I don’t have excess money at the end of the month, but i still give it whenever I can. How is that relevant to landlords evicting people to save money? There shouldn’t be homeless people in the first place, let alone homeless families. But when a tenant misses rent, the landlord wont bat an eye and kicking the tenants onto the streets - that is a bad thing that shouldn’t have to happen. This has nothing to do with the landlords personal choices, or how “good” of a landlord they are, our system puts them in a position where making someone homeless is the rational decision.
Now, can you tell me what was so dumb about the original argument? Do you want to explain to me how this isn’t a systemic problem?
It’s dumb as fuck. The original argument is if a landlord doesn’t take on the financial burden and give their property to someone for free then they are somehow evil. It’s so stupid. And I don’t know what the law is where you are but in the UK a landlord can’t evict without a court order and that takes time.
No, you are misunderstanding. The point isnt that they are evil for not providing free housing, but that them pushing people onto the streets in order to protect their income is indicative a fundamental failure of our economic system. No one should be homeless.
The landlords don’t deserve that property anyways but what financial burden? Upkeep of the property that is anyways put upon the tenant? Taxes for the property that is anyways paid by the tenants rent?
Repairs that are anyways paid by the tenants (even if you pay for repairs you would be using the rent money one way or another)
Or the financial burden of paying a mortgage for the property that well the tenants themselves could have gotten themselves (obviously if you are renting you probably don’t have enough up front money to get a mortgage but they sure as hell could pay the monthly sum)
The fact that you can even evict someone is awful enough doesn’t matter that there are barriers to it
I don’t have excess money at the end of the month, but i still give it whenever I can. How is that relevant to landlords evicting people to save money? There shouldn’t be homeless people in the first place, let alone homeless families. But when a tenant misses rent, the landlord wont bat an eye and kicking the tenants onto the streets - that is a bad thing that shouldn’t have to happen. This has nothing to do with the landlords personal choices, or how “good” of a landlord they are, our system puts them in a position where making someone homeless is the rational decision.
Now, can you tell me what was so dumb about the original argument? Do you want to explain to me how this isn’t a systemic problem?
It’s dumb as fuck. The original argument is if a landlord doesn’t take on the financial burden and give their property to someone for free then they are somehow evil. It’s so stupid. And I don’t know what the law is where you are but in the UK a landlord can’t evict without a court order and that takes time.
No, you are misunderstanding. The point isnt that they are evil for not providing free housing, but that them pushing people onto the streets in order to protect their income is indicative a fundamental failure of our economic system. No one should be homeless.
You make a good point. The system does incentivise ruthlessness
The landlords don’t deserve that property anyways but what financial burden? Upkeep of the property that is anyways put upon the tenant? Taxes for the property that is anyways paid by the tenants rent? Repairs that are anyways paid by the tenants (even if you pay for repairs you would be using the rent money one way or another)
Or the financial burden of paying a mortgage for the property that well the tenants themselves could have gotten themselves (obviously if you are renting you probably don’t have enough up front money to get a mortgage but they sure as hell could pay the monthly sum)
The fact that you can even evict someone is awful enough doesn’t matter that there are barriers to it
You can’t really judge what a person does or doesn’t deserve without at least knowing the individual.
The one I clearly described in the comment you just replied to.