EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 317
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 10 2015 04:10 LegalLord wrote: Personally I think property rights are more important than housing economic refugees. One is a fundamental right of modern society, the other is a questionable act which was handled with naive optimism rather than good policy. From my reading, they are vacant commercial buildings and the government wants to rent or purchase them for fair market value. It sounds like it hasn't even been employed yet. Property rights are great and it appears the government is read to respect them by paying the owner. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 10 2015 04:15 Plansix wrote: From my reading, they are vacant commercial buildings and the government wants to rent or purchase them for fair market value. It sounds like it hasn't even been employed yet. Property rights are great and it appears the government is read to respect them by paying the owner. I sure hope so. Plenty of people here who seem to advocate confiscation because "only rich pplz have empty houses." | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
On October 10 2015 04:15 Plansix wrote: From my reading, they are vacant commercial buildings and the government wants to rent or purchase them for fair market value. It sounds like it hasn't even been employed yet. Property rights are great and it appears the government is read to respect them by paying the owner. It's not only empty office buildings but also private flats and apartments in desirable locations. They'll also pay a set rate which is way below what these spaces would usually go for. For example some upper end apartments in one of Hamburgs nicer districts. The government would pay €800 a month for them, but if they were reclassified from apartments to commercial holiday homes they'd suddenly be rented out for several thousand euros a month for exactly the same purpose. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 10 2015 04:10 LegalLord wrote: Personally I think property rights are more important than housing economic refugees. One is a fundamental right of modern society, the other is a questionable act which was handled with naive optimism rather than good policy. I don't know if you've read the human rights charter on its head but housing the homeless, poor and war-torn is among the most fundamental rights in almost any modern society. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 10 2015 04:20 dismiss wrote: It's not only empty office buildings but also private flats and apartments in desirable locations. They'll also pay a set rate which is way below what these spaces would usually go for. For example some upper end apartments in one of Hamburgs nicer districts. The government would pay €800 a month for them, but if they were reclassified from apartments to commercial holiday homes they'd suddenly be rented out for several thousand euros a month for exactly the same purpose. Have they taken any of these high end "holiday homes" yet? Because this sounds like people finding the most extreme example and using it to make their case. In my extensive experience with landlords and renting, they love rent paid by the government because it comes every month without question. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
On October 10 2015 04:27 Plansix wrote: Have they taken any of these high end "holiday homes" yet? Because this sounds like people finding the most extreme example and using it to make their case. In my extensive experience with landlords and renting, they love rent paid by the government because it comes every month without question. They already selected some of these nicer apartments but from what I currently know they haven't moved forward on seizing them quite yet, mostly for fear of negative PR as well as the unclear legal situation. I can see how any rent the state would conceivably pay wouldn't offset the value-loss of having them packed full with refugees. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 10 2015 04:27 Plansix wrote: Have they taken any of these high end "holiday homes" yet? Because this sounds like people finding the most extreme example and using it to make their case. In my extensive experience with landlords and renting, they love rent paid by the government because it comes every month without question. I know some landlords who don't like it when the government pays maybe 60% and the tenants are bad about paying the rest. That's an exception rather than the rule, but sounds like something similar could happen here. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 10 2015 04:47 LegalLord wrote: I know some landlords who don't like it when the government pays maybe 60% and the tenants are bad about paying the rest. That's an exception rather than the rule, but sounds like something similar could happen here. I work in the US, but I dealt with landlord tenant law for over 8 years and folks would go through hell and high water to keep a government backed lease. Like to unreasonable levels. They would be foaming at the mouth for government backed leases for an entire property. That is just my experience, but we handled their eviction cases and I was always shocked. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 10 2015 05:10 Plansix wrote: I work in the US, but I dealt with landlord tenant law for over 8 years and folks would go through hell and high water to keep a government backed lease. Like to unreasonable levels. They would be foaming at the mouth for government backed leases for an entire property. That is just my experience, but we handled their eviction cases and I was always shocked. Which party wanted the government leases? In my experience landlords hate them because they are typically forced into them by statute, and/or tenants that have therm pay erratically/take less care of the property. However, I assume this varies greatly by region depending on supply/ demand. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 10 2015 05:21 cLutZ wrote: Which party wanted the government leases? In my experience landlords hate them because they are typically forced into them by statute, and/or tenants that have therm pay erratically/take less care of the property. However, I assume this varies greatly by region depending on supply/ demand. The landlords. They LOVE them. Its automatic money and the state does inspections so they know exactly what they need to repair to avoid liability. Its being a landlord, but the state confirms you are doing everything right and cuts the rent check. Of course we had the few were all about evicting the "dead beats", but the majority of them wanted all the federal and states backed leases they could get. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On October 10 2015 04:21 Nyxisto wrote: I don't know if you've read the human rights charter on its head but housing the homeless, poor and war-torn is among the most fundamental rights in almost any modern society. And private property is one of, if not downright the most fundamental right of capitalist market economies. And as happens more often than not, reality in Europe is heavily at odds with the idealism it pursues and which is expressed in documents like the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. The reality is that no matter how many empty pieces of private property states either annex or force owners to rent out at rates below their (usually overrated) market value, there are more refugees than available housing, at least in the short to middle long term. Sure you can let refugees stay at community centres and sports halls, but after a certain amount of time, the community will want to use those community centres and sports halls for what they were originally built for. Basically Germany right now is facing a threefold problem: 1) a lack of bureaucratic manpower to process all the migrants; 2) a lack of infrastructure to house those people with respect to their privacy; and finally, as a result of all this 3) an increasing difficulty to maintain order in camps filled with many young energetic men who've got nothing to do. There's still a fourth issue, which is the effect the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of welfare-dependent people will have on the federal government's budget, but right now it doesn't seem to bother Germany very much. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On October 10 2015 05:49 Nyxisto wrote: Projections are that short term the refugee situation is going to cost us 10 billion bucks a year, which is 0.25% of our GDP. Money isn't the issue here, we've paid more money for much more useless stuff. Europe had millions of refugees and displaced after the Yugoslav wars, we've had a reunification that has cost us two trillion dollars,. People aren't losing their shit here because we've had similar situations before. How is scaremongering an adequate mindset to deal with challenging tasks? The things you're pointing out are problems yes, but they're not unsolvable. No reason to proclaim the decline of the Occident. Stating and realising that there are certain problems that one should keep in mind is not fear mongering. Fear mongering would be proclaiming that the migrants will mean the islamisation of Europe (which is a ridiculous statement considering Muslim numbers are less than 10% of the EU's population) or the likes. The above three observations I made are pretty realistic. The fourth I added is, if your numbers are correct, currently an issue, at least not for Germany. I also realise I may have overreacted on that one. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants, but there is an obligation to protect property rights. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
10 billion a year is, even if it stays at that level, the sixth largest expense in the federal budget, or 4% of it. That's quite a lot when compared to 0.25% of GDP total, I'm not even sure what you think the correlation between it and federal expenses is. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants, Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Comparing the expenditure of a single political act to the total annual productive output of a first world nation of 80 million people is misguided, to say the least. $10 billion (a projection which is optimistic and assumes things won't get worse) is a lot of money. You could do quite a few large public works projects for that kind of money. Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants, but there is an obligation to protect property rights. I would say the property rights thing will cost even more of the plans being floated go into effect. Of course it will be hard to exactly trace, but there really are very few kinds of regulation that are worse long term for a society. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 10 2015 06:49 Nyxisto wrote: Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time. They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 10 2015 13:23 LegalLord wrote: They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable. It's important to keep a realistic outlook in this situation rather than applying blind ideologies. The whole "housing the poor and the war-torn" thing is very nice but it's also a nice lie, remember that we're importing a lot of products from China which is manufactured by near-slave labor. Remember that the world is closing its eyes to famine and malnourishment in the poorest regions of the world. | ||
| ||
