Biden Proposing 5% Cap on Housing Rents

[Jarlaxle]

No. The difference between low rent and outrageously high rent, is just excess $$$$$ going into landlords' pockets. That's all.

That's stupid.

Maybe you should see a psychiatrist.

You need a lobotomist.

That is your uninformed opinion. Please link to anything that suggests that the lack of rent control is responsible for destroying anything.

The second best way to destroy a city is rent control.

 

[Hum Dinger]

HA HA. To take legal action, the PEOPLE don't NEED to have the Constitution grant power to them for it. Thousands of laws exist which are not connected with the Constitution.

Even the Supremacy Clause (which I often mention in discussions about Islam) says "This Constitution, and the Laws of th United States....Shall be the Supreme Law of the Land."

Uh huh. So everybody should make concessions > "Get a roommate. Move in with family. Move to a place that has lower cost of living. Get 2 roommates . Get 3 roommates."

But not rent gouging landlords. Oh heavens, no. They must be allowed to just steamroll right over everybody, imposing extreme rents that take awy all the money people have, or more thn they have, forcing thm out of their homes. And taking away all their spending money, thereby killing all the businesses that depend on that money for sales.

It most certainly IS the government's job. It is the government's #1 responsibility - to PROTECT the people, and these days, there is nothing the people need to be protected from more than soaring rental rates.
And these soaring rental rates, kicking people out of their homes where they've lived for decades, and putting thousands of businesses out of business, or got their sales plummeting, are outside the realm of normal
market forces.

Housing is a specialized product that is in a category that only very few products are in. It is a necessity that people HAVE TO HAVE. It is also far more expensive than other products. The bell-shaped curve of prices vs business income is very different from ordinary products. With those products, people stop buying when it suits them, but with housing, being a dire necessity, people continue to buy (pay rent) long after they are dissatisfied with the price.

Malicious landlords knowing this, raise their rents to maximum levels leaving renters without any spending money, and businesses without any sales and customers. Landlords have completely shown that they can't be trusted to keep these specialized costs down to where consumers can consume, and businesses can sell.

When considering the inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independance, and the rights delineated in the Constitution, a "Right to Domicile" is a very valid right.

 

[Couchpotato]

When considering the inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independance, and the rights delineated in the Constitution, a "Right to Domicile" is a very valid right.

No one is violating their right to domicile if such a thing exists. You don't have the right to my domicile or my property. If I own a property, I should be free charge as much as I want as payment for you using it or decide to not let you or anyone else use it regardless of how much you are willing to pay. You are free to choose to pay that amount or not.

 

[SweetTea]

No one is violating their right to domicile if such a thing exists. You don't have the right to my domicile or my property. If I own a property, I should be free charge as much as I want as payment for you using it or decide to not let you or anyone else use it regardless of how much you are willing to pay. You are free to choose to pay that amount or not.

Exactly. Rent controlled housing should only be owned by the government. e.g. the projects.

 

[Couchpotato]

Exactly. Rent controlled housing should only be owned by the government. e.g. the projects.

agreed. Whether or not the Government should provide that to people is an entirely different argument. I personally am fine with it but there should be major caveats. No drugs, no booze, no smoking. There would be a work requirement. etc etc.

 

[Hum Dinger]

No one is violating their right to domicile if such a thing exists. You don't have the right to my domicile or my property. If I own a property, I should be free charge as much as I want as payment for you using it or decide to not let you or anyone else use it regardless of how much you are willing to pay. You are free to choose to pay that amount or not.

The "Right to Domicile" would be more to prevent residential properties from being boarded up to falsely inflate rents - which happens a lot.

It would also prevent rental price gouging and unfair rent increases.

Renters should get equity in the rental properties.

And NO you should not be able to charge whatever you want for a commodity that is vital to people's survival. Screw the Free-For-All market.

Allowing wealthy people to have free reign over the economy makes it a vested interest for wealthy people to keep other people in poverty - the less rental properties available, the more they can charge for each rental property.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The "Right to Domicile" would be more to prevent residential properties from being boarded up to falsely inflate rents - which happens a lot.

It would also prevent rental price gouging and unfair rent increases.

Renters should get equity in the rental properties.

And NO you should not be able to charge whatever you want for a commodity that is vital to people's survival. Screw the Free-For-All market.

Allowing wealthy people to have free reign over the economy makes it a vested interest for wealthy people to keep other people in poverty - the less rental properties available, the more they can charge for each rental property.

residential properties from being boarded up to falsely inflate rents - which happens a lot.

How much does that inflate rents? Why is it "falsely"?

It would also prevent rental price gouging and unfair rent increases.

Allowing bums to live in a rental unit prevents price gouging? What is an unfair rent increase?

Renters should get equity in the rental properties.

And free ponies!

And NO you should not be able to charge whatever you want for a commodity that is vital to people's survival.

Like cell phones and weed?

 

[Couchpotato]

The "Right to Domicile" would be more to prevent residential properties from being boarded up to falsely inflate rents - which happens a lot.

If the property owner decides he doesn’t want to rent his or her property and would rather it sit there and rot that’s his right. Why do you think you have the right to his property?

It would also prevent rental price gouging and unfair rent increases.

what’s “unfair”. Who decides? If prices for repairs taxes and insurance go up after the rental agreement is signed does the renter have to pay more?

Renters should get equity in the rental properties.

What? Why?

And NO you should not be able to charge whatever you want for a commodity that is vital to people's survival. Screw the Free-For-All market.

Who decides which commodities fall into this special category? People have existed on earth far longer without houses than with them so why are they deemed necessary for survival? They are necessary for your comfort that is all.

Allowing wealthy people to have free reign over the economy makes it a vested interest for wealthy people to keep other people in poverty - the less rental properties available, the more they can charge for each rental property.

It’s actually the exact opposite. There isn’t a finite amount of wealth in the world keeping people poor doesn’t make wealthy people more rich it keeps powerful people in power.

 

[protectionist]

No one is violating their right to domicile if such a thing exists. You don't have the right to my domicile or my property. If I own a property, I should be free charge as much as I want as payment for you using it or decide to not let you or anyone else use it regardless of how much you are willing to pay. You are free to choose to pay that amount or not.

That is perfectly true of non-essential commodities, but housing (% 1 element of human survival) is another thing entirely, as was stated in Post # 606 and 609.

 

[protectionist]

That's stupid.

No, it is FACT.

 

[protectionist]

The second best way to destroy a city is rent control.

Funny how millions of people are still living in rent controlled buildings in New York, that rent control NEVER destroyed, over the course of many decades, and those buildings, over 100 years old, are still fully occupied, clean and healthy, producing profits.

 

[protectionist]

Exactly. Rent controlled housing should only be owned by the government. e.g. the projects.

What millions of people living in non-rent controlled buildings with skyrocketed rents that they cannot pay ? What about tens of millions of businesss being killed by these same skyrocketed rents ?

 

[protectionist]

The "Right to Domicile" would be more to prevent residential properties from being boarded up to falsely inflate rents - which happens a lot.

It would also prevent rental price gouging and unfair rent increases.

Renters should get equity in the rental properties.

And NO you should not be able to charge whatever you want for a commodity that is vital to people's survival. Screw the Free-For-All market.

Allowing wealthy people to have free reign over the economy makes it a vested interest for wealthy people to keep other people in poverty - the less rental properties available, the more they can charge for each rental property.

Great post! I've been telling them this for more than a week now in this thread, but they are either landlords themselves, who care about nothing but stuffing their pockets by any means necessary, or landlords' lawyers, aides, or whatever vested interests.

Notice in their posts they say little or nothing about the HARMs they inflict on renters and businesses.

 

[sparky]

Isn't it unconstitutional to tell a citizen what they can do with their property?

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Great post! I've been telling them this for more than a week now in this thread, but they are either landlords themselves, who care about nothing but stuffing their pockets by any means necessary, or landlords' lawyers, aides, or whatever vested interests.

Notice in their posts they say little or nothing about the HARMs they inflict on renters and businesses.

The econ "teacher" agrees with the commie.

I'm shocked!

 

[Couchpotato]

That is perfectly true of non-essential commodities, but housing (% 1 element of human survival) is another thing entirely, as was stated in Post # 606 and 609.

You “stating” something doesn’t make it so. You don’t need housing to survive. You need it to be comfortable.

 

[protectionist]

If the property owner decides he doesn’t want to rent his or her property and would rather it sit there and rot that’s his right. Why do you think you have the right to his property?


what’s “unfair”. Who decides? If prices for repairs taxes and insurance go up after the rental agreement is signed does the renter have to pay more?

What? Why?

Who decides which commodities fall into this special category? People have existed on earth far longer without houses than with them so why are they deemed necessary for survival? They are necessary for your comfort that is all.


It’s actually the exact opposite. There isn’t a finite amount of wealth in the world keeping people poor doesn’t make wealthy people more rich it keeps powerful people in power.

Some of the things beng said in this thread are hard to believe. Now we're being told that housing is not necessary, but is only for comfort. Pheeew! In college, 53 years go, I remember being taught that according to anthropologists, shelter is the # 1 element of human survival.

In primitive societies, people establish shelter first & foremost, and then go looking for food.

Of course housing is a necessity. Let those who say that it isn't, go homeless for a month, and then come back here with their report (if they're still alive).

Who decides which commodities fall into this special category ? The same people who decide everything in our society. The American people (through their elected representitives)

 

[protectionist]

Isn't it unconstitutional to tell a citizen what they can do with their property?

~S~

Some people here have said that, but none have presented any specific evidence of it.

 

[Hollie]

rents are artificially high because of the demands made by millions of Biden's imported illegals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some people here have said that, but none have presented any specific evidence of it.

Many people here have said you're a retard, but you're the only one who provided evidence of it.