Passive income. Equity. Financial security. Something you can take a quick loan out against without worry that you’ll lose your home.
I mean you can easily argue “greed” about everything. For example: Why do you need a bigger paycheck (besides greed)? Any answer you give, I can conveniently waive away as you not living within your means. I mean, you could easily buy or build yourself a tiny home and live on a cheap plot out in the boonies. Oh, you want amenities? Accessibility to the convenience of a town/city? What could you possibly want with any of those material wants (besides greed)?
If passive income you getting income without working then who’s working without income.
This whole thread thoroughly convinced me of george’s ideas.
As Adam Smith said
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce
You have a 401k? Does it earn interest? Did you earn that interest? Is your money being used as an investment vehicle to gain passive returns without you having to work for it? I mean, by your argument we should get rid of all retirement funds, we should no longer invest in companies as we get no return for giving our money to help a company grow. Should we do away with hotels as well? They don’t do anything except provide shelter for a short term, whereas you renting from someone provides shelter for a long term.
Should we just get rid of all renting then? If you can’t afford a house, then where do you live? These are pretty much all rhetorical questions, I’m not expecting you to answer them, as I believe I’ve made my point.
In an ideal world, you wouldn’t have to deal with scummy landlords. But what’s the alternative? In a free society why am I limited to what I can own? If I have the money to purchase something, should I not have the right or ability to do so if I want to?
I think the reason is “I don’t want to have to work until I die” actually.
Investment property is one of the few remaining ladders of social mobility. Does it suck that it doesn’t extend down far enough? Yes. But removing it as an option just further widens the gap between the billionaires and everyone else.
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.
Your argument assumes there’s no utility in renting, which is simply not true. A house is a PITA to maintain; stuff breaks all the time. Also, moving when you own the place is much more difficult, and some people value the flexibility of being able to hop from one part of the country to another. If we rewind 12 years, back before rent prices and housing costs went batshit insane, it was a perfectly reasonable option to rent instead of own, even if you could afford otherwise. Rent was basically paying for the service of not needing to maintain a building and not locking yourself down.
Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
Do you realize how much money a billion dollars is? One class above another, like a walk up a hill – and then the billionaire class is on a fucking space station. Again, I’m reminded of the Oreos meme.
And yet again, owning housing does not indicate wealth in a “normal” housing market, so your supposed rent/own class division isn’t even true. Very wealthy people can still be renters. Or do you think “landlords” can afford to rent a penthouse in Manhattan?
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security
Well it’s not. So make that a reality before attacking people for trying to better their situation.
These are housing cooperatives for the most mobile population: students. And you know what? No need for landlords what so ever, while still providing location mobility and the possibility of hiring an external management team or (using democracy) elect amongst yourselves. Again disproving your very point.
I really like housing cooperatives but we have way too few of them. As a young professional moving between cities it would be great.
What do you get from a landlord owning housing as opposed to housing cooperatives? (This is the [only] question I want you to answer)
I can tell you what you get from cooperatives that you don’t get from landlords. You don’t have to pay for an ROI for the landlord. That is it. Same maintenance costs. Similar price for home to start but better for the inhabitants.
Do you realize how much money a billion dollars is?
Not relevant, stop using billionaires as a shield.
One class above another, like a walk up a hill – and then the billionaire class is on a fucking space station. Again, I’m reminded of the Oreos meme.
Again not relevant. To use your metaphore I don’t want a space station and I don’t want a hill. You on the other hand want a hill (and you being the king on the hill) but no space station. I say no to both.
Again I want that Oreos meme.
Well it’s not. So make that a reality before attacking people for trying to better their situation.
Well maybe it would be if people who “invest” in real estate don’t oppose increasing or bettering social insurance. Those who are the biggest proponents of real estate investors are the biggest opponents of social insurance. Social insurance comes from general taxation of working people. Those people (like you) want to move the money working people pay to taxes for general social insurance and instead pay all that money towards rent that landlords (like you) control. You are literally moving money from general social insurance to your own pockets. And both young people and actual poor old people suffer. You do not oppose tyranny. You want to become the tyrant.
Another option is a Community Land Trust (CLT). Community owned land which is similar but under a different structure with a wider ownership structure.
https://www.communityland.ca/ (Canada)
And guess what? With CLTs you can actually invest yourself if you don’t live inside it, because a broader ownership structure and you don’t have to be a landlord. Awesome!!! Oh wow!
There’s no good reason (except greed) not to just sell the “starter house”.
Passive income. Equity. Financial security. Something you can take a quick loan out against without worry that you’ll lose your home.
I mean you can easily argue “greed” about everything. For example: Why do you need a bigger paycheck (besides greed)? Any answer you give, I can conveniently waive away as you not living within your means. I mean, you could easily buy or build yourself a tiny home and live on a cheap plot out in the boonies. Oh, you want amenities? Accessibility to the convenience of a town/city? What could you possibly want with any of those material wants (besides greed)?
If passive income you getting income without working then who’s working without income.
This whole thread thoroughly convinced me of george’s ideas.
As Adam Smith said
You have a 401k? Does it earn interest? Did you earn that interest? Is your money being used as an investment vehicle to gain passive returns without you having to work for it? I mean, by your argument we should get rid of all retirement funds, we should no longer invest in companies as we get no return for giving our money to help a company grow. Should we do away with hotels as well? They don’t do anything except provide shelter for a short term, whereas you renting from someone provides shelter for a long term.
Should we just get rid of all renting then? If you can’t afford a house, then where do you live? These are pretty much all rhetorical questions, I’m not expecting you to answer them, as I believe I’ve made my point.
In an ideal world, you wouldn’t have to deal with scummy landlords. But what’s the alternative? In a free society why am I limited to what I can own? If I have the money to purchase something, should I not have the right or ability to do so if I want to?
I think the reason is “I don’t want to have to work until I die” actually.
Investment property is one of the few remaining ladders of social mobility. Does it suck that it doesn’t extend down far enough? Yes. But removing it as an option just further widens the gap between the billionaires and everyone else.
Where’s that meme with the oreos
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.
Your argument assumes there’s no utility in renting, which is simply not true. A house is a PITA to maintain; stuff breaks all the time. Also, moving when you own the place is much more difficult, and some people value the flexibility of being able to hop from one part of the country to another. If we rewind 12 years, back before rent prices and housing costs went batshit insane, it was a perfectly reasonable option to rent instead of own, even if you could afford otherwise. Rent was basically paying for the service of not needing to maintain a building and not locking yourself down.
Do you realize how much money a billion dollars is? One class above another, like a walk up a hill – and then the billionaire class is on a fucking space station. Again, I’m reminded of the Oreos meme.
And yet again, owning housing does not indicate wealth in a “normal” housing market, so your supposed rent/own class division isn’t even true. Very wealthy people can still be renters. Or do you think “landlords” can afford to rent a penthouse in Manhattan?
Well it’s not. So make that a reality before attacking people for trying to better their situation.
I really, really want to see that Oreo meme you’re talking about.
Also about not wanting to be tied down. I totally get it. You know what fixes that? Co-operative housing. Some links: https://campus.coop/ (Toronto) https://www.nasco.coop/ (North America) https://www.studenthomes.coop/ (United Kingdom)
These are housing cooperatives for the most mobile population: students. And you know what? No need for landlords what so ever, while still providing location mobility and the possibility of hiring an external management team or (using democracy) elect amongst yourselves. Again disproving your very point.
I really like housing cooperatives but we have way too few of them. As a young professional moving between cities it would be great.
What do you get from a landlord owning housing as opposed to housing cooperatives? (This is the [only] question I want you to answer)
I can tell you what you get from cooperatives that you don’t get from landlords. You don’t have to pay for an ROI for the landlord. That is it. Same maintenance costs. Similar price for home to start but better for the inhabitants.
Not relevant, stop using billionaires as a shield.
Again not relevant. To use your metaphore I don’t want a space station and I don’t want a hill. You on the other hand want a hill (and you being the king on the hill) but no space station. I say no to both.
Again I want that Oreos meme.
Well maybe it would be if people who “invest” in real estate don’t oppose increasing or bettering social insurance. Those who are the biggest proponents of real estate investors are the biggest opponents of social insurance. Social insurance comes from general taxation of working people. Those people (like you) want to move the money working people pay to taxes for general social insurance and instead pay all that money towards rent that landlords (like you) control. You are literally moving money from general social insurance to your own pockets. And both young people and actual poor old people suffer. You do not oppose tyranny. You want to become the tyrant.
Another option is a Community Land Trust (CLT). Community owned land which is similar but under a different structure with a wider ownership structure. https://www.communityland.ca/ (Canada)
And guess what? With CLTs you can actually invest yourself if you don’t live inside it, because a broader ownership structure and you don’t have to be a landlord. Awesome!!! Oh wow!
Try it in your city! Here’s one from mine https://www.oclt.ca/invest/ (Ottawa, ON, Canada)
Why the fuck does that person get bigger scraps from the King’s table! Fuck him!