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

[danielpalos]

We don't need bum checks to circulate capital.
Bum checks are counterproductive.
Put down the weed and get a job. Bum.

Thanks for your right-wing, bigoted, and fascist opinion. Why do right-wingers allege to be for Capitalism in socialism threads?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for your right-wing, bigoted, and fascist opinion. Why do right-wingers allege to be for Capitalism in socialism threads?

Anything to help my ignorant, left-wing fascist friends.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And, for the purposes of this topic, they are.

 

[WinterBorn]

Rent control is an abuse of social power when equal protection of the Laws is available as a Civil Right.

Hypothetically, how would landlords be worse if persons can obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States?

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

When the people have to pay an additional $2.5 billion or more in taxes, their potential renters would have less money to spend on rent.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, capital Must circulate under Capitalism. That is the only requirement.

It is why we have the socialism of our federal and State Constitutions.

The capital you would be taking from the tax payers already circulates.

 

[danielpalos]

The capital you would be taking from the tax payers already circulates.

You simply misunderstand economics, like usual. Anyone with an income will pay general taxes that help contribute to the multiplier and automatically stabilize our economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

You simply misunderstand economics, like usual. Anyone with an income will pay general taxes that help contribute to the multiplier and automatically stabilize our economy.

They will pay 12 percent in federal taxes.

 

[dblack]

What is right about banning rent control ? It's about as WRONG as anything any state government ever did. If your rent just went from $550/mo to $900/mo, and your whole income was less than $1200/mo, you'd see how wrong it is.

So personally inconvenience is your definition of "wrong". I'm shocked.

If you don't like prices going up, stop voting for politicians who inflate the currency.

 

[eagle1462010]

FHA Loans - See Requirements, Benefits and How to Apply

Learn the ins and outs of the FHA loan with articles, guides and educational tools from FHALoans.com

www.fhaloans.com

Try that . I clicked through most of it guessing. Might get you a FHA prequalified loan. It has a 0% down option. Worth a shot.

 

[danielpalos]

They will pay 12 percent in federal taxes.

I am hoping for a cute rocket science chic to volunteer to help me re-memorize the quadradic equation before getting more into the more serious math part of the dilemma. Some dissertations or case studies would be nice.

The point is, they could do it via general taxation instead of direct taxation to keep it simple and to better help stabilize our economy while also giving Congress or an Agency better economic means to influence markets via market recognizable and friendly means.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am hoping for a cute rocket science chic to volunteer to help me re-memorize the quadradic equation before getting more into the more serious math part of the dilemma. Some dissertations or case studies would be nice.

The point is, they could do it via general taxation instead of direct taxation to keep it simple and to better help stabilize our economy while also giving Congress or an Agency better economic means to influence markets via market recognizable and friendly means.

Keep hoping.

As for your claim about the taxation on the $2.5 billion it would cost (every year) to create the new welfare (not counting the bureaucracy to run it), since those receiving the benefits would pay 12%, only $300 million would come back. The program would be operating at a $2.2 billion deficit.

 

[danielpalos]

Keep hoping.

As for your claim about the taxation on the $2.5 billion it would cost (every year) to create the new welfare (not counting the bureaucracy to run it), since those receiving the benefits would pay 12%, only $300 million would come back. The program would be operating at a $2.2 billion deficit.

Those receiving the benefits would not be the only ones paying general taxes. And, even your estimation of two point five billion would still be affected by the multiplier. One case study I have read showed a multiplier of two point zero.

We get the biggest "bang for our buck" when the Poor spend most of their incomes on consumption.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those receiving the benefits would not be the only ones paying general taxes. And, even your estimation of two point five billion would still be affected by the multiplier. One case study I have read showed a multiplier of two point zero.

We get the biggest "bang for our buck" when the Poor spend most of their incomes on consumption.

You need to get a job.....for the multiplier.

 

[surada]

What is right about banning rent control ? It's about as WRONG as anything any state government ever did. If your rent just went from $550/mo to $900/mo, and your whole income was less than $1200/mo, you'd see how wrong it is.

Letting prices soar on luxuries is one thing. Letting that happen on NECESSITIES is something alltogether different. If business owners want to be fully free from price controls, they should enter businesses that don't deal with things people HAVE TO HAVE.

Most 1 bedroom apartments these days are $1300 plus utilities. Why don't you check on HUD properties for senior citizens? Typically they charge about 1/3 of your income.

 

[danielpalos]

You need to get a job.....for the multiplier.

Even compensation for simply being unemployed will work. It really is that simple and we could solve simple poverty in the process while giving another tool to Government to help automatically stabilize our economy in a market friendly manner.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even compensation for simply being unemployed will work. It really is that simple and we could solve simple poverty in the process while giving another tool to Government to help automatically stabilize our economy in a market friendly manner.

Getting a job works better than the bum check you'll never receive.
Bum checks will destabilize the economy.
They will harm the market.
Get a job.

 

[WinterBorn]

Those receiving the benefits would not be the only ones paying general taxes. And, even your estimation of two point five billion would still be affected by the multiplier. One case study I have read showed a multiplier of two point zero.

We get the biggest "bang for our buck" when the Poor spend most of their incomes on consumption.

Yes, you have talked about the multiplier of 2.0 ad nauseum. But that was a completely different program than the one you want. You have also talked about welfare having a multiplier of 0.8. And the program you want is far closer to welfare than to the current unemployment compensation.

And the $2.2 billion is every year. It would take several years to see any real results from the 0.8 multiplier. After 3 years the program would have $6.6 billion in deficits.

 

[WinterBorn]

Even compensation for simply being unemployed will work. It really is that simple and we could solve simple poverty in the process while giving another tool to Government to help automatically stabilize our economy in a market friendly manner.

No, it will not. It would produce even higher deficits and reduce the paychecks of those who actually have a job and work to support themselves.

 

[danielpalos]

Getting a job works better than the bum check you'll never receive.
Bum checks will destabilize the economy.
They will harm the market.
Get a job.

How would the landlord be worse with no need for rent control and Labor having recourse to compensation for simply bieng unemployed in an at-will employment State?

Where is Winterborn, maybe he can help us out with the math until some rocket science chics demand their turn?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, you have talked about the multiplier of 2.0 ad nauseum. But that was a completely different program than the one you want. You have also talked about welfare having a multiplier of 0.8. And the program you want is far closer to welfare than to the current unemployment compensation.

And the $2.2 billion is every year. It would take several years to see any real results from the 0.8 multiplier. After 3 years the program would have $6.6 billion in deficits.

The legal and physical infrastructure is already available and merely needs to be upgraded.

Social means testing for general welfare benefits is more expensive and unnecessary to solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.