unproductive and unfair. So as a group we've made it illegal. Things like universal healthcare have actually been found to be productive my most countries. As have social assistance programs. It would be nice in some way to include housing and food and phones and internet access in that, but people really do need to be motivated to work. We need people to be productive or else we won't have the housing, phones, food, medical services available to anyone!
Landlords don't just take in rent as profit. They have expenses for maintenance, property taxes, insurance, etc. if you could buy a house presumably you would so as to avoid having to pay for a landlord to get his cut. But renters usually can't buy, so the landlord fronts the money for the house and takes on various risks. There is, of course, a change for them doin that. That's the only way renters can get housing, unless governments just give people stuff for free.
People love to say that we have to have landlords because otherwise no one could rent. Great! So then, let's have not-for-profit landlords or public housing.
Also, here is a basic refresher on "what something is worth". If you're drowning and someone offers to sell you a life vest for your life savings, then you might pay it so that you don't die. Immediately after that you would pass laws to prevent them from ever doing that kind of horrible shit again. At least, you would do that if you had an ounce of empathy... Do you?
But there are many independent landlord options. The pricing is based on the market and not a instantaneous mark up. If being a landlord meant you couldn't make any money on your investment, why would anyone do it? Public housing is very different. That's getting the government to pay for it. Sounds great, except it's not 'free' - the tax money has to come from everyone else. If everyone got their house for free then everyone would have to pay in the cost of their house. But if you can't a afford to rent, you can't afford to pay that much in tax, so instead you want other people to pay more. But most people are stuggling now, even if they can afford to be in a house, so how can they afford to also pay your rent? Why is it fair to ask them to?
Less than a fraction of a percent of the entire planet's population have more money than there are fish in the ocean. Tax the absolute fuck out of them including all of the money they have tied up in investments and stocks and we'd have enough money to take care of everyone's needs.
But that's not really how it works. Sure the money value of the .1% is obscene in the context of your grocery costs or rent, but it's not really about the money - that just a way to manage resources and productive work, and also somewhat independently to mange investments. If we distributed the billionaires' wealth out, that wouldn't increase the resources available, so we'd just get instant inflation to negate the benifits. You'd have more money but there'd be the same availability of stuff in the stores so either we'd run out of stuff in the stores when everyone buys more, or what would really happen is the store owners would raise the prices. And people would still have to do the work that needs to be done for our society to function. The investments are money that fund companies which employ people. If you pulled all that funding, the companies wouldn't have the needed capital to operate and many people would lose jobs. I'm not saying things don't need to change. Rent and grocery costs are out of whack with lower middle class salaries. Regulation to raise minimum wage and h... Show more...
But that's not really how it works. Sure the money value of the .1% is obscene in the context of your grocery costs or rent, but it's not really about the money - that just a way to manage resources and productive work, and also somewhat independently to mange investments. If we distributed the billionaires' wealth out, that wouldn't increase the resources available, so we'd just get instant inflation to negate the benifits. You'd have more money but there'd be the same availability of stuff in the stores so either we'd run out of stuff in the stores when everyone buys more, or what would really happen is the store owners would raise the prices. And people would still have to do the work that needs to be done for our society to function. The investments are money that fund companies which employ people. If you pulled all that funding, the companies wouldn't have the needed capital to operate and many people would lose jobs. I'm not saying things don't need to change. Rent and grocery costs are out of whack with lower middle class salaries. Regulation to raise minimum wage and hiring practices to give workers more consistent employment is needed desperately. But unfortunately it's not so simple as just taking money from the rich to give to the poor.
The current discussion is on housing of which we have way more than enough of. You ask who would pay for it if we eliminated the need for landlords and my answer is the obscenely rich. We can easily house every single person in the world and still have housing left over. The reason we don't is cause of greedy assholes caring more about profits, however small they'd be, than other humans.
Market value is based off of demand. People purchasing extra homes to profit off of increases that demand and therefore increases the cost.
But most people are stuggling now, even if they can afford to be in a house, so how can they afford to also pay your rent? Why is it fair to ask them to?
Being a landlord can be a real job - if you have enough properties to manage, there are endless repairs or grievances to deal with. There's government regulations, there's tenant vetting and legal stuff. I wouldn't want to a landlord because I would hate to deal with people complaining over stupid shit, not paying their rent on time, etc. But we really do need landlords or else there wouldn't be any way to rent an apartment. And many people can't afford to buy a house.
"We need dragons because knights need to kill something!"
That's what you just said. If people can't afford housing then the economy needs to be adjusted. This wasn't an issue anywhere in the world before capitalism. Prior to capitalism there were poor people, but if they needed a house they just built one on the commons as a community for the person in need.
So the dragons are housing and the landlords are the knights? But we really do need housing, so you're analogy doesn't make sense. And of course it's been a problem before capitalism. There's often been times when there aren't enough resources to house everyone regardless of societal organization. And yes, a reorganization or at least a major adjustment of our current is needed. But just throwing landlords out doesn't make sense. If we banned renting out houses and apartments today, there'd be a shit ton of people without somewhere to live.
If all we did was to ban landlords there would be no homeless people in the US, or I suspect any developed country, as the ratio of homes that have sat empty for more than one year to homeless people is currently about 35:1 in the US. These homes are everywhere in every major city and small town.
If we went a step further, we could be like 3 of the literal poorest former Soviet block Eastern European countries where 92% of the population lives in extremely nice government housing where the rent is capped at something like 2-5% of your monthly income.
Oh and you got it backwards. The housing is the knights. The landlords are the imaginary thing we do not need
If there are empty houses because that currently makes financial sense to sit on the real estate without renting, then if we banned landlords, presumably all that housing would then sit empty. All the homeless would-be renters would now have to find money to buy. Maybe the government would back their 99% mortgage. And the ex-landlord house owners sitting with those houses would wait to sell at a decent price. Or we just go full communism regarding housing and the government becomes the landlord dragon who doesn't charge much, but doesn't have enough money to upkeep the apartments.
Nope. Don't need to buy those houses are now freed up as government housing. Capitalism is a disease that will kill us all because of people like you that have been so infected you can't see any way to help your neighbors.
Some of my neighbors are landlords. If you are going to steal their investment properties from them, they will be screwed as they've been putting all their money into that as a retirement plan. Why would you want to destroy these people who have worked hard all their lives?
Nothings stopping the renters from getting a mortgage and buying their own house. Except if they can't afford the down payment or are too much of a risk for the bank - and in that case, the landlords are providing a very important service to them - without which they'd be on the streets.
lol "what people will pay" = "what it's worth by definition"
you are joking right? trying to make fun if landlords?
because hoarding, limiting supply will artificially rise the prices of a necessity.
it's pure evil, and with no moral justification besides you being selfish.
Imagine being thirsty in a desert, and I have gallons of water, but you and everyone else will die without it. I could give you all some at the cost of whatever it costs to distribute. or I could be a lazy fuck, and only give water to them highest bidder, they'll trade all their income for something I made artificially expensive.
then pat myself on the back because I save some people from thirst, and let the "ungrateful" die.
Landlords arent hoarding. They have to rent out their properties to cover their investment. Imagine you went to a bank and convinced them to lend you money to become a landlord. You'd pay for land, pay architects and engineers and labourers and buy materials and build the house. Then you'd pay lawyers and other service providers to get things ready and find some tenants. All the time you'd be paying biweekly mortgage payments. Then you start to get rent payments from your tenants (usually). It covers your mortgage payments, your insurance and legal fees and property taxes and maintenance costs mostly - you're not making any significant money over the mortgage payments - but you figure that's ok as you now 'own' the house that you can sell later at a profit for all your work - as long as the real estate market doesn't crash - or you can't find renters and fail to pay your mortgage so the bank forecloses. So then maybe 10 years later you sell (paying huge capital gains tax) and now you've got some money out of it, and you can reinvest then and build two houses and do the same thing... Show more...
Landlords arent hoarding. They have to rent out their properties to cover their investment. Imagine you went to a bank and convinced them to lend you money to become a landlord. You'd pay for land, pay architects and engineers and labourers and buy materials and build the house. Then you'd pay lawyers and other service providers to get things ready and find some tenants. All the time you'd be paying biweekly mortgage payments. Then you start to get rent payments from your tenants (usually). It covers your mortgage payments, your insurance and legal fees and property taxes and maintenance costs mostly - you're not making any significant money over the mortgage payments - but you figure that's ok as you now 'own' the house that you can sell later at a profit for all your work - as long as the real estate market doesn't crash - or you can't find renters and fail to pay your mortgage so the bank forecloses. So then maybe 10 years later you sell (paying huge capital gains tax) and now you've got some money out of it, and you can reinvest then and build two houses and do the same thing again. In another 10 years you make more to retire on if things go well. Or maybe you lost because house prices stagnated. But at least you housed three families for your effort. And yet people call you evil with no moral justification because they don't understand how the world works. Kinda sad really.
Then you start to get rent payments from your tenants (usually). It covers your mortgage payments, your insurance and legal fees and property taxes and maintenance costs mostly
Your tenants are paying more in order to cover the costs of you being a middle man here, yes. Nowhere in that list did you say anything a landlord provides, they just insert themselves in the middle, raise the cost, and pretend that doesn't make them a parasite.
But at least you housed three families for your effort.
No, you didn't. You denied housing for three families and the equity they would have recieved if you didn't exist.
The landlord provides a rental arrangement for someone who can't buy. It's a service that has risk and requires an investment. Those three families presumably would have bought a house if they could. But since they can't, the landlord allowed them to be able to rent.
then you continue to describe why they are hoarding properties without providing any benefit. just being a greedy parasite. all you did was make someone else pay your mortgage. which you get to keep and once it is paid they still pay straight into your poket.
I know tapeworms who are better for society than landlords
If they aren't providing a useful service - why do people use them? Just buy you're own house. Oh, you can't? Well it's a good thing landlords exist so you can have a place to live!
Landleeches always tell on themselves when they challenge us to "try it if you think it's so easy."
The whole reason we don't is because of how deeply immoral it is. There is no universe in which I would have an inkling of an urge to make it more difficult for people to obtain housing. There really are more sociopaths walking among us than it seems.
You (and many others here) seem rather confused. Landlords aren't stopping anyone from buying a house (with a mortgage or whatever) unless they can't afford a down payment or can't candle the financial risk. So landlords make it possible for people who can't buy to have a place to live. The landlord invests their own money and assumes the risks and proves a simple rent arrangement that people who can't buy can use to have a place to live. Yes, the landlord takes a cut, as they have to put up their own money and take a risk. But if they didn't take a cut there'd be no point in risking their investment and going through the bother of it all. And if they didn't do it, people who couldn't buy a place would be totally screwed.
The existence of Landlords raises the cost of housing, and then they justify their existence by saying housing is too expensive for people to afford. It's tautological.
Meanwhile the people paying rent clearly can afford it, because the can afford all the expenses of the house + the extra fees involved for someone being a landlord + the landlord's profit.
Geez, I think you had a good point and now it seems you are being burned at the stake. But arguments are good if held in good faith, and I see your point, and mostly agree.
The problem is everyone wants a good house in a good area, yet there is only a limited supply. Houses are a depreciating asset, breaks down etc, the land in a desirable area is what makes it expensive and appreciated. So by logic the landlord took a chance and bought a place to rent out, that will depreciate but they focused on location, location, location in the hope it will bring in a profit (speculation).
Honestly if the area is desirable, close to working areas, good reputation with low crime... It will sell itself and becomes desirable thus increasing price.
But no one forced you to live in a nice area, I moved to a rural town, where a nice family home is cheaper than a 1 bedroom flat in the city more than 3 hours drive from me. Unfortunately yes that means less comfortable options like work or services a city can provide me. But some benefits like I love the isolation and community a sma
... Show more...
Geez, I think you had a good point and now it seems you are being burned at the stake. But arguments are good if held in good faith, and I see your point, and mostly agree.
The problem is everyone wants a good house in a good area, yet there is only a limited supply. Houses are a depreciating asset, breaks down etc, the land in a desirable area is what makes it expensive and appreciated. So by logic the landlord took a chance and bought a place to rent out, that will depreciate but they focused on location, location, location in the hope it will bring in a profit (speculation).
Honestly if the area is desirable, close to working areas, good reputation with low crime... It will sell itself and becomes desirable thus increasing price.
But no one forced you to live in a nice area, I moved to a rural town, where a nice family home is cheaper than a 1 bedroom flat in the city more than 3 hours drive from me. Unfortunately yes that means less comfortable options like work or services a city can provide me. But some benefits like I love the isolation and community a small community brings.
Nothing stops anyone from moving. In my country the government has tried to give RDP housing to the poor, except it stays theirs and if you get a work somewhere else or have to move due to wide variety of reasons, sorry lost your housing benefits, you cannot sell or swap or anything, a stupid law and makes people choose between housing or a better paying work, hopefully opposition is trying to give these people ownership rights and further strengthen property rights in general.
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Slightly off-topic: Just found out that the word boycott comes from a British guy called Charles Boycott, who managed landlords properties in occupied Ireland. He got ostracized by the local community and people refused to serve him or work for him.
I don't understand stand this "anti" landlord stuff... these are usually just extremely normal people, but they worked hard enough and enough extra money... anyone can do it?
The problem isn't with the amount of work they had to do to buy the housing, the problem is with the dynamics the relation between a private landlord and a tenant create.
For a landlord, the primary interest when renting a flat is obtaining profit. This immediately implies that, by default, rent caps are against the interest of landlords, creation of public affordable housing is against the interests of landlords, and laws difficulting or eliminating evictions are against the interests of landlords. All of these measures would be massively beneficial to tenants, which most working class people are, and they're not implemented in order to maintain the profit of a select minority of owners that extract wealth monthly from them without providing any service.
What you really need to learn, i cant even start... stop blaming others for issues. Until you make it about what you CAN change, you won't change anything
Oh we will change plenty, a lot of change like this has been achieved, much more than through individualist means. China uplifted a billion+ people from poverty, the USSR 300-400 million, and plenty of land and housing collectivization was carried out. Just wait for it ;)
If you are suggesting landlords work harder than renters then you are full of 💩. Period.
The system is toxic. If you are making your money by sitting on your ass charging people rent you are also toxic. Jesus would agree with this statement.
If you believe that “anyone can do it” then you are blissfully unaware of the realities that regular everyday people are living. Most people who buy a house were born into positions of wealth. 90% of people born into poverty do not make it out of poverty.
Wake up.
If you were born into wealth, good for you. It does not mean you worked harder than anyone else. We do not live in a meritocracy, hate to break it to you. People who work at McDonald’s or in the service industry work ten times harder than anyone who earns enough to buy a house. It’s just a fact.
But again, if you are a landlord, good for you. Don’t be a shitty person. Rent below market rates if you can, take care of repairs. The system itself is shitty and toxic, but that doesn’t mean you have to be. But
... Show more...
If you are suggesting landlords work harder than renters then you are full of 💩. Period.
The system is toxic. If you are making your money by sitting on your ass charging people rent you are also toxic. Jesus would agree with this statement.
If you believe that “anyone can do it” then you are blissfully unaware of the realities that regular everyday people are living. Most people who buy a house were born into positions of wealth. 90% of people born into poverty do not make it out of poverty.
Wake up.
If you were born into wealth, good for you. It does not mean you worked harder than anyone else. We do not live in a meritocracy, hate to break it to you. People who work at McDonald’s or in the service industry work ten times harder than anyone who earns enough to buy a house. It’s just a fact.
But again, if you are a landlord, good for you. Don’t be a shitty person. Rent below market rates if you can, take care of repairs. The system itself is shitty and toxic, but that doesn’t mean you have to be. But…. Until the landlord proves otherwise, they are definitely presumed (rightfully so) to be a shitty individual.
If you are making your money by sitting on your ass charging people rent you are also toxic. Jesus would agree with this statement.
Wtf. I cant own property and charge people rent for using such property? What world are you living in that i dont get to control what I own? These are fighting words
Most people who buy a house were born into positions of wealth.
Your so fucking stupid for saying that... 10000000% not true. Born into "Positions of wealth."... wtf do you think this is? Because my dad runs a McDonald's franchise, is that being "into a position of wealth"?
Im not taking it personally, I think I just need to get offline for a couple weeks. The average person is stupid... we can all agree? I need to recoup. Arguing with all this stupid is doing damage to my brain i think.
So then what would you recommend happen instead? Landlords don’t provide the house? They give it to you for free? Like it’s fun to complain but what’s your solution exactly?
One option would be the rent you pay slowly increases your ownership share of the house/appartment. If you live in the same place for 20 or 30 years and have paid enough to approximately match the value of the house you now own it and don't have to pay any more rent.
Fair enough, that’s all I was looking for was a solution to the problem instead of just complaining. I am not a landlord but I do like the rent to own model, it’s a solid idea.
Who would offer a property to you in that scenario though? We're talking state funded housing right as there's no incentive for private landlords to outlay the money for you to pay it off slowly while living there
I'd go with something a tad more moderate like make it illegal for any private entity to rent out property as that would then remove the issue we currently have which is large volumes of property falling into the hands of corporations and pushing towards indentured servitude. As a bonus it would also remove Airbnbs/holiday lets
With what money? They own the means of 'nonviolent' change enforced by men with guns. There is one solution. They must die. Unless you own an oil company or something.
The solution is collective ownership of housing. Housing is a right, as much as healthcare or education, and centralizing and socializing housing would ensure affordable access for everyone, as it has historically.
Housing could be owned by unions, by local councils, by the central government or by all of the above, and then rented at maintenance costs to tenants under no threat of eviction. This was the case in the Soviet Union for example, and led to the total elimination of homelessness and to the average rent costing 3% of the average monthly income.
The solution is to tax any property that is not your primary residence 10x the normal amount. Landlords will pay the tax or be forced to sell. Especially if no one rents it at whatever ridiculous price they would set.
What if housing were owned collectively by the people who fucking lived there and the landlords were hunted in the streets like fucking dogs for all the innocent blood they've spilled? Or something with bamboo? Maybe build houses with it after?
Back in the 19th century, Henry George suggested to solve this with a very high land value tax.
The idea, in a nutshell, is that a good chunk of the worth of a property is not the building itself but the land it is built on - and that component does not come from the landlord's investment, it comes from the community's effort. Take that away, and housing prices will dramatically drop (or at least - stop rising so steeply) because real estate will no longer be such an attractive investment avenue, since most of the value that comes from the land will be taxed away. The part that remains - the value of the building itself - is the part that landlords really do have to build and maintain themselves.
I'm usually skeptical about economic ideologies that claim to be both morally correct and utility increasing - simply because I've never seen an economic ideology that doesn't claim to be both these things. But here I think Georgism did manage to show a direct link between the two, so I'm more inclined to believe in it.
I had one slumlord out of like 3 landlords... dude kept my deposit despite the reason I moved out being upstairs neighbors were cooking meth. Police were watching the place to build a case. Others charged like tax/cost of upkeep plus 30%. My last apartment was $600/mo in 2006 with garbage/water/electric/gas. Also replaced my water heater within 16 hours. Not all landlords are dicks, just most of them.
CannonFodder
in reply to Deceptichum • • •Of course there are some shitty landlords, just as there some shitty tenants. And it's really important that landlords are regulated. But a lot of people would be totally fucked if they could only stay somewhere if they could buy it.
Deceptichum
in reply to CannonFodder • • •RedSeries (she/her)
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Deceptichum
in reply to RedSeries (she/her) • • •Chakravanti
in reply to Deceptichum • • •You're making the wrong reading. You're not wrong. They just don't move on that dimension let alone give a flying fuck about the one you think you live in.
They don't learn because they don't care about what you think learning is. I'm not at all defending them either. I'm trying to show anyone willing to learn about perspectives beyond their own experience of what they think is real.
Defending Flat Earthers or Landlording is a lot like Defending Jim Jones. I don't mean to defend any of them. But the sake of expanding perspective one absolute must swallow the perception a good defense would make to do so for them.
So take that and consider this. Jim Jones was doing good shit by showing everyone that Kool-Aid is what it is. Of course, the noose said otherwise and it was just that church that died from his move.
Now go ask Mark Whittaker and watch his movie about what happened shortly after that.
Here, have some High Fructose Corn Syrup with that notion.
What do you think sugar is?
When was the last time you asked a real question about what r
... Show more...You're making the wrong reading. You're not wrong. They just don't move on that dimension let alone give a flying fuck about the one you think you live in.
They don't learn because they don't care about what you think learning is. I'm not at all defending them either. I'm trying to show anyone willing to learn about perspectives beyond their own experience of what they think is real.
Defending Flat Earthers or Landlording is a lot like Defending Jim Jones. I don't mean to defend any of them. But the sake of expanding perspective one absolute must swallow the perception a good defense would make to do so for them.
So take that and consider this. Jim Jones was doing good shit by showing everyone that Kool-Aid is what it is. Of course, the noose said otherwise and it was just that church that died from his move.
Now go ask Mark Whittaker and watch his movie about what happened shortly after that.
Here, have some High Fructose Corn Syrup with that notion.
What do you think sugar is?
When was the last time you asked a real question about what reality really is?
Money isn't real. But the longer you treat it like it is, even after it eats the soul of every human and continues to not even be a shred of it, you will lose yours.
PrimeErective
in reply to Chakravanti • • •Chakravanti
in reply to PrimeErective • • •JamieDub86
in reply to RedSeries (she/her) • • •RedSeries (she/her)
in reply to JamieDub86 • • •JamieDub86
in reply to RedSeries (she/her) • • •Agree with both.
Corbyn wanted to do a 4 four day week, a Bank Holiday a month, and free Internet for us over here...instead we got the shit show that are the Conservatives.
CannonFodder
in reply to RedSeries (she/her) • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •That's what we call a personal opinion that has absolutely zero shreds of historical evidence. AKA a YOU problem.
You think this because that is what you imagine that you would do, and are projecting it onto the rest of us. The rest of us aren't lazy like you want to be.
CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •"if landlords are bad how come communism hasn't been successful?"
Wtf?
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Socialism_Everyday
in reply to CannonFodder • • •In the 1970s, the Soviet Union was building over two million housing units per year, more than any other developed economy in the world.
China literally executes corrupt politicians, what the fuck are you talking about
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Goodeye8
in reply to CannonFodder • • •If you need a place to live there is no thing as "what people will pay for" because people will pay whatever as long as they can afford it. And they pay because what's the alternative? Live on the street?
The only "fair" rent price is the one where the landlord doesn't make money from it and no, taking enough to pay for the mortgage is still making money.
CannonFodder
in reply to Goodeye8 • • •Yes, people need a place to live. Just like they need food. But if one landlord is greedy and asking too much, then there should be others that you can turn to.
If being a landlord was so profitable and had no risk, then more people would build houses and rent them out. There would be a buyers market and the price would drop due to competition.
How much should a landlord get back from their investment? It's hard to define exactly because of risks of extra expenses, value drop, damages, changing legislation, etc. So how else should we determine it fairly other than a free market?
If the likely profits are not worth the risk to invest in housing to rent out, then there there will not be any more rental units made.
Goodeye8
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Food is not the same as housing. You consume food, you don't consume a house. If caviar in one store costs too much you might be able to buy it for cheaper in a different store and if you can't afford caviar you can buy something cheaper to eat. But if one house rent is too high you can't find the same house in the same place for cheaper. And even if you do find a similar house in the relative vicinity there's still the cost of moving from one house to another. And finally, if that "good" landlord rents out their house that house is no longer an option which means not everyone will get that "good" landlord.
... Show more...That sounds great in theory but in practice it's much harder. First i
Food is not the same as housing. You consume food, you don't consume a house. If caviar in one store costs too much you might be able to buy it for cheaper in a different store and if you can't afford caviar you can buy something cheaper to eat. But if one house rent is too high you can't find the same house in the same place for cheaper. And even if you do find a similar house in the relative vicinity there's still the cost of moving from one house to another. And finally, if that "good" landlord rents out their house that house is no longer an option which means not everyone will get that "good" landlord.
That sounds great in theory but in practice it's much harder. First issue is the cost of building new houses. The high cost of building housing may do very little to reduce the cost rent because new houses will cost more than existing houses. Second is the issue that location matters. You can build more houses at the edge of the metropolitan area but it's not going to impact the cost of rent at the center. People want a home where their life is, they don't want to move their life to where the home is affordable. And last point follows the previous point. New houses built in the middle of nowhere are useless because you need Infrastructure to make it into a place people want to live in and that takes time. You can't just build new houses and watch how rent prices drop. New housing takes years to impact rent, if it's even going to have an impact (which it might not do due to location).
People who view housing as a basic human necessity have a very simple answer to that question. Nothing. Landlord should get nothing because a house is not a commodity, it's a utility.
CannonFodder
in reply to Goodeye8 • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •And I'm not a landlord nor a tenant so it's immaterial.
Goodeye8
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to Goodeye8 • • •CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to CileTheSane • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Who said anything about full communist? This is about landlords.
Pick a fucking lane.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to CileTheSane • • •I like the idea of UBI at a fairly low rate - ie just enough to survive ok - and with no clawbacks (for a certain level) - that way people have a safety net and aren't beholden 100% to employers, but are incentivized to find a job however small to improve their lot. It would be good for people's mental health. It encourages an upward spiral, and employers can't be completely shitty.
However you still need landlords - they offer rental arrangements for people who can't buy.
don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Pick a fucking lane.
Goodeye8
in reply to CannonFodder • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to Goodeye8 • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
Goodeye8
in reply to CannonFodder • • •You've yet to explain how that's an important role.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to Goodeye8 • • •Red Whacker doesn't like this.
Goodeye8
in reply to CannonFodder • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to Goodeye8 • • •Goodeye8
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to CileTheSane • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Lnadlords increase competition for the property making it more expensive.
Someone putting an offer on a property might be just fine getting a mortgage for that amount, but not for the amount needed if 5 different landlords are trying to outbid them so they can rent the property to them.
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to CileTheSane • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •The fewer people making those offers the more those prices will come down.
Increase taxes on secondary properties and people will be more motivated to lower the price in order to sell.
Typhoon
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Red Whacker likes this.
JamieDub86
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to JamieDub86 • • •JamieDub86
in reply to CannonFodder • • •I know it's not a copypasta. I was taking the piss.
Housing should be a human right.
fodor
in reply to CannonFodder • • •I think it defies common sense, but it sounds good if you only think about it for 10 seconds.
Your position seems to be such that many people, like me and probably some of the other commenters, should have to work until the day we die. We have been working full-time our entire adult lives. We're somewhat educated. We're doing the best we can, but there's no way we could possibly afford to purchase property. So when we get old and gray, when we're 85 years old, maybe you're going to see us working the door at Walmart because there's no other option under your system. And who's benefiting from us paying rent our entire lives? Landlords, but more specifically very rich people who invest in real estate. In other words, they are stealing our retirement to get richer when they're already filthy rich.
And that's not the kind of society I will ever support because I don't think the filthy rich bastards deserve any more money than they already have. They only get it by taking it from us and we need it more.
Class warfare.
CannonFodder
in reply to fodor • • •I agree that the system is currently pulling way too much money to the top. Of course it complicated as the billionaires aren't actually spending much more personally that the multi millionaires - their money mostly is invested in stuff - their worth is just numbers on a computer. The delicate balance on inflation is based much more on the daily spending by the (lower) middle class population. If we instantly distributed the billionaires' money to the working classes we'd cause huge inflation that would negate the benifit.
AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •I would love it if we could live in a state where everyone worked hard for everyone else. But there's too many people who are lazy and take advantage of other whenever they can. So we need a framework of regulations to make society function, and we need motivation for people to be productive and pull their weight when they can.
pipi1234
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to pipi1234 • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •And I don't disagree that empty houses are a problem - they should be taxed to the moon. And a lot of cities have started doin that now. Maybe that will relieve some pressure on the housing / renting market, which is good.
don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
pipi1234
in reply to CannonFodder • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
brendansimms
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to brendansimms • • •msage
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to msage • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •Socialism_Everyday
in reply to CannonFodder • • •In most western countries (EU aside), governments have central banks capable of literally minting an unlimited amount of currency. The US government can create an unlimited amount of US Dollars, Canada with Canadian, UK with Pounds, Japan with Yen. If the government can, by definition and at a keyboard stroke, create as much currency as it wants, it becomes self-evident that the purpose of taxation cannot be the funding of the state, because the state can get an unlimited amount of funding without recurring to taxes.
Taxes are a form of money destruction, i.e., removal from the private sector. This serves anti-inflation purposes, but also can be used to redistribute wealth (by destroying more currency from individuals with more wealth than others), to discourage behaviors (destroy currency when consuming unhealthy products such as sugar of tobacco through specific taxes), and also importantly, to enforce the usage of your currency (if people are compulsorily and regularly taxed in one currency, they need to earn that currency, and if they don't they'll be subjected to penalties).
CannonFodder
in reply to Socialism_Everyday • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
Socialism_Everyday
in reply to CannonFodder • • •The accounts ideologically being drawn otherwise is purely political, and the fact that neoliberalism propagates lies about the way taxes work is a tool to serve the powerful. If people realize we could just create money to make state-funded job guarantees with low risk of inflation, capital is fucked.
Austerity policy has kept Europe at essentially 0 net growth on average since 2008. That doesn't look too productive to me
Red Whacker likes this.
AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
msage
in reply to CannonFodder • • •I live in Europe, so most of my income goes to the state.
Paying that much is not a problem, if it actually was used to improve living conditions of those less fortunate.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Fiery
in reply to msage • • •Kellenved
in reply to msage • • •It always come down to this lol doesn’t it?
“What? You wanna pay taxes to improve the life of your fellow humans for no personal gain?!?!”
Chad meme.jpg: yes I do
msage
in reply to Kellenved • • •They don't understand that rising tide lifts all boats.
And only together we have built the world we live in now.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
SpiceDealer
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Mao theme intensifies
Jokes aside, housing should be one those "essential money pits" because it's a place of shelter not some stock on the NYSE. Housing is a human right that we all should have access to.
CannonFodder
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •piccolo
in reply to CannonFodder • • •funny thing about basic human needs. You can mark them way up because the alternative is freezing to death in a ditch.
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to piccolo • • •"things are worth whatever people will pay"
Then why is it illegal to kidnap people for ransom. I only ask for the fair price of "whatever people are willing to pay"
CannonFodder
in reply to 🍉 Albert 🍉 • • •CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •And things like government provided housing has also been found to be productive.
You know, in case your a fucking ghoul a need proof of productivity before saving someone's fucking life.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Croquette
in reply to CileTheSane • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to CannonFodder • • •so you're saying, we need landlords leaching off working people, to force them to work harder?
What a shitty opinion. why don't you send me half your income so you are forced to work harder.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to 🍉 Albert 🍉 • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to CannonFodder • • •can't buy houses, because landlords jack up prices. artificially raising the demand so houses are unaffordable.
you created a crisis, them profit from it, then praint yourself as the hero of the story. delusional parasite.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
fodor
in reply to CannonFodder • • •People love to say that we have to have landlords because otherwise no one could rent. Great! So then, let's have not-for-profit landlords or public housing.
Also, here is a basic refresher on "what something is worth". If you're drowning and someone offers to sell you a life vest for your life savings, then you might pay it so that you don't die. Immediately after that you would pass laws to prevent them from ever doing that kind of horrible shit again. At least, you would do that if you had an ounce of empathy... Do you?
CannonFodder
in reply to fodor • • •Ryanmiller70
in reply to CannonFodder • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to Ryanmiller70 • • •The investments are money that fund companies which employ people. If you pulled all that funding, the companies wouldn't have the needed capital to operate and many people would lose jobs.
I'm not saying things don't need to change. Rent and grocery costs are out of whack with lower middle class salaries. Regulation to raise minimum wage and h... Show more...
The investments are money that fund companies which employ people. If you pulled all that funding, the companies wouldn't have the needed capital to operate and many people would lose jobs.
I'm not saying things don't need to change. Rent and grocery costs are out of whack with lower middle class salaries. Regulation to raise minimum wage and hiring practices to give workers more consistent employment is needed desperately. But unfortunately it's not so simple as just taking money from the rich to give to the poor.
don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
Ryanmiller70
in reply to CannonFodder • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Market value is based off of demand. People purchasing extra homes to profit off of increases that demand and therefore increases the cost.
Tax billionaires.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
jaupsinluggies
in reply to fodor • • •🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to 🍉 Albert 🍉 • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •"We need dragons because knights need to kill something!"
That's what you just said. If people can't afford housing then the economy needs to be adjusted. This wasn't an issue anywhere in the world before capitalism. Prior to capitalism there were poor people, but if they needed a house they just built one on the commons as a community for the person in need.
CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •And of course it's been a problem before capitalism. There's often been times when there aren't enough resources to house everyone regardless of societal organization. And yes, a reorganization or at least a major adjustment of our current is needed. But just throwing landlords out doesn't make sense. If we banned renting out houses and apartments today, there'd be a shit ton of people without somewhere to live.
AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •If all we did was to ban landlords there would be no homeless people in the US, or I suspect any developed country, as the ratio of homes that have sat empty for more than one year to homeless people is currently about 35:1 in the US. These homes are everywhere in every major city and small town.
If we went a step further, we could be like 3 of the literal poorest former Soviet block Eastern European countries where 92% of the population lives in extremely nice government housing where the rent is capped at something like 2-5% of your monthly income.
Oh and you got it backwards. The housing is the knights. The landlords are the imaginary thing we do not need
CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •Or we just go full communism regarding housing and the government becomes the landlord dragon who doesn't charge much, but doesn't have enough money to upkeep the apartments.
AngryCommieKender
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to AngryCommieKender • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
Typhoon
in reply to CannonFodder • • •He says unironically while justifying milking millions of hard working people of housing that should be theirs.
If your neighbours were given the opportunity to work hard to own their property why shouldn't the renters?
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to Typhoon • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Some of my friends are intestinal parasite, if you take them out of their host they'll be screwed.
If you're retirement plan is fucking over people, then I hope you starve in your retirement.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to CannonFodder • • •IE, it's a real job if you hoard a key necessity for life so you can leech of working people's wages.
if you think being a parasite is a lot of work get a real job.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to CannonFodder • • •lol "what people will pay" = "what it's worth by definition"
you are joking right? trying to make fun if landlords?
because hoarding, limiting supply will artificially rise the prices of a necessity.
it's pure evil, and with no moral justification besides you being selfish.
Imagine being thirsty in a desert, and I have gallons of water, but you and everyone else will die without it. I could give you all some at the cost of whatever it costs to distribute. or I could be a lazy fuck, and only give water to them highest bidder, they'll trade all their income for something I made artificially expensive.
then pat myself on the back because I save some people from thirst, and let the "ungrateful" die.
CannonFodder
in reply to 🍉 Albert 🍉 • • •Imagine you went to a bank and convinced them to lend you money to become a landlord. You'd pay for land, pay architects and engineers and labourers and buy materials and build the house. Then you'd pay lawyers and other service providers to get things ready and find some tenants. All the time you'd be paying biweekly mortgage payments. Then you start to get rent payments from your tenants (usually). It covers your mortgage payments, your insurance and legal fees and property taxes and maintenance costs mostly - you're not making any significant money over the mortgage payments - but you figure that's ok as you now 'own' the house that you can sell later at a profit for all your work - as long as the real estate market doesn't crash - or you can't find renters and fail to pay your mortgage so the bank forecloses. So then maybe 10 years later you sell (paying huge capital gains tax) and now you've got some money out of it, and you can reinvest then and build two houses and do the same thing... Show more...
Imagine you went to a bank and convinced them to lend you money to become a landlord. You'd pay for land, pay architects and engineers and labourers and buy materials and build the house. Then you'd pay lawyers and other service providers to get things ready and find some tenants. All the time you'd be paying biweekly mortgage payments. Then you start to get rent payments from your tenants (usually). It covers your mortgage payments, your insurance and legal fees and property taxes and maintenance costs mostly - you're not making any significant money over the mortgage payments - but you figure that's ok as you now 'own' the house that you can sell later at a profit for all your work - as long as the real estate market doesn't crash - or you can't find renters and fail to pay your mortgage so the bank forecloses. So then maybe 10 years later you sell (paying huge capital gains tax) and now you've got some money out of it, and you can reinvest then and build two houses and do the same thing again. In another 10 years you make more to retire on if things go well. Or maybe you lost because house prices stagnated. But at least you housed three families for your effort.
And yet people call you evil with no moral justification because they don't understand how the world works. Kinda sad really.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Your tenants are paying more in order to cover the costs of you being a middle man here, yes. Nowhere in that list did you say anything a landlord provides, they just insert themselves in the middle, raise the cost, and pretend that doesn't make them a parasite.
No, you didn't. You denied housing for three families and the equity they would have recieved if you didn't exist.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to CileTheSane • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •If only they didn't have to outbid Landlords for the property, or didn't have to be the person to say "First!" They could have.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to CannonFodder • • •then you continue to describe why they are hoarding properties without providing any benefit. just being a greedy parasite. all you did was make someone else pay your mortgage. which you get to keep and once it is paid they still pay straight into your poket.
I know tapeworms who are better for society than landlords
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
CannonFodder
in reply to 🍉 Albert 🍉 • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to CannonFodder • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
chunes
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Landleeches always tell on themselves when they challenge us to "try it if you think it's so easy."
The whole reason we don't is because of how deeply immoral it is. There is no universe in which I would have an inkling of an urge to make it more difficult for people to obtain housing. There really are more sociopaths walking among us than it seems.
CannonFodder
in reply to chunes • • •CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •CannonFodder
in reply to CileTheSane • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
CileTheSane
in reply to CannonFodder • • •The existence of Landlords raises the cost of housing, and then they justify their existence by saying housing is too expensive for people to afford. It's tautological.
Meanwhile the people paying rent clearly can afford it, because the can afford all the expenses of the house + the extra fees involved for someone being a landlord + the landlord's profit.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
notaviking
in reply to CannonFodder • • •Geez, I think you had a good point and now it seems you are being burned at the stake. But arguments are good if held in good faith, and I see your point, and mostly agree.
The problem is everyone wants a good house in a good area, yet there is only a limited supply. Houses are a depreciating asset, breaks down etc, the land in a desirable area is what makes it expensive and appreciated. So by logic the landlord took a chance and bought a place to rent out, that will depreciate but they focused on location, location, location in the hope it will bring in a profit (speculation).
Honestly if the area is desirable, close to working areas, good reputation with low crime... It will sell itself and becomes desirable thus increasing price.
But no one forced you to live in a nice area, I moved to a rural town, where a nice family home is cheaper than a 1 bedroom flat in the city more than 3 hours drive from me. Unfortunately yes that means less comfortable options like work or services a city can provide me. But some benefits like I love the isolation and community a sma
... Show more...Geez, I think you had a good point and now it seems you are being burned at the stake. But arguments are good if held in good faith, and I see your point, and mostly agree.
The problem is everyone wants a good house in a good area, yet there is only a limited supply. Houses are a depreciating asset, breaks down etc, the land in a desirable area is what makes it expensive and appreciated. So by logic the landlord took a chance and bought a place to rent out, that will depreciate but they focused on location, location, location in the hope it will bring in a profit (speculation).
Honestly if the area is desirable, close to working areas, good reputation with low crime... It will sell itself and becomes desirable thus increasing price.
But no one forced you to live in a nice area, I moved to a rural town, where a nice family home is cheaper than a 1 bedroom flat in the city more than 3 hours drive from me. Unfortunately yes that means less comfortable options like work or services a city can provide me. But some benefits like I love the isolation and community a small community brings.
Nothing stops anyone from moving. In my country the government has tried to give RDP housing to the poor, except it stays theirs and if you get a work somewhere else or have to move due to wide variety of reasons, sorry lost your housing benefits, you cannot sell or swap or anything, a stupid law and makes people choose between housing or a better paying work, hopefully opposition is trying to give these people ownership rights and further strengthen property rights in general.
iAmTheTot
in reply to Deceptichum • • •TheSlad
in reply to iAmTheTot • • •Paula_Tejando
in reply to TheSlad • • •Ensign_Crab
in reply to Deceptichum • • •chunes
in reply to Ensign_Crab • • •cassandrafatigue
in reply to Ensign_Crab • • •Ensign_Crab
in reply to cassandrafatigue • • •- YouTube
www.youtube.comcassandrafatigue
in reply to Ensign_Crab • • •merdaverse
in reply to Deceptichum • • •British land agent (1832–1897)
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)MeThisGuy
in reply to merdaverse • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Deceptichum • • •WIZARD POPE💫
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Socialism_Everyday
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •The problem isn't with the amount of work they had to do to buy the housing, the problem is with the dynamics the relation between a private landlord and a tenant create.
For a landlord, the primary interest when renting a flat is obtaining profit. This immediately implies that, by default, rent caps are against the interest of landlords, creation of public affordable housing is against the interests of landlords, and laws difficulting or eliminating evictions are against the interests of landlords. All of these measures would be massively beneficial to tenants, which most working class people are, and they're not implemented in order to maintain the profit of a select minority of owners that extract wealth monthly from them without providing any service.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Socialism_Everyday • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
Socialism_Everyday
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Socialism_Everyday • • •DancingBear
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •If you are suggesting landlords work harder than renters then you are full of 💩. Period.
The system is toxic. If you are making your money by sitting on your ass charging people rent you are also toxic. Jesus would agree with this statement.
If you believe that “anyone can do it” then you are blissfully unaware of the realities that regular everyday people are living. Most people who buy a house were born into positions of wealth. 90% of people born into poverty do not make it out of poverty.
Wake up.
If you were born into wealth, good for you. It does not mean you worked harder than anyone else. We do not live in a meritocracy, hate to break it to you. People who work at McDonald’s or in the service industry work ten times harder than anyone who earns enough to buy a house. It’s just a fact.
But again, if you are a landlord, good for you. Don’t be a shitty person. Rent below market rates if you can, take care of repairs. The system itself is shitty and toxic, but that doesn’t mean you have to be. But
... Show more...If you are suggesting landlords work harder than renters then you are full of 💩. Period.
The system is toxic. If you are making your money by sitting on your ass charging people rent you are also toxic. Jesus would agree with this statement.
If you believe that “anyone can do it” then you are blissfully unaware of the realities that regular everyday people are living. Most people who buy a house were born into positions of wealth. 90% of people born into poverty do not make it out of poverty.
Wake up.
If you were born into wealth, good for you. It does not mean you worked harder than anyone else. We do not live in a meritocracy, hate to break it to you. People who work at McDonald’s or in the service industry work ten times harder than anyone who earns enough to buy a house. It’s just a fact.
But again, if you are a landlord, good for you. Don’t be a shitty person. Rent below market rates if you can, take care of repairs. The system itself is shitty and toxic, but that doesn’t mean you have to be. But…. Until the landlord proves otherwise, they are definitely presumed (rightfully so) to be a shitty individual.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to DancingBear • • •Who are you people?
Wtf. I cant own property and charge people rent for using such property? What world are you living in that i dont get to control what I own? These are fighting words
DancingBear
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to DancingBear • • •Yes "anyone can do it".
Your so fucking stupid for saying that... 10000000% not true. Born into "Positions of wealth."... wtf do you think this is? Because my dad runs a McDonald's franchise, is that being "into a position of wealth"?
Im done. I cant even.
DancingBear
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •I will not disagree with the fact that I am indeed very stupid.
But yes, if you own a house there is a very high probability your parents and grandparents also owned a house.
You seem to be taking facts very personally. I however do my best not to take facts so personally.
No one is saying that if you own property you are in the top 1%, that you are somehow the enemy.
But you do maybe need to work on your empathy skills and understand how other regular folks are living, folks just like you.
Edit: It’s something close to half of folks who live in poverty in the United States…. Just an fyi
Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to DancingBear • • •DancingBear
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •cassandrafatigue
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to cassandrafatigue • • •cassandrafatigue
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •BannedVoice
in reply to Deceptichum • • •pigup
in reply to BannedVoice • • •Inb4 replies to this:
WIZARD POPE💫
in reply to BannedVoice • • •One option would be the rent you pay slowly increases your ownership share of the house/appartment. If you live in the same place for 20 or 30 years and have paid enough to approximately match the value of the house you now own it and don't have to pay any more rent.
Just the first thing that cane to mind
BannedVoice
in reply to WIZARD POPE💫 • • •0x0
in reply to BannedVoice • • •NotJohnSmith
in reply to WIZARD POPE💫 • • •cassandrafatigue
in reply to NotJohnSmith • • •Landlords will need to be killed. Thats a hell of an incemtive. Butcher them and display the mangled remains. Make their kin watch.
So, that's one incentive structure I can think of. I'm sure there are others though.
NotJohnSmith
in reply to cassandrafatigue • • •Erm, OK then?! :)
I'd go with something a tad more moderate like make it illegal for any private entity to rent out property as that would then remove the issue we currently have which is large volumes of property falling into the hands of corporations and pushing towards indentured servitude. As a bonus it would also remove Airbnbs/holiday lets
cassandrafatigue
in reply to NotJohnSmith • • •With what money? They own the means of 'nonviolent' change enforced by men with guns. There is one solution. They must die. Unless you own an oil company or something.
BigDiction
in reply to BannedVoice • • •I wish we could go back to the 1960s and make Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) legal for commercial real estate only. Prohibit residential.
Maybe that doesn’t solve the problem fully, but turning a commodity that everyone needs into a large scale investment vehicle was a mistake.
cassandrafatigue
in reply to BigDiction • • •Damage is done, landlords won't surrender, and too much of our stolen money will be used to buy elections.
The solution is blood. No other will work. The landlords must die.
Socialism_Everyday
in reply to BannedVoice • • •The solution is collective ownership of housing. Housing is a right, as much as healthcare or education, and centralizing and socializing housing would ensure affordable access for everyone, as it has historically.
Housing could be owned by unions, by local councils, by the central government or by all of the above, and then rented at maintenance costs to tenants under no threat of eviction. This was the case in the Soviet Union for example, and led to the total elimination of homelessness and to the average rent costing 3% of the average monthly income.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
cassandrafatigue
in reply to Socialism_Everyday • • •No but that would be communism and that's bad.
So what can we do to fix the problem without taking thr landlord dick out of our mouths?
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
LordCrom
in reply to BannedVoice • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
cassandrafatigue
in reply to LordCrom • • •cassandrafatigue
in reply to BannedVoice • • •AeonFelis
in reply to BannedVoice • • •Back in the 19th century, Henry George suggested to solve this with a very high land value tax.
The idea, in a nutshell, is that a good chunk of the worth of a property is not the building itself but the land it is built on - and that component does not come from the landlord's investment, it comes from the community's effort. Take that away, and housing prices will dramatically drop (or at least - stop rising so steeply) because real estate will no longer be such an attractive investment avenue, since most of the value that comes from the land will be taxed away. The part that remains - the value of the building itself - is the part that landlords really do have to build and maintain themselves.
I'm usually skeptical about economic ideologies that claim to be both morally correct and utility increasing - simply because I've never seen an economic ideology that doesn't claim to be both these things. But here I think Georgism did manage to show a direct link between the two, so I'm more inclined to believe in it.
levy on the unimproved value of land
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)BannedVoice
in reply to AeonFelis • • •unphazed
in reply to Deceptichum • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Red Whacker
in reply to Deceptichum • •Lefty Memes reshared this.