Why do conservatives value landlords and employers over families?

[Mr Person]

Oh please. You left wing folks sure are able to overlook the sexual exploits of your past Presidents. Funny how I can't remember the democrats complaining about JFK and WJC. Nobody is going to say everything a person does is ok but the primary job is being President and most of us are more concerned with what he is doing now, and not 10 years prior to becoming President. Take a look at the life history and Presidential exploits of those two democrats I mentioned

I saw the quote notification and thought "I know it's just going to be some dishonest bull****" and sure enough it was.

Specifically, yet another worthlessly stupid and dishonest 'both sides' statement. As usual, the person the user wants to defend is on what he considers to be his side but that person is also orders of magnitude worse than anyone else comparable on what he considers the other side. So he makes a "both sides" statement. As always, the statement focuses only on category of thing and deliberately ignores the scale/scope/size of the thing in question. That way, as long as we only look at the category, his guy sounds just as badass the other guy. So he brings up JFK and Slick Willy, each of whom were cads at the least, but who do not get anywhere near Trump's depravity even combined together and magnified by 10.






I'm fairly certain everyone who says and reads these things knows it's just tribalist partisan dishonesty. If I'm wrong about the fact that they actually understand this, I have even less than the little faith I had in humanity.

 

[phattonez]

Then don't come up with such a stupid comparison.

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.

 

[phattonez]

The dirty little secret in this whole thing is the inflation rate. We do not have 1.7% inflation as anyone who goes to the grocery store knows. The method of calculation has been changed to deceive the public.

Alternate Inflation Charts

It's a grossly massaged rate. The real cost of living is going up 5+% per year.

 

[phattonez]

There's always another renter. Basic Capitalism insists the rent must go as high as it possibly can, so long as it still rents.

And for the people priced out of their homes? **** them, they should have had more money. What are they, Communists?

It's the U.S.'s new motto in action: "**** you, I got mine."

It ultimately ends in the idea that only rich people get to have a community. Everyone else will eventually get priced out.

My hometown used to be a sleepy middle class suburb, housing grocers, bus drivers, secretaries, and the like. New houses here are being sold starting from $1 million. It's crazy.

 

[phattonez]

Taxing authority is well defined. Interfering in private. Interacts not so much.

Instead of putting the burden on landlords and property owners why don’t we implement housing policy like this on the backs of all taxpayers?

There's nothing wrong with putting this on those who have the ability to pay for it. Landlords have much more wealth than renters.

 

[phattonez]

You and your conscience are free to do whatever you want.

There is 0% chance you would say that if you were the one dying in the desert. In fact I'll do you one better. If I had an extra bottle of water that I didn't need, you would be justified in taking it from me to ensure your survival.

That aside landlords charge what the market will bear.

Charging any amount significantly above the cost to produce something, especially a necessity, is grossly unjust. If you and I are on an island and I own all of the land, it would absolutely be immoral of me to charge you $10k per month to put up a tent.

 

[Felis Leo]

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.

The reason housing costs and rents are so obscene in our state is because of the severe housing shortage. More people with money want to come to California and buy up the good real estate, leaving everybody else paying ridiculous money just to rent repurposed sheds. There is a way to lower housing costs in states like ours that would not contradict your Catholic teachings phattonez nor the sensibilities of conservatives such as myself by taking their hard-earned property: For local governments to allow and encourage people, investors and companies build more houses in this state without bevies of onerous regulations to be heaped atop them. The State and local governments of California are doing everything they can to kill the incentives for new homes, apartments and other forms of housing to be built. If we lowered the barriers allowing more housing to be built, the issue would quickly resolve itself.

 

[phattonez]

Dood...do you think I create the rules, roles, and fabric of society?

I absolutely support families. In fact I think one of the greatest crimes committed on the black American community has been what the liberals did to black families in rat controlled cities. You arent doing families any favors by destroying their foundations. And if you have ever read anything I have ever written on the levels of social reform that we should be doing in this country you would see know I would make most liberals blush. Now run along...your tired poor me rhetoric is boring the **** out of me.

So tell me, how are you helping families when they cannot afford decent housing? How is it that a family could be supported on one income 50 years ago, but today even two income households are deep in debt?

 

[phattonez]

Economic principles are not "obscure"...except to the uneducated.

Economic principles are FAR less important than families.

 

[Felis Leo]

Economic principles are FAR less important than families.

True. But sometimes ignoring them ends up hurting all families, rich and poor.

 

[phattonez]

The reason housing costs and rents are so obscene in our state is because of the severe housing shortage. More people with money want to come to California and buy up the good real estate, leaving everybody else paying ridiculous money just to rent repurposed sheds. There is a way to lower housing costs in states like ours that would not contradict your Catholic teachings phattonez nor the sensibilities of conservatives such as myself by taking their hard-earned property: For local governments to allow and encourage people, investors and companies build more houses in this state without bevies of onerous regulations to be heaped atop them. The State and local governments of California are doing everything they can to kill the incentives for new homes, apartments and other forms of housing to be built. If we lowered the barriers allowing more housing to be built, the issue would quickly resolve itself.

There's just one problem with that. Hong Kong. They've gone crazy with development. It's a forest of high rises, yet it's still the most expensive place in the world to live.

I used to buy that theory. I've found that it just isn't tenable. There is no city with high demand and low prices. The only solution is land reform.

 

[WillyPete]

It goes both ways. Landlords often do not care about their renters' problems. Renters do not care about the costs and duties that landlords have, and seem to assume that landlords do not have a mortgage to pay or costs of maintaining a property that they need to worry about, and that if they own a home they can rent out, they must be rich and can afford the loss.

Well, certainly they should respect the property, but it seems like a fairly clear power dynamic.

The landlord generally has better recourse in a dispute.

And if you can afford to maintain multiple homes, then you're very likely doing better than people who have to worry about their rent regularly.

If they are troublemakers, then that's a different story. My impression is that there's a tendency is to look upon any renter trying to get any service as a troublemaker, whether the service is warranted or not.

 

[phattonez]

True. But sometimes ignoring them ends up hurting all families, rich and poor.

And holding them over the past 50 years has brought nothing but pain, especially to working families.

 

[WillyPete]

It ultimately ends in the idea that only rich people get to have a community. Everyone else will eventually get priced out.

My hometown used to be a sleepy middle class suburb, housing grocers, bus drivers, secretaries, and the like. New houses here are being sold starting from $1 million. It's crazy.

I've heard the claim that the change is that there's no real frontier for people to go to anymore, so the old frontiers just get stagnant.

I think there's something to the idea, but not sure how that leads to a solution.

 

[phattonez]

Most of us conservatives...especially us landlords...also value families.

Then are you renting your units to working families at cost to ensure that they're spending no more than 30% of their income on rent? Are you making your units available to even those not so wealthy families?

Why do whiny pathetic crippled dependent pets that did a **** job of preparing for their lives always believe that their misery is the faulty of someone else?

You support families, but dehumanize poor working families as pathetic crippled dependent pets?

 

[Gaius46]

There's nothing wrong with putting this on those who have the ability to pay for it. Landlords have much more wealth than renters.

You don’t have the right to someone else’s property.

Let the taxpayers as a whole fund rents for the poor. That’s only fair. Won’t fly though because taxpayers generally are generous with other people’s money.

 

[phattonez]

I've heard the claim that the change is that there's no real frontier for people to go to anymore, so the old frontiers just get stagnant.

I think there's something to the idea, but not sure how that leads to a solution.

Further it doesn't address a significant question: why would a housing shortage mean that landlords should see increased profits? They didn't do anything to deserve those profits, and renters sure didn't do anything to create the shortage. It's injustice all the way around.

 

[Barnacle]

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.

Are you a communist?!?

If I purchase a rental property, then it's with the objective to make a profit.

Good grief, man ... :roll:

 

[phattonez]

You don’t have the right to someone else’s property.

Are you seriously going to argue that I'm justified in letting you die rather than give you a spare bottle of water?

Let the taxpayers as a whole fund rents for the poor. That’s only fair. Won’t fly though because taxpayers generally are generous with other people’s money.

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

 

[phattonez]

Are you a communist?!?

No. Socialism and Communism are evil because they deny the right to private property. However, economic liberalism is also evil because it makes property rights absolute without regard to the common good.

If I purchase a rental property, then it's with the objective to make a profit.

Good grief, man ... :roll:

I'm not saying that you should make zero money from it. What I am saying is that if you are making good money while your renters are struggling to pay the rent (provided that they're sincerely working to do so), then you're engaging in evil. You should not be making hundreds of dollars per month off of a family paying 50% of their income on rent.

 

[Drawdown]

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.

Property value increases drive up real estate taxes and therefore will either drive up rents or drive down profits.

 

[Felis Leo]

There's just one problem with that. Hong Kong. They've gone crazy with development. It's a forest of high rises, yet it's still the most expensive place in the world to live.

I used to buy that theory. I've found that it just isn't tenable. There is no city with high demand and low prices. The only solution is land reform.

And when you say "land reform," what model do you propose? Which country (or state) has done it right?

Because it sounds like what you are proposing is taking people's legal property without compensation so that it may distributed in a more equal manner. Am I wrong? And if so, what are you proposing?

 

[phattonez]

Property value increases drive up real estate taxes and therefore will either drive up rents or drive down profits.

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!

 

[phattonez]

And when you say "land reform," what model do you propose? Which country (or state) has done it right?

Because it sounds like what you are proposing is taking people's legal property without compensation so that it may distributed in a more equal manner. Am I wrong? And if so, what are you proposing?

Raise taxes on investment property. I like that idea far more than rent control.

 

[Barnacle]

No. Socialism and Communism are evil because they deny the right to private property. However, economic liberalism is also evil because it makes property rights absolute without regard to the common good.



I'm not saying that you should make zero money from it. What I am saying is that if you are making good money while your renters are struggling to pay the rent (provided that they're sincerely working to do so), then you're engaging in evil. You should not be making hundreds of dollars per month off of a family paying 50% of their income on rent.

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?