The problem is, that we live in the real world. Someone has to build and maintain the housing. Some people don’t have any money for rent. If we are providing affordable housing as a human right, then that means free housing.
That is a good argument. And overall it’s been shown that having free healthcare saves money in the long run and leads to better quality of life. As would free basic housing probably. And free food. And free phones/internet. I am personally quite in favour of UBI which covers this. But at some point people are disincentivized to work / be productive. And that’s a problem because humans are rather lazy when they can be. And we need people to be productive so that we can produce housing, food, healthcare, phones, internet, etc. Clearly things are out of whack now with housing costs too high compared to salaries. But I just don’t think going full communist would work.
‘Full communist’ as in everyone gets everything for free from the government. Like free healthcare, housing etc. if you don’t want landlords but people can’t afford to buy, the only other option is free stuff from the government.
I like the idea of UBI at a fairly low rate - ie just enough to survive ok - and with no clawbacks (for a certain level) - that way people have a safety net and aren’t beholden 100% to employers, but are incentivized to find a job however small to improve their lot. It would be good for people’s mental health. It encourages an upward spiral, and employers can’t be completely shitty.
However you still need landlords - they offer rental arrangements for people who can’t buy.
You’re steering the discussion elsewhere but to answer your question, affordable housing can be achieved through government subsidies and yes, that would includes free housing. If you’re worried about freeloaders the subsidies can be contribution based. A part of your income goes the universal housing fund and with that fund housing projects can be either partially or fully subsidized.
Well the discussion moved yes - did I steer it? not intentionally. I would agree government housing is needed or UBI. But back to the original issue: that still doesn’t mean landlords are necessarily evil. It’s an important role and regulated and with proper controls a very valuable one.
Many people cants get a mortgage as they cannot afford a down payment and/or they are too much of a credit risk for the bank. So they cannot buy a house. A landlord buys the house using their own down payment and assumes the risk and then provides an arrangement where people who otherwise could not get somewhere to live, now can rent on a monthly basis. Without the landlord, people who could not buy a place to live in would have to live on the streets. So the landlord plays an important roll unless you’re ok with poorer people having to live on the streets.
You just pretty much described them as a necessary evil and hardly a benefit to the people who can’t afford a house. They will have a roof over their head but that comes at the cost of accumulating wealth as a noticeable part goes to paying for the rent, wealth that could go towards buying a home. I’m not going to pat landlords on the back for essentially exploiting people who are already having it rough.
The problem is, that we live in the real world. Someone has to build and maintain the housing. Some people don’t have any money for rent. If we are providing affordable housing as a human right, then that means free housing.
There are places in the world where healthcare is a human right. The people providing healthcare get paid. This is a solved problem.
That is a good argument. And overall it’s been shown that having free healthcare saves money in the long run and leads to better quality of life. As would free basic housing probably. And free food. And free phones/internet. I am personally quite in favour of UBI which covers this. But at some point people are disincentivized to work / be productive. And that’s a problem because humans are rather lazy when they can be. And we need people to be productive so that we can produce housing, food, healthcare, phones, internet, etc. Clearly things are out of whack now with housing costs too high compared to salaries. But I just don’t think going full communist would work.
Who said anything about full communist? This is about landlords.
Pick a fucking lane.
‘Full communist’ as in everyone gets everything for free from the government. Like free healthcare, housing etc. if you don’t want landlords but people can’t afford to buy, the only other option is free stuff from the government.
I like the idea of UBI at a fairly low rate - ie just enough to survive ok - and with no clawbacks (for a certain level) - that way people have a safety net and aren’t beholden 100% to employers, but are incentivized to find a job however small to improve their lot. It would be good for people’s mental health. It encourages an upward spiral, and employers can’t be completely shitty.
However you still need landlords - they offer rental arrangements for people who can’t buy.
Pick a fucking lane.
You’re steering the discussion elsewhere but to answer your question, affordable housing can be achieved through government subsidies and yes, that would includes free housing. If you’re worried about freeloaders the subsidies can be contribution based. A part of your income goes the universal housing fund and with that fund housing projects can be either partially or fully subsidized.
Well the discussion moved yes - did I steer it? not intentionally. I would agree government housing is needed or UBI. But back to the original issue: that still doesn’t mean landlords are necessarily evil. It’s an important role and regulated and with proper controls a very valuable one.
You’ve yet to explain how that’s an important role.
Many people cants get a mortgage as they cannot afford a down payment and/or they are too much of a credit risk for the bank. So they cannot buy a house. A landlord buys the house using their own down payment and assumes the risk and then provides an arrangement where people who otherwise could not get somewhere to live, now can rent on a monthly basis. Without the landlord, people who could not buy a place to live in would have to live on the streets. So the landlord plays an important roll unless you’re ok with poorer people having to live on the streets.
You just pretty much described them as a necessary evil and hardly a benefit to the people who can’t afford a house. They will have a roof over their head but that comes at the cost of accumulating wealth as a noticeable part goes to paying for the rent, wealth that could go towards buying a home. I’m not going to pat landlords on the back for essentially exploiting people who are already having it rough.