61–70 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And where's someone unemployed going to get 3 month's of rent if they only work in 0 or 1 of the next 3 months?
That's why you're supposed to have savings, but it seems these days people prefer to spend frivolously
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, under circumstances universal income may be the most sensible solution. Which would also largely avoid questions like this one (btw everyone still going to take a hit - no doubt about that, but at least it could be negotiated between parties then). Governments still need to figure out if they have enough resources though - it's a lot of work if one is willing to take it. Unfortunately, what I see instead here…
Do you own a business? Why do you think universal income solves the problem of an entertainment company that is legally shutdown, has zero income, and can’t pay it’s bills? At it’s core, aren’t you just suggesting we become communists (for a while?). Disclaimer: I am from what might be called a liberal socialist capitalist country (I might call myself a capitalist hippy).
Wait! You just gave me a hilarious idea! If people have to stay home for months we might as well pay them to enroll in some kind of online course. You know, re-education, only without the camp.
It's really concerning here that so many comments basically amount to let's ban all landlords. It's really dumb, people clearly have not thought it through.
> Ban rent for COVID-19-affected businesses Landlords have mortgages and a host of other associated costs. If this were made a policy in the UK, you'd have a huge number of small-time buy-to-let landlords going bankrupt and losing their nest-egg to the bank.
It's a get-rich-quick scheme that has inflated house prices. These landlords aren't providing any value — they're literally rent-seeking.
If I put a plastic egg in your nest, does that by natural law make me the owner of your eggs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You fail to realise that in a lot of cases the landlord is also the one who gave himself the mortgage. Quite a lot of commercial real-estate is owned by financial institutions and when it isn't the trust fund shareholder is also on the board of directors of the bank.
You fail to realise that in a lot of the cases the landlord is also the tenant. Anyone who owns a house or condo is a landlord... cutting the landlords income for a month is a big problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "benefit" obtained by rent is, mainly, permission. When the authoer says landlords don't provide much benefit to society, I think they are comparing against a society in which landlords don't exist. The author pays rent because they have no choice if they want permission to use a property; all available properties are owned by landlords. (You can tell it's more about permission than service provided, because ther…
The benefit of rent is that they are allowing you to use the property for $1,000 per month instead of having you buy the property upfront for $1,000,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "benefit" obtained by rent is, mainly, permission. When the authoer says landlords don't provide much benefit to society, I think they are comparing against a society in which landlords don't exist. The author pays rent because they have no choice if they want permission to use a property; all available properties are owned by landlords. (You can tell it's more about permission than service provided, because ther…
The benefit of rent is that they are allowing you to use the property for $1,000 per month instead of having you buy the property upfront for $1,000,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The benefit of rent is that they are allowing you to use the property for $1,000 per month instead of having you buy the property upfront for $1,000,000.
What universe do you live in that a $1,000,000 property leases for $1,000/mo?
If there is enough inequality in the area the 0.1% rent could be realistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you would see the benefit if you got rid of landlords and let anarchy rule real estate.
It wouldn't be anarchy. It would be government controlled and distributed based on whatever criteria. I'm sure there are other ways to distribute it too. You don't need to only imagine either this current system existing or anarchy.
I think most landlords are wealthy people who are easily placed to weather this financial crisis. By definition if you are wealthy enough to own property beyond one house then you’re wealthy enough to survive this. And if you can’t afford to, then sell it and suffer like all the other real business owners are suffering. Why should landlords be a protected species in all this?