1259
Yup
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
1259 points (94.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
5873 readers
1144 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Of all the anti-landlord arguments this has to be one of the dumbest. Of course a person is going to try to protect their income. I'm not a landlord but I'm not going to let anyone jeopardize my job.
How is it a dumb argument? The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good, that's a problem with the system.
And? Do you donate all the excess money you have at the end of the month to the homeless?
I don't have excess money at the end of the month, but i still give it whenever I can. How is that relevant to landlords evicting people to save money? There shouldn't be homeless people in the first place, let alone homeless families. But when a tenant misses rent, the landlord wont bat an eye and kicking the tenants onto the streets - that is a bad thing that shouldn't have to happen. This has nothing to do with the landlords personal choices, or how "good" of a landlord they are, our system puts them in a position where making someone homeless is the rational decision.
Now, can you tell me what was so dumb about the original argument? Do you want to explain to me how this isn't a systemic problem?
It's dumb as fuck. The original argument is if a landlord doesn't take on the financial burden and give their property to someone for free then they are somehow evil. It's so stupid. And I don't know what the law is where you are but in the UK a landlord can't evict without a court order and that takes time.
No, you are misunderstanding. The point isnt that they are evil for not providing free housing, but that them pushing people onto the streets in order to protect their income is indicative a fundamental failure of our economic system. No one should be homeless.
You make a good point. The system does incentivise ruthlessness
The landlords don't deserve that property anyways but what financial burden? Upkeep of the property that is anyways put upon the tenant? Taxes for the property that is anyways paid by the tenants rent? Repairs that are anyways paid by the tenants (even if you pay for repairs you would be using the rent money one way or another)
Or the financial burden of paying a mortgage for the property that well the tenants themselves could have gotten themselves (obviously if you are renting you probably don't have enough up front money to get a mortgage but they sure as hell could pay the monthly sum)
The fact that you can even evict someone is awful enough doesn't matter that there are barriers to it
You can't really judge what a person does or doesn't deserve without at least knowing the individual.
The one I clearly described in the comment you just replied to.
A lot of what you're saying is true, but I dont see how any of this refutes what the OP says, and what i said previously.
I dont agree with that bit about a landlord being more vulnerable. if you're being evicted, theres a good chance you wont be able to afford rent anywhere else. The landlord would ideally be able to sell extra properties to protect themselves and keep their home, renters dont usually own property. Where do you think people go when they can't afford a place to live?
This is a systemic problem that wont go away unless we make housing more equitable. I mean, why should a landlord with a mortgage be able to take out multiple mortgages if a few bad tenants would actually make them homeless? No one should be homeless, banks dont need a house to live in. And as i said previously... "The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good,"
I dont care whether or not they like evicting people, neither do the people being evicted. The effect is the same, and people end up homeless.
The problem is capitalism, landlords shouldnt exist. Hence why i keep saying "Its a problem with the system" - the system is capitalism, which allows people to acquire more land than they need for their gain, while those who cant afford a home are exploited. I dont care how hard it it is for the landlord. I've listened to my mom talk about tenants she's evicted, and no matter how shitty they are, they need a place to live. Thats the point of the post, not that landlords need to provide free housing. Its that they shouldnt exist.
I really only commented because the op in the thread seemed to be completely missing the argument of the meme, I'm not sure why that means i also have to solve Capitalism. But off the top of my head...
We could start by re-appropriating land, buildings, and housing thats is being sat on without anyone living on it, offer it to people who dont own a home at a fixed rate of some % of their current income, convert existing unused buildings to assist in the construction of social housing. We have the land, resources, and means to provide everyone with housing, it's just an issue of distribution. Ideally, you would be provided with a home that fits your needs once a social housing system has been fully established.
"Job"
Why did you put the word job in quotations?
Because landlord isn't a job, and many don't go through the effort of even pretending it is.
If they're a landlord that also does carpentry jobs on a house, that's what they are. The landlord part isn't a job.
If they just collect rent and occasionally pay contractors, they're just as unemployed as a welfare collector that occasionally pays for a therapist or prostitute.
They're absolutely not self-employed.
They're just holding housing hostage for ransom.
I never called it a job.
Imagine relying on labor for income under capitalism lmao
Edit: /s
Collecting rent as an income is different than having a job.
So?