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.
What Leftists like the woman you quoted don't understand due to ignorance of both economics, and human character is that nobody would invest their hard earned money into something that doesn't have the potential to offer a good return on that investment. Why take the risk? If enough people think that way the economy and our lives will grind to a halt.
Then a lot of banks and foriegn and domestic investors would not buy up a lot of houses as cash cows.
Which would create a glut of houses on the market and put downward pressure on housing costs.
It would make housing more affordable for the lower and middle class.
We would be rigging the housing market in favor of homeowners instead of rigging it in favor of the money changers.
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.
So you want Government owned and managed "Transit Villages". I now firmly believe you are feigning being a Leftist and are just purposely posting stuff to make the Left look even worse. You are succeeding.
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
Capitalism rewards those who are intelligent, motivated, disciplined, and hard-working. And that’s a good thing. It provides an incentive for those who want to better themselves. If everyone is being made “equal”, or closer to it, then it is a disincentive to both the people who are poorer AND the people who would otherwise work and sacrifice to improve their situation.
Let’s say that a teacher, in the interest of “flattening the curve,” announces there will be a new system in which there are no “winners” (A students) or “losers” (D students). Instead, everyone will get a B. But by working really hard, one can get a B+. OTOH, no matter how poorly one does, he is guaranteed a B-, at worst.
What happens? Why should the A students skip the concert or the after-school game to study when the most they can get is a B+, knowing that the goof-offs will end up with no worse than a B-? Conversely, the D students won’t even TRY to study because they know that they will get a B- anyway.
They don't live in that house (the landlord), they don't have to worry about losing their HOME.
A home is a place you live. A house or apartment that you never live in is not your home, no matter if you control the deed.
These landlords want to kick out hungry tenants in the middle of winter, they will freeze. If they had friends and family who could help they would go to them.
It costs nothing to allow someone to live in a place you don't occupy, and kicking them out because they can't make a monthly payment, or yearly rent, means you are more concerned about money than there well being.
Is everything about wealth to you people, is that why you want our country to be abolished in favor of multinational corporations controlling everything?
Good grief. If you need the rental income to pay your own mortgage you certainly could lose your home. It certainly does cost to allow someone to live in property you do not occupy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
So, what happens then with all the insurance premiums this person has paid over the years? Does the insurance company just get to keep it free and clear? LOL
Yes, just as it does if you never have to make a claim for any reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
How is renting a small business? There is no labor involved, you are just managing funds.
Rent is never the primary source of income. It is supplemental.
Plenty of people manage their rentals as their only source of income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
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.
Why does it matter whether rentals are the only source of income?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Nothing, because homes are not bought, they are passed down through inheritance.
No new homes are ever built? What happens when the kids inherit? All of them live in the same house? Then all their kids? No one rents homes in Iran?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
The Old testament, the one you follow:
"The Old Testament "condemns the practice of charging interest on a poor person because a loan should be an act of compassion and taking care of one's neighbor"; it teaches that "making a profit off a loan from a poor person is exploiting that person (Exodus 22:25–27)."
Then a lot of banks and foriegn and domestic investors would not buy up a lot of houses as cash cows.
Which would create a glut of houses on the market and put downward pressure on housing costs.
It would make housing more affordable for the lower and middle class.
We would be rigging the housing market in favor of homeowners instead of rigging it in favor of the money changers.
Sounds like a win to me.
Rigged markets DON'T WORK. The current market is not rigged for the banks. It is simple supply and demand and building is BOOMING in most markets because of it to add supply. When there is a glut, and there will be, then unit prices will come down. Let the market work.
The tenants are living in homes, homes the Landlords don't occupy.
And yet they think it's right to kick them out in the middle of winter because of a lack of payment.
These are demented libertarians, not conservatives.
So what does the fact that they don’t occupy the homes have to do with anything? These landlords still have to pay the mortgage and carrying costs on the rental property. Why should the landlords drive themselves toward bankruptcy by letting people live free in their homes, month after month after month after month?
If the government had this ridiculous system in place during the Depression, in which poor landlords had to support not only themselves but other families as well, my grandparents would have been forced into a Hooverville. Why is your compassion only for renters and not landlords? They need that income or they themselves will lose their home! I don’t get why you can’t comprehend this.
Then a lot of banks and foriegn and domestic investors would not buy up a lot of houses as cash cows.
Which would create a glut of houses on the market and put downward pressure on housing costs.
It would make housing more affordable for the lower and middle class.
We would be rigging the housing market in favor of homeowners instead of rigging it in favor of the money changers.
Sounds like a win to me.
What in the world is a money changer? We are talking about landlords who rent out their properties.
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.
