• 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!

Why do conservatives value landlords and employers over families?

phattonez said:
Landlords own property. How would price increases cut into their profits when those increases ARE their profits?

I do agree that it will raise rents, but again that is more profits for those who already own the property!
Click to expand...

If my property value goes up 10% then my tax bill goes up 10%
 
Why do most Republicans claim to value X
Short answer: Because right-wing propaganda convinced them to value it.

Remember there are hundreds of millions if not billions spent each year, powered now by big data psychometrics that make old fashioned marketing look like child's-play.

Many wealthy/business types vote Republican for the tax cuts and the de-regulation, and keeping their target markets less powerful.
The rank and file Republicans don't really know what any of this is *really* about. They language they have been fed to think about it is like this:
liberal/Dem - socialism, nanny state, victims, takers
conservative/Republican - freedom, independence, liberty, free markets, America **** YEAH!

Given such an absurd false choice, its no wonder they oppose themselves. Hard to discuss wage gap, income disparity, etc., when that's the language they have to describe it.

Income disparity is most easily addressed with a combination of these which are already in use.
- appropriately regressive taxation
- business regulations, including treating large natural resources (think energy) in some proportion as public wealthy/resource
- organized labor w/more labor protections, etc.

Both are traditionally opposed by today's Republican party. We just had enormous de-regulation and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. This gives a short-term boost to the economy, which turns out the same disparity going mostly to the wealthy, and a fraction to workers, but the federal debt increases, which is ultimately paid by everyone..but today less by the wealthy/corporations. This creates a worsening long-term wealth situation by the average worker.
Big energy was de-regulated, EPA was gutted, that will damage all our land and water and air more...we all bear that cost, but big corporations get the lions share of the profit from it.
That's my take anyway.
 
phattonez said:
Raise taxes on investment property. I like that idea far more than rent control.
Click to expand...

Alright. How does such a tax help working families? Because at that point, if I were a landlord, I would either hike up rent to pay the tax OR I would simply sell it outright to homebuyers who can afford to purchase it at market value, something most renters cannot afford. There would be little sense in maintaining such an expensive investment that is making me less money when I could place the equity in a more valuable investment.
 
phattonez said:
It's a great comparison. You shouldn't take advantage of the need of another because he's desperate. You know you would give him the water for free, or at worst hope that he pays you for the water at a later date. Demanding that he pays you $500 is simply this: exploitation. It's an evil action.

The same applies to housing. If you are taking in way more than it costs to run the property, then you're exploiting the need for housing, and engaging in an evil action.
Click to expand...



I see you state you are a "research scientist". How was your income determined? Are you sure it is not "way more" than what it should be?
 
Mach said:
Why do most Republicans claim to value X
Short answer: Because right-wing propaganda convinced them to value it.
Click to expand...
Mindless bull****.
Mach said:
Remember there are hundreds of millions if not billions spent each year, powered now by big data psychometrics that make old fashioned marketing look like child's-play.

Many wealthy/business types vote Republican for the tax cuts and the de-regulation, and keeping their target markets less powerful.
The rank and file Republicans don't really know what any of this is *really* about. They language they have been fed to think about it is like this:
liberal/Dem - socialism, nanny state, victims, takers
conservative/Republican - freedom, independence, liberty, free markets, America **** YEAH!
Click to expand...
More mindless BS.
Mach said:
Given such an absurd false choice, its no wonder they oppose themselves. Hard to discuss wage gap, income disparity, etc., when that's the language they have to describe it.

Income disparity is most easily addressed with a combination of these which are already in use.
- appropriately regressive taxation
- business regulations, including treating large natural resources (think energy) in some proportion as public wealthy/resource
- organized labor w/more labor protections, etc.

Both are traditionally opposed by today's Republican party. We just had enormous de-regulation and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. This gives a short-term boost to the economy, which turns out the same disparity going mostly to the wealthy, and a fraction to workers, but the federal debt increases, which is ultimately paid by everyone..but today less by the wealthy/corporations. This creates a worsening long-term wealth situation by the average worker.

That's my take anyway.
Click to expand...
LOL, obviously your "take" comes from left-wing propaganda convincing you to believe it. Total hypocrisy my friend. TOTAL.
 
Mach said:
Why do most Republicans claim to value X
Short answer: Because right-wing propaganda convinced them to value it.

Remember there are hundreds of millions if not billions spent each year, powered now by big data psychometrics that make old fashioned marketing look like child's-play.

Many wealthy/business types vote Republican for the tax cuts and the de-regulation, and keeping their target markets less powerful.
The rank and file Republicans don't really know what any of this is *really* about. They language they have been fed to think about it is like this:
liberal/Dem - socialism, nanny state, victims, takers
conservative/Republican - freedom, independence, liberty, free markets, America **** YEAH!

Given such an absurd false choice, its no wonder they oppose themselves. Hard to discuss wage gap, income disparity, etc., when that's the language they have to describe it.

Income disparity is most easily addressed with a combination of these which are already in use.
- appropriately regressive taxation
- business regulations, including treating large natural resources (think energy) in some proportion as public wealthy/resource
- organized labor w/more labor protections, etc.

Both are traditionally opposed by today's Republican party. We just had enormous de-regulation and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. This gives a short-term boost to the economy, which turns out the same disparity going mostly to the wealthy, and a fraction to workers, but the federal debt increases, which is ultimately paid by everyone..but today less by the wealthy/corporations. This creates a worsening long-term wealth situation by the average worker.
Big energy was de-regulated, EPA was gutted, that will damage all our land and water and air more...we all bear that cost, but big corporations get the lions share of the profit from it.
That's my take anyway.
Click to expand...

Or maybe, just maybe, Mach, conservatives value different things than you do, and thus are okay with different policies being pursued that they were not brainwashed or duped into doing so. Just a thought.
 
Barnacle said:
But that's exactly what you said ... "If you are taking in way more than it costs to run the property, then you're exploiting the need for housing, and engaging in an evil action."

And who decides what is "way more"? You? The renter? The government?
Click to expand...

I said WAY more.

I'm not necessarily saying that the government should be looking at your books and deciding what's allowed or not. I'm making a moral case, and the state certainly has the prerogative to interfere with gross injustice.
 
Felis Leo said:
Or maybe, just maybe, Mach, conservatives value different things than you do, and thus are okay with different policies being pursued that they were not brainwashed or duped into doing so. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

if you represented the majority of Conservative forum posters, (or voters) I would be more likely to agree. You don't, unfortunately. Maybe 1%.
 
Drawdown said:
If my property value goes up 10% then my tax bill goes up 10%
Click to expand...

Do you think that rents haven't gone up by at least as much as property values?
 
phattonez said:
Especially when landlord profits average 5-15% per year without taking into account property value increases. It's a lucrative field, but families are getting crushed.

Further, wages aren't coming anywhere close to keeping up with the cost of living, not to mention productivity. Are you okay with average people finding it harder to start families and provide for them even though we're supposedly richer?

To what do you have higher loyalty? Obscure economic principles? Or families?

And especially Catholics, if you're not concerned about what's going on, you're directly contradicting Catholic social teaching.
6aabdb8e9be0d4939c1b0e9060dfad6e.jpg
Click to expand...

WHy are you looking thru your narrow blue glasses and assuming conservatives are the reason for this event. You really need to look at the tax laws and realize that those advantageous laws have been written and supported thru multiple administrations and majority congresses. The banks and the realtors are the lobbyist who drive the real estate laws.

PS, why do you object to a person investing his hard earned money into real estate and reaping a profit from his investment?
 
Felis Leo said:
Alright. How does such a tax help working families? Because at that point, if I were a landlord, I would either hike up rent to pay the tax OR I would simply sell it outright to homebuyers who can afford to purchase it at market value, something most renters cannot afford. There would be little sense in maintaining such an expensive investment that is making me less money when I could place the equity in a more valuable investment.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be the only landlord to do so. And what happens when you have a lot of people selling their homes?
 
mike2810 said:
I see you state you are a "research scientist". How was your income determined? Are you sure it is not "way more" than what it should be?
Click to expand...

If I am making far more than it costs me to live, then I would think I'm paid way more than I should be.
 
charliebrown said:
WHy are you looking thru your narrow blue glasses and assuming conservatives are the reason for this event.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. The left with their bank bailouts, deregulation of banks, free trade, and endless immigration are just as much to blame.

PS, why do you object to a person investing his hard earned money into real estate and reaping a profit from his investment?
Click to expand...

I don't. I object to making hefty profits off of the need of others.
 
phattonez said:
You wouldn't be the only landlord to do so. And what happens when you have a lot of people selling their homes?
Click to expand...

Well, property values might drop. Or, if the city is, as you put it, highly desirable and very little new housing is being built, you may have a Vancouver situation in which homebuyers sell the homes to massive investors who let the homes sit empty to drive home prices up even more and make housing even more unaffordable for lower-income families.
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, property values might drop. Or, if the city is, as you put it, highly desirable and very little new housing is being built, you may have a Vancouver situation in which homebuyers sell the homes to massive investors who let the homes sit empty to drive home prices up even more and make housing even more unaffordable for lower-income families.
Click to expand...

That situation doesn't happen when taxes on investment property is raised significantly. Property values would drop, as they should.
 
phattonez said:
That situation doesn't happen when taxes on investment property is raised significantly. Property values would drop, as they should.
Click to expand...
As would the supply of available housing.
 
phattonez said:
Are you seriously going to argue that I'm justified in letting you die rather than give you a spare bottle of water?



Or how about we raise taxes on investment property to cut into the profits of landlords.
Click to expand...

You can’t be forced to save someone else’s life. But that’s a red herring anyway.

You haven’t justified taking property owners’ property to fund your pet project. You simply continue to say that we should.
 
phattonez said:
Do you think that rents haven't gone up by at least as much as property values?
Click to expand...

I think that different landlords handle matters differently. I am sure there are markets where rents have outpaced increases in property value and some that have not. I rented the same place for 3 years in college and my rent was the same for the entire 3 years and I didn't have to pay rent in the summer when I was back home. Other people who moved in after me paid higher rents than I ever had to pay. Of course, I paid my entire two semesters rent the day I showed back up in August so he never had to pester me and I fixed anything that broke so I never pestered him. I could have moved across the road to a corporate apartment complex that sucked every nickle and dime out of people they could. That is life in a university town.
 
phattonez said:
I didn't say that. The left with their bank bailouts, deregulation of banks, free trade, and endless immigration are just as much to blame.



I don't. I object to making hefty profits off of the need of others.
Click to expand...
Hefty? By what measure?
 
Bullseye said:
As would the supply of available housing.
Click to expand...

Landlords selling property doesn't decrease the supply of available housing. It makes more of it available for purchase rather than renting. The total supply is unchanged.
 
Gaius46 said:
You can’t be forced to save someone else’s life.
Click to expand...

Not giving a man a bottle of water when he's dying and you have a spare one is murder. You know it, but you don't want to say it because you don't like the consequences.
 
phattonez said:
If I am making far more than it costs me to live, then I would think I'm paid way more than I should be.
Click to expand...

lower your standard of living, your salary could be lowered.

Pretty much what you stated is what many landlords think.
 
Bullseye said:
Hefty? By what measure?
Click to expand...

Let's say that a 1 bedroom apartment in Los Angeles costs $200,000. Expected maintenance would be $2000 per year. That would mean the actual cost to the landlord is about $200 per month. Let's be generous and say he should charge $400 per month. Do you know what that rent actually goes for here? Closer to $1500 per month.

What about property taxes? Property taxes fall on those who hold equity. Those who own their home pay them and no one offsets it for them. Why should landlords be forcing tenants to pay that when they get no equity?
What about principle on a mortgage? That's pure profit.
What about interest on a mortgage? That's a temporary cost that goes away once you own the property outright. Again, not the tenant's responsibility.

So in this case the landlord is making $1100 per month, while the tenant is likely paying 50% of his total income to the landlord. That's obvious injustice.
 
phattonez said:
Landlords selling property doesn't decrease the supply of available housing. It makes more of it available for purchase rather than renting. The total supply is unchanged.
Click to expand...
Nonsense - who's going to buy a heavily taxed asset? And, every house purchased as a personal residence takes a rental off the market - which. you guessed it, makes rentals scarcer and therefore more expensive.
 
phattonez said:
Not giving a man a bottle of water when he's dying and you have a spare one is murder. You know it, but you don't want to say it because you don't like the consequences.
Click to expand...

Care to quote the specific law that backs that up.

"Generally speaking, there is legally no duty to rescue another person.
The courts have gone into very gory details in order to explain this. In Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co., the defendant had no obligation to save a child from crushing his hand in a manufacturing machine. The court suggested an analogy in which a baby was on the train tracks – did a person standing idly by have the obligation to save him? Legally, no. He was a “ruthless savage and a moral monster,” but legally he did not have to save that baby.
An interesting and solid case to the contrary is Soldano v. O’Daniels, where the Court of Appeals of California bucked convention and stated that an employee did have a duty to help.
In that case, a Good Samaritan requested that a store employee use the phone to call the police, as a person was being threatened in a bar across the street. The employee denied the use of the phone to the Good Samaritan and refused to place the call himself. The person ended up dying, and the Court said, enough is enough. This person would not have died if that call had been placed, and someone has to take responsibility. They felt it was time to reexamine the traditional relationship of responsibility.
Normally, however, there is no duty to rescue. Soldano is a unique quirk in the legal system that has not overcome the four categories of duties, which we shall now discuss."
Good Samaritan law: Duty to Rescue, Failure to Render Aid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom