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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Why not outlaw landlordism? [View all] True Blue Door Aug 2015 OP
Western Civ would collapse immediately pscot Aug 2015 #1
Hence the point about unfolding gradually. But do you see anything wrong in theory? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #2
Property rights are the keystone of Liberal governance pscot Aug 2015 #17
That's a radically libertarian position to take. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #22
Not libertarian; Historical pscot Aug 2015 #24
Libertarian. And no property rights are violated in this scenario. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #125
Commerce clause only covers interstate and international commerce Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #86
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
Um, no. That's quite false. Fantastic Anarchist Aug 2015 #35
I'm struggling to think of examples FreeJoe Aug 2015 #93
Cliven Bundy enjoys a great deal of political and personal freedom while using public property. ieoeja Aug 2015 #225
Those are your examples? FreeJoe Aug 2015 #236
"Socialism". I do not think it means what you think it means. ieoeja Aug 2015 #240
Not quite. The concept called 'commons' was a part of property rights until PatrickforO Aug 2015 #83
Doesn't make right, though. Does it? cheapdate Aug 2015 #205
Land owners do compensate the public on an ongoing basis. Ace Rothstein Aug 2015 #218
Yes, property taxes are a real thing. cheapdate Aug 2015 #222
The Constitution has nothing at all to say about what sorts of entities can be "property" eridani Aug 2015 #214
+1 cheapdate Aug 2015 #223
+2 Fantastic Anarchist Aug 2015 #238
So... that's a vote FOR the idea, then? Scootaloo Aug 2015 #152
How do you plan on seizing tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in private property? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #3
What are you talking about "seize"? Did you actually read the OP? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #4
Seize? Eh - I think you're rubbing up against the 4th amendment...nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #7
How? There's no "seizure" of anything. None even implied. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #8
regulating property to such a degree that it loses most of its value geek tragedy Aug 2015 #14
Simple fix: Compensatory tax deduction for those who purchased before. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #21
GT is correct. You run into the 5th amendment "Takings Clause" - which deals with jonno99 Aug 2015 #28
This objection has already been addressed. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #123
"this would indeed work" - I'm sorry, but I missed the response(s) in agreement. jonno99 Aug 2015 #130
I'm sorry, I missed the bit about reality being a democracy. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #134
Looks like you've got it covered. However, I'm curious - jonno99 Aug 2015 #143
Yes. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #144
I think you underestimate the size of the "special cases" group. jonno99 Aug 2015 #159
Tax deduction for the landowners, and grandfather on a case by case basis... cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #47
I don't think so FreeJoe Aug 2015 #95
The difference is that everyone who owns real property in California pays taxes on it. Everyone. cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #197
Don't we have a lot targeted taxes and tax deductions? FreeJoe Aug 2015 #237
You are depriving people of the free use of their private property. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #43
I think it would be a type of seizure if the government were suddenly to decree pnwmom Aug 2015 #151
I think you'd have better luck outlawing snark & sarcasm...nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #5
Real estate is a regulated for-profit industry, not a Constitutional right. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #9
Au contraire pscot Aug 2015 #19
There's no Constitutional right to profit. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author jonno99 Aug 2015 #34
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
It can't regulate intra-state commerce. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #112
I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning. Adrahil Aug 2015 #115
Jury nullification? n/t Uncle Joe Aug 2015 #196
The idea of the Constitution was Yupster Aug 2015 #212
There goes tenantism BeyondGeography Aug 2015 #6
Meaning? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #11
You should know the meaning. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #102
There would be a lot of homeless people LittleBlue Aug 2015 #10
You didn't read the entire OP, did you? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #12
I did LittleBlue Aug 2015 #20
Then you're basically making the conservative argument about taxes: True Blue Door Aug 2015 #25
That isn't true LittleBlue Aug 2015 #52
Holding on to property would be an unsustainable business decision. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #120
Ugh, really? geek tragedy Aug 2015 #13
Yes, really. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #33
Well, there is the "long run" problem. rogerashton Aug 2015 #15
Actually that's a long-run solution. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #44
Materials cost money. jeff47 Aug 2015 #176
My air conditioned just broke down Yupster Aug 2015 #213
What would you do with all the 2nd and 3rd mortgages already on the books? nt. Juicy_Bellows Aug 2015 #16
Grandfather, or tax credit, or some other combination of mitigations. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #45
You would blow up municipal budgets across the country hack89 Aug 2015 #18
That is an interesting point. Let's think about that. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #49
People who own today will be under a mountain of debt hack89 Aug 2015 #61
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
total US mortgage debt is $11.6 trillion. Amishman Aug 2015 #106
LOL. It would cost about 1/4 of the money spent on Fed bailouts after 2008. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #118
Where did the 2008 bailout money come from? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #121
Clearly you never owed a home yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #101
I've both owned and rented, and owned rentals too whatthehey Aug 2015 #136
"Renters pay for all that just not in discrete chunks" - and THAT is the essence of the problem - jonno99 Aug 2015 #156
You are mistaken about the economics. Ms. Toad Aug 2015 #209
That was a huge problem in the Great Depression. And why income taxes are better. ieoeja Aug 2015 #66
Ummmm 1939 Aug 2015 #110
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
Let's see 1939 Aug 2015 #230
I think you're wrong on #4. ieoeja Aug 2015 #233
The banks paid fines because they did the foreclosures illegally 1939 Aug 2015 #234
Only bought, sold, or used by the owner? SheilaT Aug 2015 #26
I'm mainly wondering about the large-scale economic effect. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #54
You're delusional if you think that SheilaT Aug 2015 #153
My guess is this plan would be loopholed to death Yupster Aug 2015 #215
What would people who have to rent do? Reter Aug 2015 #27
But apparently (reading between the OP lines) you can afford property taxes...nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #31
He's already paying them, likely at higher rates whatthehey Aug 2015 #57
For the record: the rent I charge does *not* cover my costs. ieoeja Aug 2015 #227
You have to rent because real estate prices are artificially inflated by landlords and speculators. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #55
So houses will drop down to 1980 prices? Reter Aug 2015 #58
If you read the post laundry_queen Aug 2015 #60
Glory be that this will never come true yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #107
What kind of post is that? laundry_queen Aug 2015 #184
I have replies all through the thread yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #207
As a landlord of exactly one property Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #29
The "minimum cost" of houses is something every contractor laughs about privately. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #63
I'm betting you have never owned a home Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #147
"You could have transfers of ownership that are shares in the property" lumberjack_jeff Aug 2015 #150
ha! tammywammy Aug 2015 #169
No, it's not what we do today. We take out loans TexasMommaWithAHat Aug 2015 #178
LOL- in the end what this half-backed idea would result in is rent being replaced with Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #219
What if, when the person who "bought" a room in the house....... WillowTree Aug 2015 #235
As the son of a life-long contractor, that's bullshit. X_Digger Aug 2015 #174
Sounds a lot like Communism... TreasonousBastard Aug 2015 #30
I would say it's more perfectly capitalistic than the present system. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #67
The systems humans come up with are organic olddots Aug 2015 #32
"The main reason I have been at odds with money" I'm curious: other than bartering, jonno99 Aug 2015 #38
Didn't you ever think they might just tear it down and take a loss... Historic NY Aug 2015 #36
A total loss rather than a lower profit? Bullshit. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #70
Yes. It's called bankruptcy. nt. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #104
In which case the property would be auctioned off anyway, and they'd see none of the proceeds. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #129
Correct. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #166
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
Is this from The Onion? Snobblevitch Aug 2015 #39
Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #74
Are You? ProfessorGAC Aug 2015 #131
I think the UK tried this with its council housing. Starry Messenger Aug 2015 #40
Thanks, that would be interesting reading. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #77
The folks that own property are the ones that make the laws... ileus Aug 2015 #41
Only because the rest let them. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #78
Let's outlaw carbon dioxide next. I hear it contributes to global warming FSogol Aug 2015 #42
CO2 is a molecule. Landlordism is a business arrangement. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #80
Yes. That poster is a real tea party supporter. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #105
Except I haven't heard a single objection that withstands the simplest scrutiny. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #114
You have heard tons of well thought out reasons why. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #167
You don't think that people needing to live somewhere for only a short time SheilaT Aug 2015 #217
You were the subject of an alert. I was juror number 5. guillaumeb Aug 2015 #172
This isn't a good idea mythology Aug 2015 #46
I've addressed most of this in earlier comments, but I'll reiterate here. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #88
How does this make sense whatthehey Aug 2015 #133
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
And what do you think will replace the mortgage? TexasMommaWithAHat Aug 2015 #185
You are in the running for first place FYI...probably will at least get 2nd snooper2 Aug 2015 #48
First place in what? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #132
Wait - what if I WANT to rent? nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #50
That's what hotels are for. Cleita Aug 2015 #53
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
Explain why you would rather do that and pay a rent expense instead of Cleita Aug 2015 #64
Many folks - especially those who are older like their own (quiet) space, but jonno99 Aug 2015 #72
I'm never for one size fits all, but trends where there might be a few exceptions, not enough Cleita Aug 2015 #82
Why is it illegal for a landlord to rent real estate, but a hotel can? NT 1939 Aug 2015 #113
It's a different type of business. Cleita Aug 2015 #119
Not the way the OP states it 1939 Aug 2015 #128
It's just speculation. So don't worry your head over it. eom Cleita Aug 2015 #135
That's illegal under this proposal. A hotel is renting out property. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2015 #179
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, I never liked the idea of owning an apartment, but it's Cleita Aug 2015 #51
Yes, that's the general idea: To reunite ownership and usage. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #141
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
The OP just opened the subject for theoretical discussion ... Auggie Aug 2015 #76
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
There always have been landlords. Often they were known as lords, Kings or Cleita Aug 2015 #68
Well not always though. whatthehey Aug 2015 #75
Or in later times even as late as the eighteenth century, everything you owned technically belonged Cleita Aug 2015 #84
Go further back in time ... Auggie Aug 2015 #81
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
No. Good hunting grounds were very valuable before agriculture. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2015 #183
Are you suggesting hunting grounds were "available for lease" by those that laid claimed to them? Auggie Aug 2015 #188
No, I'm saying one tribe would claim ownership over them jeff47 Aug 2015 #193
That's not a landlord situation then. Auggie Aug 2015 #199
Sure it is. jeff47 Aug 2015 #200
Not sure but certainly pre-classical Rome whatthehey Aug 2015 #69
Poverty too. Always been there, so let's do nothing about it. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #142
We need to End Real Estate as a Commodity Market daredtowork Aug 2015 #65
You are right. Cleita Aug 2015 #71
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
Lol. Wow. Sorry but thankfully this is just talk. yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #116
If you can't borrow against real estate, then only people with cash on hand would be able to buy, hughee99 Aug 2015 #122
No, OP is claiming houses would cost 1/5th the cost of a car. jeff47 Aug 2015 #186
Well shit, that wouldn't even be worth what it costs to build it, hughee99 Aug 2015 #201
That's the OP's plan - make land nearly worthless. jeff47 Aug 2015 #202
I assumed the OP was talking about the house (structure) specifically. hughee99 Aug 2015 #204
Why stop there? Let's outlaw profit while we're at it. Throd Aug 2015 #96
Renting is a wonderful option for people in society. NCTraveler Aug 2015 #98
Can't POSSIBLY account for the myriad situations that exist, elleng Aug 2015 #100
A bit like rent control FreeJoe Aug 2015 #103
I move every few years... Positrons Aug 2015 #109
ok hill2016 Aug 2015 #111
Sometimes renting makes sense. Adrahil Aug 2015 #117
I'm a good, kind, landlord PasadenaTrudy Aug 2015 #124
That would be financially destructive to many of the poor who need mobility. Xithras Aug 2015 #127
This idea is dumber than the no air conditioning thread someone started a few weeks back. Ace Rothstein Aug 2015 #138
They lived in a state where it rarely gets over 90 degrees? alphafemale Aug 2015 #158
boredom nt steve2470 Aug 2015 #163
a silly idea - some folks like to rent - they do not want to be burdened with home ownership DrDan Aug 2015 #140
Could hotels still rent rooms or would they have to "sell" them? onenote Aug 2015 #145
I want to rent. Specifically I want to rent space in a house/neighborhood than I couldn afford on my alphafemale Aug 2015 #146
Poorly conceived. lumberjack_jeff Aug 2015 #148
This is just unworkable. Even assuming people agreed to this concept (and no one would), MADem Aug 2015 #149
You would create a situation where there are huge numbers of empty houses GitRDun Aug 2015 #154
In our area there is a 1/2% vacancy rate & housing costs are high. Many students.... Hekate Aug 2015 #157
What a dumb idea. n/t Lil Missy Aug 2015 #160
Don't ban it. Tax rent seeking at a reasonable rate Taitertots Aug 2015 #161
Taxes are paid on income received from rental property. Property taxes are paid on rental property. Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #190
+1 jonno99 Aug 2015 #231
As a long-time tenant, I can speak to this easily steve2470 Aug 2015 #162
I Posted above. alphafemale Aug 2015 #182
yes, renting works for a large number of people steve2470 Aug 2015 #187
Fridge breaks. tree crashes the roof? alphafemale Aug 2015 #191
yep, one of the beauties of renting! nt steve2470 Aug 2015 #192
So many people I know have been paying a mortgage for years alphafemale Aug 2015 #194
yea that's a sad situation nt steve2470 Aug 2015 #195
What's really funny about this thread MFrohike Aug 2015 #164
there are at least two fatal economic issues hill2016 Aug 2015 #165
Why do you assume people don't want to rent? Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #168
I like it SoLeftIAmRight Aug 2015 #170
Lolno. X_Digger Aug 2015 #171
No thanks, I owned for over 20 years and am much happier renting independentpiney Aug 2015 #173
So in your world, houses sprout out of the ground for free? jeff47 Aug 2015 #175
Good idea but can't be done without some radical transformation of the underlying order Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 #177
the cost of materials lancer78 Aug 2015 #180
Bad idea. Blue_In_AK Aug 2015 #189
That's a fairly traditional pattern. hunter Aug 2015 #206
^^ THIS ^^ nt jonno99 Aug 2015 #229
Economics of being a landlord 1939 Aug 2015 #198
With you 100%. n/t cheapdate Aug 2015 #203
You still have not addressed the issue of those SheilaT Aug 2015 #208
Yes, I've paid nearly 100K in rent where I live. I could have had a home, but couldn't make a down. freshwest Aug 2015 #210
Any term with a "lord" in it is about feudalism, period n/t eridani Aug 2015 #211
Or - NOT, period. jonno99 Aug 2015 #232
sounds like a Chamber of Commerce solution DrDan Aug 2015 #216
If real estate could not be borrowed against, then SheilaT Aug 2015 #220
It would change the college experience, that's for sure. Orrex Aug 2015 #221
Nope - would never agree to this n/t JustAnotherGen Aug 2015 #226
Because some of us actually PREFER to rent Travelman Aug 2015 #239
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why not outlaw landlordis...»Reply #238