The Cost Of Rent Should Be Set By The Tenant, Not The Landlord

If a "Tenant sets price" law were enacted, my initial price offer, as a tenant, would be: -$500/month to start, with a duration period for as long as I, the Tenant, am occupying the Landlords property. Should the Landlord be unable to comply, then he shall have to vacate the premises, ownership of the property will revert to me, making me the new Landlord.

The old landlord, now displaced from his property, and now no longer having any claim of ownership, will now acquire tenant status, and will be able to reoccupy my land as a tenant, and demand from me, the new landlord, to pay him, the tenant, whatever price he deems is appropriate. Should I fail to meet that price demand, I shall forfeit my newly acquired Landlord status, and the land shall become owned by the tenant, who was the previous landlord, displaced by me, the tenant turned landlord, now returned to tenant status again.

 

Oh yeah, I want to move into that McMansion over there on the beach and I only want to pay $800 a month.

Most insane thread ever.

 

If someone over-charges for something that no one values enough to pay that rent, no one will rent the property and he'll lose money because of property taxes. So it'd be stupid to put rent that high.

If tenants set prices, no one will bother to rent out because it won't be worth it. So then you either have to outright own property, or have nothing at all.

 

The tenant does have a hand in deciding rent. If no one will pay the land lord $2000 for rent, the property is not worth $2000. If the highest bid is $50, then the property is worth $50. The land lord can decide to hold out for higher rent indefinitely, but will lose money the entire time. The prospective tenant can likewise seek out more reasonably priced housing if the tenant is convinced that the rent is too high.
If however the law of the land is unilateral price declaration on the part of any perspective tenant, then the land lord no longer owns the property, as every perspective tenant will simply demand that rent is $0.00. No rational person would be a land lord in such a circumstance and the number of privately owned and maintained rentals drops to virtually zero.
Shortly afterward, the tenants are still free to demand housing at $0.00, but they'll be living with their parents, in homeless shelters, the streets, the wilderness or in jail.

 

There's plenty of exploitation here, but this isn't part of it.

If you own property, you have the right to charge what you want to.

 

lol

I may be more liberal than a lot of this forum, but I'm also libertarian when it comes to property rights.

 

I'm right wing, and I don't agree with what Bundy is doing, I don't think he has a leg to stand on. However I feel your comparison is slightly different, because your hypothetical nationalized housing is exactly that: government controlled housing. Right wingers generally want less government interference in ALL aspects. Furthermore, your example goes against another firm belief we on the right have: Capitalism. So while I by no means support Bundy, I don't believe you've made a strong point let alone exposed "right wing hypocrisy".

 

Yep the Leftwingers have pretty much gutted the teaching of history by doing their best to fill it up with Social Engineering irrelevancies so that real teachers simply do not have the time to teach the items that educated people once learned as a matter of course. On the other hand I blame the Right's leadership for having turned its back on the educational process decades ago . . . leaving it in the hands of leftwing, nation-hating radicals.

 

WOW
I consider myself and others have told me I am a far left wing liberal
And I disagree with you
Your suggestion seems to be a little radical
Could you explain to me why any one would bother to own property if your suggestion became a reality

 

If this post is satire, I love it.

If it isn't, well, you are one commie moron.

 

I've seen enough from Brtblutwo to know that it's closer to the latter than to the former.

 

Well you clearly didn't learn too much from your war if you don't even know what you were fighting against. You want to hate socialism? That's your right. But when you describe as socialism things that aren't, it makes it very difficult for people to take you seriously. The OPs idea for setting rent is, shall we say, not particularly sensible, but it's also not socialism.

Due to totalitarianism, insane military spending, and, yes, a very troubled economy. Mind you, here in the US of A we've got at least 2 of those even without socialism (though not everyone would agree on which two).

Capitalism only works alongside free market competition, the market we have now seems to be getting less free every passing day. Maybe there's some magical way of fixing it, but it's also possible that models which have worked for the past few centuries are less well suited to a 21st century world.

Such as the individual freedom to make use of land that no human individual can claim to have created themselves? It's all a question of perspective. One person says that land ownership is about individual freedom, another says it restricts the individual freedom of everyone else. Even if the two can't agree on which is right, they should at least be able to agree that they both ultimately care about individual freedom. We (mostly) all have the same intent - it's just the implementation details that are harder to nail down.

Most every successful corporation in this country is terrified of competing in a free market of supply and demand, and they do whatever they can to make sure they don't have to. Capitalism doesn't imply a free market. If it did, a lot of people probably wouldn't mind it as much.

I do perfectly well for myself earning a six figure salary at a company that I like to think does real good in the world. That doesn't mean I can't look around and see others taking advantage of the system to accumulate more wealth than they create, and it doesn't mean I don't recognize that my own success is due in part to the luck of my upbringing. What you don't seem to recognize is that for some people there are things that matter more than personal monetary gain.

 

Would you want to be a landlord in that situation?

 

You must be 19? Have no clue how much property costs that the landlord had to pay to buy, then pay the yearly property tax. And perhaps some of the monthly bills, heat, electric, etc.

 

I largely agree. If the tenant doesn't think the apartment is worth 2000 then he shouldn't pay 2000. He should go live somewhere else.

 

Because the land lord purchased the property, taking risk, paying taxes, property up-keep, and owning the property, he is well within his rights to raise the rent. Owners who take risk all face what the market will bare at any economic cycle, whether depressions, booms, deflation, stagflation, inflation, etc., and because of this, and again,"what the market will bare", he is entitled to set the prices. Renters are borrowers. They do not own squat. They have every right to go some place else if they do not like it. That is one way to fight higher prices. If you want set prices, then rent gov't owned properties.

 

The price is already set by the tenant, if the tenant that thinks it's only worth $50 doesn't think it's worth $2000, then he walks away and finds his $50 rent. If the property owner who wants $2000.00 per month can't get anyone to pay it he'll be forced to drop the price. It the property owner is paying $4800 a year in property taxes that's $400 a month, NOT including repairs and insurance.

 

The government can supply the housing, why is that so hard to understand?

Easy, it's been done before in many places.

 

Yeah, and with an additional patina of party approved "Imperialist running dog" speak . . . Marxists spoke just like that and -- gosh! Who'd ah thunk it? -- nobody's life (except the people at the very top -- ever improved in meaningful ways whatsoever. Go figure.

 

Wow, did you come up with this gem all by yourself?

By the the way, there's something you might have not heard of, called private property. So congrats with your thread being an epic failure.

 

To be fair to the Bundy Fundies they likely didn't understand he'd been shirking his responsibilities.

Which just leaves their ignorance and absence of due diligence before opening their vacuous traps and shooting their feet off so spectacularly.

Maybe it's time to take their peashooters away.

 

Often with disastrous results. Since there is no real ownership the housing is often badly taken care of. Also nothing is free. Why make everyone else pay for your rent?

 

Americans are becoming increasingly unabashed about making others pay their way. It's like they thing they're entitled to OPM.