Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[danielpalos]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

You haven’t a clue when it comes to economics. You only know what you have been fed, which is based on fantasy only.

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing.

The housing sector should be more stable for market participants. That can Only happen if markets receive metrics from that market participation.

If every working person making over $30k a year has to pay an additional $15k in taxes, above what they already pay, the economy would be in shambles.

guess that is why the right wing Only knows how to finance government.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

Handing half the population $30k a year for doing nothing is not capitalism. That you think it is shows you have no clue.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

You haven’t a clue when it comes to economics. You only know what you have been fed, which is based on fantasy only.

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing.

The housing sector should be more stable for market participants. That can Only happen if markets receive metrics from that market participation.

If every working person making over $30k a year has to pay an additional $15k in taxes, above what they already pay, the economy would be in shambles.

guess that is why the right wing Only knows how to finance government.

Absolute nonsense. Giving half the population $30k a year would bankrupt the nation in no time.

And, since you seem adamant about not requiring a means test, it would be more than half. Why wouldn't someone making $40k or $50k a year sign up too? There is no method of checking.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

Once again you avoid the topic and pretend I said something I did not.

I laid out what would happen if your plan were adopted. I did it based on facts. And you claim I said something about the value of morals? That is a blatant lie.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

Handing half the population $30k a year for doing nothing is not capitalism. That you think it is shows you have no clue.

landlords have some clue.

the homeless have some clue.

only the right wing, has no clue.

 

[dblack]

Once again you avoid the topic and pretend I said something I did not.

Sadly, that's an old standard in the partisan playbook.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

Handing half the population $30k a year for doing nothing is not capitalism. That you think it is shows you have no clue.

landlords have some clue.

the homeless have some clue.

only the right wing, has no clue.

You are the one who has no clue.

You claim your plan would cure poverty and solve the homeless problem.

Ok, answer me this, each monthly check would be for around $2,240.00. Where will they mail the checks for the homeless? How will they cash them if they have no valid ID (a valid ID requires a home address)? And where will they keep the money? In their pocket?

 

[depotoo]

Ever heard of bettering yourself and working smarter? Or do you believe that is not possible, maybe. And would explain your erroneous beliefs.

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

Handing half the population $30k a year for doing nothing is not capitalism. That you think it is shows you have no clue.

landlords have some clue.

the homeless have some clue.

only the right wing, has no clue.

You are the one who has no clue.

You claim your plan would cure poverty and solve the homeless problem.

Ok, answer me this, each monthly check would be for around $2,240.00. Where will they mail the checks for the homeless? How will they cash them if they have no valid ID (a valid ID requires a home address)? And where will they keep the money? In their pocket?

It isn't that difficult, especially if it means an income to circulate and create demand, to be able pay story tellers to the stories we Want to hear.

 

[danielpalos]

Ever heard of bettering yourself and working smarter? Or do you believe that is not possible, maybe. And would explain your erroneous beliefs.

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

ever heard of Capitalism's Natural rate of unemployment? only the right wing has no understand of economics.

 

[basquebromance]

"30-year-old commutes 4 hours, and 140 miles, every day so he doesn't have to pay $4,500-a-month San Francisco rent" - CNBC

 

[danielpalos]

markets must be inefficient to the extent of any lack of participation. poverty proves this to be a self-evident truth.

 

[depotoo]

Oh, I know all about the Marxist/socialists theories on it. Problem is their theories are erroneous. What you don’t understand is why capitalism works, and Marxist theory doesn’t.

Ever heard of bettering yourself and working smarter? Or do you believe that is not possible, maybe. And would explain your erroneous beliefs.

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

ever heard of Capitalism's Natural rate of unemployment? only the right wing has no understand of economics.

 

[Votto]

I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord. That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%. Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.

Whoa! For low income seniors on Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly. Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either. Practically everybody in this complex is moving out. Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out. I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.

Next May, I will be moving out too, and still haven't figured out where to move to. I have limitations because of a low credit score and income, but I'll find someplace, even if it's not as good as where I am now.

All this is because Florida has no limit of what landlords can raise rents to. The only thing limiting them is new residents' capability to pay, and what they are able to rent apartments for.

But there is another side to this, This isn't oil or minerals mined from the ground. It's not furniture being made and sold. This is about PEOPLE. And it's about people who have been living in this complex for years, and these apartments are their HOMES. One woman who just moved out, had been living here for 25 years. Longtime neighbor-friendships are being obliterated.

If landlords NEED to raise rents, (say 10% or less) for some reason, that's understandable, but to raise them by HUNDREDS of dollars, just for GREED, is not what we ought to be OK with in this country. When hundreds of people are forced out of their homes, this is unacceptable. As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.

No, the landlords should not be told what to do.

What if they need to raise the rent so that they are not losing money?

The market will prove whether they chose wisely or not. If people don't come back, they will either lower the price or sell the business.

For now, move.

Naturally, this is not pleasant but you CHOSE to live where you do now while knowing that rent can and does fluctuate.

 

[Siete]

the anti regulation crowd wants regulation -

the best wake up call in the world is to attack their wallet.

 

[depotoo]

the anti regulation crowd wants regulation -

the best wake up call in the world is to attack their wallet.

You choose to attack my wallet? I will choose to move on. Good luck to you.

 

[oreo]

I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord. That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%. Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.

Whoa! For low income seniors on Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly. Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either. Practically everybody in this complex is moving out. Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out. I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.

Next May, I will be moving out too, and still haven't figured out where to move to. I have limitations because of a low credit score and income, but I'll find someplace, even if it's not as good as where I am now.

All this is because Florida has no limit of what landlords can raise rents to. The only thing limiting them is new residents' capability to pay, and what they are able to rent apartments for.

But there is another side to this, This isn't oil or minerals mined from the ground. It's not furniture being made and sold. This is about PEOPLE. And it's about people who have been living in this complex for years, and these apartments are their HOMES. One woman who just moved out, had been living here for 25 years. Longtime neighbor-friendships are being obliterated.

If landlords NEED to raise rents, (say 10% or less) for some reason, that's understandable, but to raise them by HUNDREDS of dollars, just for GREED, is not what we ought to be OK with in this country. When hundreds of people are forced out of their homes, this is unacceptable. As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.

Rent price controls have been done in the past, but it's really not good overall for the government to get involved in this.

I understand what you mean. But it all boils down to supply and demand. In my area people are now renting out bedrooms for $500.00 to a $1000.00 per month. Rentals are almost non existent. Others are renting out their basements to the influx of people moving into the area.

It just depends where you're living at. The lack of rentals will stir on construction of more housing in an area. Price controls on rent will bring on slum lords. They won't maintain the properties. People on fixed incomes or lower incomes are screwed, & will be forced to seek other housing.

This is why it's important to purchase a home at a fixed interest rate when you're in your younger working years.

Here is a good article on what Nixon did.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1vCZzKGb6QtWRgqx7usj6y&cshid=1543424678739

 

[Siete]

the anti regulation crowd wants regulation -

the best wake up call in the world is to attack their wallet.

You choose to attack my wallet? I will choose to move on. Good luck to you.

Trumps tax cuts will save the op -

 

[my2¢]

If landlords NEED to raise rents, (say 10% or less) for some reason, that's understandable, but to raise them by HUNDREDS of dollars, just for GREED, is not what we ought to be OK with in this country. When hundreds of people are forced out of their homes, this is unacceptable. As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.

Before the real estate bust 10 years ago many apartments around here were converting to condos. Just wondering if a condo conversion might be case in your situation? Sounds like they want a lot of evacuations.

Another possibility is that over the recent years the complex has appreciated to such an extent that for the new owner needs the rent hike to get any decent return on his investment.

On the matter of greed I say it all depends on if the new rent is out of line with other apartments in the area.

 

[depotoo]

Without those tax cuts, he would be even more enraged than now...

the anti regulation crowd wants regulation -

the best wake up call in the world is to attack their wallet.

You choose to attack my wallet? I will choose to move on. Good luck to you.

Trumps tax cuts will save the op -