NationStates

Grenartia wrote:The entire "profession" of landlordery (I don't care if that's not a word, it is now) is an undeniable and unjustifiable drain on the working class. Landlords should not exist, and any society that does not consider housing a basic human right is doomed to failure.

Well, the mortgage and maintenance isn't going to pay itself. If a landlord can't pay their mortgage or other costs, they have to sell back to the bank or take a loss and lose the property in the process if they can't get more tenants or some means of income. It isn't the structure that has most of the value, but rather the plot of land the dwelling sits on top of. Land is inherently finite in quantity and so, people are always going to bid up the price for it if they want to live in that location.

If someone can't afford it, chances are someone else can. So the bias is towards it appreciating in value over the long term. But its also possible for land to lose value such as if the local economy there dies and more people move away than move in or if the sea level rise makes remaining there untenable.

Here's the issue that all of you who are suggesting that landlords are immoral have to deal with: in the US system, there can only be three outcomes: you own the home, the bank owns the home, or the landlord owns the home. If you get all of the anti-landlord legislation passed, than the landlord will either sell the house to a foreign investor or a slum lord, or declare bankruptcy and have the bank take it.

The bank doesn't care about you, unless you're a preferred investor, which, most renters, aren't. The bank is going to hire a property manager who'll maximize profits, meaning that said manager won't care about the investment, the state of the apartment building. The bank wants to get rid of the apartment building, and seek maximum value in the meantime, so it's not going to replace stuff, unless the situation's truly dire.

And even if you kick out the landlord and the bank, most renters in America aren't educated to deal with everything that could go wrong with the property, don't have a background in insurance laws, don't understand how to deal with slip and falls, and will most likely be charged to the max by repair crews. And that's not even taking into consideration the sheer amount of regulatory laws that Democrats in California love passing.

Furthermore, who's going to pay to deal with a rat infestation on the first floor of the apartment building? Is everyone coming together? What if you have someone with a contagious disease that infects everyone? Welcome to US Healthcare and its billing system. And I'm just getting started.

America needs landlords, and if landlords don't make at least a 10% ROI, they aren't going to be good landlords. If I can't make the minimum ROI I make, why would I keep the investment? BTW, I'm not a landlord, I was thinking of being one, but then Proposition 15 was placed on the ballot. Now California gets $0 in investment from me.

The reason I'm saying that we need a rent and mortgage freeze, isn't because I love giving away three shit. I don't. I've had it with freeloaders and scam artists. It's because of the pandemic, the levels of potential homelessness are several times the norm, and that's before hitting the nadir. Think we have too many homeless now? In January of 2018, we had half a million. In the worst case scenario, we could have two hundred times that number.

And that's why I'm annoyed with politicians on both sides of the aisle, especially when the solution is so fucking simple:

Step 1: Rent and mortgage freeze extension
Step 2: Allow landlords who are affected by it to deduct it from their property taxes, and their federal income taxes

Such toughness, much wow. And any Congressperson who doesn't understand this, is either an idiot, sucks corporate cock so hard that he/she is blind, or hates America. And I'm saying this as someone who won't even benefit from the program, because it's the only sane thing to do. Let me repeat that: it is the only sane solution. If you see a train coming, get off the tracks.

And for all you Romney/Lincoln Project supporters, read the Romney Trust Act, and realize something: amidst COVID-19 pandemic and massive unemployment, they want to destroy your Social Security. Those are their true colors. Who am I supporting? At this point, anyone who's honest and sane. Not these bozos: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/ ... rus-relief

Social Security advocates who breathed a sigh of relief when Senate Republicans rejected President Trump’s demand to place a payroll cut in the latest coronavirus relief bill exhaled too soon. The version unveiled Monday by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) incorporates a provision even more menacing for Social Security (and Medicare too). This is the so-called TRUST Act, which was crafted by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and has been bubbling along in Capitol Hill corridors since last year.

The TRUST Act is a device to tamper with Social Security behind closed doors and in a way that would allow senators and members of Congress to wreak havoc on the program without leaving fingerprints. The TRUST Act is now a provision of the HEALS Act — the Senate GOP’s opening bid on coronavirus relief. So it’s timely to give it a close look. We’ll start by pointing out that Social Security advocates are universally opposed to the measure, which they see, correctly, as an expression of longtime conservative hostility to the program.

“In the midst of a catastrophic pandemic,” says Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, Republicans “should be focused on protecting seniors, essential workers, and the unemployed. Instead, they are plotting to use the cover of the pandemic to slash Social Security.” The TRUST Act — the acronym stands portentously for “Time to Rescue United States’ Trusts” — would work by ginning up a sense of near-term emergency about the finances of Social Security, Medicare and the federal highway trust fund.

Translation for those who don't speak Romney bullshit: Medicare Fund expires in four years. Social Security has at least a decade of life left, if not more. By tying the two together, they can kill Social Security under the presidency of either Trump or Biden, walk away, and you won't even know which politicians did it. But remember, Romney cast a meaningless vote to impeach Trump, so donate your Social Security to Romney's umpteenth Middle Eastern War, and if you don't, he'll try to take it through lobbying. Amidst the fucking depression and pandemic.

San Lumen wrote:

Torisakia wrote:I secretly hope I get affected by this simply because if I'm homeless and have no official address I can use that as my excuse for not voting and it actually being something I can do nothing about.

That's why Republicans are doing this. If you have no official address you can't vote

I don’t like the GOP-at all-but that’s not true.

Saiwania wrote:

Grenartia wrote:The entire "profession" of landlordery (I don't care if that's not a word, it is now) is an undeniable and unjustifiable drain on the working class. Landlords should not exist, and any society that does not consider housing a basic human right is doomed to failure.

Well, the mortgage and maintenance isn't going to pay itself. If a landlord can't pay their mortgage or other costs, they have to sell back to the bank or take a loss and lose the property in the process if they can't get more tenants or some means of income. It isn't the structure that has most of the value, but rather the plot of land the dwelling sits on top of. Land is inherently finite in quantity and so, people are always going to bid up the price for it if they want to live in that location.

If someone can't afford it, chances are someone else can. So the bias is towards it appreciating in value over the long term. But its also possible for land to lose value such as if the local economy there dies and more people move away than move in or if the sea level rise makes remaining there untenable.

The same can be said of the landlord. If he can't afford it, someone else can.

Obviously there should be a moratorium on charging rent or mortgage for the duration of the pandemic plus some economic recovery time (I think a year is good). No one should be at risk of losing their housing (whether by rent or by own), or be liable for any of the rent or mortgage that would have normally been collected during the moratorium (the banks will just have to absorb the loss). We should also be guaranteeing a UBI of $2000 a month to everyone above the age of 18 (or 16 if we lower the voting age to 16), and $1000 a month to everyone below the age of 18 - with the money given to their parents/guardians, for the duration of the pandemic plus some economic recover time (I think 3-4 months is good).

The government can afford this as they can just spend money into existence, and while this would normally cause massive inflation that is only the case in an economy that is operating at near capacity, which we are not given the unemployment rate, the current inflation rate (we are actually headed towards deflation in the U.S.), the high rate of disposed and unused goods and services, etc... We can therefore spend money, without raising taxes and without borrowing. If we refuse to spend the money into existence, we technically still have the credit needed to borrow (we are no where near a debt breaking point, if that point can even be reached with a fiat currency that is also a reserve currency), and we can always raise taxes on corporations, wealth, high incomes, and capital (which would also reduce inflation if we were to spend money into existence).

---

However, the housing crisis has been here for a while, and it has only been getting worse, I've long been in favor of the following policies:

1. Guarantee, rent-free or low-rent, quality public/social housing to every single citizen or non-citizen resident who applies without any exceptions.
2. Enact national rent-control and expand tenant rights and protections.
3. Create and subsidize housing cooperatives, community land trusts, and non-profit community development corporations (to build more affordable and quality housing).
4. Enact a vacant housing tax to force people with unused excess housing to affordably rent it out or sell (meaning the tax needs to be high enough that even if renting or selling the property would be a loss, it would still be better than paying the tax, and ideally they would need to set the rate to be affordable enough to find tenants or buyers).
5. Set up regulations that make it easier to get affordable mortgages and to refinance mortgages (always in favor of the borrower and never in favor of the lender).
6. Etc...

The Black Forrest wrote:The same can be said of the landlord. If he can't afford it, someone else can.

Not necessarily, it depends heavily on the market.

Vetalia wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:The same can be said of the landlord. If he can't afford it, someone else can.

Not necessarily, it depends heavily on the market.

Unless it's in an abandoned wasteland, it's always possible to sell by dropping the price far enough. Greed and Death will help you out.

Grenartia wrote:The entire "profession" of landlordery (I don't care if that's not a word, it is now) is an undeniable and unjustifiable drain on the working class. Landlords should not exist, and any society that does not consider housing a basic human right is doomed to failure.

I don't think that landlordery is a word, but landlording is a word.

I agree that landlords should not exist, however I am sympathetic to people who live in their homes and rent out part of the home to cover some of the bills, as I know many of these people and they do so because of sudden loss of income from developing disabilities or losing a loved one and their income.

As many socialists have said: profit, interest, and rent are all theft, if someone did not produce the value from their own labor then someone else produced that value and they took it.

Billionaires and landlords both should not exist.

Mirjt wrote:I agree that landlords should not exist, however I am sympathetic to people who live in their homes and rent out part of the home to cover some of the bills, as I know many of these people and they do so because of sudden loss of income from developing disabilities or losing a loved one and their income.

Consorting with land-hoarding bourgeoisie is noted, Comrade. We'll discuss this later!

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Mirjt wrote:I agree that landlords should not exist, however I am sympathetic to people who live in their homes and rent out part of the home to cover some of the bills, as I know many of these people and they do so because of sudden loss of income from developing disabilities or losing a loved one and their income.

Consorting with land-hoarding bourgeoisie is noted, Comrade. We'll discuss this later!

As I mentioned the individuals I know who do so typically only rent out a floor or large room (such as the master bedroom) because they would lose their homes without some financial help, because they loss the income they needed to pay their mortgages, and the specific individuals I know loss their incomes because they suddenly lost a loved one or developed a disability. If I had my way they would own their the home they lived in, and both them and their tenants would have their own housing and no one would be a landlord.

P.S. The one that comes to mind right now, is a family that was friends with my family, when I was young (our families were active friends from about when I was 9 years old to around 17 years old). Their father died only a few months before my father died. My family relied on life insurance, my father's pension, and social security. Their family did not have a pension or any helpful life insurance, so the mother rented out the lower level of their split-level home and the master bedroom of their home to avoid losing their house, with the family living in the living room and a sunroom, and the kitchen was shared among all the tenants living there. I do agree that it is unjust that they collected that rent in the first place, I am just saying I am sympathetic to their situation (and I have met a few other people in similar situations, though I was never really friends with them).

Stimulus checks of 1200 dollars might be great in rural area's but in a city like San Francisco, where I live, worthless sometimes. I think the government should pay part's of the salaries of people to encourage people to stay home; allowing people to stay home and slowing down some evictions. Hell, even if they pay, 50%, it'd be a good idea. The british have done it and, while they have there own mishandling problems, it's better then here.

Seems the US will just have to expand its section 8 program. Rent control is another possibility. But rent control should be controlled locally by cities. In these modern times, many investment funds are investing in housing/building complexes since high rents = plenty of profit. Yes, its a racket for making lots of money. People who want a low affordable rent usually have to live in a dump or at an out of the way town with few job opportunities.

This on the Section 8 program - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)

Hunzali wrote:Stimulus checks of 1200 dollars might be great in rural area's but in a city like San Francisco, where I live, worthless sometimes. I think the government should pay part's of the salaries of people to encourage people to stay home; allowing people to stay home and slowing down some evictions. Hell, even if they pay, 50%, it'd be a good idea. The british have done it and, while they have there own mishandling problems, it's better then here.

Good luck getting republicans to agree to that

San Lumen wrote:

Hunzali wrote:Stimulus checks of 1200 dollars might be great in rural area's but in a city like San Francisco, where I live, worthless sometimes. I think the government should pay part's of the salaries of people to encourage people to stay home; allowing people to stay home and slowing down some evictions. Hell, even if they pay, 50%, it'd be a good idea. The british have done it and, while they have there own mishandling problems, it's better then here.

Good luck getting republicans to agree to that

We need a larger stimulus check than that, and if the Republicans (or Democrats - like Nancy Pelosi who refused Bernie's more generous plan a few times before adopting some of its elements) refuse, then they are consigning their constituents to death.

Mirjt wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Good luck getting republicans to agree to that

We need a larger stimulus check than that, and if the Republicans or Democrats refuse, then they are consigning their constituents to death.

Just the urban (ie Democratic) constituents.

Rio Cana wrote:Seems the US will just have to expand its section 8 program. Rent control is another possibility. But rent control should be controlled locally by cities. In these modern times, many investment funds are investing in housing/building complexes since high rents = plenty of profit. Yes, its a racket for making lots of money. People who want a low affordable rent usually have to live in a dump or at an out of the way town with few job opportunities.

This on the Section 8 program - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)

I am not certain the federal government has power for national rent control.

Mirjt wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Good luck getting republicans to agree to that

We need a larger stimulus check than that, and if the Republicans or Democrats refuse, then they are consigning their constituents to death.

It’s republicans that are. They simply don’t care. I And others were warning for awhile much of this was not thought through and unless a different way forward was implemented the impact would be worse then the pandemic itself. That’s where we are. We are nearing a point where the Great Depression will look like good times

San Lumen wrote:

Mirjt wrote:
We need a larger stimulus check than that, and if the Republicans or Democrats refuse, then they are consigning their constituents to death.

It’s republicans that are. They simply don’t care. I And others were warning for awhile much of this was not thought through and unless a different way forward was implemented the impact would be worse then the pandemic itself. That’s where we are. We are nearing a point where the Great Depression will look like good times

You think the Democrats are any better Lumen?

Greed and Death wrote:

Mirjt wrote:
We need a larger stimulus check than that, and if the Republicans or Democrats refuse, then they are consigning their constituents to death.

Just the urban (ie Democratic) constituents.

Do you think that no Republicans live in urban cities?

Why is it considered okay for people to die based on their political affiliation?

Aren't politicians in theory supposed to look out for their constituents regardless of the politicians political leanings or that of their constituents?

Don't rural and suburban areas need help too?

Urban areas (and blue states) actually give more to the Federal government than get back on average, while rural areas (and red states) get back far more than that put in, meaning they are living off the taxes the urban areas pay.

Genivaria wrote:

San Lumen wrote:It’s republicans that are. They simply don’t care. I And others were warning for awhile much of this was not thought through and unless a different way forward was implemented the impact would be worse then the pandemic itself. That’s where we are. We are nearing a point where the Great Depression will look like good times

You think the Democrats are any better Lumen?

At least some don’t want to see another Depression

Greed and Death wrote:

Rio Cana wrote:Seems the US will just have to expand its section 8 program. Rent control is another possibility. But rent control should be controlled locally by cities. In these modern times, many investment funds are investing in housing/building complexes since high rents = plenty of profit. Yes, its a racket for making lots of money. People who want a low affordable rent usually have to live in a dump or at an out of the way town with few job opportunities.

This on the Section 8 program - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)

I am not certain the federal government has power for national rent control.

Yes, the federal government does have the power for a National Rent Control, I believe the power to do so would fall under the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.

San Lumen wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You think the Democrats are any better Lumen?

At least some don’t want to see another Depression

Sure, there are some, but they're a small minority which have been sidelined by Biden, Pelosi, and the DNC.

Mirjt wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
I am not certain the federal government has power for national rent control.

Yes, the federal government does have the power for a National Rent Control, I believe the power to do so would fall under the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.

Republicans would never agree to it

Luziyca wrote:

San Lumen wrote:At least some don’t want to see another Depression

Sure, there are some, but they're a small minority which have been sidelined by Biden, Pelosi, and the DNC.

Can we stop with the DNC bashing? It’s quite tiresome. It’s mainly republicans fault and state executives not thinking through their shutdown plans

San Lumen wrote:

Mirjt wrote:
Yes, the federal government does have the power for a National Rent Control, I believe the power to do so would fall under the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.

Republicans would never agree to it

Neither would the Democrats, it's too progressive...too...socialist.