What are deadbeat tenants planning to do once eviction restrictions end?

1101 wrote:

No chance "Tatat" is not a troll.

Happy trolling, dude!

He may be a troll but he has latched onto a distinction that many economists make -- there is a fundamental difference between making money by producing something useful, vs. making money by owning a piece of land.

Now I don't agree that this makes landlords evil or whatever. But many economists argue that having a rentier class of landlords (with the political power to, for example, prevent their neighbors from enlarging their buildings) tends to make the economy less efficient, effectively making the whole society poorer for the benefit of landlords.

Unless a liberal judge arbitrarily decides otherwise, the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from requiring a landowner from quartering soldiers in time of peace (would a SJW be considered a soldier?). It says nothing about the quartering of civilians. However, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from a taking your property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Landowners' use of their property, including the right to exchange its occupancy for compensation, is supposed to be a protected Constitutional right. If the socialist government is compelling landowners to allow tenants to live rent free, than the government must pay the landowners the rent or outright take their property through the process of eminent domain. Otherwise, the government's action in waiving rent is an unconstitutional taking of property. What we have hear folks is a failure to communicate. We have allowed the government to simply make a mockery of the U.S. Constitution.

muh gubment wrote:

Tatar wrote:

We don't all need to be farmers. You buy your food and consume it. You don't have the option of buying it and then leasing it to someone else to eat.

What do you think grocers are?

A grocer is where you buy food. It's the equivalent of a realtor in the property market. It's possible to get without but they smooth the process substantially. A landlord is an unnecessary party who's attached themselves to the market by taking advantage of a natural monopoly and other people's misfortune.

gdm wrote:

He may be a troll but he has latched onto a distinction that many economists make -- there is a fundamental difference between making money by producing something useful, vs. making money by owning a piece of land.

Now I don't agree that this makes landlords evil or whatever. But many economists argue that having a rentier class of landlords (with the political power to, for example, prevent their neighbors from enlarging their buildings) tends to make the economy less efficient, effectively making the whole society poorer for the benefit of landlords.

The headline unemployment rate is now around where it was in December 2013 and lower than in the Decembers of 2008-2012 (though still higher than in 2014-19), so a lot of people who lost jobs in the second quarter of 2020 have returned to work. If I'm a small landlord and see that my tenants who lost their jobs but still paid something out of their unemployment benefits are now employed again, I'd probably be willing to work something out with them, figuring that they're good bets to pay their rents in the future, and that evictions and finding new tenants have costs too. If they had made no effort, that would change my view of the likelihood that they would pay in the future.

Tatar wrote:

muh gubment wrote:

What do you think grocers are?

A grocer is where you buy food. It's the equivalent of a realtor in the property market. It's possible to get without but they smooth the process substantially. A landlord is an unnecessary party who's attached themselves to the market by taking advantage of a natural monopoly and other people's misfortune.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that every landlord in the country gets out of the business tomorrow. What happens next? Additionally, anyone who has ever actually tried his hand at residential rentals knows that rental housing is a consumable product. The tenants use it up and move on when it no longer meets their standard of habitability. Sometimes this process takes 10 years, sometimes 2 months, but it happens. Contrary to popular opinion, being a landlord is not a passive activity.

Tatar wrote:

gdm wrote:

He may be a troll but he has latched onto a distinction that many economists make -- there is a fundamental difference between making money by producing something useful, vs. making money by owning a piece of land.

Now I don't agree that this makes landlords evil or whatever. But many economists argue that having a rentier class of landlords (with the political power to, for example, prevent their neighbors from enlarging their buildings) tends to make the economy less efficient, effectively making the whole society poorer for the benefit of landlords.

https://evonomics.com/real-takers-america-unproductive-rent-extracting-rich/

Semantics.

Nobody "rents". They just purchase month-to-month, or yearly, 'house time'. The landlord works and saves and eventually buys a house. Then he sells segments of occupancy time. The house isn't the value. Time in location is the value. The owner sells 30 years of time shares and then the 'house time' is totally consumed. So a purchase is made and consumption occurs. End of story. Get over it.

And, additionally, you come up with an "Evonomics" article that tries to frame the tea partiers as anti-rentier, anti-taking. Rich irony, that! Insideous doublespeak. The whole tea party movement was all about the rich investor class pulling the puppet strings on Republican congressmen so that they would be free to ravage their markets without any due process political oversight. It was all about helping the takers!

"A landlord is an unnecessary party who's attached themselves to the market by taking advantage of a natural monopoly and other people's misfortune."

So, what's the alternative, a system of owner occupancy or homelessness; or a system of government ownership of all land, which is not the system that my ancestors and I fought for. The concrete jungles of 1970s East Germany must be very appealing to some.

BTW, many people with substantial means opt to rent because they don't what the maintenance responsibilities of ownership, or they want the freedom to move about without being tied to a property.

Disgusted wrote:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that every landlord in the country gets out of the business tomorrow. What happens next? Additionally, anyone who has ever actually tried his hand at residential rentals knows that rental housing is a consumable product. The tenants use it up and move on when it no longer meets their standard of habitability. Sometimes this process takes 10 years, sometimes 2 months, but it happens. Contrary to popular opinion, being a landlord is not a passive activity.

Well precisely, what would happen? A landlord isn't doing anything that wouldn't happen if they didn't exist. Whoever the property passes to would still do maintenance. Builders and trade would still exist.

What the post-landlord world looks like is up for debate. Owner-occupants, state owned, or neighborhood owned are all alternatives.

RyecorDone wrote:

Semantics.

Nobody "rents". They just purchase month-to-month, or yearly, 'house time'. The landlord works and saves and eventually buys a house. Then he sells segments of occupancy time. The house isn't the value. Time in location is the value. The owner sells 30 years of time shares and then the 'house time' is totally consumed. So a purchase is made and consumption occurs. End of story. Get over it.

And, additionally, you come up with an "Evonomics" article that tries to frame the tea partiers as anti-rentier, anti-taking. Rich irony, that! Insideous doublespeak. The whole tea party movement was all about the rich investor class pulling the puppet strings on Republican congressmen so that they would be free to ravage their markets without any due process political oversight. It was all about helping the takers!

I believe the point of mentioning the Tea Party was to show their hypocricy. They're not anti-taking because their politics isn't based on anti-rentierism. The OP talks of deadbeat tenants but not deadbeat landlords.

You are the one playing semantics. Time has no value being abundant and requiring no labor. It's clearly the house which is the value.

Tatar wrote:

Disgusted wrote:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that every landlord in the country gets out of the business tomorrow. What happens next? Additionally, anyone who has ever actually tried his hand at residential rentals knows that rental housing is a consumable product. The tenants use it up and move on when it no longer meets their standard of habitability. Sometimes this process takes 10 years, sometimes 2 months, but it happens. Contrary to popular opinion, being a landlord is not a passive activity.

Well precisely, what would happen? A landlord isn't doing anything that wouldn't happen if they didn't exist. Whoever the property passes to would still do maintenance. Builders and trade would still exist.

What the post-landlord world looks like is up for debate. Owner-occupants, state owned, or neighborhood owned are all alternatives.

As much as I am enjoying your ideas, I'm afraid that you lack either the real world experience or the intellectual wherewithal to continue our discussion. A sincere good day to you, sir.

Disgusted wrote:

Tatar wrote:

Well precisely, what would happen? A landlord isn't doing anything that wouldn't happen if they didn't exist. Whoever the property passes to would still do maintenance. Builders and trade would still exist.

What the post-landlord world looks like is up for debate. Owner-occupants, state owned, or neighborhood owned are all alternatives.

As much as I am enjoying your ideas, I'm afraid that you lack either the real world experience or the intellectual wherewithal to continue our discussion. A sincere good day to you, sir.

When Tatar figures out that even once he fully "owns" a house he still owes hundreds of dollars per month, not to an evil landlord, but to the government in property taxes, his head will explode.

Tatar wrote:

You know that almost every tenant needs a job to get a lease?

And that landlords don't need to work because they get income from their tenants?

Who's the real deadbeat here?

You are a delusional idiot. Do "landlords" not work? How do YOU know?

So, know-it-all, how many houses does a "landlord" need to have in order to make enough money so he/she does not have to have a full time job? How does one go about being a multiple home owner? Do you think landlords just snapped their fingers and all of a sudden had 10 or 20 houses? How much work is being a landlord of one house? Two houses? Three houses, ..Fifteen...etc?

How much, if any, "work" do you think it takes to properly create and execute a lease? Is renting a home to someone else you probably just met for the 1st time, keeping it up, dealing with landlord tenant issues like non payment, destruction of your property, etc an undertaking that requires no work?

Please respond so we can see what an idiot you are by your answer.

A person saves his money, gets a loan,buys a rental. There is no capital gains until the building is sold. This owner is responsible for major repairs,insurance on the building and taxes etc. You obviously are very clueless. I hope you get a job someday snow flake.

Dr Yuengling wrote:

only you can stop communism wrote:

In which they bought the property and have to invest to maintain the property.

the maintenance costs/property taxes are less than the rent received. the only function the landlord serves is having the capital to purchase the property. And for that, they get the right to bleed less fortunate people dry.

I don't know that there's a good solution, but buying property with the intention of renting it is a scummy thing to do. It's hoarding a basic life necessity.

Or it creates a situation where someone can have a place to live. Many cannot afford the down payment on a house or have a credit score high enough to get a decent mortgage, therefore they can live. Also many rent because they are in a temporary situation like college or in the early days of a career or just want to be mobile and buying a house if you will leave an area in 3 years is a really bad idea.

Landlords serve a function. I would say few are despised.

I looked at renting a house I owned and decided it was not worth it. A friend makes a bit of money off his rentals each year, but he said the only way he makes money is that he can do a lot of repairs himself. If he had to drop $75 an hour for a plumber to come out to fix something it would take a big chunk. (He makes enough to go on vacation each year once expenses are factored in and taxes are paid).

gdm wrote:

1101 wrote:

No chance "Tatat" is not a troll.

Happy trolling, dude!

He may be a troll but he has latched onto a distinction that many economists make -- there is a fundamental difference between making money by producing something useful, vs. making money by owning a piece of land.

Now I don't agree that this makes landlords evil or whatever. But many economists argue that having a rentier class of landlords (with the political power to, for example, prevent their neighbors from enlarging their buildings) tends to make the economy less efficient, effectively making the whole society poorer for the benefit of landlords.

Please post a link to these economists.

Tatar wrote:

gdm wrote:

He may be a troll but he has latched onto a distinction that many economists make -- there is a fundamental difference between making money by producing something useful, vs. making money by owning a piece of land.

Now I don't agree that this makes landlords evil or whatever. But many economists argue that having a rentier class of landlords (with the political power to, for example, prevent their neighbors from enlarging their buildings) tends to make the economy less efficient, effectively making the whole society poorer for the benefit of landlords.

https://evonomics.com/real-takers-america-unproductive-rent-extracting-rich/

Oh lord, what a load of crap...

Individual homeowners do more to stop more housing being built than landlords do.

To all the landlord haters in this thread, do you not recall what happened in 2008? The whole idea was that all Americans should own a home and renting should be minimized. In order to do this banks relaxed requirements for mortgages significantly e.g lower down payment %’s required, lower income requirements, lower credit score requirements etc

We all know how that turned out. A percentage of the population will always benefit from renting due to the difficulty of obtaining a proper down payment and the desire to be mobile and not tied down to a mortgage obligation.

I just saw this, haven't read everything so maybe it's come up, but if the tenants will begin paying rent again why would I evict them? The rent I lost from the "no evictions" time is gone and not coming back. If I evict someone there's going to be another stretch of rent less time until I get a new renter. Why would I want to have no rent coming in and go through the hassle of finding another tenant when I've got one already?