Poll of the Day > SCOTUS end the CDC eviction moratorium

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Revelation34 08/28/21 12:40:22 PM #52:	Clench281 posted... Noting that a tenant ultimately not paying rent is more of a not making as much wealth problem instead of a actively losing wealth problem Not all landlords are property owners. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:957520319] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Clench281 posted...</cite> <quote>Noting that a tenant ultimately not paying rent is more of a not making as much wealth problem instead of a actively losing wealth problem </quote> Not all landlords are property owners.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/28/21 12:49:01 PM #53:	Revelation34 posted... Not all landlords are property owners. what point are you trying to make --- my resting temp can easily be in the 90's -Krazy_Kirby <cite>Mead posted [p:957520523] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>Not all landlords are property owners.</quote> what point are you trying to make </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 08/28/21 3:34:42 PM #54:	Revelation34 posted... Not all landlords are property owner. you really dont want to go down this route after your fuckup trying to grasp the concept of dry counties. <cite>Cacciato posted [p:957524886] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>Not all landlords are property owner. </quote>you really dont want to go down this route after your fuckup trying to grasp the concept of dry counties. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 08/28/21 6:55:56 PM #55:	Clench281 posted... The landlords are still owed their money and they can pursue legal action later. Don't worry, those poor, poor landlords will be just fine You're absolutely fucking dreaming if you think landlords are going to get 10's of thousands of dollars out of tenants who have refused to pay over the last 16 months. Most landlords will write off the cost of a couple months of non-payment because they know they'll never get the money. But that's a couple of months. Not 16. Clench281 posted... Yeah, and your tenant could die before paying rent, a tree could fall on your house, etc. I guess that's a risk you ultimately take on with an investment property (not a this-is-a-guaranteed-positive-return property) Yeah, that's not how it works. You see the reason we have this thing called eviction is so that landlords have a legal avenue for reducing their risk in their investment. Turns out when the government says they no longer have a legal recourse - that tends to be a bad thing and is kinda against the whole point of the judicial branch of government. People buy investments with the understanding that there are situations where they may have bad tenants and they may have to deal with consequences of getting them out of their unit. You factor this into your rate of return with the assumption that the government isn't going to come in and tell you that you have no legal right to get rid of your problem tenants for 16 goddamn months. How can anyone be so obtuse as to believe what you do? Is your cognitive dissonance really that strong or are you acting in bad faith? I get that it's kind of your thing to think you're better than everyone, but maybe you need to take a step back and take your head out of your own ass every once in a while. --- I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76 <cite>Smarkil posted [p:957529917] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Clench281 posted... </cite> <quote>The landlords are still owed their money and they can pursue legal action later. Don't worry, those poor, poor landlords will be just fine</quote> You're absolutely fucking dreaming if you think landlords are going to get 10's of thousands of dollars out of tenants who have refused to pay over the last 16 months. Most landlords will write off the cost of a couple months of non-payment because they know they'll never get the money. But that's a couple of months. Not 16. Clench281 posted... </cite> <quote>Yeah, and your tenant could die before paying rent, a tree could fall on your house, etc. I guess that's a risk you ultimately take on with an investment property (not a this-is-a-guaranteed-positive-return property)</quote> Yeah, that's not how it works. You see the reason we have this thing called eviction is so that landlords have a legal avenue for reducing their risk in their investment. Turns out when the government says they no longer have a legal recourse - that tends to be a bad thing and is kinda against the whole point of the judicial branch of government. People buy investments with the understanding that there are situations where they may have bad tenants and they may have to deal with consequences of getting them out of their unit. You factor this into your rate of return with the assumption that the government isn't going to come in and tell you that you have no legal right to get rid of your problem tenants for 16 goddamn months. How can anyone be so obtuse as to believe what you do? Is your cognitive dissonance really that strong or are you acting in bad faith? I get that it's kind of your thing to think you're better than everyone, but maybe you need to take a step back and take your head out of your own ass every once in a while. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 08/28/21 7:10:34 PM #56:	adjl posted... Also, I have to laugh at "housing provider." Landlords are middlemen. They don't create or provide housing any more than a grocery store creates or provides vegetables. The service landlords provide is to take on the risks of property ownership so those without the capital to cover those risks can live somewhere (albeit at a premium that, in many cases, quickly totals more than that necessary capital would have been). That changes when you start dealing with larger developments, whose parent companies do create housing, but you're focusing on par-time landlords, so we'll stick to that (especially where the corporate landlords do tend to be the ones laughing on their yachts while they double people's rents for no reason). Trying to use euphemisms for "landlord" isn't fooling anyone. Well turns out that does count for something then doesn't it? Are banks also middlemen because they're only taking on the risk of taking money from savings and lending them to borrowers? Guess we better get rid of fuckin banks, right? Fortunately for you a lot of landowners have been selling their properties off because of this bullshit so congrats. I guess you get to be safe in knowing you can rent from Walmart Properties (TM) forever. adjl posted... As much as I hate to be callous about that, real estate is well-known to be a high risk investment. This has always been true, as much as large rental corporations have been pushing to erode tenant rights in an effort to reduce that risk. If somebody's making such a high risk investment without establishing a Plan B to cover their costs if it goes awry, that's just poor planning on their part, such that it's hard to sympathize with it. I'm all for improving the ability to evict and secure compensation from genuinely bad tenants, since there are as many horror stories out there of horrible tenants as there are of horrible landlords, but not at the expense of the countless good tenants that don't actively destroy the properties they rent. Long term real estate is literally not a high risk investment. It's never been 'well-known to be a high risk investment'. It's only high risk if you operate on investment into things like short sales. Any risk in the investment is mitigated by due diligence and thorough research - which, as it turns out, goes out the window when the government decides to change the law arbitrarily and apparently illegally. And no, you're not for improving the ability to protect the rights of landlords because you are right now actively defending the most egregious offense against their rights. You can't say you're for it and also be against it. adjl posted... Furthermore, there's a global pandemic afoot that has drastically affected most people's ability to make money. Why shouldn't landlords expect to similarly lose income? Conversely, landlords should also expect the same supports that are being offered to other people that are losing income, as appropriate (and the fact that they aren't being properly distributed is indeed a problem), but the notion that landlords losing money from the eviction moratorium is inherently so terrible that it would justify doing away with it is granting landlords a special status that no other businesses are seeing, and there's just no reason for that. Because people as still taking their product without paying for it? During the pandemic was Walmart opening its doors and allowing people to take everything for free? Did Amazon take a hit when everyone got free goods delivered to them all the time? Or did that never happen because they were providing a product that people still were required to legally pay for? The problem in your case is the mom and pop landlords aren't getting the support everyone else is getting and very often only seeing the negatives. Tenants got support directly. Commercial landlords got support directly. The middle did not - as usual and are now dealing with the squeeze that comes from both ends. adjl posted... And you know what? I appreciate that you've done that, and I'm sorry that you're being adversely affected by measures meant to protect tenants from less empathetic landlords. Much like good tenants often end up being hurt by measures meant to compensate for bad ones, good landlords often end up being hurt by measures meant to restrict bad ones. It's unfair all around, such that the whole system needs a lot of drastic changes. Unfortunately, the bad landlords tend to also make the most money (by virtue of cutting costs to improve their margins, which in turn allows them to purchase more properties), which gives them the lobbying power to keep screwing over tenants and good landlords alike, so who knows what it'll take to actually effect those changes. So...I guess fuck the good landlords by not allowing them to have a legal recourse for resolving their issues which is how the system was built? Cool. Let's have more bad landlords and less good landlords. --- I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76 <cite>Smarkil posted [p:957530281] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Also, I have to laugh at "housing provider." Landlords are middlemen. They don't create or provide housing any more than a grocery store creates or provides vegetables. The service landlords provide is to take on the risks of property ownership so those without the capital to cover those risks can live somewhere (albeit at a premium that, in many cases, quickly totals more than that necessary capital would have been). That changes when you start dealing with larger developments, whose parent companies do create housing, but you're focusing on par-time landlords, so we'll stick to that (especially where the corporate landlords do tend to be the ones laughing on their yachts while they double people's rents for no reason). Trying to use euphemisms for "landlord" isn't fooling anyone.</quote> Well turns out that does count for something then doesn't it? Are banks also middlemen because they're only taking on the risk of taking money from savings and lending them to borrowers? Guess we better get rid of fuckin banks, right? Fortunately for you a lot of landowners have been selling their properties off because of this bullshit so congrats. I guess you get to be safe in knowing you can rent from Walmart Properties (TM) forever. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>As much as I hate to be callous about that, real estate is well-known to be a high risk investment. This has always been true, as much as large rental corporations have been pushing to erode tenant rights in an effort to reduce that risk. If somebody's making such a high risk investment without establishing a Plan B to cover their costs if it goes awry, that's just poor planning on their part, such that it's hard to sympathize with it. I'm all for improving the ability to evict and secure compensation from genuinely bad tenants, since there are as many horror stories out there of horrible tenants as there are of horrible landlords, but not at the expense of the countless good tenants that don't actively destroy the properties they rent.</quote> Long term real estate is literally not a high risk investment. It's never been 'well-known to be a high risk investment'. It's only high risk if you operate on investment into things like short sales. Any risk in the investment is mitigated by due diligence and thorough research - which, as it turns out, goes out the window when the government decides to change the law arbitrarily and apparently illegally. And no, you're not for improving the ability to protect the rights of landlords because you are right now actively defending the most egregious offense against their rights. You can't say you're for it and also be against it. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Furthermore, there's a global pandemic afoot that has drastically affected most people's ability to make money. Why shouldn't landlords expect to similarly lose income? Conversely, landlords should also expect the same supports that are being offered to other people that are losing income, as appropriate (and the fact that they aren't being properly distributed is indeed a problem), but the notion that landlords losing money from the eviction moratorium is inherently so terrible that it would justify doing away with it is granting landlords a special status that no other businesses are seeing, and there's just no reason for that.</quote> Because people as still taking their product without paying for it? During the pandemic was Walmart opening its doors and allowing people to take everything for free? Did Amazon take a hit when everyone got free goods delivered to them all the time? Or did that never happen because they were providing a product that people still were required to legally pay for? The problem in your case is the mom and pop landlords aren't getting the support everyone else is getting and very often only seeing the negatives. Tenants got support directly. Commercial landlords got support directly. The middle did not - as usual and are now dealing with the squeeze that comes from both ends. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>And you know what? I appreciate that you've done that, and I'm sorry that you're being adversely affected by measures meant to protect tenants from less empathetic landlords. Much like good tenants often end up being hurt by measures meant to compensate for bad ones, good landlords often end up being hurt by measures meant to restrict bad ones. It's unfair all around, such that the whole system needs a lot of drastic changes. Unfortunately, the bad landlords tend to also make the most money (by virtue of cutting costs to improve their margins, which in turn allows them to purchase more properties), which gives them the lobbying power to keep screwing over tenants and good landlords alike, so who knows what it'll take to actually effect those changes.</quote> So...I guess fuck the good landlords by not allowing them to have a legal recourse for resolving their issues which is how the system was built? Cool. Let's have more bad landlords and less good landlords. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 08/28/21 7:12:50 PM #57:	Arcturusisnow posted... Wow, someone is highly not paying attention to the world. Wow, someone really didn't pay attention to even the post they read and responded to. Imagine that. --- I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76 <cite>Smarkil posted [p:957530337] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Arcturusisnow posted... </cite> <quote>Wow, someone is highly not paying attention to the world.</quote> Wow, someone really didn't pay attention to even the post they read and responded to. Imagine that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Clench281 08/28/21 8:32:32 PM #58:	Smarkil posted... So...I guess fuck the good landlords by not allowing them to have a legal recourse for resolving their issues Seeking a money judgment for past rent is your legal recourse but I guess you already hand waved that away because reasons. The only real sympathy landlords will get from me is property taxes when you have tenants unable or unwilling to pay rent. some local governments have rightly allowed those taxes to be deferred. Landlords of long term residences provide no real value. They simply are able to extract wealth from others because they had the benefit of already having more capital than others. Forgive me for not feeling bad for landlords ANY time, but especially during a pandemic. --- Take me for what I am -- who I was meant to be. And if you give a damn, take me baby, or leave me. <cite>Clench281 posted [p:957532235] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>So...I guess fuck the good landlords by not allowing them to have a legal recourse for resolving their issues</quote> Seeking a money judgment for past rent is your legal recourse but I guess you already hand waved that away because reasons. The only real sympathy landlords will get from me is property taxes when you have tenants unable or unwilling to pay rent. some local governments have rightly allowed those taxes to be deferred. Landlords of long term residences provide no real value. They simply are able to extract wealth from others because they had the benefit of already having more capital than others. Forgive me for not feeling bad for landlords ANY time, but especially during a pandemic. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 08/28/21 10:18:26 PM #59:	Watch landlords are bad because people rent and then can't pay. Maybe don't fucking rent a place if you don't have a steady job with halfway decent income. Live with yo parents or some roommates. Suck it up buttercup. Life isn't fucking perfect. Spoiled ass Americans <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:957534855] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Watch landlords are bad because people rent and then can't pay. Maybe don't fucking rent a place if you don't have a steady job with halfway decent income. Live with yo parents or some roommates. Suck it up buttercup. Life isn't fucking perfect. Spoiled ass Americans </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DirtBasedSoap 08/28/21 10:21:27 PM #60:	OhhhJa posted... Maybe don't fucking rent a place if you don't have a steady job wow what a nice luxury to have --- weiners and farts??? idk lol <cite>DirtBasedSoap posted [p:957534942] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>Maybe don't fucking rent a place if you don't have a steady job</quote>wow what a nice luxury to have </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/28/21 11:38:29 PM #61:	Smarkil posted... Well turns out that does count for something then doesn't it? Eh, yes and no. Like I said, it often doesn't take long for the difference between owning a property and renting it to add up to enough capital to form a decent safety net (if it didn't, landlords just plain couldn't make money), so that's really only a valuable service for people looking for shorter-term accommodations. On a long-term basis, it just slows down amassing enough capital to be able to own your own property, purely for the sake of providing that capital to somebody who had the good fortune to buy it before you were ready to (which, in many areas, was vastly easier 5 years ago than it would be today, even without the added challenge of doing so while paying higher rents) and is looking to supplement their income with that good fortune. Long-term renting is a symptom of a broken system where many properties are owned by relatively few people that have hoarded them, making it harder for renters to ever graduate to ownership because there are so few viable opportunities. That's one of the major routes by which wealth inequality forms and worsens, especially when you start getting into properties being inherited or sold off in large chunks to developers that permanently turn the land into properties no non-corporation will ever be able to own. Smarkil posted... Are banks also middlemen because they're only taking on the risk of taking money from savings and lending them to borrowers? In some sense, perhaps, but they also provide the very helpful service of storing and transporting money, and the middleman services they provide are something that the vast majority of people will never be able to provide for themselves because they don't operate on a sufficient scale. Smarkil posted... Long term real estate is literally not a high risk investment. Whether you're looking long-term or short-term, any real estate investment is always going to be beholden to the market, which is quite volatile. At any time, a significant drop in local property values can more or less completely eliminate your ability to turn a profit on your investment because you'll need to drop rent to unprofitable levels to stay competitive. That's even without considering the unpredictability of tenants on top of that (even in a perfect system that does allow immediate removal of and compensation from problem tenants, you're never going to escape the risk of missing a couple months' rent because a tenant had to leave unexpectedly), nor the fact that landlords are taking on the risks of property ownership in lieu of their tenants and therefore stand a solid chance of having to make expensive emergency repairs. It's not as high-risk as, say, flipping houses is, but it's still high-risk enough that going into it without a solid safety net is a bad idea. Smarkil posted... And no, you're not for improving the ability to protect the rights of landlords because you are right now actively defending the most egregious offense against their rights. You can't say you're for it and also be against it. Sure I can. I'm all for landlords being able to quickly evict tenants that are damaging the property, falling behind on rent for reasons they could easily prevent, or that misrepresent their ability to pay the rent when they sign the lease. I'm also for landlords being prevented from evicting tenants that are unable to pay rent only because of the devastating economic consequences of this unprecedented public health crisis, since that's something far outside of those tenants' control, and piling a widespread homelessness crisis on top of that for the sake of preserving rental income isn't going to help anyone but a handful of landlords that somehow don't feel they should lose income during a massive economic crisis. Smarkil posted... The problem in your case is the mom and pop landlords aren't getting the support everyone else is getting and very often only seeing the negatives. Tenants got support directly. Commercial landlords got support directly. The middle did not - as usual and are now dealing with the squeeze that comes from both ends. Yeah, that is a problem. If the supports that are necessary to get landlords through that loss of income aren't making it to the landlords that really need it, the support system isn't working as it ought to be. Ditching the eviction moratorium will alleviate that disparity to some extent, but it's also going to end up doing a whole lot of harm as even landlords that have been enjoying those supports start booting people out and creating an unprecedented homelessness crisis. I don't know that that's going to balance it out, ultimately. Smarkil posted... So...I guess f* the good landlords by not allowing them to have a legal recourse for resolving their issues which is how the system was built? Cool. Let's have more bad landlords and less good landlords. The system naturally favours bad landlords already (again, by cutting corners to increase margins and buy up a larger portion of the available properties than landlords that don't cut corners are able to buy). Improvements need to be made to help good landlords out, but again, I don't know how to fix that (nor is it really my job to figure that out). Any system meant to benefit good landlords dealing with bad tenants will inevitably be abused by bad landlords dealing with tenants they just feel like screwing over (for whatever reason), so it's difficult to strike a balance between protecting landlords from bad tenants and protecting tenants from bad landlords. In general, I'm inclined to favour the latter, though, simply because becoming a landlord is a choice, while becoming a tenant is a necessity for anyone whose parents don't outright give them a house. Treating homelessness as a viable alternative to renting just isn't realistic. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:957536618] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>Well turns out that does count for something then doesn't it?</quote> Eh, yes and no. Like I said, it often doesn't take long for the difference between owning a property and renting it to add up to enough capital to form a decent safety net (if it didn't, landlords just plain couldn't make money), so that's really only a valuable service for people looking for shorter-term accommodations. On a long-term basis, it just slows down amassing enough capital to be able to own your own property, purely for the sake of providing that capital to somebody who had the good fortune to buy it before you were ready to (which, in many areas, was vastly easier 5 years ago than it would be today, even without the added challenge of doing so while paying higher rents) and is looking to supplement their income with that good fortune. Long-term renting is a symptom of a broken system where many properties are owned by relatively few people that have hoarded them, making it harder for renters to ever graduate to ownership because there are so few viable opportunities. That's one of the major routes by which wealth inequality forms and worsens, especially when you start getting into properties being inherited or sold off in large chunks to developers that permanently turn the land into properties no non-corporation will ever be able to own. Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>Are banks also middlemen because they're only taking on the risk of taking money from savings and lending them to borrowers?</quote> In some sense, perhaps, but they also provide the very helpful service of storing and transporting money, and the middleman services they provide are something that the vast majority of people will never be able to provide for themselves because they don't operate on a sufficient scale. Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>Long term real estate is literally not a high risk investment.</quote> Whether you're looking long-term or short-term, any real estate investment is always going to be beholden to the market, which is quite volatile. At any time, a significant drop in local property values can more or less completely eliminate your ability to turn a profit on your investment because you'll need to drop rent to unprofitable levels to stay competitive. That's even without considering the unpredictability of tenants on top of that (even in a perfect system that does allow immediate removal of and compensation from problem tenants, you're never going to escape the risk of missing a couple months' rent because a tenant had to leave unexpectedly), nor the fact that landlords are taking on the risks of property ownership in lieu of their tenants and therefore stand a solid chance of having to make expensive emergency repairs. It's not as high-risk as, say, flipping houses is, but it's still high-risk enough that going into it without a solid safety net is a bad idea. Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>And no, you're not for improving the ability to protect the rights of landlords because you are right now actively defending the most egregious offense against their rights. You can't say you're for it and also be against it.</quote> Sure I can. I'm all for landlords being able to quickly evict tenants that are damaging the property, falling behind on rent for reasons they could easily prevent, or that misrepresent their ability to pay the rent when they sign the lease. I'm also for landlords being prevented from evicting tenants that are unable to pay rent only because of the devastating economic consequences of this unprecedented public health crisis, since that's something far outside of those tenants' control, and piling a widespread homelessness crisis on top of that for the sake of preserving rental income isn't going to help anyone but a handful of landlords that somehow don't feel they should lose income during a massive economic crisis. Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>The problem in your case is the mom and pop landlords aren't getting the support everyone else is getting and very often only seeing the negatives. Tenants got support directly. Commercial landlords got support directly. The middle did not - as usual and are now dealing with the squeeze that comes from both ends.</quote> Yeah, that is a problem. If the supports that are necessary to get landlords through that loss of income aren't making it to the landlords that really need it, the support system isn't working as it ought to be. Ditching the eviction moratorium will alleviate that disparity to some extent, but it's also going to end up doing a whole lot of harm as even landlords that have been enjoying those supports start booting people out and creating an unprecedented homelessness crisis. I don't know that that's going to balance it out, ultimately. Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>So...I guess f* the good landlords by not allowing them to have a legal recourse for resolving their issues which is how the system was built? Cool. Let's have more bad landlords and less good landlords.</quote> The system naturally favours bad landlords already (again, by cutting corners to increase margins and buy up a larger portion of the available properties than landlords that don't cut corners are able to buy). Improvements need to be made to help good landlords out, but again, I don't know how to fix that (nor is it really my job to figure that out). Any system meant to benefit good landlords dealing with bad tenants will inevitably be abused by bad landlords dealing with tenants they just feel like screwing over (for whatever reason), so it's difficult to strike a balance between protecting landlords from bad tenants and protecting tenants from bad landlords. In general, I'm inclined to favour the latter, though, simply because becoming a landlord is a choice, while becoming a tenant is a necessity for anyone whose parents don't outright give them a house. Treating homelessness as a viable alternative to renting just isn't realistic. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/28/21 11:41:16 PM #62:	OhhhJa posted... Watch landlords are bad because people rent and then can't pay. Maybe don't f*ing rent a place if you don't have a steady job with halfway decent income. Did you miss the part where a very significant number of people got laid off completely unexpectedly because of the massive global public health crisis, prompting the eviction moratorium in the first place? Because I don't think that's a risk most people would have taken into account in determining whether or not they had a steady job in 2019. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:957536686] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>Watch landlords are bad because people rent and then can't pay. Maybe don't f*ing rent a place if you don't have a steady job with halfway decent income.</quote> Did you miss the part where a very significant number of people got laid off completely unexpectedly because of the massive global public health crisis, prompting the eviction moratorium in the first place? Because I don't think that's a risk most people would have taken into account in determining whether or not they had a steady job in 2019. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 08/29/21 3:16:18 PM #63:	adjl posted... Did you miss the part where a very significant number of people got laid off completely unexpectedly because of the massive global public health crisis, prompting the eviction moratorium in the first place? Because I don't think that's a risk most people would have taken into account in determining whether or not they had a steady job in 2019. Businesses are begging for workers and have been for a long time now. And also those people got unemployment and weren't forced to pay rent. Did you forget that part? Either way, I'm talking pre pandemic. Just the general attitude toward landlords. "Waaaaah rent sucks!" Well, easy solution for you... don't rent <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:957552473] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Did you miss the part where a very significant number of people got laid off completely unexpectedly because of the massive global public health crisis, prompting the eviction moratorium in the first place? Because I don't think that's a risk most people would have taken into account in determining whether or not they had a steady job in 2019.</quote>Businesses are begging for workers and have been for a long time now. And also those people got unemployment and weren't forced to pay rent. Did you forget that part? Either way, I'm talking pre pandemic. Just the general attitude toward landlords. "Waaaaah rent sucks!" Well, easy solution for you... don't rent </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#64	Post #64 was unavailable or deleted.
shadowsword87 08/29/21 3:29:29 PM #65:	OhhhJa posted... and weren't forced to pay rent Hm? No they still have to back pay their rent. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:957552783] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>and weren't forced to pay rent</quote> Hm? No they still have to back pay their rent. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 08/29/21 3:59:29 PM #66:	Clench281 posted... Seeking a money judgment for past rent is your legal recourse but I guess you already hand waved that away because reasons. Because you can't get blood from a stone. Landlords ameliorate their risks from bad tenants by getting them out of the building so they can get paying tenants. I don't know how you're not getting this. Tell me how someone who has either been unwilling or unable to rent is suddenly going to be capable of paying back thousands of dollars? Is that a reasonable cost to expect of a low wage worker? Clench281 posted... Landlords of long term residences provide no real value. They simply are able to extract wealth from others because they had the benefit of already having more capital than others. Forgive me for not feeling bad for landlords ANY time, but especially during a pandemic. Okay then don't rent from them. Don't use banks either. Or buy anything from a business. Go find an undiscovered plot of land (because you can't buy one from a bank who's only extracting wealth from others by having the benefit of already having more capital than others), build your own tools, farm it, and make your own life. Or, and I know this is crazy, accept that when you enter into an agreement with someone you have to fulfill your end of the bargain as much as they do. And if you are unwilling or unable to fulfill your end of the bargain then the lease needs to be terminated and you have to find something else that will suit your purposes. Apply for Section 8. Live with a parent. Do whatever you gotta do. I'd like to ask all of you this - if everyone was receiving assistance and is allegedly able to pay their bills with it, then why have an eviction moratorium at all? Maybe think through the logic. I'll respond to the rest of this shit later. --- I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76 <cite>Smarkil posted [p:957553504] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Clench281 posted... </cite> <quote>Seeking a money judgment for past rent is your legal recourse but I guess you already hand waved that away because reasons.</quote> Because you can't get blood from a stone. Landlords ameliorate their risks from bad tenants by getting them out of the building so they can get paying tenants. I don't know how you're not getting this. Tell me how someone who has either been unwilling or unable to rent is suddenly going to be capable of paying back thousands of dollars? Is that a reasonable cost to expect of a low wage worker? Clench281 posted... </cite> <quote>Landlords of long term residences provide no real value. They simply are able to extract wealth from others because they had the benefit of already having more capital than others. Forgive me for not feeling bad for landlords ANY time, but especially during a pandemic.</quote> Okay then don't rent from them. Don't use banks either. Or buy anything from a business. Go find an undiscovered plot of land (because you can't buy one from a bank who's only extracting wealth from others by having the benefit of already having more capital than others), build your own tools, farm it, and make your own life. Or, and I know this is crazy, accept that when you enter into an agreement with someone you have to fulfill your end of the bargain as much as they do. And if you are unwilling or unable to fulfill your end of the bargain then the lease needs to be terminated and you have to find something else that will suit your purposes. Apply for Section 8. Live with a parent. Do whatever you gotta do. I'd like to ask all of you this - if everyone was receiving assistance and is allegedly able to pay their bills with it, then why have an eviction moratorium at all? Maybe think through the logic. I'll respond to the rest of this shit later. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kanatteru 08/29/21 4:08:13 PM #67:	Smarkil posted... I'll respond to the rest of this s* later. nah that's okay you don't have to --- despair-inducing <cite>Kanatteru posted [p:957553680] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>I'll respond to the rest of this s* later.</quote> nah that's okay you don't have to </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 08/29/21 4:15:30 PM #68:	Kanatteru posted... nah that's okay you don't have to I genuinely could not care less about your opinion. --- I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76 <cite>Smarkil posted [p:957553842] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Kanatteru posted... </cite> <quote>nah that's okay you don't have to</quote> I genuinely could not care less about your opinion. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kanatteru 08/29/21 4:17:02 PM #69:	i didn't state any opinion though --- despair-inducing <cite>Kanatteru posted [p:957553882] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>i didn't state any opinion though </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Clench281 08/29/21 4:29:39 PM #70:	Smarkil posted... Okay then don't rent from them. Don't use banks either. Or buy anything from a business. Why would you make this leap in logic? Buying something from a business is literally exchanging money for goods or a service (ie value). Which is a sensible transaction. Smarkil posted... build your own tools, farm it, and make your own life. You really went off the deep end here. You can exchange money for all of these things that have tangible value, unlike landlording. Trading money for physical tools. Trading money for labor. No issue with these. --- Take me for what I am -- who I was meant to be. And if you give a damn, take me baby, or leave me. <cite>Clench281 posted [p:957554157] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>Okay then don't rent from them. Don't use banks either. Or buy anything from a business.</quote>Why would you make this leap in logic? Buying something from a business is literally exchanging money for goods or a service (ie value). Which is a sensible transaction. Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>build your own tools, farm it, and make your own life.</quote> You really went off the deep end here. You can exchange money for all of these things that have tangible value, unlike landlording. Trading money for physical tools. Trading money for labor. No issue with these. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Clench281 08/29/21 4:37:16 PM #71:	And yes, banks are also shitty. I don't think anyone would disagree there. --- Take me for what I am -- who I was meant to be. And if you give a damn, take me baby, or leave me. <cite>Clench281 posted [p:957554325] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>And yes, banks are also shitty. I don't think anyone would disagree there. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/29/21 5:04:00 PM #72:	the money to make landlords whole has literally already been allocated to congress, this happened under Trump there is zero reason that anyone should be made homeless during this pandemic over inability to pay rent --- my resting temp can easily be in the 90's -Krazy_Kirby <cite>Mead posted [p:957554954] in SCOTUS end... [t:79633619]...</cite> <quote>the money to make landlords whole has literally already been allocated to congress, this happened under Trump there is zero reason that anyone should be made homeless during this pandemic over inability to pay rent </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > SCOTUS end the CDC eviction moratorium (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > SCOTUS end the CDC eviction moratorium