|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 23 2020 18:18 Velr wrote:
I never understood the general hate for Landlords some people have. Most Landlords are pretty average people that spent money on a second house that they rent out, such devils.
I only had good experiences with mine, the first was my city, the second a private person that made decent money (doctor) and now it's some company that does the administrative stuff but the flat is owned privately. If shit needs fixing it gets done, rents are stable and all i have to do is pay rent once a month... Maybe it would be cheaper in the long run to own, but it also would be hell of a lot more work.
Clearly you've never rented from a US slumlord.
In fact, being a slumlord for some is actually a business model: running the property into the ground and utilizing as much depreciation as possible, not really caring what happens at the end of the property’s useful life. Although many investors have benefited from the aftermath of slumlords’ actions, in the end, more damage is done to the community and the people who have to live and work in the surrounding area.
www.forbes.com
|
On March 23 2020 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2020 17:58 Elroi wrote:On March 23 2020 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2020 13:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Lots of people can't pay their rent due in 2 weeks. Shit is about to get super fucked Hard to imagine the monstrous individual that would expect a rent payment on the 1st or threaten the people living there if they didn't have it. I have low opinions of landlords though, so not too hard. On March 23 2020 08:00 Emnjay808 wrote:
My mom has multiple properties that she rents out. If they don’t pay rent then that’s nearly 10k/month she is missing to pay mortgage on. It’s gonna be rough. Are those renters having homes and her only owning the home she lives in supposed to be a bad thing?
I'm not completely unsympathetic toward your position in general (even though owning and managing real estate could imo be an acceptable thing to do that's not only for the immorally rich). But in practice, in this situation, this will only lead to other people being unable to pay for their loans and for consumption in general. This will lead to more people losing their jobs and the problem is just pushed somewhere else.
|
On March 23 2020 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2020 17:58 Elroi wrote:On March 23 2020 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2020 13:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Lots of people can't pay their rent due in 2 weeks. Shit is about to get super fucked Hard to imagine the monstrous individual that would expect a rent payment on the 1st or threaten the people living there if they didn't have it. I have low opinions of landlords though, so not too hard. On March 23 2020 08:00 Emnjay808 wrote:
My mom has multiple properties that she rents out. If they don’t pay rent then that’s nearly 10k/month she is missing to pay mortgage on. It’s gonna be rough. Are those renters having homes and her only owning the home she lives in supposed to be a bad thing?
When she can't make the mortgage payments, the bank then owns the houses. The banks are much less kind. In the real world, they tend to work with the government to evict the people who aren't paying rent.
In your ideal world, the government says, "fuck you banks" and lets the people stay in those houses rent free.
Except, Emn's mom took a huge loss. She has no interest in investing in housing anymore. The banks take a huge loss, so they're not too interested in investing in houses anymore. So, who pays to have houses built for renters when renters get to fuck over the owners? Right, nobody does. New housing for renters dries up. Old rental properties prices skyrocket. Honestly, if someone can just come take your house from you if they "rent" it and then just don't pay rent, then I'd probably just tear down my rental properties and try to turn them into something I could own and profit from.
That's a whole lot of homeless people.
So you count on government built housing. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Socialism fails again. It always fails. You need to learn that and quit suckering the gullible. The con job is almost as bad as Trump's.
|
On March 23 2020 18:24 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2020 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2020 17:58 Elroi wrote:On March 23 2020 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2020 13:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Lots of people can't pay their rent due in 2 weeks. Shit is about to get super fucked Hard to imagine the monstrous individual that would expect a rent payment on the 1st or threaten the people living there if they didn't have it. I have low opinions of landlords though, so not too hard. On March 23 2020 08:00 Emnjay808 wrote:
My mom has multiple properties that she rents out. If they don’t pay rent then that’s nearly 10k/month she is missing to pay mortgage on. It’s gonna be rough. Are those renters having homes and her only owning the home she lives in supposed to be a bad thing? I'm not completely unsympathetic toward your position in general (even though owning and managing real estate could imo be an acceptable thing to do that's not only for the immorally rich). But in practice, in this situation, this will only lead to other people being unable to pay for their loans and for consumption in general. This will lead to more people losing their jobs and the problem is just pushed somewhere else.
Yes. The point is to not let the people responsible for this disaster of an economy push the consequences onto the most vulnerable in society. The somewhere else the problem should be pushed is onto the banks who should also lose ownership of the homes.
As to Ren's point about government homes, I invite people to compare a Khrushchyovka (no rent) to SRO's in NYC "micro shared-bath apartments" or the cages people live in over in Hong Kong before they hail capitalism king.
I'd probably just tear down my rental properties and try to turn them into something I could own and profit from. That's one reason why I don't want people that think that to own anything more than their personal property (distinct from private property).
|
I still think these are two different problems. In an ideal world I'm not necessarily against what you are saying, but in this particular situation the "problem" must be distributed in a smart way across society so as to uphold some kind of stability. How that equation should be solved is above my pay grade though. Depression in the style of Germany in the 30ies is disaster for absolutely everyone.
|
On March 23 2020 18:46 Elroi wrote:
I still think these are two different problems. In an ideal world I'm not necessarily against what you are saying, but in this particular situation the "problem" must be distributed in a smart way across society so as to uphold some kind of stability. How that equation should be solved is above my pay grade though. Depression in the style of Germany in the 30ies is disaster for absolutely everyone.
MLK jr. said: I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Jefferson said "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
Hampton said: “If you dare to struggle, you dare to win. If you dare not struggle, then damn it, you don’t deserve to win.”
The illusion of stability isn't shared by the people that need liberty and waiting for a more convenient time that never comes isn't an option any more.
|
On March 23 2020 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2020 18:46 Elroi wrote:
I still think these are two different problems. In an ideal world I'm not necessarily against what you are saying, but in this particular situation the "problem" must be distributed in a smart way across society so as to uphold some kind of stability. How that equation should be solved is above my pay grade though. Depression in the style of Germany in the 30ies is disaster for absolutely everyone. MLK jr. said: Show nested quote +I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." Jefferson said Show nested quote +"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Hampton said: Show nested quote +“If you dare to struggle, you dare to win. If you dare not struggle, then damn it, you don’t deserve to win.” The illusion of stability isn't shared by the people that need liberty and waiting for a more convenient time that never comes isn't an option any more.
I'm not convinced by those random quotes. Also
Obi-Wan Kenobi said:
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
|
On March 23 2020 19:25 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2020 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2020 18:46 Elroi wrote:
I still think these are two different problems. In an ideal world I'm not necessarily against what you are saying, but in this particular situation the "problem" must be distributed in a smart way across society so as to uphold some kind of stability. How that equation should be solved is above my pay grade though. Depression in the style of Germany in the 30ies is disaster for absolutely everyone. MLK jr. said: I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." Jefferson said "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Hampton said: “If you dare to struggle, you dare to win. If you dare not struggle, then damn it, you don’t deserve to win.” The illusion of stability isn't shared by the people that need liberty and waiting for a more convenient time that never comes isn't an option any more. I'm not convinced by those random quotes. Also Obi-Wan Kenobi said:
My argument is that the illusion of stability isn't shared by the people that typically suffer the consequences of catastrophes like this (Katrina is another example) and that calls for a negative peace aren't acceptable (the quotes demonstrate it isn't a new concept). The Obi quote (confession?) is meaningless (at least in this context) and stupid imo.
|
A huge number of landlords are not individuals that have small holdings, so playing the mom and pop sympathy game is of limited application. Besides, housing laws already treat small time landlords very differently, so the framework for proper landlord treatment as a component of a renter-centric relief measure is already there.
|
On March 23 2020 19:59 farvacola wrote:
A huge number of landlords are not individuals that have small holdings, so playing the mom and pop sympathy game is of limited application. Besides, housing laws already treat small time landlords very differently, so the framework for proper landlord treatment as a component of a renter-centric relief measure is already there.
I feel like the feudalistic nomenclature of "landlord" should be more of a red flag for people than it is. Though I suppose a lot of people imagine "The American Dream" as having their shot at lordship based on a meritocracy.
|
Our last election was basically a referendum on this. Despite having the population of shanghai spread across a literal continent, property prices in our major cities are pushing London and Hong Kong. This is at least partly driven by huge tax breaks for landlords.
It turns out every boomer in the country is keen on keeping their giant government handout, most "regular" owners are worried about the value of their house dropping when all the boomers are forced to sell, and even the millenials locked out of the market are too split on other issues to make a stand. We kept the subsidies. I suspect the same will happen to any other goverment that wants to remove them as well.
While I'm firmly on the side of affordable owning and against these subsidies, you do still need rentals in the mix somewhere.
Renting provides flexibility and an entry barrier that's achievable. No matter how far prices crash, no student can reasonably own the place they rent while studying or working at McDonald's. Even if they somehow could, very few would want to when they're likely to move as soon as they finish their degree anyway. No matter what you do, owning a house is a large and complex thing that's just not appropriate for everyone at every time.
Sure, you can socialise the first rung, but housing is also extremely personal. People want to live somewhere that suits them, and the private sector really is better at providing the diversity that allows for that. There are a lot of interesting affordable housing models out there, but most of the ones that don't produce shoeboxes still involve private investment in some way.
|
Do we need to have rental houses? If we're going to treat renting as a stepping stone isnt it just better to have apartments?
I have very little sympathy for someone who buys multiple houses, rents them, and basically has someone else paying their mortgage for them 'til they own it. I'd really rather the people living in the house have their money go into paying that mortgage so that they might someday own that house.
|
I'd just clarify that I'm accepting of private residences and non-permanent housing. But the students will be fine in "shoe boxes" and if they want a private residence that is something they can spend their income on. Having housing simply shouldn't be contingent on your ability to pay rent/buy though. Housing (not specifically a house) is a human right imo.
People are trying to scramble to figure out how to put society back together as it was before the coronavirus and I'm imploring that they instead take this opportunity to demand we build a better one in its stead That the old one was heading straight to a largely uninhabitable planet should be enough reason imo.
|
On March 23 2020 21:17 Zambrah wrote:
Do we need to have rental houses? If we're going to treat renting as a stepping stone isnt it just better to have apartments?
I have very little sympathy for someone who buys multiple houses, rents them, and basically has someone else paying their mortgage for them 'til they own it. I'd really rather the people living in the house have their money go into paying that mortgage so that they might someday own that house.
It's a business like any other. The owner takes the risk associated with having the giant mortgage, provides other services such as repairing the property, and in doing so gives the buyer the option of being able to live there without having to take out a loan for that property. The landlord also gets to be on the hook when the house burns down or the roof breaks or something of that sort, which is definitely a big plus if you're just renting. Yes, it's expected to turn a profit in the long term and "pay the mortgage" for providing that service.
GH's problem seems to stem from the fact that there are some scummy landlords out there. That's definitely true, and measures should definitely be there to prevent that kind of stuff (I'm sure there will be debate, but I'd say most landlord-tenant laws I've seen are very much intended to protect the tenants). Plenty of scummy tenants too, though - people who don't pay and then trash the residence, people who use the place as a front for criminal endeavors, so on and so forth. The idea that such people should be gifted these residences by some method of aggressive confiscation does seem pretty absurd to me; within months you'd have so much residential blight you could start building an Undead base there.
It wouldn't be unwarranted to have government-provided affordable housing to satisfy the "housing as a human right" concern. But forced confiscation and "you deserve to own the residence you happen to be in that someone else owns the mortgage for" seems rather short-sighted, by any measure.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On March 23 2020 22:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2020 21:17 Zambrah wrote:
Do we need to have rental houses? If we're going to treat renting as a stepping stone isnt it just better to have apartments?
I have very little sympathy for someone who buys multiple houses, rents them, and basically has someone else paying their mortgage for them 'til they own it. I'd really rather the people living in the house have their money go into paying that mortgage so that they might someday own that house. It's a business like any other. The owner takes the risk associated with having the giant mortgage, provides other services such as repairing the property, and in doing so gives the buyer the option of being able to live there without having to take out a loan for that property. The landlord also gets to be on the hook when the house burns down or the roof breaks or something of that sort, which is definitely a big plus if you're just renting. Yes, it's expected to turn a profit in the long term and "pay the mortgage" for providing that service. GH's problem seems to stem from the fact that there are some scummy landlords out there. That's definitely true, and measures should definitely be there to prevent that kind of stuff (I'm sure there will be debate, but I'd say most landlord-tenant laws I've seen are very much intended to protect the tenants). Plenty of scummy tenants too, though - people who don't pay and then trash the residence, people who use the place as a front for criminal endeavors, so on and so forth. The idea that such people should be gifted these residences by some method of aggressive confiscation does seem pretty absurd to me; within months you'd have so much residential blight you could start building an Undead base there. It wouldn't be unwarranted to have government-provided affordable housing to satisfy the "housing as a human right" concern. But forced confiscation and "you deserve to own the residence you happen to be in that someone else owns the mortgage for" seems rather short-sighted, by any measure. I own a rental and agree with all of this. When I was a student, I enjoyed renting a room in a nice house. I was grateful for the opportunity to live there. In other cases, houses were converted into separate apartments decades ago, and it would take a lot of money to convert it back to a single-family dwelling. It's certainly not a right to live wherever one wants -- downtown, next to work, and so on.
|
On March 23 2020 18:18 Velr wrote:
I never understood the general hate for Landlords some people have. Most Landlords are pretty average people that spent money on a second house that they rent out, such devils.
I only had good experiences with mine, the first was my city, the second a private person that made decent money (doctor) and now it's some company that does the administrative stuff but the flat is owned privately. If shit needs fixing it gets done, rents are stable and all i have to do is pay rent once a month... Maybe it would be cheaper in the long run to own, but it also would be hell of a lot more work.
Not in the US alot of those ma and Pa landlords are gone. Alot of land Lords are businesses being hired out by investment firms or other speculative groups that bought out property. Most landlords are businesses in the US, the individual landlords are decreasing every year. Plus outside of that there are plenty of just bad landlords, so you have hate for inflating the price of housing in crowded markets and hate for people that do not know how to be a landlord.
On March 23 2020 21:17 Zambrah wrote:
Do we need to have rental houses? If we're going to treat renting as a stepping stone isnt it just better to have apartments?
I have very little sympathy for someone who buys multiple houses, rents them, and basically has someone else paying their mortgage for them 'til they own it. I'd really rather the people living in the house have their money go into paying that mortgage so that they might someday own that house.
R1 zoned housing is just bad in general. Terrible land use that only create places that cost alot of live in because housing becomes very quickly limited by land.
The problem of if this should be housing and what kind is exactly the issues California has. Limited land not being zoned appropriately to meet housing demand. It's kind of the issue of bad city planning, too many jobs in an area but not support structure around it for people to live in.
On March 23 2020 22:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2020 21:17 Zambrah wrote:
Do we need to have rental houses? If we're going to treat renting as a stepping stone isnt it just better to have apartments?
I have very little sympathy for someone who buys multiple houses, rents them, and basically has someone else paying their mortgage for them 'til they own it. I'd really rather the people living in the house have their money go into paying that mortgage so that they might someday own that house. It's a business like any other. The owner takes the risk associated with having the giant mortgage, provides other services such as repairing the property, and in doing so gives the buyer the option of being able to live there without having to take out a loan for that property. The landlord also gets to be on the hook when the house burns down or the roof breaks or something of that sort, which is definitely a big plus if you're just renting. Yes, it's expected to turn a profit in the long term and "pay the mortgage" for providing that service. GH's problem seems to stem from the fact that there are some scummy landlords out there. That's definitely true, and measures should definitely be there to prevent that kind of stuff (I'm sure there will be debate, but I'd say most landlord-tenant laws I've seen are very much intended to protect the tenants). Plenty of scummy tenants too, though - people who don't pay and then trash the residence, people who use the place as a front for criminal endeavors, so on and so forth. The idea that such people should be gifted these residences by some method of aggressive confiscation does seem pretty absurd to me; within months you'd have so much residential blight you could start building an Undead base there. It wouldn't be unwarranted to have government-provided affordable housing to satisfy the "housing as a human right" concern. But forced confiscation and "you deserve to own the residence you happen to be in that someone else owns the mortgage for" seems rather short-sighted, by any measure.
Goverment housing just won't work in the US. Mainly because the US treats goverment housing as a way to segregate the poor which caused problems every time they did it.
Concentration of the poor just traps the poor. Mixed income goverment hosuing has had better success in other places but the US has a bad case of NIMBY people don't want the poor around.
|
And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I can totally understand that dislike and have some of it myself. It is a classic rich get richer at the cost of the poor situation. If you own a house or two, you can get ever increasing amounts of money from the people who really have no choice but to rent because they don't have the capital to afford a house at the ever inflating prises. Their salaries, however, do not increase at the same speed as the rent. This is a really nice setup if you manage to buy some property in the 1970s, or if you somehow are rich enough to afford property now. It is bad for the people who did not have lots of money 50 years ago (possibly because they were not born yet). An ever increasing amount of the money people earn for their work goes to people who don't work, but own instead.
|
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote:
And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
|
Yeah, but they could also not do that. They already own a property which gives them lots of money for basically zero work. They could charge less than the absolute maximum they can drain from some poor sob who wasn't lucky enough to buy a house 50 years ago when they were affordable.
|
On March 23 2020 23:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote:
And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class. I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
I understand your resistance to appropriating surplus goods (in this case housing) but I'm just curious if there are any distinguishing features in your alternative prescription that differ significantly from how it was before these people needed government help/money to maintain ownership of those surplus goods (as is the case now or in the near future for those hoarding housing in this emergency).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
