Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why not outlaw landlordism? [View all]pscot
(21,024 posts)19. Au contraire
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
240 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hence the point about unfolding gradually. But do you see anything wrong in theory?
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#2
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
Cliven Bundy enjoys a great deal of political and personal freedom while using public property.
ieoeja
Aug 2015
#225
Not quite. The concept called 'commons' was a part of property rights until
PatrickforO
Aug 2015
#83
The Constitution has nothing at all to say about what sorts of entities can be "property"
eridani
Aug 2015
#214
How do you plan on seizing tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in private property?
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2015
#3
GT is correct. You run into the 5th amendment "Takings Clause" - which deals with
jonno99
Aug 2015
#28
"this would indeed work" - I'm sorry, but I missed the response(s) in agreement.
jonno99
Aug 2015
#130
Tax deduction for the landowners, and grandfather on a case by case basis...
cherokeeprogressive
Aug 2015
#47
The difference is that everyone who owns real property in California pays taxes on it. Everyone.
cherokeeprogressive
Aug 2015
#197
I think it would be a type of seizure if the government were suddenly to decree
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#151
Real estate is a regulated for-profit industry, not a Constitutional right.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#9
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
What would you do with all the 2nd and 3rd mortgages already on the books? nt.
Juicy_Bellows
Aug 2015
#16
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
LOL. It would cost about 1/4 of the money spent on Fed bailouts after 2008.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#118
"Renters pay for all that just not in discrete chunks" - and THAT is the essence of the problem -
jonno99
Aug 2015
#156
That was a huge problem in the Great Depression. And why income taxes are better.
ieoeja
Aug 2015
#66
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
But apparently (reading between the OP lines) you can afford property taxes...nt
jonno99
Aug 2015
#31
You have to rent because real estate prices are artificially inflated by landlords and speculators.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#55
The "minimum cost" of houses is something every contractor laughs about privately.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#63
"You could have transfers of ownership that are shares in the property"
lumberjack_jeff
Aug 2015
#150
LOL- in the end what this half-backed idea would result in is rent being replaced with
Lee-Lee
Aug 2015
#219
"The main reason I have been at odds with money" I'm curious: other than bartering,
jonno99
Aug 2015
#38
In which case the property would be auctioned off anyway, and they'd see none of the proceeds.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#129
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
Except I haven't heard a single objection that withstands the simplest scrutiny.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#114
I've addressed most of this in earlier comments, but I'll reiterate here.
True Blue Door
Aug 2015
#88
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
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
I'm never for one size fits all, but trends where there might be a few exceptions, not enough
Cleita
Aug 2015
#82
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, 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
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
Or in later times even as late as the eighteenth century, everything you owned technically belonged
Cleita
Aug 2015
#84
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
Are you suggesting hunting grounds were "available for lease" by those that laid claimed to them?
Auggie
Aug 2015
#188
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
If you can't borrow against real estate, then only people with cash on hand would be able to buy,
hughee99
Aug 2015
#122
This idea is dumber than the no air conditioning thread someone started a few weeks back.
Ace Rothstein
Aug 2015
#138
a silly idea - some folks like to rent - they do not want to be burdened with home ownership
DrDan
Aug 2015
#140
I want to rent. Specifically I want to rent space in a house/neighborhood than I couldn afford on my
alphafemale
Aug 2015
#146
This is just unworkable. Even assuming people agreed to this concept (and no one would),
MADem
Aug 2015
#149
In our area there is a 1/2% vacancy rate & housing costs are high. Many students....
Hekate
Aug 2015
#157
Taxes are paid on income received from rental property. Property taxes are paid on rental property.
Thinkingabout
Aug 2015
#190
Good idea but can't be done without some radical transformation of the underlying order
Cheese Sandwich
Aug 2015
#177