Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[Votto]

the anti regulation crowd wants regulation -

the best wake up call in the world is to attack their wallet.

You choose to attack my wallet? I will choose to move on. Good luck to you.

Trumps tax cuts will save the op -

Lies!

There is only one savior.

 

[g5000]

I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord. That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%. Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.

Whoa! For low income seniors on Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly. Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either. Practically everybody in this complex is moving out. Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out. I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.

Next May, I will be moving out too, and still haven't figured out where to move to. I have limitations because of a low credit score and income, but I'll find someplace, even if it's not as good as where I am now.

All this is because Florida has no limit of what landlords can raise rents to. The only thing limiting them is new residents' capability to pay, and what they are able to rent apartments for.

But there is another side to this, This isn't oil or minerals mined from the ground. It's not furniture being made and sold. This is about PEOPLE. And it's about people who have been living in this complex for years, and these apartments are their HOMES. One woman who just moved out, had been living here for 25 years. Longtime neighbor-friendships are being obliterated.

If landlords NEED to raise rents, (say 10% or less) for some reason, that's understandable, but to raise them by HUNDREDS of dollars, just for GREED, is not what we ought to be OK with in this country. When hundreds of people are forced out of their homes, this is unacceptable. As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.

Rent price controls have been done in the past, but it's really not good overall for the government to get involved in this.

I understand what you mean. But it all boils down to supply and demand. In my area people are now renting out bedrooms for $500.00 to a $1000.00 per month. Rentals are almost non existent. Others are renting out their basements to the influx of people moving into the area.

It just depends where you're living at. The lack of rentals will stir on construction of more housing in an area. Price controls on rent will bring on slum lords. They won't maintain the properties. People on fixed incomes or lower incomes are screwed, & will be forced to seek other housing.

This is why it's important to purchase a home at a fixed interest rate when you're in your younger working years.

Here is a good article on what Nixon did.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1vCZzKGb6QtWRgqx7usj6y&cshid=1543424678739

See post 693.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh, I know all about the Marxist/socialists theories on it. Problem is their theories are erroneous. What you don’t understand is why capitalism works, and Marxist theory doesn’t.

Ever heard of bettering yourself and working smarter? Or do you believe that is not possible, maybe. And would explain your erroneous beliefs.

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

ever heard of Capitalism's Natural rate of unemployment? only the right wing has no understand of economics.

of course we know capitalism works; within the goalposts fixed by Government.

 

[Votto]

Oh, I know all about the Marxist/socialists theories on it. Problem is their theories are erroneous. What you don’t understand is why capitalism works, and Marxist theory doesn’t.

Ever heard of bettering yourself and working smarter? Or do you believe that is not possible, maybe. And would explain your erroneous beliefs.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

ever heard of Capitalism's Natural rate of unemployment? only the right wing has no understand of economics.

of course we know capitalism works; within the goalposts fixed by Government.

Yes, government fixes everything.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh, I know all about the Marxist/socialists theories on it. Problem is their theories are erroneous. What you don’t understand is why capitalism works, and Marxist theory doesn’t.

Ever heard of bettering yourself and working smarter? Or do you believe that is not possible, maybe. And would explain your erroneous beliefs.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

ever heard of Capitalism's Natural rate of unemployment? only the right wing has no understand of economics.

of course we know capitalism works; within the goalposts fixed by Government.

Yes, government fixes everything.

especially for the right wing, at the border.

free markets and less regulation!

 

[WinterBorn]

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.

Handing half the population $30k a year for doing nothing is not capitalism. That you think it is shows you have no clue.

landlords have some clue.

the homeless have some clue.

only the right wing, has no clue.

You are the one who has no clue.

You claim your plan would cure poverty and solve the homeless problem.

Ok, answer me this, each monthly check would be for around $2,240.00. Where will they mail the checks for the homeless? How will they cash them if they have no valid ID (a valid ID requires a home address)? And where will they keep the money? In their pocket?

It isn't that difficult, especially if it means an income to circulate and create demand, to be able pay story tellers to the stories we Want to hear.

It isn't that difficult? I am guessing you do not mean that as an answer to my questions.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

Not if you quit or were fired for cause. If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

Not if you quit or were fired for cause. If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.

what part of, employment at-will, do you not understand?

 

[WinterBorn]

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

Not if you quit or were fired for cause. If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.

what part of, employment at-will, do you not understand?

I understand it completely.

What part of being paid for workng do you not understand? If you quit the job you quit the pay too.

 

[depotoo]

What you want to do is blame everyone but the individual that gets fired, or chooses not to work, for their lousy job performance or attitude.

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

Not if you quit or were fired for cause. If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.

what part of, employment at-will, do you not understand?

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

Not if you quit or were fired for cause. If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.

what part of, employment at-will, do you not understand?

I understand it completely.

What part of being paid for workng do you not understand? If you quit the job you quit the pay too.

the pay of employment compensation, not the "pay" of unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

What you want to do is blame everyone but the individual that gets fired, or chooses not to work, for their lousy job performance or attitude.

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

Not if you quit or were fired for cause. If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.

what part of, employment at-will, do you not understand?

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

 

[caddo kid]

I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord. That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%. Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.

Whoa! For low income seniors on Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly. Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either. Practically everybody in this complex is moving out. Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out. I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.

Next May, I will be moving out too, and still haven't figured out where to move to. I have limitations because of a low credit score and income, but I'll find someplace, even if it's not as good as where I am now.

All this is because Florida has no limit of what landlords can raise rents to. The only thing limiting them is new residents' capability to pay, and what they are able to rent apartments for.

But there is another side to this, This isn't oil or minerals mined from the ground. It's not furniture being made and sold. This is about PEOPLE. And it's about people who have been living in this complex for years, and these apartments are their HOMES. One woman who just moved out, had been living here for 25 years. Longtime neighbor-friendships are being obliterated.

If landlords NEED to raise rents, (say 10% or less) for some reason, that's understandable, but to raise them by HUNDREDS of dollars, just for GREED, is not what we ought to be OK with in this country. When hundreds of people are forced out of their homes, this is unacceptable. As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.

WOW, LOOK: ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE BITCHING ABOUT FREE MARKETS.

 

[dblack]

I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord. That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%. Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.

Whoa! For low income seniors on Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly. Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either. Practically everybody in this complex is moving out. Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out. I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.

Next May, I will be moving out too, and still haven't figured out where to move to. I have limitations because of a low credit score and income, but I'll find someplace, even if it's not as good as where I am now.

All this is because Florida has no limit of what landlords can raise rents to. The only thing limiting them is new residents' capability to pay, and what they are able to rent apartments for.

But there is another side to this, This isn't oil or minerals mined from the ground. It's not furniture being made and sold. This is about PEOPLE. And it's about people who have been living in this complex for years, and these apartments are their HOMES. One woman who just moved out, had been living here for 25 years. Longtime neighbor-friendships are being obliterated.

If landlords NEED to raise rents, (say 10% or less) for some reason, that's understandable, but to raise them by HUNDREDS of dollars, just for GREED, is not what we ought to be OK with in this country. When hundreds of people are forced out of their homes, this is unacceptable. As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.

WOW, LOOK: ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE BITCHING ABOUT FREE MARKETS.

It's different when we do it.

 

[WinterBorn]

What you want to do is blame everyone but the individual that gets fired, or chooses not to work, for their lousy job performance or attitude.

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

Not if you quit or were fired for cause. If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.

what part of, employment at-will, do you not understand?

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Perhaps it does. But that does not change the fact that quitting or being fired from a job means you don't draw unemployment.

Want long term income without working? Apply for welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

Indeed it is. We have established that. And why do you get a job? To have an income. And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

Not if you quit or were fired for cause. If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.

what part of, employment at-will, do you not understand?

I understand it completely.

What part of being paid for workng do you not understand? If you quit the job you quit the pay too.

the pay of employment compensation, not the "pay" of unemployment compensation.

No, the pay of unemployment compensation is not paid to those who quit their job.

Apply for welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

What you want to do is blame everyone but the individual that gets fired, or chooses not to work, for their lousy job performance or attitude.

yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.

Not if you quit or were fired for cause. If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.

what part of, employment at-will, do you not understand?

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Perhaps it does. But that does not change the fact that quitting or being fired from a job means you don't draw unemployment.

Want long term income without working? Apply for welfare.

that perception should be challenged. a federal doctrine and State laws, claim employment is at the will of either party. EDD must show proof of for-Cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in our at-will employment States. It really is, for the public Good.