Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why not outlaw landlordism? [View all]whatthehey
(3,660 posts)133. How does this make sense
your concept is based on the (wildly hypothetical) idea that house prices will massively collapse when there is no option to get income from rent, and make them affordable to the poor, but yet you claim in this post that y, the property value, will not change.
Property taxes are not based on income, but on property value which you just collapsed. How can property taxes also not collapse?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
240 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hence the point about unfolding gradually. But do you see anything wrong in theory?
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#2
According to Libertarians, not the jurisprudence of the 20th and 21st centuries.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#126
This might come as a surprise to you but real estate and in-state corporate law
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2015
#155
Cliven Bundy enjoys a great deal of political and personal freedom while using public property.
ieoeja
Aug 2015
#225
Not quite. The concept called 'commons' was a part of property rights until
PatrickforO
Aug 2015
#83
The Constitution has nothing at all to say about what sorts of entities can be "property"
eridani
Aug 2015
#214
How do you plan on seizing tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in private property?
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2015
#3
GT is correct. You run into the 5th amendment "Takings Clause" - which deals with
jonno99
Aug 2015
#28
"this would indeed work" - I'm sorry, but I missed the response(s) in agreement.
jonno99
Aug 2015
#130
Tax deduction for the landowners, and grandfather on a case by case basis...
cherokeeprogressive
Aug 2015
#47
The difference is that everyone who owns real property in California pays taxes on it. Everyone.
cherokeeprogressive
Aug 2015
#197
I think it would be a type of seizure if the government were suddenly to decree
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#151
Real estate is a regulated for-profit industry, not a Constitutional right.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#9
The constitution doesn't bestow rights, it keeps government from interfering with inherent rights.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2015
#79
The Constitution grants the government explicit authority to regulate commerce.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#92
What would you do with all the 2nd and 3rd mortgages already on the books? nt.
Juicy_Bellows
Aug 2015
#16
I literally addressed that in the very first sentence of the comment you're replying to.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#91
The government is not going to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of home owners
hack89
Aug 2015
#94
LOL. It would cost about 1/4 of the money spent on Fed bailouts after 2008.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#118
"Renters pay for all that just not in discrete chunks" - and THAT is the essence of the problem -
jonno99
Aug 2015
#156
That was a huge problem in the Great Depression. And why income taxes are better.
ieoeja
Aug 2015
#66
Yes, but with an income tax you are taxing the people who CAN pay and ONLY the people who can pay.
ieoeja
Aug 2015
#224
But apparently (reading between the OP lines) you can afford property taxes...nt
jonno99
Aug 2015
#31
You have to rent because real estate prices are artificially inflated by landlords and speculators.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#55
The "minimum cost" of houses is something every contractor laughs about privately.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#63
"You could have transfers of ownership that are shares in the property"
lumberjack_jeff
Aug 2015
#150
LOL- in the end what this half-backed idea would result in is rent being replaced with
Lee-Lee
Aug 2015
#219
"The main reason I have been at odds with money" I'm curious: other than bartering,
jonno99
Aug 2015
#38
In which case the property would be auctioned off anyway, and they'd see none of the proceeds.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#129
You think they're going to care about the difference between a $300,000 loss and a $305,000 loss? nt
jeff47
Aug 2015
#181
Most insurance companies, banks, and pension funds are heavily invested in REITS
JCMach1
Aug 2015
#37
The simple (though by no means easy) solution would just be to guarantee them all.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#73
Except I haven't heard a single objection that withstands the simplest scrutiny.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#114
I've addressed most of this in earlier comments, but I'll reiterate here.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#88
Y is not the value of a property. Y is the value of property that someone's income lets them buy.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#137
Ok - but what if I like the idea of renting a house - something bigger than a hotel w/ one-room? nt
jonno99
Aug 2015
#59
I'm never for one size fits all, but trends where there might be a few exceptions, not enough
Cleita
Aug 2015
#82
You're asking what if you WANT to pay an exorbitant markup for the same living arrangement?
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#139
Silly argument. If I want to quit my job for another job, I am free to do so. If
jonno99
Aug 2015
#228
Well, there was a time on earth when landlordism didn't exist. And this thread ...
Auggie
Aug 2015
#56
The (unstated?) false premise of the OP is that "landlordism" is a BAD THING. But, like everything
jonno99
Aug 2015
#62
Agreed. Too, it should be understood that the landlord/tenant relationship is not
jonno99
Aug 2015
#85
I am sort of for the extended family living, if not under the same roof, on the same property.
Cleita
Aug 2015
#90
"Modern life" - it's sad really. How did we get to the place where old age (hopefully with wisdom)
jonno99
Aug 2015
#108
Or in later times even as late as the eighteenth century, everything you owned technically belonged
Cleita
Aug 2015
#84
Lemme see. Nomadic tribes don't own property other than their tents and sheep or
Cleita
Aug 2015
#87
Probably, then, with the development of agriculture and/or domestication of livestock ...
Auggie
Aug 2015
#97
Are you suggesting hunting grounds were "available for lease" by those that laid claimed to them?
Auggie
Aug 2015
#188
I wonder how easy it would be to get a home loan in a depressed housing market, especially
hughee99
Aug 2015
#89
That's not allowed in the OP scheme - "real estate could not be ... borrowed against"
muriel_volestrangler
Aug 2015
#99
If you can't borrow against real estate, then only people with cash on hand would be able to buy,
hughee99
Aug 2015
#122
This idea is dumber than the no air conditioning thread someone started a few weeks back.
Ace Rothstein
Aug 2015
#138
a silly idea - some folks like to rent - they do not want to be burdened with home ownership
DrDan
Aug 2015
#140
I want to rent. Specifically I want to rent space in a house/neighborhood than I couldn afford on my
alphafemale
Aug 2015
#146
This is just unworkable. Even assuming people agreed to this concept (and no one would),
MADem
Aug 2015
#149
In our area there is a 1/2% vacancy rate & housing costs are high. Many students....
Hekate
Aug 2015
#157
Taxes are paid on income received from rental property. Property taxes are paid on rental property.
Thinkingabout
Aug 2015
#190
Good idea but can't be done without some radical transformation of the underlying order
Cheese Sandwich
Aug 2015
#177