Why do conservatives value landlords and employers over families?

[CLAX1911]

This is a straw man. At no point did I say that these things should be free.

However, when it comes to necessities, those who offer these products and services should keep in mind the ability of their customers to pay, especially when I'd comes to deciding how much profit you'll take.

No they shouldn't the reason why you buy property in go in the business of landlording is to make money not to be a charity.

Besides that there is government assistance for people who can't afford housing it's called section 8. Everyone who works and pays taxes donates their time to that.

The more money you make the higher your taxes thus the greater your volunteering for the poor.

 

[Gaius46]

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.



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.

You can try a less desireable neighborhood. Or a different town. Or a different state. You have options. When I bought my house I bought it in an area I could afford.

As to my situation. I like my neighborhood and I like my house. Why should I uproot my life? The rooms are being repurposed and will be used for other things.

The point however is not to discuss my specific situation but to see how far you are willing to go in taking other people’s property.

 

[Individual]

Sorry, but that doesn't work for necessities. You're not going to tell the oncologist to forego treatment because it would put you in debt.

You can ask the oncologist to tell you what treatment exists within your means.

 

[Individual]

You wouldn't hold a grudge against me if I didn't give you the water until you gave me $500?

Doubt.

I wouldn't allow myself to be in such a position of need.
If you didn't have sense to take water with you in a desert would you not be willing to spend $500 to stay alive?

 

[phattonez]

You can try a less desireable neighborhood. Or a different town. Or a different state. You have options. When I bought my house I bought it in an area I could afford.

As to my situation. I like my neighborhood and I like my house. Why should I uproot my life? The rooms are being repurposed and will be used for other things.

The point however is not to discuss my specific situation but to see how far you are willing to go in taking other people’s property.

So a long term resident has to lose his town because you'd rather rent to someone with more money. Do you see how in the end this means that only rich people can have communities?

Further, are you Christian? Because you've ignored my points about what Chrysostom says on the matter of wealth.

 

[phattonez]

You can ask the oncologist to tell you what treatment exists within your means.

The only treatment besides dying will mean I go into debt. I guess I just have to die, then?

 

[phattonez]

I wouldn't allow myself to be in such a position of need.
If you didn't have sense to take water with you in a desert would you not be willing to spend $500 to stay alive?

Lol. The lengths to which you'll go to avoid the simple answer! It's wrong, and you know it, which is why you won't directly answer.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The only treatment besides dying will mean I go into debt. I guess I just have to die, then?

Yep, most would agree that they would be better off dead than in debt.

 

[phattonez]

Yep, most would agree that they would be better off dead than in debt.

It takes a monstrous ideology to devalue human life like that

 

[ttwtt78640]

It takes a monstrous ideology to devalue human life like that

Really? You just did so in post #206.

 

[veritas1]

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

So, are property owners immune from the cost of living and free to ignore it in the amounts they charge for rent? Markets can efficiently set prices when all factors come into play. If landlords price themselves out of the market, they will have empty buildings.

 

[phattonez]

Really? You just did so in post #206.

I'm the one saying he shouldn't be forced into that choice. The price of treatment should reflect his means.

 

[phattonez]

So, are property owners immune from the cost of living and free to ignore it in the amounts they charge for rent? Markets can efficiently set prices when all factors come into play. If landlords price themselves out of the market, they will have empty buildings.

They wouldn't leave them empty. They'd sell them and bring property prices down.

 

[veritas1]

They wouldn't leave them empty. They'd sell them and bring property prices down.

So, others buy the buildings and rent them at prices that get them filled. What's the problem?

 

[phattonez]

So, others buy the buildings and rent them at prices that get them filled. What's the problem?

The problem is that necessities are being priced out of reach and placing heavy burdens on poor workers. If this were a luxury like a new television I wouldn't care, but this is a necessity, and in a society where we're getting richer we shouldn't see necessities become more expensive!

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm the one saying he shouldn't be forced into that choice. The price of treatment should reflect his means.

That in an interesting concept much like EMTALA, but likely to inflate the prices charged to others in order to cover the costs required to stay in business. Applying that to rent, of course, would be difficult - buying properties worth $2K/month and then renting them to folks who could only afford $500/month would be insane.

 

[veritas1]

The problem is that necessities are being priced out of reach and placing heavy burdens on poor workers. If this were a luxury like a new television I wouldn't care, but this is a necessity, and in a society where we're getting richer we shouldn't see necessities become more expensive!

In the 70's. inflation was over 20%. Now, it's around 5% realistically. The falsely reported low inflation rate lets companies keep their wages below the actual cost of living for the bottom rung of workers. Government, again, is doing us no favors.

 

[phattonez]

That in an interesting concept much like EMTALA, but likely to inflate the prices charged to others in order to cover the costs required to stay in business. Applying that to rent, of course, would be difficult - buying properties worth $2K/month and then renting them to folks who could only afford $500/month would be insane.

I'm well aware of that, and I see nothing wrong with those of means being charged more for necessities than those who have little income. Otherwise we'd have to admit that the rich should get greater access to necessities, which would violate our equal dignity.

Further, if we cannot house people who can only afford $500 per month, then maybe home prices should be brought down such that landlords could rent it out at that price. Or, maybe they should be brought down enough that young working families can actually afford to buy a home.

 

[phattonez]

In the 70's. inflation was over 20%. Now, it's around 5% realistically. The falsely reported low inflation rate lets companies keep their wages below the actual cost of living for the bottom rung of workers. Government, again, is doing us no favors.

A government working at the behest of corporations is not an indictment of the concept of government intervention in an economy per se. We ought to do something so that our government is more loyal to the people than to rich companies.

Frequent elections essentially guarantee that the rich will control government because politicians need their campaign money to stay in power.

 

[veritas1]

I'm well aware of that, and I see nothing wrong with those of means being charged more for necessities than those who have little income. Otherwise we'd have to admit that the rich should get greater access to necessities, which would violate our equal dignity.

Further, if we cannot house people who can only afford $500 per month, then maybe home prices should be brought down such that landlords could rent it out at that price. Or, maybe they should be brought down enough that young working families can actually afford to buy a home.

What? So, if I go buy a winter coat I should pay more than somebody making less money, for the same item? What the hell? The answer is making people on the bottom richer, not penalizing the others. People who can only afford $500/mo can't buy houses. That's just economic reality.

 

[veritas1]

A government working at the behest of corporations is not an indictment of the concept of government intervention in an economy per se. We ought to do something so that our government is more loyal to the people than to rich companies.

Frequent elections essentially guarantee that the rich will control government because politicians need their campaign money to stay in power.

Getting rid of lobbyists and corporate contributions would solve the problem but the swamp always protects itself.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm well aware of that, and I see nothing wrong with those of means being charged more for necessities than those who have little income. Otherwise we'd have to admit that the rich should get greater access to necessities, which would violate our equal dignity.

Further, if we cannot house people who can only afford $500 per month, then maybe home prices should be brought down such that landlords could rent it out at that price. Or, maybe they should be brought down enough that young working families can actually afford to buy a home.

I guess it is time to convince your fellow CA voters to pass some hefty housing (rent?) subsidy laws - or just have more folks camping on the sidewalks. We now pay $300/month rent.

 

[phattonez]

What? So, if I go buy a winter coat I should pay more than somebody making less money, for the same item? What the hell? The answer is making people on the bottom richer, not penalizing the others. People who can only afford $500/mo can't buy houses. That's just economic reality.

For a basic winter coat that's necessary for survival, sure. But if you want the fancy designer winter coat, then I have no problem with that being out of reach for the poor.

 

[phattonez]

I guess it is time to convince your fellow CA voters to pass some hefty housing (rent?) subsidy laws - or just have more folks camping on the sidewalks. We now pay $300/month rent.

Probably because you have among the highest property tax rates in the nation.

Conservatives here keep telling me that higher property tax rates would just lead to higher rents, yet you have low rents while we have high rents.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The problem is that necessities are being priced out of reach and placing heavy burdens on poor workers. If this were a luxury like a new television I wouldn't care, but this is a necessity, and in a society where we're getting richer we shouldn't see necessities become more expensive!

In a society getting richer, prices will naturally rise. Costs are rising for landlords, thus they must raise rents to meet those rising costs. I do a lot of work for landlords and as my costs rise so must my charges for maintenance and repairs.