• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

The affordable housing crisis is real.
 
Individual said:
Did you not see my answer? It was No!
Click to expand...
As long as we're on the same page. Of course you're a liar and you'd take the water from me in that scenario. You and I both know it, but morality is less important than those free market principles!
 
Individual said:
Then don't spend on things which are not absolute necessities until, or unless you can afford them.
Click to expand...
Millennial households aren't being broken because of avocado toast or whatever nonsense Boomers come up with to make themselves feel better about what how they've benefited from the housing market at the expense of my generation.
 
Aberration said:
Rightly so.
Click to expand...
So then someone with a lot of money should have priority in a community over someone who's been there for generations. You think only rich people get a community.
 
Gaius46 said:
It’s been made several times already. Landlords, especially small ones, are easy to vilify and as such easy targets for things like rent controls - things that would not easily get funded through taxes.

Your sarcastic comments about “the poor landlords” amply demonstrates that point.
Click to expand...
Maybe because you've shown zero compassion for poor tenants paying 50% of their income for basic accommodation. You tell me why I should be more concerned about those who have property than those who have nothing but debt.
 
Gaius46 said:
Actually I do deem what is appropriate for me. Though this is likely a semantic difference.

The market decides what the rate is. If I don’t deem that appropriate or in line with with my goals I won’t rent. I’ll sell or do something else.

In any case I’m not looking to debate semantics.
Click to expand...

You claimed "you" set the rate, the market dictates if your rate is acceptable, and if it isn't, you'll be on welfare all winter.

It's not semantics, it's a very specific difference than what you claimed. Words matter, alot.
 
Individual said:
If the landlords costs increase a rent price increase would be justified.
If no one can be found to occupy the property, the landlord might instead sell the property even at a loss and the new owner could then try to rent it at a profitable price or do something entirely different with it in order to make it profitable. A smart landlord would set the rent price high enough to accumulate enough profit to weather bad times when the property may become unoccupied to be able to maintain the property in condition to rent and pay the taxes, etc.
Click to expand...
You're again assuming that rents can be raised. Tell me, what would happen if we increased capital gains tax rates?
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

I can't imagine the level of mental gymnastics and depraved thinking that went in to producing the bull**** you posted.

There is something fundamentally wrong with anyone who thinks hard work and success is harmful to families.

All star level absurdity....
Click to expand...
"Hard work and success" that in reality translates to holding out necessities from poor families so that you get top dollar isn't an honorable trade.
 
Aberration said:
The DOW has a 14% RoR. My 401K has 22%. My IRA has 24%.

Why would anyone pick 15% over 20+%? Obviously there are reasons. If you lower their yield, then fewer people will choose to invest in rentals. Fewer rentals, rising demand, will only drive rent higher.
Click to expand...
Because you get property price accumulation on top of that! Not to mention great tax benefits that you don't get with the stock market.
 
Gaius46 said:
As of this is something new.

People have moved away from their families for economic reasons since antiquity.

And it’s not “money-worship”. It’s “fulfilling my responsibility to my family.”
Click to expand...
This used to be the exception. Today it is the expectation. The typical American will move around 10 times in his life. When did the American dream translate into living life like a Gypsy?
 
There was a time when you could own apartment buildings; rent them at a loss and take the loss against other income.

No reason to own a white elephant anymore.



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
wellwisher said:
If we did away with all landlords and all employers, then most families would be homeless and starving. Landlords and Employers provide means that allows families a way to be self sufficient.
Click to expand...

Why do you go straight to a straw man? Eliminating landlords and employers?

My argument is to decrease speculation in the housing market. Make it less profitable. Here's a stunning fact you probably don't know. While housing today is far more expensive than it was in 2000, we actually have more housing units per capita now. It ought to boggle the mind, but being more loyal to free market principles than reality you probably won't admit the possibility of market failure.

Once these systems are set up, they follows the laws of supply and demand. If rents are going up, this means there is too much demand for rental housing, causing prices to rise. This could be due to the last huge waves of Democrat party assisted illegal immigration and Sanctuary cities. Most of these people may not be able to afford or legally buy property. This causes more demand for rental units. The prices then go up.
Click to expand...

I'm fully agreed that immigration ought to be restricted. We should be helping those foreign economies (which doesn't mean dumping food and clothing) rather than dumping the problem onto our neighborhoods.

When there is excessive demand, the landlord cannot rent to everyone who needs a place, since he only has a few units. So how do you decide who gets the place and who do you turn away. One solution to this dilemma is free competition between potential tenants, where they each bid up the price, and the winner gets the unit. There is still a loser, but they both had a second chance. This happens with buying houses, where two bidders will sometimes exceed market value, to get that house.
Click to expand...

There are ways to ration besides money, and since housing is a necessity we ought not be looking to make top dollar while young families are struggling to get by.

We've a system where landlords are profiting because market conditions have pushed prices up, they didn't earn the increase, while tenants undeservedly are paying that increased amount. It's unjust.
 
Gaius46 said:
I think you might have to rethink that since I’m firmly of the opinion that I should be able to use my property as I see fit - including renting it at whatever rate I deem appropriate- and I’m certain not a supporter of Trump’s.
Click to expand...
It's my water and if you don't like the price then you can go ahead and die!
 
Moderate Right said:
What? Pretty much everything gets more expensive as the years go by. It's called inflation and it pretty much happens all the time except during the Great Depression.
Click to expand...
Absolutely wrong. Televisions, computers, and other toys have become much cheaper. Only necessities are increasing in price.
 
Obscurity said:
You claimed "you" set the rate, the market dictates if your rate is acceptable, and if it isn't, you'll be on welfare all winter.

It's not semantics, it's a very specific difference than what you claimed. Words matter, alot.
Click to expand...

So does reading comprehension.

I said

“including renting it at whatever rate I deem appropriate”

That has nothing whatsoever to do with what the market sets the rate at. I’ll either rent at that rate or I won’t and that IS determined by the market.

But again this is just a sideshow to the main discussion.
 
Drawdown said:
I think the only reasonable solution is MORE PUBLIC HOUSING. Sorry if it hurts the ego of college graduates to be living in projects, but beggars can't be choosers.
Click to expand...
How is that reasonable? Projects have been a dismal failure.
 
Gaius46 said:
Not again. What’s gonna kill me is your overuse of this inappropriate comparison.
Click to expand...
You've never really explained why it's inappropriate. If two people in the desert find the dying man, are they now morally justified in demanding $500 for the water? After all there's competition now!
 
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...

It all boils down to what you believe a family is and should be and I don't mean individual families but whether you are part of the American family (citizen of the United States) or a single entity that does not depend on anyone else, other than yourself.

If you are "part of the family" you need to realize that every part of the family (like every part of a human body) is important. You don't want to cut one of your toes just for profit do you?

In a family, greed among each other is not good even though you have the right to be greedy. It is a moral (not a legal) rule.

Working "together" for a common goal (the health of the body/nation) is the goal. Working toward helping your pocketbook by chopping up some part of the body (even a small part like a toe) usually means the body is being degraded and in the long run that is a negative.

On the other side of the coin, if you do not appreciate the fact that you live in a community where everyone works to make life better for everyone, like having teachers, police, laws, doctors, clerks, etc... and think you can go whole hog for yourself because you have the legal right to do so, it does suggest that money is your "only" objective in life and that what you are getting by living in a community is of no value.

This is the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are generally for greed for oneself and Democrats are for sharing. It is not all that think that way, but that is the "basis" difference between the two parties.
 
Luckyone said:
It all boils down to what you believe a family is and should be and I don't mean individual families but whether you are part of the American family (citizen of the United States) or a single entity that does not depend on anyone else, other than yourself.

If you are "part of the family" you need to realize that every part of the family (like every part of a human body) is important. You don't want to cut one of your toes just for profit do you?

In a family, greed among each other is not good even though you have the right to be greedy. It is a moral (not a legal) rule.

Working "together" for a common goal (the health of the body/nation) is the goal. Working toward helping your pocketbook by chopping up some part of the body (even a small part like a toe) usually means the body is being degraded and in the long run that is a negative.

On the other side of the coin, if you do not appreciate the fact that you live in a community where everyone works to make life better for everyone, like having teachers, police, laws, doctors, clerks, etc... and think you can go whole hog for yourself because you have the legal right to do so, it does suggest that money is your "only" objective in life and that what you are getting by living in a community is of no value.

This is the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are generally for greed for oneself and Democrats are for sharing. It is not all that think that way, but that is the "basis" difference between the two parties.
Click to expand...
I could get with all of that until the last paragraph. Look at the biggest Democratic areas. Massive rents, massive homeless problems, and total breakdown of families. Democrat CEOs talk about our responsibility while they pay their workers peanuts.

Mammon worship controls both parties.
 
Luckyone said:
It all boils down to what you believe a family is and should be and I don't mean individual families but whether you are part of the American family (citizen of the United States) or a single entity that does not depend on anyone else, other than yourself.

If you are "part of the family" you need to realize that every part of the family (like every part of a human body) is important. You don't want to cut one of your toes just for profit do you?

In a family, greed among each other is not good even though you have the right to be greedy. It is a moral (not a legal) rule.

Working "together" for a common goal (the health of the body/nation) is the goal. Working toward helping your pocketbook by chopping up some part of the body (even a small part like a toe) usually means the body is being degraded and in the long run that is a negative.

On the other side of the coin, if you do not appreciate the fact that you live in a community where everyone works to make life better for everyone, like having teachers, police, laws, doctors, clerks, etc... and think you can go whole hog for yourself because you have the legal right to do so, it does suggest that money is your "only" objective in life and that what you are getting by living in a community is of no value.

This is the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are generally for greed for oneself and Democrats are for sharing. It is not all that think that way, but that is the "basis" difference between the two parties.
Click to expand...
Democrats are for sharing what others have earned. They are good at virtue signaling though.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
phattonez said:
Absolutely wrong. Televisions, computers, and other toys have become much cheaper. Only necessities are increasing in price.
Click to expand...

Necessities are the principal issue with laissez faire in general, hence the need for some regulation. As a left leaning libertarian, I recognize the idiocy of claiming ownership of, for example, natural resources.
 
Eriech said:
Democrats are for sharing what others have earned. They are good at virtue signaling though.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Social Democrats are for pooling resources for the good of the overall country, which includes everyone - and everyone would benefit from a healthier, more productive society. Make no mistake, republicans are for sharing what others earn also; just, they want to share it in the form of bullets and bombs and tanks and planes and guns and APC's to invade and occupy foreign countries who disagree with our imperial policy of advance and occupy.
 
phattonez said:
I could get with all of that until the last paragraph. Look at the biggest Democratic areas. Massive rents, massive homeless problems, and total breakdown of families. Democrat CEOs talk about our responsibility while they pay their workers peanuts.

Mammon worship controls both parties.
Click to expand...

Look, all humans are faulty so if you look for examples to support your opinion on either side (Republicans and Democrats), you will always find them. What needs to be done is having a rule that is generally beneficial. You will always have someone that breaks the rule but having a rule in place will do a lot more good than bad.

The Republican rule, as it is now, is that each person has the right to do what they want for themselves as long as it is not illegal. That needs to be changed or amended as far as it not harming others in ways that are not illegal but are immoral.

The Democrats have it mostly right as far as sharing is concerned but they need to find way to reign in excesses.

The family is what ultimately is most important. The family health is what should be the goal!
 
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.
Click to expand...

What do conservatives do to value landlords over families?

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?
Click to expand...

The median household income has increased by 20% (CPI-adjusted) since 1985. What are conservatives doing to value employers over "average families"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom