• 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?

Everyone has reasons to value the things they do.
Not a response. Should rich people get priority over those who built a community?
 
So tell me. Morally why does the landlord deserve that rent and property price appreciation which are due to market forces and not anything that he contributed? They say that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Those gains come at a price, and the result is working families not being able to live decently.

Morality has nothing to do with it. that is your problem. I have property. I have a price on my property. My price is based on quite a few factors.
1. cost of maintenance
2. taxes
3. insurance
4. Market leverage and demand.
5. overhead.

If you want to live in my place then you pay the price. if not then you don't you live elsewhere. As a landlord i have to work as well.
I have bills to pay, taxes to pay, insurance, to pay, family to support, i have to fix the stuff you break or that breaks down.
when you ruin the carpet by spilling spaghetti sauce on it i have to replace it. that costs money.
A landlord is running a business not a charity.

yet another issue with your argument.

i recently just accepted an offer on my home. I said i would pay some of the closing costs, but that was about it.
they didn't dictate to me what my house was on the market for. The market dictated what my house was and i priced it accordingly
so that it would sale. I am going to make about a 50% net profit on my home. someone else gets a solid good house for the price.
 
Last edited:
And you'd be fine with me taking $100 from you?

No you wouldn't. You don't want to answer honestly because you don't like the implications of the honest answer.

If i felt it was worth 100 bucks to get water then what is the problem? as long as i feel that it is an equal trade in value then it is worth it.
the problem with your man on an island scenario is that you put yourself at the forces of markets. you might have water at 500.
as the only person there to buy your water i don't have to pay it. i will pay what i am willing to pay. you obviously have costs to get that water
there. i have the option of waiting around for the person you have to pay to get what you need to get the water out of the ground.

i could take the more vicious route and just get rid of you and take the water and not pay anything (this is an option based on the scenario).
your scenario is a bust because you don't consider all variables or implications.
 
If i felt it was worth 100 bucks to get water then what is the problem? as long as i feel that it is an equal trade in value then it is worth it.
the problem with your man on an island scenario is that you put yourself at the forces of markets. you might have water at 500.
as the only person there to buy your water i don't have to pay it. i will pay what i am willing to pay. you obviously have costs to get that water
there. i have the option of waiting around for the person you have to pay to get what you need to get the water out of the ground.

i could take the more vicious route and just get rid of you and take the water and not pay anything (this is an option based on the scenario).
your scenario is a bust because you don't consider all variables or implications.

And if it was one of the Koch brothers or Trump needing the water, the post would likely be claiming the price was too low.
A seller is justified in setting a price to whatever he/she wishes. A prospective buyer can then accept, decline, or try to bargain for a lower price. If declined, the seller is then faced with having to seek and find another prospective buyer to deal with and if he has to consume the water in his search he may then be put in the position of seeking someone with water to sell.
If you find home prices/rents too high, widen your search area until you find one within your means to purchase/rent.
 
Funny that you call it conservatives, look at California the land of the great liberals. Its all democrats who own the houses not conservatives. Its the democratic strong holds in the state that restrict access to land to build homes and provide more supply.
 
And if it was one of the Koch brothers or Trump needing the water, the post would likely be claiming the price was too low.
A seller is justified in setting a price to whatever he/she wishes. A prospective buyer can then accept, decline, or try to bargain for a lower price. If declined, the seller is then faced with having to seek and find another prospective buyer to deal with and if he has to consume the water in his search he may then be put in the position of seeking someone with water to sell.
If you find home prices/rents too high, widen your search area until you find one within your means to purchase/rent.

don't project it is a fallacy not an argument.
 
don't project it is a fallacy not an argument.

The OP title was nothing more than an accusation, a false accusation, presented in the form of a question.
 
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



Uh.....

What about all the liberal landlords charging obscene rent?

Uh no....
 
What's the difference between this and the water bottle example? You said the water bottle scenario was morally repugnant. What's different that makes this okay?

You’re kidding right. You cannot seriously believe that the two are related.

How’s this for one huge difference. If I don’t rent to you you have 10,000,000 other people to choose from. You will not die simply because I don’t rent you my house.

How far would you take this stupidity? I have a 4br house. All but one of my kids have moved out so I have two empty bedrooms. Should I be forced to rent you one to give you a place to sleep?
 
you seriously know nothing of capitalism do you?
i didn't think so by this response.

Well, set me straight.

However, if you're heading toward rationalizations to excuse it's abuses, it's not likely to be fruitful.
 
That's exactly the problem. Those who benefited from the price gains got theirs and now they don't care about the effects. Mammon has given them a gift, and they've neglected their Christian duty.

Tellin' ya'. Its Rent Seeking...rampant rent seeking.

What do you think it is when a hotel books its rooms at a rate it can maintain its business at quite comfortably but as their rooms get booked up raises the rates on the rooms remaining. Seasonal rate changes are just smart business. But changing the rates as the hotel gets booked or more accurately as the the data information system supporting the enterprise "perceives" a tightening of supply against demand is flat our rent seeking.

What do you think selling tickets to sporting events at different rates as the game tickets get more scarce is? Its rent seeking. In both cases its using modern data information systems to support what is in effect a rent seeking economy.

So now the rest of you can think about how often rates or prices slide up and down a scale with the bottom more often than not being a price that the business can survive at quite nicely thank you very much. I think you might be surprised at how much rent seeking is going on in this current economy.

Rent Seeking is not inherently a bad thing. Rampant Rent Seeking is something else again.... Lobbyists Rent Seeking for their clients, the absolute disaster of the Citizens United decision and how its been deployed. The way modern data information systems can be used to drive rent seeking....squeezes the middle class something fierce.
 
Last edited:
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



The reason is that the principle of the REPUBLICans is that the elite should make the decisions and thus be favored where as with the DEMOCRAT(IC)s believe regular people should have the say and thus be favored. It is often termed "class warfare", waged by the Dems, as alleged by the Reps who protest against the Democrats pointing out how much more the system favors the rich. Like Warren Buffett said "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."
 
Reality strikes.



I've frequently considered this scene. It seems to me people draw the wrong message from it.

Gekko was the villain of the piece, and went to prison in the end, which is how you know it was a morality play, since that's pretty unlikely in reality.

My view of Capitalism is that it's dangerous because it matches up with our natural urges too well.

It's aggressively amoral, and it's taking the place of morality for too many people. It is self-justifying.

It just reveals what sort of animals we are, and it's sad we aren't wired to be better than we are.
 
It is all about the money and the power those that have it use.

Read about the history of consumer protection and the GOP
 
And my chart shows that wages have grown in recent years, but that growth is minuscule relative to 50 years of decreases, especially since the housing costs have risen much more than inflation.

One thing to keep in mind is that state/local governments often get significant revenue from property taxation - they too have a vested interest in keeping (assessed) property values rising.
 
I don't think having the central government do everything is a good idea. I'm not a socialist. Subsidiarity is crucial. But local communities should be able to ensure that their residents can stay there rather than selling out the town to whatever rich investors want to buy.

You avoided the main question of "Are you going to complain if you sell your house for more than what you paid for it?"

Let me put a different way. A average wage earner bought a house 25 years ago for $70,000. The homeowner decides to retire, sell the home and move. The house sold for $200,000. Is that ok with you?
 
Read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and tell me if you think Christ thought the rich had a responsibility to the poor.
Again why should I care what the Bible says.
 
You avoided the main question of "Are you going to complain if you sell your house for more than what you paid for it?"

Let me put a different way. A average wage earner bought a house 25 years ago for $70,000. The homeowner decides to retire, sell the home and move. The house sold for $200,000. Is that ok with you?
It depends on what's reasonable and what I'm doing with the money. Is the rise due mostly to inflation, and am I raising my children with the money? Then it's fine. Is the rise due purely to market conditions and I'm spending the money on lavish vacations? Then it's wrong.
 
You’re kidding right. You cannot seriously believe that the two are related.

How’s this for one huge difference. If I don’t rent to you you have 10,000,000 other people to choose from. You will not die simply because I don’t rent you my house.

When everyone is is offering a lease at the same inflated price, then still applies. But hey, I guess my family and I can put up a tent and live on the street.

How far would you take this stupidity? I have a 4br house. All but one of my kids have moved out so I have two empty bedrooms. Should I be forced to rent you one to give you a place to sleep?

Why couldn't you downsize into a smaller house and take the profits from that sale either to help your children or lower the rents on any property you're leasing? You could help a lot of people with those extra bedrooms.
 
Uh.....

What about all the liberal landlords charging obscene rent?

Uh no....
What about them? They're the party of radical individualism. I'm not surprised by their immoral business practices.
 
Back
Top Bottom