General Discussion

jonno99

(2,620 posts)

228. Silly argument. If I want to quit my job for another job, I am free to do so. If

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:19 AM

Aug 2015

I want to sell my house, I am also "free" to do so - unless the market value has fallen - then I'm screwed.

This argument fails too in terms of simple normal human behavior. Using your logic, no one ever would - or should - eat at a restaurant. Why? because it is always cheaper to buy the food and cook it yourself. So why do so many people act against their financial self-interest and eat at restaurants?

I mean aren't restaurants also exploiting us by marking up the cost of food by 100, 200, 500%??

"Fast food" especially exploits it's patrons by selling "fat food" at inflated prices disproportionately impacting the poor.

Should we make restaurants illegal too? If your answer is "no", then take all those "no" arguments and apply them to the question posited by your OP.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

240 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why not outlaw landlordism? [View all] True Blue Door Aug 2015 OP

Western Civ would collapse immediately pscot Aug 2015 #1

Hence the point about unfolding gradually. But do you see anything wrong in theory? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #2

Property rights are the keystone of Liberal governance pscot Aug 2015 #17

That's a radically libertarian position to take. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #22

Not libertarian; Historical pscot Aug 2015 #24

Libertarian. And no property rights are violated in this scenario. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #125

Commerce clause only covers interstate and international commerce Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #86

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

Um, no. That's quite false. Fantastic Anarchist Aug 2015 #35

I'm struggling to think of examples FreeJoe Aug 2015 #93

Cliven Bundy enjoys a great deal of political and personal freedom while using public property. ieoeja Aug 2015 #225

Those are your examples? FreeJoe Aug 2015 #236

"Socialism". I do not think it means what you think it means. ieoeja Aug 2015 #240

Not quite. The concept called 'commons' was a part of property rights until PatrickforO Aug 2015 #83

Doesn't make right, though. Does it? cheapdate Aug 2015 #205

Land owners do compensate the public on an ongoing basis. Ace Rothstein Aug 2015 #218

Yes, property taxes are a real thing. cheapdate Aug 2015 #222

The Constitution has nothing at all to say about what sorts of entities can be "property" eridani Aug 2015 #214

+1 cheapdate Aug 2015 #223

+2 Fantastic Anarchist Aug 2015 #238

So... that's a vote FOR the idea, then? Scootaloo Aug 2015 #152

How do you plan on seizing tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in private property? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #3

What are you talking about "seize"? Did you actually read the OP? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #4

Seize? Eh - I think you're rubbing up against the 4th amendment...nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #7

How? There's no "seizure" of anything. None even implied. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #8

regulating property to such a degree that it loses most of its value geek tragedy Aug 2015 #14

Simple fix: Compensatory tax deduction for those who purchased before. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #21

GT is correct. You run into the 5th amendment "Takings Clause" - which deals with jonno99 Aug 2015 #28

This objection has already been addressed. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #123

"this would indeed work" - I'm sorry, but I missed the response(s) in agreement. jonno99 Aug 2015 #130

I'm sorry, I missed the bit about reality being a democracy. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #134

Looks like you've got it covered. However, I'm curious - jonno99 Aug 2015 #143

Yes. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #144

I think you underestimate the size of the "special cases" group. jonno99 Aug 2015 #159

Tax deduction for the landowners, and grandfather on a case by case basis... cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #47

I don't think so FreeJoe Aug 2015 #95

The difference is that everyone who owns real property in California pays taxes on it. Everyone. cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #197

Don't we have a lot targeted taxes and tax deductions? FreeJoe Aug 2015 #237

You are depriving people of the free use of their private property. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #43

I think it would be a type of seizure if the government were suddenly to decree pnwmom Aug 2015 #151

I think you'd have better luck outlawing snark & sarcasm...nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #5

Real estate is a regulated for-profit industry, not a Constitutional right. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #9

Au contraire pscot Aug 2015 #19

There's no Constitutional right to profit. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author jonno99 Aug 2015 #34

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

It can't regulate intra-state commerce. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #112

I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning. Adrahil Aug 2015 #115

Jury nullification? n/t Uncle Joe Aug 2015 #196

The idea of the Constitution was Yupster Aug 2015 #212

There goes tenantism BeyondGeography Aug 2015 #6

Meaning? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #11

You should know the meaning. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #102

There would be a lot of homeless people LittleBlue Aug 2015 #10

You didn't read the entire OP, did you? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #12

I did LittleBlue Aug 2015 #20

Then you're basically making the conservative argument about taxes: True Blue Door Aug 2015 #25

That isn't true LittleBlue Aug 2015 #52

Holding on to property would be an unsustainable business decision. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #120

Ugh, really? geek tragedy Aug 2015 #13

Yes, really. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #33

Well, there is the "long run" problem. rogerashton Aug 2015 #15

Actually that's a long-run solution. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #44

Materials cost money. jeff47 Aug 2015 #176

My air conditioned just broke down Yupster Aug 2015 #213

What would you do with all the 2nd and 3rd mortgages already on the books? nt. Juicy_Bellows Aug 2015 #16

Grandfather, or tax credit, or some other combination of mitigations. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #45

You would blow up municipal budgets across the country hack89 Aug 2015 #18

That is an interesting point. Let's think about that. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #49

People who own today will be under a mountain of debt hack89 Aug 2015 #61

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

total US mortgage debt is $11.6 trillion. Amishman Aug 2015 #106

LOL. It would cost about 1/4 of the money spent on Fed bailouts after 2008. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #118

Where did the 2008 bailout money come from? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #121

Clearly you never owed a home yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #101

I've both owned and rented, and owned rentals too whatthehey Aug 2015 #136

"Renters pay for all that just not in discrete chunks" - and THAT is the essence of the problem - jonno99 Aug 2015 #156

You are mistaken about the economics. Ms. Toad Aug 2015 #209

That was a huge problem in the Great Depression. And why income taxes are better. ieoeja Aug 2015 #66

Ummmm 1939 Aug 2015 #110

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

Let's see 1939 Aug 2015 #230

I think you're wrong on #4. ieoeja Aug 2015 #233

The banks paid fines because they did the foreclosures illegally 1939 Aug 2015 #234

Only bought, sold, or used by the owner? SheilaT Aug 2015 #26

I'm mainly wondering about the large-scale economic effect. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #54

You're delusional if you think that SheilaT Aug 2015 #153

My guess is this plan would be loopholed to death Yupster Aug 2015 #215

What would people who have to rent do? Reter Aug 2015 #27

But apparently (reading between the OP lines) you can afford property taxes...nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #31

He's already paying them, likely at higher rates whatthehey Aug 2015 #57

For the record: the rent I charge does *not* cover my costs. ieoeja Aug 2015 #227

You have to rent because real estate prices are artificially inflated by landlords and speculators. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #55

So houses will drop down to 1980 prices? Reter Aug 2015 #58

If you read the post laundry_queen Aug 2015 #60

Glory be that this will never come true yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #107

What kind of post is that? laundry_queen Aug 2015 #184

I have replies all through the thread yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #207

As a landlord of exactly one property Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #29

The "minimum cost" of houses is something every contractor laughs about privately. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #63

I'm betting you have never owned a home Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #147

"You could have transfers of ownership that are shares in the property" lumberjack_jeff Aug 2015 #150

ha! tammywammy Aug 2015 #169

No, it's not what we do today. We take out loans TexasMommaWithAHat Aug 2015 #178

LOL- in the end what this half-backed idea would result in is rent being replaced with Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #219

What if, when the person who "bought" a room in the house....... WillowTree Aug 2015 #235

As the son of a life-long contractor, that's bullshit. X_Digger Aug 2015 #174

Sounds a lot like Communism... TreasonousBastard Aug 2015 #30

I would say it's more perfectly capitalistic than the present system. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #67

The systems humans come up with are organic olddots Aug 2015 #32

"The main reason I have been at odds with money" I'm curious: other than bartering, jonno99 Aug 2015 #38

Didn't you ever think they might just tear it down and take a loss... Historic NY Aug 2015 #36

A total loss rather than a lower profit? Bullshit. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #70

Yes. It's called bankruptcy. nt. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #104

In which case the property would be auctioned off anyway, and they'd see none of the proceeds. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #129

Correct. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #166

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

Is this from The Onion? Snobblevitch Aug 2015 #39

Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #74

Are You? ProfessorGAC Aug 2015 #131

I think the UK tried this with its council housing. Starry Messenger Aug 2015 #40

Thanks, that would be interesting reading. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #77

The folks that own property are the ones that make the laws... ileus Aug 2015 #41

Only because the rest let them. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #78

Let's outlaw carbon dioxide next. I hear it contributes to global warming FSogol Aug 2015 #42

CO2 is a molecule. Landlordism is a business arrangement. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #80

Yes. That poster is a real tea party supporter. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #105

Except I haven't heard a single objection that withstands the simplest scrutiny. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #114

You have heard tons of well thought out reasons why. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #167

You don't think that people needing to live somewhere for only a short time SheilaT Aug 2015 #217

You were the subject of an alert. I was juror number 5. guillaumeb Aug 2015 #172

This isn't a good idea mythology Aug 2015 #46

I've addressed most of this in earlier comments, but I'll reiterate here. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #88

How does this make sense whatthehey Aug 2015 #133

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

And what do you think will replace the mortgage? TexasMommaWithAHat Aug 2015 #185

You are in the running for first place FYI...probably will at least get 2nd snooper2 Aug 2015 #48

First place in what? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #132

Wait - what if I WANT to rent? nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #50

That's what hotels are for. Cleita Aug 2015 #53

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

Explain why you would rather do that and pay a rent expense instead of Cleita Aug 2015 #64

Many folks - especially those who are older like their own (quiet) space, but jonno99 Aug 2015 #72

I'm never for one size fits all, but trends where there might be a few exceptions, not enough Cleita Aug 2015 #82

Why is it illegal for a landlord to rent real estate, but a hotel can? NT 1939 Aug 2015 #113

It's a different type of business. Cleita Aug 2015 #119

Not the way the OP states it 1939 Aug 2015 #128

It's just speculation. So don't worry your head over it. eom Cleita Aug 2015 #135

That's illegal under this proposal. A hotel is renting out property. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2015 #179

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, I never liked the idea of owning an apartment, but it's Cleita Aug 2015 #51

Yes, that's the general idea: To reunite ownership and usage. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #141

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

The OP just opened the subject for theoretical discussion ... Auggie Aug 2015 #76

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

There always have been landlords. Often they were known as lords, Kings or Cleita Aug 2015 #68

Well not always though. whatthehey Aug 2015 #75

Or in later times even as late as the eighteenth century, everything you owned technically belonged Cleita Aug 2015 #84

Go further back in time ... Auggie Aug 2015 #81

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

No. Good hunting grounds were very valuable before agriculture. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2015 #183

Are you suggesting hunting grounds were "available for lease" by those that laid claimed to them? Auggie Aug 2015 #188

No, I'm saying one tribe would claim ownership over them jeff47 Aug 2015 #193

That's not a landlord situation then. Auggie Aug 2015 #199

Sure it is. jeff47 Aug 2015 #200

Not sure but certainly pre-classical Rome whatthehey Aug 2015 #69

Poverty too. Always been there, so let's do nothing about it. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #142

We need to End Real Estate as a Commodity Market daredtowork Aug 2015 #65

You are right. Cleita Aug 2015 #71

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

Lol. Wow. Sorry but thankfully this is just talk. yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #116

If you can't borrow against real estate, then only people with cash on hand would be able to buy, hughee99 Aug 2015 #122

No, OP is claiming houses would cost 1/5th the cost of a car. jeff47 Aug 2015 #186

Well shit, that wouldn't even be worth what it costs to build it, hughee99 Aug 2015 #201

That's the OP's plan - make land nearly worthless. jeff47 Aug 2015 #202

I assumed the OP was talking about the house (structure) specifically. hughee99 Aug 2015 #204

Why stop there? Let's outlaw profit while we're at it. Throd Aug 2015 #96

Renting is a wonderful option for people in society. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #98

Can't POSSIBLY account for the myriad situations that exist, elleng Aug 2015 #100

A bit like rent control FreeJoe Aug 2015 #103

I move every few years... Positrons Aug 2015 #109

ok hill2016 Aug 2015 #111

Sometimes renting makes sense. Adrahil Aug 2015 #117

I'm a good, kind, landlord PasadenaTrudy Aug 2015 #124

That would be financially destructive to many of the poor who need mobility. Xithras Aug 2015 #127

This idea is dumber than the no air conditioning thread someone started a few weeks back. Ace Rothstein Aug 2015 #138

They lived in a state where it rarely gets over 90 degrees? alphafemale Aug 2015 #158

boredom nt steve2470 Aug 2015 #163

a silly idea - some folks like to rent - they do not want to be burdened with home ownership DrDan Aug 2015 #140

Could hotels still rent rooms or would they have to "sell" them? onenote Aug 2015 #145

I want to rent. Specifically I want to rent space in a house/neighborhood than I couldn afford on my alphafemale Aug 2015 #146

Poorly conceived. lumberjack_jeff Aug 2015 #148

This is just unworkable. Even assuming people agreed to this concept (and no one would), MADem Aug 2015 #149

You would create a situation where there are huge numbers of empty houses GitRDun Aug 2015 #154

In our area there is a 1/2% vacancy rate & housing costs are high. Many students.... Hekate Aug 2015 #157

What a dumb idea. n/t Lil Missy Aug 2015 #160

Don't ban it. Tax rent seeking at a reasonable rate Taitertots Aug 2015 #161

Taxes are paid on income received from rental property. Property taxes are paid on rental property. Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #190

+1 jonno99 Aug 2015 #231

As a long-time tenant, I can speak to this easily steve2470 Aug 2015 #162

I Posted above. alphafemale Aug 2015 #182

yes, renting works for a large number of people steve2470 Aug 2015 #187

Fridge breaks. tree crashes the roof? alphafemale Aug 2015 #191

yep, one of the beauties of renting! nt steve2470 Aug 2015 #192

So many people I know have been paying a mortgage for years alphafemale Aug 2015 #194

yea that's a sad situation nt steve2470 Aug 2015 #195

What's really funny about this thread MFrohike Aug 2015 #164

there are at least two fatal economic issues hill2016 Aug 2015 #165

Why do you assume people don't want to rent? Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #168

I like it SoLeftIAmRight Aug 2015 #170

Lolno. X_Digger Aug 2015 #171

No thanks, I owned for over 20 years and am much happier renting independentpiney Aug 2015 #173

So in your world, houses sprout out of the ground for free? jeff47 Aug 2015 #175

Good idea but can't be done without some radical transformation of the underlying order Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 #177

the cost of materials lancer78 Aug 2015 #180

Bad idea. Blue_In_AK Aug 2015 #189

That's a fairly traditional pattern. hunter Aug 2015 #206

^^ THIS ^^ nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #229

Economics of being a landlord 1939 Aug 2015 #198

With you 100%. n/t cheapdate Aug 2015 #203

You still have not addressed the issue of those SheilaT Aug 2015 #208

Yes, I've paid nearly 100K in rent where I live. I could have had a home, but couldn't make a down. freshwest Aug 2015 #210

Any term with a "lord" in it is about feudalism, period n/t eridani Aug 2015 #211

Or - NOT, period. jonno99 Aug 2015 #232

sounds like a Chamber of Commerce solution DrDan Aug 2015 #216

If real estate could not be borrowed against, then SheilaT Aug 2015 #220

It would change the college experience, that's for sure. Orrex Aug 2015 #221

Nope - would never agree to this n/t JustAnotherGen Aug 2015 #226

Because some of us actually PREFER to rent Travelman Aug 2015 #239