3 ms·

Yes, it’s wrong to exploit people and cause them financial harm. Duh? With a back door Roth IRA there is no clear, obvious victim. You could consider all taxpa

Yes, it’s wrong to exploit people and cause them financial harm. Duh? With a back door Roth IRA there is no clear, obvious victim. You could consider all taxpayers the victim, and some would. Criticizing tax loopholes, especially for the rich, is extremely common sentiment. But to most people “the state” can’t be a victim as it is too big and powerful. In this case it’s very obvious that a real human person just trying to make a living is being systemically fucked over. They’re not really fighting the human scum who took over their property, they’re symbolically fighting the idiotic, bumbling bureaucracy of the state of California and their unjust laws. Like, I don’t know if the incredulity expressed in your comment is genuine, or if you’re just trying to play devils advocate… it’s very natural and easy for (seemingly) everyone else to understand the power dynamics here

ryandrake 3y ago
My incredulity is genuine: I don't have a dog in this particular race, but it's remarkable how the commentary here on HN is so strongly siding with one party! (For comparison, check out the Reddit threads, where most of that site's demographic are supporting the tenant). Your "exploit" description is a little emotionally charged. Business transactions happen all the time where one party gets screwed because they failed to read the contract, or failed to know the law, or failed to do due diligence. As a business person, you kind of have to sweat the details if you're going to hang your shingle out there and try to make money. This landlord got screwed, no doubt, but it was due to their own incompetence + having a smart counterparty to the transaction who apparently did her homework.
- subjectsigma 3y ago
  Yes, it is one sided because it’s so plainly obvious who the victim is here, who was acting in bad faith and who wasn’t. This is unethical and harmful behavior by the tenant and it should be illegal. Not hard to understand! >a little emotionally charged No, it isn’t. This is the correct usage of the word. >Reddit Not surprised the place with a cult-like hatred for landlords is speaking out against this landlord… I don’t much care for the opinions of 13 year old “communists” and r/antiwork losers so I don’t browse that site.

ryandrake 3y ago

My incredulity is genuine: I don't have a dog in this particular race, but it's remarkable how the commentary here on HN is so strongly siding with one party! (For comparison, check out the Reddit threads, where most of that site's demographic are supporting the tenant). Your "exploit" description is a little emotionally charged. Business transactions happen all the time where one party gets screwed because they failed to read the contract, or failed to know the law, or failed to do due diligence. As a business person, you kind of have to sweat the details if you're going to hang your shingle out there and try to make money. This landlord got screwed, no doubt, but it was due to their own incompetence + having a smart counterparty to the transaction who apparently did her homework.

subjectsigma 3y ago
Yes, it is one sided because it’s so plainly obvious who the victim is here, who was acting in bad faith and who wasn’t. This is unethical and harmful behavior by the tenant and it should be illegal. Not hard to understand! >a little emotionally charged No, it isn’t. This is the correct usage of the word. >Reddit Not surprised the place with a cult-like hatred for landlords is speaking out against this landlord… I don’t much care for the opinions of 13 year old “communists” and r/antiwork losers so I don’t browse that site.