Well to that I say, you don’t live here or the USA and you don’t understand the power and influence of the Murdoch etc media and how easily and rapidly they destroy people who challenge them.
ETA I mean, I hope you realise that no one in their right mind actually WANTS a revolution if other means are possible.
I’m not. I’m a pragmatist now compared to what I was like at 20.
Ah. Yes, sure, I get that.
I agree - “othering” is how people are demonised, marginalised and then forgotten about and left to die, or even worse.
But money doesn’t belong in that list - we earn it, maybe inherit it, maybe even steal it, but it’s not a part of us and it’s fine to look at people who reduce the earnings of their employees because they want a fifth house or something, hold them in contempt and seek to redress their behaviour.
People have (fairly) complained about this derail - please can someone move it somewhere?
I don’t want to speak for Sabo’s position, but I’m going to guess he is for some kind of universal financial relief (for example a $1000/month stimulus check for every adult in the country), but would be against an additional bill giving landlords 60% of the rent their tenants didn’t pay due to the pandemic.
Pretty gross expecting the landlord to live off of the same amount as their tenants, I know, but that’s the extreme left for you.
The question is whether the landlord should get MORE help than the renter.
I don’t see the landlord being forced to sell his rental property in an economic downturn as being a bad thing. Like, I can’t imagine purchasing a property that I can’t afford without someone paying rent to cover the mortgage, and then expecting the government to bail me out if something happens and my tenant can’t pay.
I owned and managed a low income, 10 unit rental property for 10 years. I wouldn’t expect any government help during a depression, unless there was a legally mandated moratorium on evictions.
Why not give the money to the renter and let it trickle up.
I don’t agree with that. A landlord is basically running a business with working capital, debt, and revenue. The government said landlords need to provide their goods for free, at least for a while. Why should landlords have to give away their goods without also expecting some relief? Do you think the govt should force other business to give up their revenue for the public good with no relief?
I see it more similar to businesses that were ordered to shut down or operate at limited capacity. Don’t think they should have received direct payments to cover lost profits.
I would support something that landlords could pass on any lost rent to their lenders (i.e. if they miss out on $10k in rent from people not paying that they can’t evict, they could defer $10k in mortgage).
I don’t know. I would prefer giving forbearances on mortgages for landlords in the meantime or something, but giving landlords money to cover rent isn’t necessarily bad if you’re giving meaningful relief to everyone else too.
In any case, sorry for clogging the moderation thread with more landlord talk.
If someone worked their butt off and bought shares (another gamble) to enjoy the dividends, and cvoid has fucked that, should the government step in and help them?
The problem is in equating business owners, who by definition create wealth and employ people, with landlords who don’t necessarily do either.
It’s much closer to a speculative punt on a market that’s gone sour due to covid. As fidget said, they should prepared to take the short term loss and should be suitably bankrolled to cope with it. If they’re overleveraged why should others bail them out? Isn’t that what we object to about banker bailouts?
Except the business hasn’t gone anywhere. The govt is telling the business they need to give away their goods for free. At least that’s how I see it.
Yes exactly. That poster almost immediately became borderline abusive which is odd for a new poster, and he/she also slipped up and mentioned something about things that happened here a while ago that a new account wouldn’t have known about.
It’s not like VPNs are some secret tech that few know about. I have a couple of theories about the owner’s identity, and there’s nothing to say it wasn’t the same poster’s gimmick on 22.
Well… if renters are getting enough help with their rent, isn’t that going to the landlord?
No, the govt said renters didn’t have to pay rent and landlords couldn’t evict.
I have to say I have limited sympathy. Buying a property you don’t intend to live in with a loan so you own it once the loan is paid off is a gamble that should be understood by everyone doing it. Some gambles go wrong and you lose money.
It’s no different to me from that angle than buying a classic car with a loan under the assumption it will increase greatly in value over time, and expecting the government to step in when the market tanks.
Why is this in this thread?