4 ms·

"The home hoarding rentier class"? What about someone who's primary assets are a couple of houses that (s)he rents out? Should (s)he be restricted from gettin

by pliftkl 10y ago

"The home hoarding rentier class"? What about someone who's primary assets are a couple of houses that (s)he rents out? Should (s)he be restricted from getting a market rate income on those houses? I disagree pretty strongly that the "rentiers" are protected from market forces. If we look at the case of people who really are in the "rentier class", who are heavily leveraged, they are taking a fairly big risk here that the economy and housing prices are going to stay high, and many are risking bankruptcy should we suffer a reversal.

tostitos1979 10y ago
I have to side with the parent poster. The state essentially subsidized the "rentiers". I don't see how this is different from former communist countries doling out lucrative enterprises to private individuals. You might say what was done in capitalist countries (i.e. insane regime of low interests/hidden debasement of currency) wasn't corrupt because of free markets. I call BS on this. A poor person does not have access to said markets (downpayments are the hurdle). Take Toronto as an example. Pretty much most people who bought detached houses prior to 2005 are millionaires. The rich people at the time bought a bunch of houses. How is this not a gift from the state? If you happen to be a schmuck who came in later on or have poor parents, well ... sorry ... that's the way it is.
- seibelj 10y ago
  No one forces anyone to live anywhere. You don't have to pay the rent. Move somewhere else, buy in an inexpensive area, etc. The mortgage interest tax deduction is a handout but otherwise the government isn't propping up anyone, and there are government programs that help first time home buyers into houses with 0% down (which I think is a big mistake). On the NPR program On Point last week, a guy called in complaining that he couldn't find anything in Nashville for under $400k, and the guest responded that the average home in Nashville was around $200k. People need to realize that you don't get to live in the most desirable places just because you want to. No one has the right to live someplace, you need to pay for it, and if you can't pay then go somewhere else.
  - tmptmp 10y ago
    I disagree. The dirty rich will horde tens and even hundreds of apartments (or acres upon acres of land) in strategic places (with insider knowledge) and then with lobbying of various kinds make these places more and more desirable by bringing developments to these areas only or by concentrating various services in these areas only. So your point that no one forces someone to live in somewhere is wrong. edit: added point about insider knowledge
    - aianus 10y ago
      > and then with lobbying of various kinds make these places more and more desirable by bringing developments to these areas Sounds like they're providing a valuable service to me.
    - seibelj 10y ago
      > The dirty rich You have no idea what you are talking about and your bias is plain
      - tmptmp 10y ago
        The dirty rich: the people who are avoiding big taxes (in excess of multiples of a year's worth of minimum wage) and/or bending/pressuring the system (through lobbying) to change such that they don't have to pay taxes (with various loopholes set in place). That's roughly captures the essence of my idea of dirty-rich. These dirty-rich grab most or all of the strategically important spaces and then make more money off the rents. I have very good idea of what I am talking and FYI I am not a communist with bias against all rich people. In fact, I am a strong opponent of communism. But I also oppose the dirty-rich in capitalist nations.
  - marincounty 10y ago
    "No one forces anyone to live anywhere." The problem is a lot of people are tied to a certain goegraphical area. The person might be old, and needs the assistance of Very hard to cultivate true friends, or family. The person might not be the most economically viable specimen? The person might have a hard time doing manual labor? The person might be one of the millions that should qualify for dissabliity, but doesn't. The person is so close to being homless, this magical move to mystical cheaper part of the country might be the last straw? "I'll spend my last $1000 on moving my belongings across the country. Hopefully I'll find an apartment that doesn't require a security deposit, first and last, and perfect credit? I hope my heating bill won't be high? I hope that minimum wage job is waiting?" A lot of hope? No wonder we have such a problem with Homelessness? (My last move was 6 grand) It's not so easy to up and move when you don't have a nest egg, or a job that doesn't moves well, or a retirement, or helpful friends/family. I'm tired of debating housing. I know a lot of you hate rent control--fine, I kinda get it in certain markets. A lot of you blame prop 13 in California--I think that's just blame becuse you ran out of reasons. Good luck building high density housing. Good luck trying to ease restrictions on adding on to existing residential homes. I got a ticket because I parked on the street last night. Good luck making it harder for foreigners to buy our land.(Right as we speak their are foreigners, for instance Chinese buying our land with a phone call.) So back to, "No one forces anyone to live anywhere." No they don't--Slick. What are these people suppose to do? Forget about living off the lands, like our Frontieer forefathers did. Camping for free--where? Hunting, and fishing without a paying money? Those days are long gone. We are tied into living a certain modern way. A way where pretty much everything costs money. Any deviants will be fined, and punished. What are poor people, people on fixed incomes, people who don't have marketable skills, people without fancy degrees, and oh, so helpful parents, at opportune times suppose to do? That's right move to the Midwest, and hope Wallmart is hiring? And why do you think people in these mystical low rent areas are moving to high rent areas? It's not the beautiful beaches/mountians. It's the hope of a job, and a better life. Not even a better job--a shit job that's becomming harder to get. "Hay--l'll join the sharing economy? "I'll spend my last wad on a 2008 four door vechicle, and live in it?" Yea, I got mad. I know too many people whom are basically homeless. A large percentage of them are former Programmers. I don't see a solution. I think we need to open up large sectors of land across the United States that a person, or family could camp for free. Kinda like Kibbutzes?
- tmptmp 10y ago
  I also side with this. Unless USA imposes a very strict and very low limit on "the space that can be owned" by individual or corporations it will head for collapse the way communist countries did in the past. The kind of plundering that is going on by the rentiers (with the tacit support from the state) is very dangerous to the nation. It seems the dirty rich will undo this great nation finally. The free market based democracy should win for the betterment of the humanity as it is the best type of civilization that has come into existence yet. But the corrupt dirty rich are destroying it and I am sure as hell the vicious communist/corrupt socialists will take undue advantage of this situation to create social unrest (e.g. the occupy movement) that may threaten the very existence of the free market based democracy.
- kazinator 10y ago
  Heaven forbid communists should dole out enterprises to private individuals, from whom they forcefully took them in the first place. Communism should stick to the pure Marxist-Leninist principles; then all is good.
antisthenes 10y ago
> What about someone who's primary assets are a couple of houses that (s)he rents out? Should (s)he be restricted from getting a market rate income on those houses? They should not be restricted from getting a market rate, but they _should_ be paying a much higher land tax for their non-primary residences. Same way big trucks and other industrial vehicles should probably be paying additional taxes for the roads, since they are responsible for most of the wear and tear.

by pliftkl 10y ago

tostitos1979 10y ago

I have to side with the parent poster. The state essentially subsidized the "rentiers". I don't see how this is different from former communist countries doling out lucrative enterprises to private individuals. You might say what was done in capitalist countries (i.e. insane regime of low interests/hidden debasement of currency) wasn't corrupt because of free markets. I call BS on this. A poor person does not have access to said markets (downpayments are the hurdle). Take Toronto as an example. Pretty much most people who bought detached houses prior to 2005 are millionaires. The rich people at the time bought a bunch of houses. How is this not a gift from the state? If you happen to be a schmuck who came in later on or have poor parents, well ... sorry ... that's the way it is.

seibelj 10y ago
No one forces anyone to live anywhere. You don't have to pay the rent. Move somewhere else, buy in an inexpensive area, etc. The mortgage interest tax deduction is a handout but otherwise the government isn't propping up anyone, and there are government programs that help first time home buyers into houses with 0% down (which I think is a big mistake). On the NPR program On Point last week, a guy called in complaining that he couldn't find anything in Nashville for under $400k, and the guest responded that the average home in Nashville was around $200k. People need to realize that you don't get to live in the most desirable places just because you want to. No one has the right to live someplace, you need to pay for it, and if you can't pay then go somewhere else.
- tmptmp 10y ago
  I disagree. The dirty rich will horde tens and even hundreds of apartments (or acres upon acres of land) in strategic places (with insider knowledge) and then with lobbying of various kinds make these places more and more desirable by bringing developments to these areas only or by concentrating various services in these areas only. So your point that no one forces someone to live in somewhere is wrong. edit: added point about insider knowledge
  - aianus 10y ago
    > and then with lobbying of various kinds make these places more and more desirable by bringing developments to these areas Sounds like they're providing a valuable service to me.
  - seibelj 10y ago
    > The dirty rich You have no idea what you are talking about and your bias is plain
    - tmptmp 10y ago
      The dirty rich: the people who are avoiding big taxes (in excess of multiples of a year's worth of minimum wage) and/or bending/pressuring the system (through lobbying) to change such that they don't have to pay taxes (with various loopholes set in place). That's roughly captures the essence of my idea of dirty-rich. These dirty-rich grab most or all of the strategically important spaces and then make more money off the rents. I have very good idea of what I am talking and FYI I am not a communist with bias against all rich people. In fact, I am a strong opponent of communism. But I also oppose the dirty-rich in capitalist nations.
- marincounty 10y ago
  "No one forces anyone to live anywhere." The problem is a lot of people are tied to a certain goegraphical area. The person might be old, and needs the assistance of Very hard to cultivate true friends, or family. The person might not be the most economically viable specimen? The person might have a hard time doing manual labor? The person might be one of the millions that should qualify for dissabliity, but doesn't. The person is so close to being homless, this magical move to mystical cheaper part of the country might be the last straw? "I'll spend my last $1000 on moving my belongings across the country. Hopefully I'll find an apartment that doesn't require a security deposit, first and last, and perfect credit? I hope my heating bill won't be high? I hope that minimum wage job is waiting?" A lot of hope? No wonder we have such a problem with Homelessness? (My last move was 6 grand) It's not so easy to up and move when you don't have a nest egg, or a job that doesn't moves well, or a retirement, or helpful friends/family. I'm tired of debating housing. I know a lot of you hate rent control--fine, I kinda get it in certain markets. A lot of you blame prop 13 in California--I think that's just blame becuse you ran out of reasons. Good luck building high density housing. Good luck trying to ease restrictions on adding on to existing residential homes. I got a ticket because I parked on the street last night. Good luck making it harder for foreigners to buy our land.(Right as we speak their are foreigners, for instance Chinese buying our land with a phone call.) So back to, "No one forces anyone to live anywhere." No they don't--Slick. What are these people suppose to do? Forget about living off the lands, like our Frontieer forefathers did. Camping for free--where? Hunting, and fishing without a paying money? Those days are long gone. We are tied into living a certain modern way. A way where pretty much everything costs money. Any deviants will be fined, and punished. What are poor people, people on fixed incomes, people who don't have marketable skills, people without fancy degrees, and oh, so helpful parents, at opportune times suppose to do? That's right move to the Midwest, and hope Wallmart is hiring? And why do you think people in these mystical low rent areas are moving to high rent areas? It's not the beautiful beaches/mountians. It's the hope of a job, and a better life. Not even a better job--a shit job that's becomming harder to get. "Hay--l'll join the sharing economy? "I'll spend my last wad on a 2008 four door vechicle, and live in it?" Yea, I got mad. I know too many people whom are basically homeless. A large percentage of them are former Programmers. I don't see a solution. I think we need to open up large sectors of land across the United States that a person, or family could camp for free. Kinda like Kibbutzes?
tmptmp 10y ago
I also side with this. Unless USA imposes a very strict and very low limit on "the space that can be owned" by individual or corporations it will head for collapse the way communist countries did in the past. The kind of plundering that is going on by the rentiers (with the tacit support from the state) is very dangerous to the nation. It seems the dirty rich will undo this great nation finally. The free market based democracy should win for the betterment of the humanity as it is the best type of civilization that has come into existence yet. But the corrupt dirty rich are destroying it and I am sure as hell the vicious communist/corrupt socialists will take undue advantage of this situation to create social unrest (e.g. the occupy movement) that may threaten the very existence of the free market based democracy.
kazinator 10y ago
Heaven forbid communists should dole out enterprises to private individuals, from whom they forcefully took them in the first place. Communism should stick to the pure Marxist-Leninist principles; then all is good.

antisthenes 10y ago

> What about someone who's primary assets are a couple of houses that (s)he rents out? Should (s)he be restricted from getting a market rate income on those houses? They should not be restricted from getting a market rate, but they _should_ be paying a much higher land tax for their non-primary residences. Same way big trucks and other industrial vehicles should probably be paying additional taxes for the roads, since they are responsible for most of the wear and tear.