Why do conservatives value landlords and employers over families?

[Bullseye]

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.

LOL, ah, yes. I'd forgotten about the ol' phattonez fabricated example. :roll. Just pull numbers out of your head to "prove" your point. :roll:

 

[phattonez]

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

Yes that's true, but for workers living in their cars, I would say an increase in standard of living is warranted.

Pretty much what you stated is what many landlords think.

Landlords who are profiting while their tenants are spending 50% of their income are engaging in injustice.

 

[Mycroft]

Economic principles are FAR less important than families.

Screwing with economic principles will do an enormous amount of damage to families.

 

[phattonez]

Nonsense - who's going to buy a heavily taxed asset?

If you're going to attack my policy proposal, could you at least try to understand it? I said that investment property would be taxed heavily, not primary residences.

And besides, people still need a place to live. They would buy it. They don't have much choice.

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.

And every house purchased by an occupant takes tenants out of the market - which. you guessed it, makes demand lower and therefore rents cheaper.

 

[phattonez]

Screwing with economic principles will do an enormous amount of damage to families.

Families have been getting screwed on the cost of living over the past 50 years. Please tell me how MY proposals would do damage to families. The damage has already been done.

 

[phattonez]

LOL, ah, yes. I'd forgotten about the ol' phattonez fabricated example. :roll. Just pull numbers out of your head to "prove" your point. :roll:

If my numbers are fabricated then please, prove them wrong. These are the numbers in LA. You'll find I was actually quite generous. I overestimated the cost of maintenance on a 1 bedroom apartment by a ton.

 

[Gaius46]

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.

No it isn’t because it isn’t illegal. Period. End of discussion. Don’t like it take it with the people who write the laws though you risk some nasty unintended consequences.

It may be morally repugnant but it isn’t against the law.

And again it’s a red herring and has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

 

[charliebrown]

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.

5 to 15% profit is not great money. Personally, there are many other businesses making much more gross profits than this which take advantage of poor people.

 

[Gaius46]

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.

I think you’re forgetting things like the mortgage on the property, property taxes, homeowner association fees, insurance etc.

By this example you honestly show yourself to be completely clueless about property ownership and the associated costs.

 

[jnug]

Thread title: Why do conservatives value landlords and employers over families?

Because we have become biased toward a rent seeking economy. Now for clarity, "Rent Seeking" does not really mean buying rental property and renting it out. Rent Seeking is simply an extension of business models that are heavily biased toward recurring revenue.....like a Cellular Service Provider for example. But even standard fair recurring revenue businesses don't really define Rent Seeking.

Rent in this context is defined as the amount over the expected return for keeping the business or the individual working. So if I would be happy at my work at $80,000 per year but I am making $100,000 per year, I am collecting $20,000 in rent. If you want to use rental property as an example, if my property assets are well used and I am well served at 1,000 per month in rent and I am collecting 1,200 a month in rent, I am collecting $200 on each unit in "Rent" or as a consequence of Rent Seeking.

The least common denominator of Rent Seeking is getting somebody, almost anybody to pay you monthly or quarterly or in some way on a recurring basis in such a manner that it really represents an added benefit that you really don't need in your business. Get somebody paying you a tariff. Get somebody paying you a subsidy. Get a regulation passed that hampers your competitors more than it hampers you.

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with rent seeking. But when you can turn lobbyists loose to wreck havoc its a problem. When you suddenly decide that corporations have the rights of an individual (the single most absurd "can't see the forest for the trees" decision of any Supreme Court EVER) now you really have a problem that is right in your election system. Those are just two really good and really ugly examples of how Rent Seeking has really captured us up in a vicious cycle.

As to the thread title....I am not REAL sure that Conservatives value landlords and employers over families more than progressives do. They are if anything maybe just better at using the system.

 

[phattonez]

No it isn’t because it isn’t illegal. Period. End of discussion. Don’t like it take it with the people who write the laws though you risk some nasty unintended consequences.

It may be morally repugnant but it isn’t against the law.

And again it’s a red herring and has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

You agree it's morally repugnant. Then why would this be any different? Exploiting the need of others to make a profit is evil. Period. End of discussion.

 

[phattonez]

5 to 15% profit is not great money. Personally, there are many other businesses making much more gross profits than this which take advantage of poor people.

It is great money because it doesn't include property price increases, which is another 5-15% per year.

15% isn't great money? Get out of town.

 

[phattonez]

I think you’re forgetting things like the mortgage on the property, property taxes, homeowner association fees, insurance etc.

By this example you honestly show yourself to be completely clueless about property ownership and the associated costs.

Lol. Read my post. I mentioned both mortgage and property tax. Who's clueless?

 

[Bullseye]

If you're going to attack my policy proposal, could you at least try to understand it? I said that investment property would be taxed heavily, not primary residences.

I WASN'T talking about primary residences either.

And besides, people still need a place to live. They would buy it. They don't have much choice.

And they're going to miraculously come up with closing costs, fees and qualify for a mortgage? We tried giving mortgages away to anyone with a heartbeat before - didn't end well.

And every house purchased by an occupant takes tenants out of the market - which. you guessed it, makes demand lower and therefore rents cheaper.

Sorry, no. Purchasers and renters aren't the same people.

 

[jimbo]

I do t give preference to either. Property owners have a right to set the price at which they’re willing to rent their property.

What gives you the right to use someone’s property to implement your preferred policy objectives?

And renters have to accept the price, negotiate the price to an acceptable level, or move on.

The net result is an adequate number of available rentals available at a price agreeable to all.

 

[jimbo]

Depends ... how much did that water cost you in the first place?

That doesn't matter. If water is going for $500, then almost immediately water trucks will be travelling the desert roads selling water for $250, or less. More water will be available and less people will die of thirst.

 

[VanceMack]

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?

I dont gauge people on rent. But some of us didnt start with any advantages and had to work 2-3 jobs our whole lives to succeed.

Make wise choices. Plan and budget together. Plan a career. Work hard. None of this has changed all that much. We have many servicemen and women that are rasing a family on one income, living within their means, going to college for follow on careers, and thriving. If you need to work 2 jobs to prepare for a future do so. Or just whine about how unfair life is.

 

[Mycroft]

Families have been getting screwed on the cost of living over the past 50 years. Please tell me how MY proposals would do damage to families. The damage has already been done.

I haven't been following your comments, except as directed to me, so I have no idea what your proposals are. But I can tell you this...if you propose price controls, you will be screwing with those economic principles that you find so obscure. You will be hurting the ones you profess to want to help.

 

[phattonez]

I dont gauge people on rent. But some of us didnt start with any advantages and had to work 2-3 jobs our whole lives to succeed.

Make wise choices. Plan and budget together. Plan a career. Work hard. None of this has changed all that much. We have many servicemen and women that are rasing a family on one income, living within their means, going to college for follow on careers, and thriving. If you need to work 2 jobs to prepare for a future do so. Or just whine about how unfair life is.

Answer the question.

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]

I haven't been following your comments, except as directed to me, so I have no idea what your proposals are. But I can tell you this...if you propose price controls, you will be screwing with those economic principles that you find so obscure. You will be hurting the ones you profess to want to help.

I don't think rent control is a good solution.

 

[Gaius46]

Lol. Read my post. I mentioned both mortgage and property tax. Who's clueless?

Missed that. Apologies.

On the other hand what you said makes no sense. Property taxes are paid on the assessed value of the home not your equity. From the day I bought my house I’ve been paying property on the full assessed value of the home despite only owning 15%.

Principal isn’t profit. Only that principal that is above the selling price.


Mortgage interest makes up the vast bulk of mortgage payments until relatively late in the loan’s term. You might deride it as a “temporary cost” whatever the hell that means but it is still a cost that must be paid every month and the money had to come from somewhere. Why should the tenant be responsible for it? Because people who rent property out don’t do it to lose money.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't think rent control is a good solution.

Okay.

 

[Gaius46]

You agree it's morally repugnant. Then why would this be any different? Exploiting the need of others to make a profit is evil. Period. End of discussion.

Exploiting the need of others? I’m offering to rent a property to help me put food on my table and maybe long term secure my retirement. If you can afford the rent that I’m looking for - that I need to make it worth my while to rent it - fine.
If not also fine - just go do business with someone else.

 

[Kreton]

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.

Trump is/was a landlord. They worship him. By extension they prefer landlords.

 

[Drawdown]

Answer the question.

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?

There are lots of ways to approach that question. 50 years ago, people lived in much smaller homes generally, had 1 car, etc. so the standard of living even for the poor today is much better than it was then. People also have a spending problem if building wealth is what you are concerned about. They spend too much on their wants. Not being judgy about it. I do too. I put 10% in my 401K, am buying a house, have savings and investments, and some rental property I inherited, but I still waste a lot of money on stupid things. I decided I wanted a rock garden in my yard. I have also wanted a small pond. I am now about 2/3rds the way to a big rock garden surrounding a small pond and kicking myself over and over again for how stupid I am to be sinking this much time and money into such a trivial project. That's life I guess. No matter what cloth we are cut from, we will always have wrinkles needing ironed in someone else's eyes.