5 ms·

They'll only lose the rental properties if they cannot afford them, sorry, but everyone will suffer. I'd rather have a landlord lose a property than the family

They'll only lose the rental properties if they cannot afford them, sorry, but everyone will suffer. I'd rather have a landlord lose a property than the family inside being forced to the street. A landlord who cannot afford their own primary home because of this should not have been been so leveraged.

innocentoldguy 6y ago
But you’re OK with the landlord being out on the street?
- qqssccfftt 6y ago
  I think it's a moral essential for landlords to be homeless.
  - hellisothers 6y ago
    Why all landlords? Business arguably is also ruining the world and people’s lives, should all business owners also give their assets away for free in these trying times?
- claudeganon 6y ago
  It’s a pure numbers game. There are less landlords than renters, so even if every landlord became homeless (unlikely), the consequences would still be orders of magnitude less damaging than if everyone was evicted.
- zwkrt 6y ago
  A landlord who is 'out on the street' because they are no longer getting the rent from their investment property is in no different or worse a position than a worker who becomes homeless because they no longer have a job. A landlord with no back-up plan when rent doesn't come in is someone who made a very large and risky investment but did not consider the possible downside to that investment, and should be punished for their poor investment no differently than someone who takes out a loan to buy a risky stock. I don't think that tenants have an indelible right to live where they are forever, and a land owner has the right to charge what they see fit for rent, but in these types of extenuating circumstances it would be shameful if landlords did not carry some if not the majority of the burden for their risky decisions.
  - innocentoldguy 6y ago
    That isn’t at all how it works much of the time. A lot of people rent their basements out because they can’t afford not to. And what do you think happens to the tenant when the landlord fails, regardless of circumstances, and loses their property? If you help the landlord in these extenuating circumstances, both landlord and tenant may keep their homes. If you favor the tenant at the expense of the landlord then both are likely to end up homeless, which makes no sense.
    - zwkrt 6y ago
      > A lot of people rent their basements out because they can’t afford not to. Why do they have a mortgage they can’t afford?
      - hellisothers 6y ago
        Is this question rhetorical? You can’t imagine a situation where one can’t afford their mortgage? Job losses, life changes, catastrophe?
- battery_cowboy 6y ago
  I'm not okay with anyone being on the street. Lots of people are losing their jobs and homes, and landlords shouldn't have any special protection from that effect than anyone else does.
- matz1 6y ago
  yes

innocentoldguy 6y ago

But you’re OK with the landlord being out on the street?

qqssccfftt 6y ago
I think it's a moral essential for landlords to be homeless.
- hellisothers 6y ago
  Why all landlords? Business arguably is also ruining the world and people’s lives, should all business owners also give their assets away for free in these trying times?
claudeganon 6y ago
It’s a pure numbers game. There are less landlords than renters, so even if every landlord became homeless (unlikely), the consequences would still be orders of magnitude less damaging than if everyone was evicted.
zwkrt 6y ago
A landlord who is 'out on the street' because they are no longer getting the rent from their investment property is in no different or worse a position than a worker who becomes homeless because they no longer have a job. A landlord with no back-up plan when rent doesn't come in is someone who made a very large and risky investment but did not consider the possible downside to that investment, and should be punished for their poor investment no differently than someone who takes out a loan to buy a risky stock. I don't think that tenants have an indelible right to live where they are forever, and a land owner has the right to charge what they see fit for rent, but in these types of extenuating circumstances it would be shameful if landlords did not carry some if not the majority of the burden for their risky decisions.
- innocentoldguy 6y ago
  That isn’t at all how it works much of the time. A lot of people rent their basements out because they can’t afford not to. And what do you think happens to the tenant when the landlord fails, regardless of circumstances, and loses their property? If you help the landlord in these extenuating circumstances, both landlord and tenant may keep their homes. If you favor the tenant at the expense of the landlord then both are likely to end up homeless, which makes no sense.
  - zwkrt 6y ago
    > A lot of people rent their basements out because they can’t afford not to. Why do they have a mortgage they can’t afford?
    - hellisothers 6y ago
      Is this question rhetorical? You can’t imagine a situation where one can’t afford their mortgage? Job losses, life changes, catastrophe?
battery_cowboy 6y ago
I'm not okay with anyone being on the street. Lots of people are losing their jobs and homes, and landlords shouldn't have any special protection from that effect than anyone else does.
matz1 6y ago
yes