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.
Instead of paying people's bloated rents via tax rebates, why not just do nationwide rent increase protection? By this, I mean, limit rent increases to that of inflation for as long as the renter is staying - this would apply to business rents as well. This would protect renters in rapidly growing areas where rents are increasing far faster than inflation and/or wages. My friend in Canada has this protection - his rent would be at least 50% higher if he didn't have that, and it's proven to be a huge lifesaver for him.
As for creating shortages, I'd rather keep rents low for those who were there first, rather than making everyone suffer just because a bunch of tech companies moved into town. No place to rent? Oh well, go live somewhere else...lol.
Subsidies are a gravy train that will help fatten any population. I very much doubt the the US will run out of food without subsidies.
Cost does impact on how much a product is consumed or used.
for heaven's sake, this still has nothing to do with obesity. You are ducking the issue but I know you will not admit it, so we can just let it go. Did anyone say we would run out of food without subsidies? Of course we didn't. So you are not crazy over how our country runs things, that is your choice, but this still has nothing to do with how many people here or in other countries are over weight!!!
They would sell to other farmers, so what's the problem?
Joe, you do not live here: If you did you would better understand. Do you even understand that no, other farmers would not purchase the land. without the subsidies the average farmer can not always make ends meet. If they produce much less, as you seem to think they should the price of their products would go over the top and the average American could not afford to buy what they are selling.
No, they would sell to developers who would put master planned communities with thousands of homes on it instead.
Are you saying that America has so much population pressure, that all farms are only a subsidy away from being a suburb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
Joe, you do not live here: If you did you would better understand. Do you even understand that no, other farmers would not purchase the land. without the subsidies the average farmer can not always make ends meet. If they produce much less, as you seem to think they should the price of their products would go over the top and the average American could not afford to buy what they are selling.
This sounds like a reverse supply and demand argument -where prices go up, and in response, supply drops -perhaps the subsidy gravy train, is helping keeping land prices inflated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
for heaven's sake, this still has nothing to do with obesity. You are ducking the issue but I know you will not admit it, so we can just let it go. Did anyone say we would run out of food without subsidies? Of course we didn't. So you are not crazy over how our country runs things, that is your choice, but this still has nothing to do with how many people here or in other countries are over weight!!!
Cheap food due to overproduction has no impact on obesity? -does that mean if the price of food doubled, that there would be no impact on obesity rates?
Why are children subsidized??? I don't think people who consume more in government services should get a tax break for creating more of the same? Parents should pay MORE in taxes until their kids can earn enough to pay their own.
Instead of paying people's bloated rents via tax rebates, why not just do nationwide rent increase protection? By this, I mean, limit rent increases to that of inflation for as long as the renter is staying - this would apply to business rents as well.
If people can't afford to live there, then they need to relocate. It's not rocket science and it doesn't require the involvement of government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
In capitalism, they say when demand is high, then suppliers will provide.
You ignore the caveats.
Supply cannot increase if there are no resources.
When the land in a township, city or county is consumed, there is no way to build additional housing without destroying existing housing.
There is often a time lag of weeks, months or even years to increase Supply to meet Demand, and prices still rise.
The rate of increase of Supply is often less than the rate of increase of Demand, which still results in price increases.
The cost to increase Supply may result in losses, so it's necessary to wait until prices rise high enough to operate at a break-even point, and then for prices to rise even higher to make a profit of only a few percent.
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.
Seriously?
