On narrow vote, Supreme Court leaves CDC ban on evictions in place

That's good advice. I'll let many of the fortune 500 companies know that they did it all wrong when they began their conquest of the marketplace with the help of slave financing.

 

Off point.

Off point.

No, because I stated I also supported a moratorium on foreclosures, (thus no need to raise rent) and, as landlord myself, I wouldn't raise the rent more than the neighborhood can sustain, ( and there's where it is, anyway , so no room to raise ) I'd just endure the loss until I found a new tenant. So, obviously, your thinking is simplistic,

Per the US constitution, the state has a legitimate claim on a portion of your income. It belongs to the state, it is NOT yours.

Therefore, you are not paying anyone's rent but your own, if you pay rent.

Our government has deemed that one of the purposes of taxes is to help people in need, yes.

 

.

I'm glad I don't own rental property.

Many years ago, a friend owned a rent house for several years and encouraged me to likewise invest. But I told her that kind of investment is too much trouble and too risky for me.

.

 

It wasn't all that bad. You buy property during a slow market, buy insurance, carefully select renters, collect rent for several years, and then sell the property during the height of the market or when you find out that new apartments are being build in the adjacent lot.

My dad felt the same way as you. He didn't want to be bother with tenants. He'd get pissed whenever they failed to replace the air filter in the AC, but my brother or I would just call up the tenants.

 

They're only risky if they're heavily mortgaged. If you're risk averse, you can always purchase cheaper properties for cash or a very small mortgage.

 

You think the landlords only expense is his mortgage on the property? Your forgetting up keep insurance property tax water
and mortgage doesn't stop it still accumulates and eventually has to be paid that and the interest

and what do you think that landlord will do to cover for his losses the amount he was still required to pay with no income
raise rent

 

I say that if the CDC wants to give everyone free rent, then they should pay the landlords out of their own budget.

 

Hardly I telling it like it is. You keep thinking the expenses don't continue or the mortgage payments are not due and that everyone above the tenant has some obligation to give free housing and lose money on behalf of them. When force with dealing with the landlord and his expenses don't stop you try to pass it up the chain to the bank, the bank as if it is some monolithic figure when basements full of money when in fact they are everyday citizens who deposit money for a service and the investors who put their capital into it. The investors expect to make money not lose it. You just keep passing the tenant obligations up the chain thinking well they can afford it. It is their PRIVATE PROPERTY and they deserve just compensation if the government is going to dictate it's use.

So fan it out and lets send some of them over to your house to live free of charge.

 

It's the EVIL landlords and banks, who cares about them pass the hardship on them to them they were probably ripping them off anyway sitting on their piles of money in the basement.

Why do people believe that if someone rents a house or apartment to someone that person then takes on the obligation of providing them housing when they can no longer pay for it?

 

Don't have to be an immigrant to have that attitude, did so all my life and retired owning a home and two cars and no debt. I see people in their older years approaching retirement and they have mountains of debt and do not own their homes or their cars and then wonder why they want be able to live the standard of living they were used to. And the leftist who think it not fair that I have more than they others.

 

Just a question but couldn't this be considered to be a violation of the 10th amendment?

 

I would think so. Can the government order you to use your car to pick up needy people who cannot get to the doctor and take them there? Can they order you to mow their lawns?

 

When we elect to rent instead of own, we are agreeing to pay for the luxury of limited responsibility (for mortgages, maintenance, insurances, taxes, and even the initial responsibility of saving for a downpayment). With that choice comes significantly less security, and greater susceptibility to fluctuations in economies.

That's all fine, if you're wealthy enough to offset those fluctuations and can continue to pay out until you die. But regular folk opting for what is a much more expensive option, is a very bad idea. Most can't afford it, which is where the problems arise.

 

For sure. Plenty of working and middle class folk outside the cities live by the principles.

And yes, it's terrifying to think how many people will be entering retirement with no ability to pay for housing (much less utilities etc). Now that age pensions are virtually a thing of the past, everyone currently under 60 needs to have an alternative source of income for retirement, and it has to cover rent (plus all the usual expenses, which are already high in comparison to modest incomes). I know too many in their 50's who've not spent a second thinking about this. They're, quite literally, still living like they're 21.

 

Next thing you know cultural marxists will force you to allow the homeless to sleep in your extra bedrooms. Your house will look like this scene from "Doctor Zhivago"




.

 

Maybe so, but wrong is wrong and wrong needs to be made right

 

that's life.

 

Yes, the system will be stressed -- there's a coronavirus putting a damper on society in many ways, not just landlords, hell, we all have to figure out ways to cope with our situations, it's hurting a lot of people, renters need money, too, but the overall strategy is to spread the misery in sectors that can handle it better, and bring relief to sectors that cannot. If landlords come under severe stress, just as renters do, then there should be appropriate programs enacted to deal with it, and, in fact, there are in many regions, on local levels Check with your city website if you are a landlord and have issues along these lines. Remember, this is a temporary situation, a Coronavirus.

What the government should NOT do, is what Libertarians would do, which is NOTHING.

 

You really love the strawman.

Go bother someone else.

 

Yes, and we know how to make it right, right? Nothing will change until The People start behaving like the power is in their own hands - because it is.

 

1) and it will continue to hurt people, because so many don't figure out ways to cope with the situation. they sit and wait to be saved.

2) here's the deal with renting. you sign up for it because you believe yourself immune to financial insecurity, and therefore able to service rents for a lifetime. those who aren't so rich won't take such chances, and will buy property instead. the buck stops right here.

3) who gets to decide what sector can and what sector can't handle it better? is the family who work hard to carry an additional mortgage on investment property (which they bought to protect their future from insecurity) somehow less worthy of 'relief' than the person who blows their minimum wage on individual rents, iphones, and fast food - not caring about protecting their own security?

 

Lol compared to the three Clinton would have put in office? They’re all three Uber conservatives.

 

Please explain to me how you’re going to “endure the losses” when you’re paying mortgages for all your rental properties but not making any income from them for a year or so?

You’re either going to go bankrupt or be forced to sell some property.

 

Political bias aside, how is it constitutional?

 

It’s not. Kavanaugh was being a little bitch and said he would keep it in place for a month but further extensions require congressional approval.

Dumbass Trump put Kavanaugh up there when he should have put William Pryor.