3 ms·

This isn't a fair analogy at all. Landlords didn't cause the cause the pandemic. If anything, the government did. However, they are the ones who are forced to p

by Aunche 5y ago

This isn't a fair analogy at all. Landlords didn't cause the cause the pandemic. If anything, the government did. However, they are the ones who are forced to pay for provide a service that the government desires, housing, at their own expense. This might make sense if it were a tax, but it disproportionately effects certain people. Imagine if they 1% of people were randomly selected to forfeit 10% of their 401k for housing during the pandemic. Even worse, a long term eviction moratorium is incentivizes landlords to filter out poorer tenants with income and credit requirements, making housing more expensive for them.

nemothekid 5y ago
>This isn't a fair analogy at all. Landlords didn't cause the cause the pandemic. If anything, the government did. If the government bans cigarettes, should the government then reimburse every shareholder in Philip Morris? >However, they are the ones who are forced to pay for provide a service that the government desires, housing, at their own expense Someone had to brunt the cost of the pandemic. It would have been bad public policy if the government had let people go homeless. Regardless, my point isn't that the government acted piously here, it's that real estate is a capital asset class and should be treated as such. If you get in the game of capital speculation you shouldn't get to go crying to the government when things don't go your way. I have the same amount of sympathy for people who all-in on urban real estate and the people who go all in near to expiration SPY calls. The government's primary concern shouldn't be protecting people's capital investments.
- Aunche 5y ago
  > If the government bans cigarettes, should the government then reimburse every shareholder in Philip Morris? No, but that's because Phillip Morris isn't actively offering anything to the government. A landlord that isn't allowed to evict is. If the government forces them for provide cigarettes to soldiers during a war, they have to pay them to do so. > Someone had to brunt the cost of the pandemic. That's what taxes are for. Even money printing is better. It doesn't make sense for them to target landlords who serve low-income tenants in particular. That would be like forcing grocery stores to offer free food to poor locals. In the short term, it may help some people, but in the long term, grocery stores in poor neighborhoods would simply shut down and everyone would be worse off. That's why we have food stamps instead. > If you get in the game of capital speculation you shouldn't get to go crying to the government when things don't go your way. I agree that land speculation is particularly useless and the government should try to get rid of it, but that's not happening. Property speculation is higher than ever.

by Aunche 5y ago

nemothekid 5y ago

>This isn't a fair analogy at all. Landlords didn't cause the cause the pandemic. If anything, the government did. If the government bans cigarettes, should the government then reimburse every shareholder in Philip Morris? >However, they are the ones who are forced to pay for provide a service that the government desires, housing, at their own expense Someone had to brunt the cost of the pandemic. It would have been bad public policy if the government had let people go homeless. Regardless, my point isn't that the government acted piously here, it's that real estate is a capital asset class and should be treated as such. If you get in the game of capital speculation you shouldn't get to go crying to the government when things don't go your way. I have the same amount of sympathy for people who all-in on urban real estate and the people who go all in near to expiration SPY calls. The government's primary concern shouldn't be protecting people's capital investments.

Aunche 5y ago
> If the government bans cigarettes, should the government then reimburse every shareholder in Philip Morris? No, but that's because Phillip Morris isn't actively offering anything to the government. A landlord that isn't allowed to evict is. If the government forces them for provide cigarettes to soldiers during a war, they have to pay them to do so. > Someone had to brunt the cost of the pandemic. That's what taxes are for. Even money printing is better. It doesn't make sense for them to target landlords who serve low-income tenants in particular. That would be like forcing grocery stores to offer free food to poor locals. In the short term, it may help some people, but in the long term, grocery stores in poor neighborhoods would simply shut down and everyone would be worse off. That's why we have food stamps instead. > If you get in the game of capital speculation you shouldn't get to go crying to the government when things don't go your way. I agree that land speculation is particularly useless and the government should try to get rid of it, but that's not happening. Property speculation is higher than ever.