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

Another example of the gross unfairness in the United States today is the sky rocketing cost of rent.

Why should a tenant be forced to pay rent if the tenant cannot afford it, or just doesn’t want to? Rental property should available to those who need and can use it, and paid for based on the appraised value by the tenant. If the property owner wants $2000.00 per month, but the tenant believes it to be worth only $50.00, the rent should be $50.00.

Gouging on rental property is just another example, of many, of the haves exploiting the have-nots in America, and it must stop. There is no justification what-so-ever, for the landowners to set the price for rent.

 

Karl Marx would be proud. Also I think Barack Obama just found his next Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The left scuppered the economy once with Barney Frank's requirement that banks loan to people who could not afford to make house payments and now we have Barney's spiritual successor mouthing something right out of Mao Tse Tung's Little Red Book. Sheesh!

Then leftwingers want to know WHY people are more and more often comparing them to Marxists . . . and their president too.

 

And what if I, as Tenant #2, am willing to pay $100 a month for that same property?

 

What a wonderful idea! Landlords go into bankruptcy while tenants pay ¢1 in rent. Win-Win for Liberals.

Seriously. Rent prices are absurd, however there will be no places to rent if the tenants decide their rent. The Landlords will either shut it down or go into bankruptcy.

 

Good post, and I agree, though I tend to favour government owned housing, such as projects or housing estates (where I"m from)

Socialised housing in other words, with very cheap rents, due to economies of scale amongst other things.

Rent is the biggest rip-off of the current order, total scam

- - - Updated - - -

Rent controls are the answer here.

Max rate would be 50$ - could be done through govt owned, co-operations or some kind of general associations

- - - Updated - - -

Empty buildings can be squatted and then taken over with an 'in-use' policy.

Empty land can also be squatted by peace convoys, travellers and caravans

 

Why would someone pay between $0-$50 for a loft apartment... when someone else is paying $50 for a 10 bedroom house?

 

The answer to that is fully socialised, government owned housing, (or similar)

Basically, the fancy loft would remain in the private market.

 

I don't see any reason for rent to be a private institution anyway. If you think you are so special that you need something extra nice, we should probably just give you a title. Assuming you're a valuable asset, I mean.

 

Unfortunately we already have that... it's called Section 8

 

A title? I don't want a title. I want a 10 bedroom house. A yacht. My own private island. The nicest tv and computer I can find. All the designer clothes and shoes I can buy. My own plane so that I can fly to anywhere in the world anytime I want and eat a dinner at any restaurant that I choose. I want to fly to France for breakfast, Italy for lunch and Brazil for a nice steak for dinner. Then I want to fly to Tokyo for a rave and then hit up NYC for the afterparty. And failing all of that, I want to strive to get as close to that as humanly possible.

(*)(*)(*)(*) your title

 

So, you can get a fancy loft on project 8? Well, there's something wrong with that because the govt. subsidy for rent, just goes to a private landlord than back to it's own housing stock, kind of like how it works in the UK after Thatcher got rid of large sections of the govt. housing

It's a complete fail because the welfare bill just goes up even more.

Answer: Get rid of welfare payments to private landlords

 

Using this same logic Bundy should be allowed to decide himself what to pay for the land his cattle uses. So what's all the fuss now?

 

A land or property rent arbitration board is the answer.

Who the heck is Bundy anyway, wasn't he some kind of serial killer or something.....?

 

You want a really big title (property grant) to suit your inflated ego and overestimated self-worth. My preferred government might even give it to you if you were really valuable. More mature people should be granted office.

 

Well, well, well, It seems Gatewood, ShadowX, and CJtheModerate don’t believe tenants should decide the price to be paid to a landlord for rent. In fact, they find the thought of the tenant setting the rental price extremely objectionable.

This is a considerably different attitude than right-wingers had for Cliven Bundy’s twenty-years refusal to pay rent to the landlord of grazing land he used for his cattle. Bundy became an overnight hero to the right wing.

In fact, many right-wingers, especially Tea Party members, defended Bundy’s deadbeat ways, and the approximately 1000 protesters and “militiamen” that went to his defense armed and ready to shoot representatives of the landowner.

Why do so many conservatives and neoconservatives believe Bundy deserves to set the rental price for those many acres of land he does not own? What makes him different from the squatters, and other deadbeat tenants that must be evicted by government force to protect the landlords?


http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...l-you-about-the-spanish/news/2014/04/24/86320

 

What does a silly idea for setting rent have to do with Marx? You're just displaying your own ignorance. A socialist solution might be for the state to own the land, and then lease that land to someone who would build and manage an apartment complex. The state would certainly have some indirect control over the cost of rent in that it could alter what it charged the apartment manager, but the tenant wouldn't just be able to pick their price.

 

Let the tenants form a co-op !
All power to the proletariat.
Landlords enslave those seeking the fundamental right to shelter.
[video=youtube;suVB3YGIUk0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVB3YGIUk0[/video]



Moi

No ​

 

As lovely as this would be, there's no way it would ever work.

 

Sure. That is a brilliant idea--it offers something for the left and the right. Nothing will reduce our carbon footprint and welfare rolls simultaneously like 35% of the population dying in the streets.

 

I have a better idea if a property is not being used say in three years, let anyone claim it for $1 to file the paperwork. Houses, commercial property or apartments.

 

The OP is similar to the scenario being played out in Nevada between the BLM and Cliven Bundy. His refusal to pay his rent is making him a right wing hero. It is a rarity to see the conservatives and neoconservatives defend a deadbeat renter.

Perhaps because the right believes Bundy to be very rich and influential makes his being a deadbeat acceptable, or because the landlord is the federal government. Either way, the right wing’s double standard is showing.

 

It's ok for the rich to break the law because they are job creators.

 

Wow, a Liberal if I ever saw one. That's http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5hfYJsQAhl0

 

I don't believe in what Bundy is/has done is right. But I also don't think the Federal Government should have the right to own so much state land. What gives the Federal government the right to own so much state land? Outside of National parks and land for our national defense, all that land should belong to the states.

 

I am all for public housing... IE apartments run by the government at cost.. most would not want to live there, but at least they would be avail for those that need them

.