Passive income. Equity. Financial security. Something you can take a quick loan out against without worry that you’ll lose your home.
I mean you can easily argue “greed” about everything. For example: Why do you need a bigger paycheck (besides greed)? Any answer you give, I can conveniently waive away as you not living within your means. I mean, you could easily buy or build yourself a tiny home and live on a cheap plot out in the boonies. Oh, you want amenities? Accessibility to the convenience of a town/city? What could you possibly want with any of those material wants (besides greed)?
If passive income you getting income without working then who’s working without income.
This whole thread thoroughly convinced me of george’s ideas.
As Adam Smith said
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce
You have a 401k? Does it earn interest? Did you earn that interest? Is your money being used as an investment vehicle to gain passive returns without you having to work for it? I mean, by your argument we should get rid of all retirement funds, we should no longer invest in companies as we get no return for giving our money to help a company grow. Should we do away with hotels as well? They don’t do anything except provide shelter for a short term, whereas you renting from someone provides shelter for a long term.
Should we just get rid of all renting then? If you can’t afford a house, then where do you live? These are pretty much all rhetorical questions, I’m not expecting you to answer them, as I believe I’ve made my point.
In an ideal world, you wouldn’t have to deal with scummy landlords. But what’s the alternative? In a free society why am I limited to what I can own? If I have the money to purchase something, should I not have the right or ability to do so if I want to?
I think the reason is “I don’t want to have to work until I die” actually.
Investment property is one of the few remaining ladders of social mobility. Does it suck that it doesn’t extend down far enough? Yes. But removing it as an option just further widens the gap between the billionaires and everyone else.
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.
Your argument assumes there’s no utility in renting, which is simply not true. A house is a PITA to maintain; stuff breaks all the time. Also, moving when you own the place is much more difficult, and some people value the flexibility of being able to hop from one part of the country to another. If we rewind 12 years, back before rent prices and housing costs went batshit insane, it was a perfectly reasonable option to rent instead of own, even if you could afford otherwise. Rent was basically paying for the service of not needing to maintain a building and not locking yourself down.
Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
Do you realize how much money a billion dollars is? One class above another, like a walk up a hill – and then the billionaire class is on a fucking space station. Again, I’m reminded of the Oreos meme.
And yet again, owning housing does not indicate wealth in a “normal” housing market, so your supposed rent/own class division isn’t even true. Very wealthy people can still be renters. Or do you think “landlords” can afford to rent a penthouse in Manhattan?
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security
Well it’s not. So make that a reality before attacking people for trying to better their situation.
There’s no good reason (except greed) not to just sell the “starter house”.
Passive income. Equity. Financial security. Something you can take a quick loan out against without worry that you’ll lose your home.
I mean you can easily argue “greed” about everything. For example: Why do you need a bigger paycheck (besides greed)? Any answer you give, I can conveniently waive away as you not living within your means. I mean, you could easily buy or build yourself a tiny home and live on a cheap plot out in the boonies. Oh, you want amenities? Accessibility to the convenience of a town/city? What could you possibly want with any of those material wants (besides greed)?
If passive income you getting income without working then who’s working without income.
This whole thread thoroughly convinced me of george’s ideas.
As Adam Smith said
You have a 401k? Does it earn interest? Did you earn that interest? Is your money being used as an investment vehicle to gain passive returns without you having to work for it? I mean, by your argument we should get rid of all retirement funds, we should no longer invest in companies as we get no return for giving our money to help a company grow. Should we do away with hotels as well? They don’t do anything except provide shelter for a short term, whereas you renting from someone provides shelter for a long term.
Should we just get rid of all renting then? If you can’t afford a house, then where do you live? These are pretty much all rhetorical questions, I’m not expecting you to answer them, as I believe I’ve made my point.
In an ideal world, you wouldn’t have to deal with scummy landlords. But what’s the alternative? In a free society why am I limited to what I can own? If I have the money to purchase something, should I not have the right or ability to do so if I want to?
I think the reason is “I don’t want to have to work until I die” actually.
Investment property is one of the few remaining ladders of social mobility. Does it suck that it doesn’t extend down far enough? Yes. But removing it as an option just further widens the gap between the billionaires and everyone else.
Where’s that meme with the oreos
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.
Your argument assumes there’s no utility in renting, which is simply not true. A house is a PITA to maintain; stuff breaks all the time. Also, moving when you own the place is much more difficult, and some people value the flexibility of being able to hop from one part of the country to another. If we rewind 12 years, back before rent prices and housing costs went batshit insane, it was a perfectly reasonable option to rent instead of own, even if you could afford otherwise. Rent was basically paying for the service of not needing to maintain a building and not locking yourself down.
Do you realize how much money a billion dollars is? One class above another, like a walk up a hill – and then the billionaire class is on a fucking space station. Again, I’m reminded of the Oreos meme.
And yet again, owning housing does not indicate wealth in a “normal” housing market, so your supposed rent/own class division isn’t even true. Very wealthy people can still be renters. Or do you think “landlords” can afford to rent a penthouse in Manhattan?
Well it’s not. So make that a reality before attacking people for trying to better their situation.
Why the fuck does that person get bigger scraps from the King’s table! Fuck him!