this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
1160 points (90.4% liked)

Memes

45661 readers
1760 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
1160
Don't be fooled Billy, it's not really a job, more of a parasitic relationship (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by Custoslibera@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
208 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Flumsy@feddit.de -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.

Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

And I'm not envious of landlords, I don't think they should exist.

So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one's land?

… and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

In your previous comment you said "You choose to give them money".

You said you dont have a choice, and the question refers to that statement. Those are both your statements ("I dont have a choice" and "they dont deserve my money"). That doesnt mean that I agree with either of them... I still stand by my point.

Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

[–] darq@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say. Good. Glad we agree.

So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?

Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.

Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

That's not my argument.

I don't thing parasitism is healthy for society. That's why landlords shouldn't exist.

The fact that we don't have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.

[–] Flumsy@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say.

(?) No... It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else's housing? How would that make any difference?

I dont know anything about zoning laws but after looking it up it sounds pretty dumb, we dont have that here where I live (large city in central Europe).

[–] darq@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

(?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.

About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.

It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.