Why should people be allowed to own 2 houses?

Or why do people behave like human beings??? The answer of course is obvious...

 

The left doesn't understand human nature and it's human nature to want to keep what you worked hard to earn. It's greedy to expect others to give you that money.

 

That is understandable, but not righteous. For one individual to have a billion dollars, and other individuals are starving to death, that is absolute greed and selfishness. If your definition of working hard is only rewarded with money, how then can you say those that are starving to death, because of a tyrannical government are not working hard themselves, mainly just survive? This is why Jesus told us, "A camel has a better chance getting through the eye of a needle, than a rich man does getting into Heaven". Because He sees the power and what the rich man could do to ease the suffering, but chooses two mansions and 100 cars instead. Material belongings does not make a person successful, their heart does.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe anybody should be told what to do with their hard earned money, it is free will for a reason. However this free will, truly reveals what a person is.

 

People should be allowed to own two houses because people have the inherent, inalienable right to own property as a result of the fruits of their labor.

On the free market, someone who obtains an income had to convince someone else to give them that money-- they created that value for someone else. It seems to me like "what someone should be allowed to own" should be between the person giving and receiving the money for goods or services provided, not some entitled third party who feels like all property is collectively owned, and voluntary transactions between two or more mutually consenting parties must somehow be "justified" to them.

You're approaching this issue from completely the wrong direction. I do apologize if I come off a little harsh here, but that's clearly where people's respective rights should lie.

 

If material belongings don't make someone successful, why do you advocate that property be transferred? After all, we don't need material belongings to make us happy- we can be happy while we're poor.

Of course, in your mind it's greedy to want to keep your own property, but not greed to advocate looting the property of others.

Edited to add: You know what else isn't righteous? Self-righteousness claiming that it's virtue to advocate taking the property of others to help the poor, rather than simply helping the poor yourself with your own property.

- - - Updated - - -

Or you could pay that $250k in taxes like a good little citizen.

 

Obviously you did not read what I said. I am against anybody being told what to do with their hard earned money. Therefore I am against wealth redistribution. Read what I said again.

 

Fair enough, I seem to have missed the last paragraph.

In terms of your concerns, however, I may be able to allay some of your concerns. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty and raised the standard of living more than any other economic system in existence. Economic freedom creates wealth-- we know this, and the rest of the world has looked at the United States and begun pursuing economic freedom of their own. Internationally, economic freedom is on the rise (though on the decline in the United States).

If we define property rights clearly and decrease government control over the economy, people begin to create wealth for themselves. The wealth that was created in the West was not "taken" from the third world, nor did it "hoard" wealth that fell from heaven. It was created. Economics is not zero-sum, so someone having two houses does not mean that those two houses were "taken" from someone else.

We're seeing fewer people starving to death than ever before-- absolute poverty is now at 7%! For context, in the 1970s it was up around 30% I believe.

Progress is being made, we're creating wealth, and there's plenty for everyone. We can at least celebrate that, can't we?

 

Righteous is not having kids you can't feed. Until you understand that, don't waste your time with me.

And you don't believe anyone should be told what to do with their hard earned money? Yet we have a society of people who think they should be able to dictate what people can buy because they failed in life.

 

Directed to the OP -- A better question -- Tell me why someone should not be allowed to buy a second home with their hard earned money.

 

Don't blame this thread on the left. I'm about as liberal as you can get without falling off the cliff and I think it's a ridiculous thread

 

Ahhhh,, life is just like a game of Monopoly.

 

I kick with my left foot on many issues but my wife and I own two houses. We nearly had an apartment also but pulled out in the last minute. We worked hard, didn't pee our wages up against the wall and used a bit of smart money juggling. We also put a bit into superannuation. It's great retiring early. We returned from working overseas without jobs. We both had plans to retire but my wife was offered a job she couldn't refuse. That holiday apartment in the city looks attractive.

 

Shouldn't you be asking that question of Hillary, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and every Democratic Party Congressman and Senator in DC?

 

I think the only person of all the Presidential candidates who understands this is Bernie Sanders. I agree with you about all the ither Democratic people mentioned. What the orginal poster described sounded like the origianl landed gentry hierarchy at Christma, who feasted on the fat of the land then gave the scraps to the poor on Boxing Day. I have no problem with people owning more than one house. But I do have a peoblem with the American rich hoarding their wealth and wanting more at the expense of everyone else. We have becoe a very unequal society since Reagan started it all.

 

Just like the Russian Politburo members and other distinguished politicians also built dachas. The Progressive Marxist Elitists in America emulate the Russian master idols.

 

Didn't Jesus tell people what they 'should' do with their money? Do you do what Jesus said you should do with your money?
That is all that matters, what Jesus said.

 

How is spending money on a computer and monthly internet bills helping all the starving of the world.

 

Are D's the only one folks with more than 1 house? If not, what is your logic? If there is any.

 

I think the argument could be made that individuals with more than a certain amount of equity in their property holdings should be required to pay a land value tax on the difference. So if the land you own is worth 500,000 you pay no tax, but if it is worth 600,000 you pay a tax on the amount that is above the exemption level, in this case 100,000. So if the tax is 2 percent you would have to pay 2,000 in this example.

 

Sanders’ $174,000 salary as a member of the Senate was not listed on the form. The couple’s real estate assets are not disclosed, either. According to campaign spokesman Michael Briggs, the senator owns at least two homes, one in Vermont and one on Capitol Hill.
In his 2012 Senate personal financial disclosures, Sanders reported having a joint rental property in Burlington valued at $100,001-$250,000, for which he received $5,001-$15,000 in income. Also in 2012, he reporting a 30-year mortgage of $50,001-$100,000 for a condo in Washington, D.C., dating from 2000.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...unts-for-reported-assets-120261#ixzz44gs5ZdYj
Follow us: [MENTION=8433]politico[/MENTION] on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-wife-accounts-for-reported-assets-120261

While perhaps not as rich as most of congress. Certainly no where near poverty.

 

If we start trying to implement a form of wealth distribution of property to make everything fair and equal, that is going to make immigration very controversial and contentious, even much more so than it is now.

 

A personal question.
How many hours a week do you work?

 

This thread is an indicator of the death of Natural Law, & the end of the Enlightenment. If Law is to be used as an instrument of plunder, then those who make the laws will use it for their own benefit, & to plunder the working classes... as they do now.

Life. Liberty. Property. The 3 central 'rights' from the enlightenment, which in the American Experiment, Govt was obliged to protect. Now, govt has become corrupted by looters, who use the power of govt to fleece the workers & useful idiots to enable them.

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." ~John Locke

 

Good point, I really can't see how anyone gains from restricting peoples ability to buy more than one house. That is definitely a very bad use of law and regulation. We need laws that do good to protect the people from evil polluters, usurious bankers and money lenders and coprorations that abuse their employees. I'd like to see employess, not just CEO's, being able to afford as many houses as they like. After all this will create more employment, because someone has to build and maintain them.

 

And that's the incentive to work harder and make more money. It's not required. Higher positions require higher responsibilities. Risk is another factor. Some risk their money in investments and it pays off. Some lose all they have. Risk/reward relationship is what provides incentives and planning. Socialists promise much, deliver little. They claim they eliminate risk. What they mean is they reduce risk for themselves with regulations that guarantee contracts for their companies. They get wealthy while the peasants live in mediocrity.