zalgotext @ zalgotext @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

1,221

Joined

2 yr. ago

People who don’t want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them.

I don't understand what you mean by this. No one needs to rent anything to anyone, if resources are distributed fairly.

On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?

If a renter pays the same amount of money as the landlord pays towards their mortgage, and the renter has paid rent for as long as the landlord has paid the mortgage, the renter should have as much equity in the property as the landlord does.

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth lol. Obviously a megacorp that owns thousands of single-family homes is much much worse than you renting out your vacation home. Both things are unethical in my opinion, as long as things are in a state where people are without homes, but the megacorp is orders more unethical than someone renting out a single vacation home.

Builders provide housing. Landlords are nothing more than a middle man.

I think your spending assessments are exaggerated for effect, but ultimately sort of the embodiment of "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism", a leftist slogan that, while maybe oversimplified, I mostly agree with.

I'm not fetishizing anything though. I'm just saying it's unethical to profit off of your ability to deny access to a basic human need.

Taking away the opportunity of home ownership is not a service.

I'll let you know after the next leftist meeting lmao.

Real talk though, save it, donate it, or spend it. Burn it for all I care. Just don't buy real estate you don't plan on living in.

Good old fashioned police work: either waiting for someone else to do the work, or setting up some poor sad sack to pin the crime on.

I don't understand. You think the only two things one can do with excess money is buy real estate, or give that excess to me? I'm flattered to be sure, but there's a whole lot of other options out there

No landlords hoard property.

Fine, landlords hoard property ownership.

The property is used by people.

As long as the landlord permits it, and as long as the landlord gets their premium.

Landlords profit off of permitting people access to shelter, a basic right that any human should be entitled to. It's literally modern day feudalism.

Would our spooks make up a lazy narrative to cover up for their spooks?

I definitely think our spooks wouldn't want it known that their spooks were doing assassinations in our country and getting of scot-free, but I have to believe our spooks would make up something better than this

Unless your aunt is transferring equity in those homes to the tenants based on the amount they pay in rent, then yes, she's a leech. "Providing shelter" isn't the service your aunt is providing; she's just preventing someone else from owning a home.

And before anyone says "but renting is all some people can afford, they can't save up enough to make a down payment" - yes, sure, that's true. But that's a symptom of the shitty housing market (really the shitty state of the middle class in general*), and landlords aren't making it any better by hoarding property, even if it's "just" 3 to 5 townhomes.

The net is tightening? Lmao they've widened the search to nearly every metro area between New York and Atlanta

Imagine if police worked this hard to solve every murder, not just ones where a rich person is the victim. They might actually justify all the resources spent on them.

You could make it so that food isn’t wrapped in plastic and that wouldn’t make a dent in our plastic use.

Sure, but it might curb how much plastic ends up in our bodies. I have to assume that food wrapped in plastic has a greater impact in that regard than LEDs.

Taylor Swift probably has it better than most artists, considering she's probably the most famous music artist on the planet right now, and even if you only make a small percentage off of ticket sales, a small percentage of an astronomical number is still a big number. I'd still be willing to bet the bulk of her net worth is in the rights to her music though.

Damn, I'm all out of skeptical-colored crayons, closest I have is incorrect-colored ones. Hope that's ok

Eh, the world we currently live in is shit because of people like the one he vigilante murdered

If every single one of Taylor Swift's concerts were free, past, present, and future, she'd still probably be a billionaire. Artists don't really make that much on ticket sales, the ticket vendors and venues are the ones making all the money. Swift's net worth mostly comes from the value of the rights to her songs, not ticket sales.

Denim is naturally anti-microbial

Welp, that explains why the Netherlands calls these bugs "bedpissers"