• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You should be forced to sell your house and rent

Nomad4Ever

Nomad4Ever

Dark Brandon Acolyte
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
14,814
Reaction score
22,682
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
One of the main arguments against programs like giving housing to homeless people or the government funded housing is that, without the constant threat of homelessness, people will be less productive or possibly not work at all. This logic is also often applied to other welfare programs that provide some kind of social safety net.

So if providing people with housing for free is bad because it makes people lazy, it makes sense to me that forcing homeowners to sell their houses is good because it makes people more productive and competitive. After all, those home owners with paid off mortgages or low mortgage payments have had it too good for too long. With their lower costs than renting and economic stability gained from owing their home there just isn't a fire under their ass anymore like their is for renters.

So, what do you think? Is it time we put and end to what no doubt must be one of the laziest demographics who might be able to do horrible unproductive things like turn down shitty jobs because they have a place to live?

I think we could increase GDP by at least 20% with my radical plan.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Who would own the rental housing (act as landlord) under your proposed plan?
Click to expand...
The government would own all the land and facilitate housing. If people got too lazy it would just raise rents since apparently the threat of homelessness is what makes people productive workers.

Therefore under my plan we would have a much more productive workforce.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
The rare advocacy of Georgism. I like it!
Click to expand...
Bok Tuklo said:
All of us.
Click to expand...
My hypothetical based on conservative logic aside, yes I think the government should own all land. Except I think rent should be cheap or free. I don't think people should constantly be threatened with homelessness.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
My hypothetical based on conservative logic aside, yes I think the government should own all land. Except I think rent should be cheap or free. I don't think people should constantly be threatened with homelessness.
Click to expand...

We own (paid cash for) our manufactured home, but rent (currently for $291/month) the 1/2 acre lot that it sits on.
 
Helix said:
Ah, a modest proposal.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Personally I think all housing should be decommodified and free but I'm willing to compromise with liberals and keep the threat of homelessness if you can't pay rent in this system to address concerns about laziness.

Helix said:
However, who would the rent be paid to?
Click to expand...
Me.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We own (paid cash for) our manufactured home, but rent (currently for $291/month) the 1/2 acre lot that it sits on.
Click to expand...
Well, there are two arguments here.

My real position that I actually believe in and defend is the government owns all land because land is a finite resource. This land would either be rented out if we still live in a market economy or allocated to projects based on community need if it is a socialist economy.

I think housing should be cheap or free. However because a major argument against doing this is that having housing security makes people lazy I'm pointing out that based on that logic we should make homeowners rent their home instead of own to make them more productive.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Well, there are two arguments here.

My real position that I actually believe in and defend is the government owns all land because land is a finite resource. This land would either be rented out if we still live in a market economy or allocated to projects based on community need if it is a socialist economy.

I think housing should be cheap or free. However because a major argument against doing this is that having housing security makes people lazy I'm pointing out that based on that logic we should make homeowners rent their home instead of own to make them more productive.
Click to expand...
What a ludicrous suggestion. So you are, in fact, a communist?
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Thank you. Personally I think all housing should be decommodified and free but I'm willing to compromise with liberals and keep the threat of homelessness if you can't pay rent in this system to address concerns about laziness.


Me.
Click to expand...
Great! I have some holes in my drywall. When are you available?
 
Nomad4Ever said:
One of the main arguments against programs like giving housing to homeless people or the government funded housing is that, without the constant threat of homelessness, people will be less productive or possibly not work at all. This logic is also often applied to other welfare programs that provide some kind of social safety net.

So if providing people with housing for free is bad because it makes people lazy, it makes sense to me that forcing homeowners to sell their houses is good because it makes people more productive and competitive.
Click to expand...
That also counterproductively takes incentive away because it robs people of the fruit of their labor
Nomad4Ever said:
After all, those home owners with paid off mortgages or low mortgage payments have had it too good for too long. With their lower costs than renting and economic stability gained from owing their home there just isn't a fire under their ass anymore like their is for renters.
Click to expand...
These people have earned that means not to have to work then there's no need for incentive they've already been productive enough
Nomad4Ever said:
So, what do you think? Is it time we put and end to what no doubt must be one of the laziest demographics who might be able to do horrible unproductive things like turn down shitty jobs because they have a place to live?

I think we could increase GDP by at least 20% with my radical plan.
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We own (paid cash for) our manufactured home, but rent (currently for $291/month) the 1/2 acre lot that it sits on.
Click to expand...
Also that's a nice way of doing it. You aren't tied to that bit of land so you can still move if you really need to without selling your home but you also aren't paying a lot of rent. Smart.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Well, there are two arguments here.

My real position that I actually believe in and defend is the government owns all land because land is a finite resource. This land would either be rented out if we still live in a market economy or allocated to projects based on community need if it is a socialist economy.

I think housing should be cheap or free. However because a major argument against doing this is that having housing security makes people lazy I'm pointing out that based on that logic we should make homeowners rent their home instead of own to make them more productive.
Click to expand...

I don’t consider us (my girlfriend and myself) to be lazy, but we are both (at least) age 70 now and work only part-time, relying on our SS retirement benefits for the bulk of our income. A considerable portion of the economy is based on home building, maintenance and improvement - that wouldn’t change (much) based on who owned the housing (or other improvements) placed on the (rented from the government) land.
 
Instead, we give seniors tax breaks and freeze property taxes so they don’t have to contribute their “fair share” to local schools, municipalities, etc…while hoarding prime real estate.


🤷‍♀️


(Hint: I’m not arguing we should force seniors out of their houses…I’m just showing the glaring hypocrisy of the MAGA mindset on this topic)
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Also that's a nice way of doing it. You aren't tied to that bit of land so you can still move if you really need to without selling your home but you also aren't paying a lot of rent. Smart.
Click to expand...

It would be very expensive to have our house (and other structures on the lot) moved (relocated).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom