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.
Exactly and I don't see that as a bad thing. If anything it would incentivize the government to control more housing and create transit-friendly high-density villages. Imagine not having to own a car and you can just walk to your job. These Transit villages are popping up all over the place and I think it's going to be the wave of the future.the problem is most developers don't want to build something like that so the government has to step in and give incentives so that there are private public partnerships. I think you're going to see less landlords and more government owned housing.
That’s a very socialist view, and one that is unfortunately becoming more prevalent among leftists. I prefer capitalism, where innovative and/or hard-working people take a risk to make a profit. It’s a much better system.
Goodness, you sure remember who the Jews are around here!
As far as that verse, that says nothing about charging rent - which isn’t the same as a loan of course. And as far as lending money, I myself have lent it to friends in need, and of course did not charge them interest. (I even forgave a portion of the principal to someone having a really rough time.)
That’s not to say that a business can’t be made in which one lends money at a profit. Neither does it mean that people should not buy property and rent it out. If my grandparents, and others like them, did not purchase property consisting of modest apartments, then where would poor people live? Not everyone can buy a place.
Renters would live in Google Pods or Facebook Flats. Rent would be negligible as long as you stayed wired in 24/7 with advertisements and surveillance.
This quote right here is why the arguments that we should rely on the kindness of others to help our poor is such a horrific idea.
You’re assuming that a landlord can afford to be “kind” and let people live rent-free, month after month after month, in which he is obligated to pay the mortgage and other carrying expenses. Then the landlord becomes poor, and can’t pay his own bills. Landlords are not necessarily the evil rich that leftists think they are.
Whoever started this fire killed three people and is a murderer. Tis part seems not to get much attention in the thread.
The person who did it should face murder charges. Its not that much of a argument point among folks really. Without the conversation about eviction moratoriums this thread would have just died and been of little interest.
So while yeah, its drifted from the topic, its because the original topic wouldn't have gotten many responses. Burn folks to death for your greed, go to jail. Not a large amount of disagreement from anyone or discussion.
You’re assuming that a landlord can afford to be “kind” and let people live rent-free, month after month after month, in which he is obligated to pay the mortgage and other carrying expenses. Then the landlord becomes poor, and can’t pay his own bills. Landlords are not necessarily the evil rich that leftists think they are.
read my prior posts in this thread, you missed my point, and misinterpreted it. I'm in agreement with you on this. But I also dont think relying on folks to help people out of the goodness of their hearts is going to work, because too many dont see the value in it.
read my prior posts in this thread, you missed my point, and misinterpreted it. I'm in agreement with you on this. But I also dont think relying on folks to help people out of the goodness of their hearts is going to work, because too many dont see the value in it.
I see your point, but I really think it is expecting way too much to expect people to pay the living expenses of other people out of “the goodness of their hearts” - even if they could afford to. For a month, maybe. But after a while it becomes ridiculous, and is placing the burden on an individual landlord. So I agree that the government has to step in, but I don’t say it’s because people think there’s “no value” in being “kind.” It’s that it’s completely unfair to make some people support other individuals, especially when they had a contract in place.
That’s a very socialist view, and one that is unfortunately becoming more prevalent among leftists. I prefer capitalism, where innovative and/or hard-working people take a risk to make a profit. It’s a much better system.
The problem with that is lack of fairness. That is essentially the argument for a more inclusive, equitable system. Capitalism will always have winners and losers. Socialism "flattens the curve" so to speak
Rent-seeking deprives the country of wealth and stability, fixing some faucet doesn't change that.
If rent is your primary source of income, the bible says you are going to hell, and you are destroying this country. Those people deserve no sympathies.
On my street, a man died and left his 3 rental houses to his son to manage.
All the houses were paid off a long time ago so it is pure profit flow.
Get this, the son is known as a big party boy in the neighborhood and has never worked a day in his life.
He just collects the checks and partys the days away. He also is known for doing almost zero maintenance since it would cut into his party life style.
Of course it’s a small business. My grandmother did plenty of labor running her little apartment house. And even if not, you’re doing more than “managing funds.” You are seeking out tenants, collecting rent, making arrangements with repair and maintenance people for the jobs you can’t do yourself, keeping up with government regs, etc., et.
And we’ve told you time and time again: for lots of people, their rental income IS their main or often sole form of income. You’re just ignoring the facts you don’t like and repeating lies - all because you care only about SOME people (renters) and not others (people who own a small property and rent it out for income).
As I said upthread, for my grandparents, the rent on their little apartment building during the Depression was their ONLY source of income. My grandfather occasionally picked up a day job, but he had no regular position. About 95% of their income came from the rentals.
P.S. If just ONE family couldn’t pay their $35 rent one month, my mother’s family ate very little that month.
My grandparents, who lived through both world wars, the Great Depression and the Spanish flu, bought two very small houses as rentals next to their home. My grandpa was one these handyman types who could fix anything. One time, the sewer backed up so he had to trench the yard by hand. I “helped” until it started to smell. Being a small landlord is work unless you want to see your profits eaten up by repair expenses. It helped them to set aside funds for their retirement as he had no pension and there were no IRAs at the time.
Exactly. I don’t see what Winterfall had to bring the Bible into this. I notice that with leftists - they often throw in what the Bible says, or what Jesus says, into a debate in which it is irrelevant. I think it’s due to their animosity toward religious people.
It's about Hypocrisy.
Conservatives will destroy this country for international finance.
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.
