Who should be able to buy houses?

[-Ra-]

Yes. That’s why this question is silly. Who should be able to buy pineapples? Cars? It’s the same answer. People with the means to.

What means are required to buy a house? Can they be provided to those who otherwise lack them? Can the requirements be changed in some way?

The means that are required to buy the house is the price of the house, or more specifically the terms of the mortgage (down payment + scheduled payments unless you buy outright). If you can afford those means you can buy a house. If you can’t, there are other options available to you, such as renting, living with someone else, or, if you can really demonstrate need, rely on government housing. Mind you the question is about buying houses.

Should housing even continue to be a thing which we buy and sell?

I don’t see why not.

[Sundiata]

Governments should already be providing everyone a home, or at least guaranteeing everyone a place to live.

[Grenartia]

Should housing even continue to be a thing which we buy and sell?

I don’t see why not.

I don't see why we should.

[Ifreann]

What means are required to buy a house? Can they be provided to those who otherwise lack them? Can the requirements be changed in some way?

The means that are required to buy the house is the price of the house, or more specifically the terms of the mortgage (down payment + scheduled payments unless you buy outright). If you can afford those means you can buy a house. If you can’t, there are other options available to you, such as renting, living with someone else, or, if you can really demonstrate need, rely on government housing. Mind you the question is about buying houses.

Why should people have to rent if they can't afford to buy? Sounds like a poverty trap to me. People who can't afford a house lost a third of their income to someone or some company that can afford many houses.

Should housing even continue to be a thing which we buy and sell?

I don’t see why not.

Well it isn't really working out for us.

[-Ra-]

Why should people have to rent if they can't afford to buy? Sounds like a poverty trap to me. People who can't afford a house lost a third of their income to someone or some company that can afford many houses.

That’s not my problem. Everyone has the right to minimally decent living standards. This includes access to food and water as well as protection from the elements that is sufficient for sustaining life. That’s the bedrock. Your standing and luxury from that point depends on how much money you are willing and able to expend.

Well it isn't really working out for us.

Who is us? It’s working just fine for me, and even when it doesn’t come out swell I don’t always see fit to complain.

[Pasong Tirad]

Free housing or bust tbh.

This. The housing market is the problem.

[Ifreann]

Why should people have to rent if they can't afford to buy? Sounds like a poverty trap to me. People who can't afford a house lost a third of their income to someone or some company that can afford many houses.

That’s not my problem.

Of course not, but this is a debate and discussion forum.

Everyone has the right to minimally decent living standards. This includes access to food and water as well as protection from the elements that is sufficient for sustaining life. That’s the bedrock. Your standing and luxury from that point depends on how much money you are willing and able to expend.

I don't think we can say that someone really has a right to a thing if they will have it taken from them if they fail to make the rent payments. If people actually had the right to a home, regardless of ability to pay, then the rental market would largely collapse. If I could get a house for free, why would I ever pay rent? And if I had the money to get a nicer house, why would I rent it when, having money, I could get a mortgage and buy it?

Well it isn't really working out for us.

Who is us? It’s working just fine for me, and even when it doesn’t come out swell I don’t always see fit to complain.

Us is society in general. Homelessness and unending housing crises are a burden on all of us, except landlords.

[The Holy Therns]

Ifreann. Ifreann should be able to buy houses.

[Page]

Anyone should be able to claim a house for them and their family to live in, no one should ever be able to own housing for personal profit.

[Ifreann]

Ifreann. Ifreann should be able to buy houses.

I will be a fair and benevolent provider of housing, unless it seems like it would be more fun to be a capricious tyrant.

[-Ra-]

I don't think we can say that someone really has a right to a thing if they will have it taken from them if they fail to make the rent payments.

You have the right to minimal living conditions, not the right to rent a property. If you do not have the money to make rent payments, then you must find domicile elsewhere, either with family, friends or, if you can prove that you absolutely do not have the means, with the government, at least until you can prove yourself financial stable enough to rent out a property like everyone else.

If people actually had the right to a home, regardless of ability to pay, then the rental market would largely collapse.

You don't have a right to a home. You have a right to shelter that provides you water, food and protection from the elements in so much as it sustains your life. These are two different things. A right to housing is different from a right to a home.

If I could get a house for free, why would I ever pay rent?

You're not going to get a house for free.

And if I had the money to get a nicer house, why would I rent it when, having money, I could get a mortgage and buy it?

Why would you? I don't understand what your point is here.

Us is society in general. Homelessness and unending housing crises are a burden on all of us, except landlords.

If you are using the housing crisis as an example of capitalist or landlord excess, then you are sorely mistaken. The spike in housing costs over the past thirty so years can be almost entirely attributed to government intervention in the housing market, most notably the enacting of restrictive zoning laws that ban anything other than single-family housing, minimum lot sizes, minimum parking space, as well as a rampant culture of NIMBYism. The solution here is to lift these restrictions and build more houses, not to chastise landlords.

[Ifreann]

I don't think we can say that someone really has a right to a thing if they will have it taken from them if they fail to make the rent payments.

You have the right to minimal living conditions, not the right to rent a property. If you do not have the money to make rent payments, then you must find domicile elsewhere, either with family, friends or, if you can prove that you absolutely do not have the means, with the government, at least until you can prove yourself financial stable enough to rent out a property like everyone else.

It's a strange kind of right that is presumptively denied to people unless they can prove to the satisfaction of some faceless bureaucracy that they cannot access it.

If people actually had the right to a home, regardless of ability to pay, then the rental market would largely collapse.

You don't have a right to a home. You have a right to shelter that provides you water, food and protection from the elements in so much as it sustains your life. These are two different things. A right to housing is different from a right to a home.

If I could get a house for free, why would I ever pay rent?

You're not going to get a house for free.

And if I had the money to get a nicer house, why would I rent it when, having money, I could get a mortgage and buy it?

Why would you? I don't understand what your point is here.

Ah, so the game here is to house people in need in deliberately miserable conditions so as to incentivise them to part with their money.

Us is society in general. Homelessness and unending housing crises are a burden on all of us, except landlords.

If you are using the housing crisis as an example of capitalist or landlord excess, then you are sorely mistaken. The spike in housing costs over the past thirty so years can be almost entirely attributed to government intervention in the housing market, most notably the enacting of restrictive zoning laws that ban anything other than single-family housing, minimum lot sizes, minimum parking space, as well as a rampant culture of NIMBYism. The solution here is to lift these restrictions and build more houses, not to chastise landlords.

The reason we having housing crises and homelessness is that we have a housing market, not that the invisible hand of the market is being restrained by the government.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Anyone who owns all the properties in a set.

[Galloism]

The reason we having housing crises and homelessness is that we have a housing market, not that the invisible hand of the market is being restrained by the government.

So, what if it's both.

We used to, when I was young, have something called "shotgun houses".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_house

They were cheap, sat on very little land, and had sufficient amenities to live. Basically, they were built for young single people or young couples starting out. It wasn't the best home ever, but it was heated, cooled, provided shelter and safety, and, perhaps most importantly, helped the young person/couple build equity so they could then move into a larger home. They then could sell their shotgun house to another single person/couple who was just starting out.

Zoning regulations have basically killed shotgun houses. As a result, what used to be able to be gotten into with 2-3 months pay now takes years worth of savings. Sure, the houses people eventually get is nicer, but they wind up paying years worth of rent to landlords that's just lost. Those landlords were the ones building equity - not them.

[-Ra-]

It's a strange kind of right that is presumptively denied to people unless they can prove to the satisfaction of some faceless bureaucracy that they cannot access it.

Government housing is provided to people on the basis that their financial situation precludes them from buying or renting a house, and that they have no place else to stay. If you can either (a) rent a house, (b) buy a house or (c) stay with someone else dependably, then there is no reason for you to beseech the bureaucracy for housing.

Ah, so the game here is to house people in need in deliberately miserable conditions so as to incentivise them to part with their money.

The game is to give people the freedom to expend their money in such a manner as they desire, knowing that is not my responsibility to bail them out or lend them a hand if they act foolishly, unless their very lives are threatened.

The reason we having housing crises and homelessness is that we have a housing market, not that the invisible hand of the market is being restrained by the government.

I'm not going to argue basic facts with you. Housing being a commodity is not the root of homelessness or the housing crisis. The Soviet Union had homeless, and housing there was not a commodity. The housing crisis is the result of exorbitant government interference in the economy in manners I described hereabove. Homelessness is the result of many things, among them being a lack of government housing infrastructure, drugs, societal alienation, financial folly, etc. People rarely go homeless for the sole reason that housing is too expensive. There are almost always other extraneous factors.

[Ifreann]

I'm not going to argue basic facts with you.

Fair enough.

[-Ra-]

I'm not going to argue basic facts with you.

Fair enough.

Not the own you think it is lol.

[Muboshi]

People who are able to pay for their house should buy a house. Don't buy a house if you know your running out of money. The best way to know if your running out of money or not is by doing Sinking funds. Basically, you in charge of your money, and you have a record sheet of how much you have in a certain category.

To learn more watch this lady she's good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1aeNI4_thE

[Forsher]

Fair enough.

Not the own you think it is lol.

Your posts in this thread have been balls to the wall insane.

You do not believe housing (not a house, housing) is a right so stop saying that you do. You do not even view it as a social safety net. You view it as a privilege and expressly argue against any mechanism which would enable housing to be provided "as a right".

Own your piece of shit beliefs and stop telling people it's raining when you're pissing on them.

[-Ra-]

Your posts in this thread have been balls to the wall insane.

You do not believe housing (not a house, housing) is a right so stop fucking saying that you do. You do not even view it as a social safety net. You view it as a privilege and expressly argue against any mechanism which would enable housing to be provided "as a right".

Own your piece of shit beliefs and stop telling people it's raining when you're pissing on them.

I do believe housing is a right, in the sense that people are entitled to shelter from the elements as a necessary condition to human survival. I do not believe the right to own a home exists. That's the difference. Nor do I believe anyone has the obligation to furnish you with housing unless you can prove that you are absolutely unable to, in which case it's the government's responsibility.

Try again.

[Forsher]

Your posts in this thread have been balls to the wall insane.

You do not believe housing (not a house, housing) is a right so stop fucking saying that you do. You do not even view it as a social safety net. You view it as a privilege and expressly argue against any mechanism which would enable housing to be provided "as a right".

Own your piece of shit beliefs and stop telling people it's raining when you're pissing on them.

I do believe housing is a right, in the sense that people are entitled to shelter from the elements as a necessary condition to human survival. I do not believe the right to own a home exists. That's the difference. Nor do I believe anyone has the obligation to furnish you with housing unless you can prove that you are absolutely unable to, in which case it's the government's responsibility.

Try again.

See, you've done it again.

You use "housing" in an entirely standard use... immediately after trying to conflate it with (in a post that very deliberately pointed out the difference) "a home".

Stop lying.

[-Ra-]

See, you've done it again.

You use "housing" in an entirely standard use... immediately after trying to conflate it with (in a post that very deliberately pointed out the difference) "a home".

Stop lying.

"Housing" is not "owning a home". Housing means sheltering. If I house two runaways in my home, it means I am sheltering them from whoever is after them. It does not mean that, by housing them, they own my home.

You have a right to your property inasmuch as you already own it. That right presupposes material ownership; it does not precede it. In the same vein, you are entitled to minimal living standards necessary to sustain your life. If you can demonstrate that you are financially unable to buy or rent or find a home, then the government should provide temporary accommodation for you until you are able to develop the financial means to stake out home ownership on your own. This isn't rocket science.

[Forsher]

"Housing" is not "owning a home"

.

Literally what I just said. TWICE. I was complaining about your failure to recognise this distinction... "immediately after trying to conflate it".

Do you... not know what the word conflate means????

Housing means sheltering.

Hence:

1. You do not believe housing (not a house, housing
2. You use "housing" in an entirely standard use

You're one of the singularly most dishonest posters on this forum. Which, frankly, is a high bar to clear.

[-Ra-]

"Housing" is not "owning a home"

.

Literally what I just said. TWICE. I was complaining about your failure to recognise this distinction... "immediately after trying to conflate it".

Do you... not know what the word conflate means????

Housing means sheltering.

Hence:

1. You do not believe housing (not a house, housing
2. You use "housing" in an entirely standard use

You're one of the singularly most dishonest posters on this forum. Which, frankly, is a high bar to clear.

Sorry, I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I never conflated housing and owning a house. These have always been two separate thing. One is a right and the other one isn’t. That’s been my point this whole time.

[Forsher]

You have a right to your property inasmuch as you already own it.

This is property rights. It has fuck all to do with housing (or even real estate) except insofar as real estate, housing stock and so on are ownable things.

That right presupposes material ownership; it does not precede it.

It is not a right to housing... it may not even be a "right" at all in the sense that property rights are just an entitlement to have private property.

In the same vein, you are entitled to minimal living standards necessary to sustain your life.

No, not at all. You're now talking about something completely different that is wholly unrelated to what you've started with.

Let's put this in terms you might understand... you started by talking about evolution and have now switched to relativity.

If you can demonstrate that you are financially unable to buy or rent or find a home, then the government should provide temporary accommodation for you until you are able to develop the financial means to stake out home ownership on your own

That isn't what a "right" is. That's what an entitlement is. They're not the same thing (pro-tip, if people use different words, then it's usually a sign they're talking about something different... and definitely a sign you can't presume they're the same thing).

If you have a right to housing, you cannot qualify out of that right. If you can, it is not a right.

This isn't rocket science.

Given how you abuse the English language, no-one knows what you think rocket science actually means.