656
The greatest sin
(startrek.website)
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 31 Oct 2023
656 points (96.2% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
5530 readers
1080 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
what if the landlord is your local municipality that provides low cost housing for a monthly fee?
Then it's not your landlord. It's local municipal housing. The fee tends to go toward paying people whose job it is to maintain housing, employed by the city. Those people get a set wage and don't get to think of a bigger number to charge because they want to. There's structure and rules. The guy who's paid and responsible can be fired if those rules are broken.
In a landlord tenant situation, the landlord doesn't get fired. The tenant just gets evicted. There's a pretty big difference there.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you trying to dilute the point that landlords are bad by conflating them with any housing at all? Like "it's just as bad if it were municipal"? Because that's funny.
okay, what if say, you get into a situation where you can get a property for a good price and you want to live there in the future, but not yet, and you are like, well I am gonna rent it out for a reasonable price until then?
You could just, you know, pay for the property without renting it out if you want it that bad. If you're in a position where you can just buy a property to hold for the future, you probably have enough money to do that. Otherwise, move into it or just don't buy it.
Renting it out makes you a landlord. Having other people pay for land you own to live there, without giving them a stake in it, is leeching off of their finances. It's not that hard to understand.
okay, so let's say someone comes and is like, "I want to live in your property, I am not interested in buying, since I am only in this country for a short time and due to tax laws selling within 5 years would make the prospect of buying not worth it, I would like to rent this property from you."
I should be like, "Nah bro sorry, some children on lemmy said that's leeching, I am gonna leave this empty"
Ah yes, I shouldn't have taken advantage of the very-low mortgage rates I should have not bought it, because fuck planning for the future.
oh so now we are telling people what to do with their stuff?
Anything else I am doing wrong?
Bro, you're trying really hard to justify having other people pay for your property. There's zero chance I'm changing your mind, since you're now putting fringe circumstances on the table to make your point like this is supposed black and white. You came here to argue. Have a good one.
what fringe circumstances? lol
you think the existence of people who don't want to buy just rent is fringe??
or what is the fringe circumstance?
My property is not being paid for by anyone (other than me) since I am not renting it, I am just calling out the utter stupidity going on here.
👍
Sorry bro, I'm just a kid on lemmy who can't hear past your condescension.
Yeah, we know you're just here to pick a fight. It says a lot about you that you think us children and you're still here arguing like you think any of us kids are going to take you seriously. Sure buddy, teach us a lesson. That'll show us.
We understand that renting isn't going to go away. That doesn't make landlords good people.
housing might be, but not my house, I am also specifically renting it to someone who explicitly said they don't want to own it just want a short term rental, us that still scalping?
No, you should just let people live there for free and probably destroy the place because it doesn't belong to them so why bother maintaining it? They can just move to the next free house when yours is wrecked.
ofc, I also can't charge for utilities, so I have the privilege of paying for their use of water, septic, electricity and gas, ofc Internet is also. becoming a basic necessity so better start paying for that too.
Make sure to stock the fridge as well!
If you're operating at-cost, the primary sin of landlordism - extortionary rental prices - isn't an issue. There are definitely still secondary issues (for instance, segregated public housing during the Jim Crow era was still a cruel and vindictive form of landlordism). A strong civil rights and tenant rights legal code can hedge against these problems. But the only real established solution is permanent social housing - property owned by the people who are paying to live there.
I guess houses build themselves for free now
And just building government sponsored free housing for everyone is great and all until you think about the fact that different people have different requirements and if you remove the landlord scalping from the picture it doesn't actually save any money since it'd just be paid for by taxes.
If the landlord is the local municipality then they did most likely pay for the house to be built. And in general the landlord has bought it from whoever built it if they didn't do it themselves, so they still paid for it.
Abusing the power imbalance to raise prices is unethical. The fact that people make money from having money is a general capitalism issue that is far from exclusive to housing. But the houses don't spawn out of thin air and the costs for that have to be paid one way or another.
okay, so my city started a project to build a few flats and then plans to offer them at a cheap rate, for people with lesser incomes, young couples etc, so it's kinda social housing, is that still scalping?
Should someone be allowed to build their own house?
If so, should someone be allowed to sell that house to someone else?
If so, should someone be allowed to charge the price they desire for the asset they own?
Let’s say these publicly provided houses are no longer needed (people move out, because a local industry shuts down). Should the builder (the council or whatever the regional public institutions are called) be allowed to sell these houses off?
I mean, you can answer no to those questions and remain consistent to your ideology. But then be honest about what you want the state to be and behave towards its citizens.
Or you can answer yes to at least one of them and realise that it’s pretty hard not to create speculation in housing, without doing something unethical to people.
Ok, but just humour me.
Should someone be allowed to build their own house?
If they have a house, are they allowed to give it to someone else in exchange for something?
Could that something they exchange it for be a rare asset, which takes a long time to produce and stores easily?
Should someone be allowed to store that asset on your behalf and issue a piece of paper that promises to repay the bearer?
Congrats, you’ve invented money, banking, investments, fractional reserves etc etc
And it starts with a simple question: Do you recognise ownership? Everything follows from that.
… and if you don’t recognise ownership in this future world of yours, I expect you’ll have a hard time convincing people it’ll be very enticing.