Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or the tyranny of low income and impaired use of property.
Nope. We both know it goes back to childhood issues for you. It's been covered ad infinitum on these boards. 29,000+ posts, most of them on the same thing.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,355 posts, read 8,581,497 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2
True, but when your busting your arse off, and making decent amount of money, this is were the greedy landlord kicks in. Reason why they want 3x the rent so they know it gives them room to move up in rental pricing. so what would normally takes one payroll check, will now require 2 checks. You can be single and make 50k a year, your landlord will still jack up the rent.. but thats life as we are told. supply and demand, but reality is nothing changed, just greed in the landlord. Many reasons why they jack it up 100 bucks after 6 months lease. Trying to get max out of you, and wait for the next sucker to take the spot. Keep jacking it up till it cant be rented, then they will lower it just enough to get another sucker. Remember the story we was tough in school when ford would keep increasing the assembly line till somebody cries, than lower it just a notch and keep it their. Once they are able to reproduce with out complaining, than make it faster till they complain again. Same with landlords. Just nothing changes, other than money.
If you were busting your arse and making a decent amount of money then you should be able to afford to pay rent unless you are not making a decent amount of money. In which case you should consider raising your skill set to get a better paying job .
Why shouldn't the landlord be able to charge the rent that he wants? He's the one that made the extra money to buy the house in the first place you didn't.
So he should work extra hours to earn more money so he can invest in a rental property just so he can subsidize somebody like you at a loss?
I am a landlord myself and to get my income property I worked as many extra jobs and took all the overtime I could to get that money while my coworkers went home and drink beer instead on their butts. Years later they all like to remind me how lucky I am that I get to have a rental house and charge other people money. They all have the same opportunities to get extra jobs and work overtime but instead went home and watched TV and drink beer.
But fear not for some people are getting the free rent and getting over on the landlords or society as a whole. When I was showing my rentals I had people on section 8 who were getting the rent covered for free that we're driving Escalades and Mercedes,much more expensive cars than me. They also were dressed in very nice clothes while I wore jeans and T-shirts. The whole point is I worked hard and didn't spend my money on nice things in life so I could get that rental property. After all I sacrificed you have this idea that I am greedy and I should be giving you free rent or charging you rent it doesn't even cover the cost of owning the house?
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,355 posts, read 8,581,497 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Sometimes they do; inheritance is a common occurrence. Sometimes people get an advantage by knowing the right people; I have now rented two rooms from middlemen who live for free without owning property.
So you see how it's done. Why not do the same for yourself?
If Americans still had the property rights the Founders intended, people could be self-sufficient living in tiny homes where rent doesn't consume half their income. The Constitutional concept of "taking" has become so diminished that government today can cripple your economic liberty with impunity and without recourse..
You wake up! Congress has taken funds from Social Security and Medicare to craft a budget. Ever look into the US debt? Social Security and Medicare are 2 of the highest loans we have.
Follow the bouncing ball. SS has funds that it does not currently need in order to fund pensions and other benefits. That's why they are called "surplus" funds. They amount today to well more than $2.8 trillion. Instead of letting those funds sit around idle for years and years, they are invested in order to earn interest. Because taxes are so low, Treasury is meanwhile looking to borrow funds with which to fulfill Congressional appropriations. They could always borrow from China or whatever, but better to "Borrow American" first, so they hook up with Social Security and everyone is happy. This is ordinary finance. There is nothing at all odd about it.
You have no entitlement to any extent of dominion over any piece of property. Property rights are in fact defined, distributed, and defended by the state. Aside from permitted tenancy, there is nothing individual about them. It is all state all the time. You run, skip, and jump in a playground of the state's definition.
So your choice of housing is different, but should the need to survive on be free or very very cheap. I mean, we need power, water, gas (heat, cook) without those, we couldnt cook, heat our homes, water to drink. shouldnt least they be free as a need to survive?
One can do all you have listed the old fashioned way, with wood, a fire place and wood burning stove/oven. Those who lived before technology survived just fine and those who know how to utilize basic skills without technology will survive as well.
There may actually be dozens of implied powers lying dormant to this day in the Constitution merely because circumstances sufficient to their discovery have not come into being yet.
Some supporting evidence that a charity event left me no time to post yesterday...
But it is undoubtedly true that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed. As said by Mr. Justice Miller in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 110 U. S. 658: "The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument, often heard, often repeated, and in this Court never assented to, that when a question of the power of Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it. The brief of counsel before us, though directed to the authority of that body to pass criminal laws, uses the same language. Because there is no express power to provide for preventing violence exercised on the voter as a means of controlling his vote, no such law can be enacted. It destroys at one blow, in construing the Constitution of the United States, the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed."
-- Justice David Brewer, Opinion of the Court, South Carolina v US (1905)
The cited opinion in Ex Parte Yarbrough is from 1884, and the same sentiment carries back through the Commentaries of Justice Story in the 1830's, to such seminal cases as McCulloch v Maryland (1819) and Marbury v Madison (1803), and on into the Federalist Papers of the 1780's. All part of our American heritage that the right-wing is earnestly trying to obliterate.
im not talking about living life style, just the basics of needs. Water for example. We need it to survive on, clean, cook, drink. Should be free to your housing. I know we have infrastructure to pay for, but that been paid for long time ago, least 10x. Job is your working for the extras, like house, car, food, fun stuff. But spending 12k a year just on bills such as gas, water, lights, ect to survive puts a dent in your paychecks.
You must be young. It costs a great deal of money to produce those things. And if it's free to you, then there's no incentive to conserve it.
Here's a better idea. If you have trouble making ends meet, a) perform the time-honored step of getting a second job, b) cut down on your other expenses, c) move to a place where your living costs are not high, or d) get a roommate. But don't rationalize freeloading.
I mean, jeez. When I was first starting out, my first job out of college paid below the poverty line. It was the only one I could get. So I worked at night, too. And when I got my first power bill during a very cold winter, I nearly had a heart attack. As a result, I learned to save my money and learned to put on a sweater rather than turn up the thermostat.
You know, one of the most revealing incidents of my life was the time I took on a consulting project for a housing authority. Part of my assignment was to interview 100 residents of a housing project about the length of their tenure, why they were there, the programs they took advantage of, and when they planned to seek a different residence.
Over the course of my interviews, I found that the group fell into two broad categories:
1) Those who had suffered a setback in life and saw public housing as a temporary option. I remember one woman who immigrated from the Caribbean with her three children, held down two jobs, and lost her apartment in a fire. Not having family to help, she moved into public housing until she could save up the money to move into another apartment. She was about two months away from her move. Another woman's husband left her impoverished so she was working to get back on her feet. Lots of stories like that. Or legitimate disabilities.
2) The second group was the ones who literally were doing nothing to escape the projects, instead playing the system for all it was worth. One woman had been in the projects for fifty years and was rather open about not wanting to work, instead preferring to watch TV all day. One guy was rather proud of how he had learned how to fake a disability, so if he cobbled together a few government entitlements, mowed some lawns for cash, etc., he only had to work ten hours a week, tops.
The first group? I have no problem with helping them. For a society needs to provide at some basic level for those who are afflicted by circumstance? The second group? I am not interested in supporting what is essentially a parasitic lifestyle. Remember welfare reform in the mid-90s? Remember how people predicted there would be legions of homeless people? Nope. Didn't happen. Those people whose decades of welfare checks were cut off simply found jobs. And we had a temporary budget surplus as a result.
The point of all this? There are a substantial number of people who, upon getting a free place to live, free power, free water, and a basic stipend, will make no effort to become self-supporting. It is not my job as a taxpayer to help them in their indolent lifestyle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
