You completely failed to make this argument in a different thread, so why are you trying again? Looking for a different audience?
Your premise is ridiculous...people end up wealthy in a million different ways. It doesnt require being a landlord.
Oh, and dont forget the significant positive effect on the economy that landlords produce, in terms of spending their income and rental service-required (for ex. maint & repair service jobs) income locally and in a wider context (for ex. supporting jobs for people that might otherwise be on unemployment).
You know...the $$ that supports small and large businesses, enabling them to hire and keep people employed, buying services and products (also enabling employment), paying for a wider range of services that are not only for food & shelter but that keep businesses and state/community recreational/sports centers, parks, open, provides jobs. All those discretionary dollars find a place to go for kids piano lessons, soccer, buying a boat, providing income for these services and products, etc etc etc. Also keeps medical facilities in towns, provides more jobs.
Yes, landlord $$ is a significant contributor in creating a healthy economy. Not to mention the valuable service of providing safe, clean housing.
Why do you always ignore the huge tax breaks that Trump/GOP just gave to the wealthy and corporations?
Has this been good for the economy? Was the economy performing better before or after this massive rise?
Why do you always ignore the huge tax breaks that Trump/GOP just gave to the wealthy and corporations?
We have a myth that the rich are rich because of hard work, or especially invaluable contributions. Largely today, however, that's not true. What makes the rich rich is rent seeking, unearned income. This is a problem because people are wealthy not because they're producing wealth and making everyone better off. Rather, they're extracting wealth and leaving less of it for laborers.
I'm going to leave a YouTube video that goes over this issue. Enjoy!
Make no mistake, this has a real effect, and people today are mostly making less than they were in the mid 1970's. Back then, a person could buy a home with just one income. Not anymore. Why would anyone apologize for a system that clearly isn't working?
You completely failed to make this argument in a different thread, so why are you trying again? Looking for a different audience?
Your premise is ridiculous...people end up wealthy in a million different ways. It doesnt require being a landlord.
Oh, and dont forget the significant positive effect on the economy that landlords produce, in terms of spending their income and rental service-required (for ex. maint & repair service jobs) income locally and in a wider context (for ex. supporting jobs for people that might otherwise be on unemployment).
You know...the $$ that supports small and large businesses, enabling them to hire and keep people employed, buying services and products (also enabling employment), paying for a wider range of services that are not only for food & shelter but that keep businesses and state/community recreational/sports centers, parks, open, provides jobs. All those discretionary dollars find a place to go for kids piano lessons, soccer, buying a boat, providing income for these services and products, etc etc etc. Also keeps medical facilities in towns, provides more jobs.
Yes, landlord $$ is a significant contributor in creating a healthy economy. Not to mention the valuable service of providing safe, clean housing.
Capitalism works great for products that can be manufactured but for things that cannot such as land doesn't work so good.
Landlords are taking more on the average of renters disposable income than they were back in the late 60s early 70s.
It's not the landlord's fault however it's the fault of capitalism. Capitalism works well for products that can be manufactured not so well for things that cannot such as land.
If someone can figure out a way to get money without using force, what business of yours is it? What exactly has happened that is unethical or has caused you harm?
So if the two of us live on a desert island and I own the only arable farm land, am I justified in demanding 90% of the food that you produce on my land?
Both you and I are responsible for whatever contracts we agree to, even if it is one as you describe.
Who's ignored it? I've constantly called for raising the capital gains rate and cutting tax breaks on unearned income.
What you've described is no society that I would want to live in.
Notice that you're still avoiding the question.
Also notice that the society you do want to live in is one that advocates the initiation of force, to include stealing.
I'd rather live in a society that engages in what you call "stealing" than one where everyone starves to prop up someone who chooses not to work.
You imply disparity where none exists. Stealing and giving to those who do not work is exactly what your society has done.
And, notice you still have not answered the question. One might think you were avoiding it due to the embarrassment it might cause you.
What you've described is no society that I would want to live in.
So that first guy who owns the land gets to own the land in perpetuity, even if he hasn't added his own labor to it for generations?
I don't think that stealing is the only evil that one can engage in. Why do you think it is?
You didnt describe any society. You provided a completely unrealistic scenario.
The economy, finances, ownership, non-ownership, etc do not exist in vacuum like you describe.
I will continue answering your questions if and when you answer my first one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?