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.
Maybe a better idea would be to impose birth control on the leech class. That would help with many of their financial issues.
Isn't it funny how the people that are the most broke always think they know best what to do with other peoples' assets?
1. Maybe not.
Maybe, if rents were not so high, people would slow down or stop their buying real estate as investments to rent out and make money on the backs of other people's poverty.
Then ALL could have a chance to be home owners like it was when the higher income earners has a usually *small percentage* of their income taxed at 90%.
"Leech class" is a crude and ignorant stereotype.
2. No, it is not "funny because it is not true.
Why do you think it is "the most broke" supporting these ideas?
No matter how much i remind people like you that the poor do not vote nearly as much as other demographics nor do they generally follow politics, "it's funny" that some selectively forget this when it fits their agenda.
Yes, I agree take everything those rich, selfish, hardworking landlords have and give it to the worthless, thankless tenants. That's the new american way.
Yes, for some reason the hyperbole of "the new American way" is spouted in this light by the "old American paranoid narcissists."
The "New American Way" is conceding there is too much injustice in a tax code billionaires. There is something wrong with CEOS making 1,000xs more a year than their workers (the ones they didn't fire to save money and give themselves raises.) NO CEO is worth that much!
"Hardworking Landlords??" Pu-lease!
Where are those supposed people stashed away at?? I've rented many places and also have family who have been landlords. If something breaks, they hire someone to fix it. You send them rent every month and they have to cash the checks.
"Hard work" indeed.... :roll eyes:
There is a reason it is considered "passive income."
Before I explain my idea, I want to say that I am a democratic socialist who supports Bernie Sanders' campaign.
Right now, there are certain apartments within communities that are rent-controlled. But rent-controlled apartments only comprise a small percent of the total rental housing market in any given city.
Why not extend rent control to encompass the entire rental market? It would mean that the rich landlords have to make do with less and the average American would have more money to spend on other goods and services, which would spread money around the economy, and allow increased savings, which leads to more investment. What are the downsides of a rent-control policy that is all-inclusive?
Why not have the government set all prices? They could tell your mechanic that an oil change must be priced at only $12. That way millions of us would get cheap oil changes.
Why do so many people insist landlords are just sitting around counting their money, doing nothing? I am a landlord, and know several others, and we work our butts off.
We already have enough regulations and codes and laws to deal with as it is. Many jurisdictions are so tenant-friendly, getting a non-paying tenant out can take months. In my area, I can't even go after tenants for destroying the property. Well, I can if I see them doing it.
Factor in taxes, insurance, repairs, upgrades, and mortgages, you have a chance of losing money. Just ask so many of the people who had to turn into landlords because they couldn't sell their houses after the bubble popped.
It ain't all sunshine and yachts. Whoever has that idea in their mind is nuts. Rent control would only make things harder and would certainly discourage further investment.
It's downright scary people in this country could possibly think like the OP.
Hey 2Jay - just because you enjoyed sleeping in a tent for two months in zuccatti park, doesn't mean the rest of us are okay living in slum like apartments. The best thing about this country - you can find places that accommodate your desires, and I can find places that accommodate mine.
NYC has the most " rent controlled" units. It depends on the size and age of the building as well as continuous occupancy going back to the 70's. As I understand it, these buildings recieve tax breaks which partially offset below market rental income.
Such units account for less than 2% of rental units in the city. A rent controlled building may be next door to a building where space is selling for $3000/ sq foot.
In some cases, rights have been passed on to subsequent generations, regardless of means.
Rent control is not the same thing as rent stabilized or other subsidized rental arrangements in the city.
While I never knew anyone who owned a building with some rent controlled units, I knew a few people who were grandfathered into rent controlled units they grew up in and they were not remotely low income.
Why do so many people insist landlords are just sitting around counting their money, doing nothing? I am a landlord, and know several others, and we work our butts off.
We already have enough regulations and codes and laws to deal with as it is. Many jurisdictions are so tenant-friendly, getting a non-paying tenant out can take months. In my area, I can't even go after tenants for destroying the property. Well, I can if I see them doing it.
Factor in taxes, insurance, repairs, upgrades, and mortgages, you have a chance of losing money. Just ask so many of the people who had to turn into landlords because they couldn't sell their houses after the bubble popped.
It ain't all sunshine and yachts. Whoever has that idea in their mind is nuts. Rent control would only make things harder and would certainly discourage further investment.
In NYC, it's unlikely all units in a building are rent- controlled which is not the same thing as rent stabilized or subsidized housing. The buildings tend to be pre WW2 and are well maintained in gentrified neighborhoods.
Before I explain my idea, I want to say that I am a democratic socialist who supports Bernie Sanders' campaign.
Right now, there are certain apartments within communities that are rent-controlled. But rent-controlled apartments only comprise a small percent of the total rental housing market in any given city.
Why not extend rent control to encompass the entire rental market? It would mean that the rich landlords have to make do with less and the average American would have more money to spend on other goods and services, which would spread money around the economy, and allow increased savings, which leads to more investment. What are the downsides of a rent-control policy that is all-inclusive?
Explain what a "Democratic Socialist" is, and why it is different from a "Marxist/socialist" ("Progressive")?
Why should rent be controlled? People who own apartment buildings or other rental properties are operating a business. They have costs which must be covered (taxes, maintenance, and other costs). As owners, they are entitled to charge what they think they need to pay the costs, and make a profit, are they not?
Additionally, there are factors that affect rental costs such as the neighborhood, proximity to shopping, beaches and many other such factors. They are entitled to charge based on these benefits.
I'll tell you what: Take half your money out of your bank account and spread it around. You'll be doing society a favor, and you can feel good about it. Do it with your own money. Not someone elses.
Maybe, if rents were not so high, people would slow down or stop their buying real estate as investments to rent out and make money on the backs of other people's poverty.
Then ALL could have a chance to be home owners like it was when the higher income earners has a usually *small percentage* of their income taxed at 90%.
"Leech class" is a crude and ignorant stereotype.
2. No, it is not "funny because it is not true.
Why do you think it is "the most broke" supporting these ideas?
No matter how much i remind people like you that the poor do not vote nearly as much as other demographics nor do they generally follow politics, "it's funny" that some selectively forget this when it fits their agenda.
Yes, for some reason the hyperbole of "the new American way" is spouted in this light by the "old American paranoid narcissists."
The "New American Way" is conceding there is too much injustice in a tax code billionaires. There is something wrong with CEOS making 1,000xs more a year than their workers (the ones they didn't fire to save money and give themselves raises.) NO CEO is worth that much!
"Hardworking Landlords??" Pu-lease!
Where are those supposed people stashed away at?? I've rented many places and also have family who have been landlords. If something breaks, they hire someone to fix it. You send them rent every month and they have to cash the checks.
"Hard work" indeed.... :roll eyes:
There is a reason it is considered "passive income."
I like to mention that once I worked two jobs so that my landlord could work zero jobs.
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.
