• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You should be forced to sell your house and rent

Funny how it’s the CURRENT workers that are gonna be screwed and will get lesser benefits.

That worked out well for Boomers and older, now didn’t it?
Old people complaining about the debt and arguing we need to raise the retirement age when you tell them they need to go back to work
1711551940254.png

I like how every plan to raise the age you get SS always includes a grace period where the people currently on it still get it and only Millennials and Gen Z will have to work longer 🤡
 
I cannot speak for @Nomad4Ever , but I'd imagine people would still be paying a site rent. And those living in more 'desirable' locations would pay a higher rent based on the value of the location. Just instead of a landlord, the money goes directly to government coffers. Why do we need a middleman?

Would go to what government body? Local? State? Federal, and then federal shares it with the other governing bodies?
 
Would go to what government body? Local? State? Federal, and then federal shares it with the other governing bodies?

Those specifics don't matter to me that much, though I do generally prefer government working at a local level. More accountability.
 
The government would own all the land and facilitate housing. If people got too lazy it would just raise rents since apparently the threat of homelessness is what makes people productive workers.
And if they can't pay the rent them the government will evict them and they will be back to homeless again.

Therefore under my plan we would have a much more productive workforce.
Wake me when the government seizes the means of production - in the name of productivity - and tells people where they will work as well as where they will live.

Seems like we tried this before in a few places. Didn't work out well as I recall.
 
You do realize you just used a racial slur, right?
Never heard that one before.

I have heard it used to describe poorly behaved toddlers and boomers though.
 
Those specifics don't matter to me that much, though I do generally prefer government working at a local level. More accountability.

Fair enough.

I suppose it really is the OP that should be addressing what seems to be a legitimate question about the economics of this.
 
Never heard that one before.

I have heard it used to describe toddlers and boomers though.
Yea, expecting black people to compete fairly in the marketplace is racist, but saying they aren't capable is pRoGrEsS ... or something
 
Yea, expecting black people to compete fairly in the marketplace is racist, but saying they aren't capable is pRoGrEsS ... or something
I have no idea what you’re trying to say
 
Nearly 20 years debating politics online and cant remember ever seeing that argument.
Then you haven't been reading. It's rampant--even here. @Lursa is a good one for that argument, as well as the NIMBYs who brazenly condemn their fellow Americans to the trash heap.
 
So it's often not then.
I wonder if it’s more often than not.

Also, does often include the entire country maybe it’s a regional thing where it’s always used for that?
 
So it's often not then.

Whether you meant it as racial or not, it's a slur. You are attacking some of the most vulnerable people in society, the impoverished. Says a lot about you.
 
I wonder if it’s more often than not.

Also, does often include the entire country maybe it’s a regional thing worse always used for that?
I think it's generally targeting gen xyz
 
What a load of bull! Most of us have no problem with giving the needy a hand up. That includes housing assistance and at least temporary welfare/food stamps. What we oppose is giving able bodied adults permanent handouts.
No such thing. Get educated on the status of what you're describing. You're argument hasn't been accurate for 40 years.
Even the government housing that you mentioned does not just hand out totally free homes in the projects. They charge them rent based on their ability to pay. And the suggestion that homeowners should be forced to sell their houses is idiotic. And there are good options for getting low income folks into home ownership.
Bullshit.
One is "Habitat for Humanity" where homes are built largely with volutary labor and donated materiels. Those getting those homes get them a low to xero interest rates with a mortgage payment as low as $100.00 a month. I think Jimmy Carter was a horribly incompetent president, however I lauded him for his participation in Habitat for Humanity.
Habitat for Humanity is like a cork in a sieve.
 
Back
Top Bottom