184
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
184 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15917 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
This is only really available in hindsight. The old man doesn't have the time nor money to figure out a new retirement strategy, especially if a rental property was just signed over. The best situation would be to sell the house and hopefully live off the investment from that until he passes. What's not good is is removing a source of retirement income from someone when they don't have a fallback.
Removing landlords as an occupation while ensuring a minimum standard of living is good. Swindling an old man out of his retirement plan for personal gain and possible throwing him into the streets without a safety net is not.
Absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying we shouldn't free elderly people's slaves because they need them to care for them. The elderly man isn't going to be "thrown into the streets" because he already has a home. Again, you have no basis to assume that this is his only source of income or that he doesn't have sufficient savings. He at the very least has family, like the person who made this post.
And what about the tenant? For all we know they could be elderly and disabled too, only they weren't rich enough to "plan for retirement" by setting up a situation where they can steal rent from someone else. They could be saddled with medical debt, they could be a single mother trying to support a family, if you get to speculate about the landlord's situation then I get to speculate about the tenant's.
Completely bizarre pro-landlord takes on Hexbear, can't believe what I'm seeing. It's not the tenant's responsibility.
Property taxes, medical expenses, etc etc. Being retired and owning a home doesn't mean you suddenly stop having to pay for things. They presumably live in shithole america where if you don't have the money to retire when you get older you just die in the streets. It's very reasonable to assume that if a significant source of your income disappeared overnight you wouldn't be in a great place.
Even in this situation, it would just be someone poorer fucking over someone else for personal gain. Stocks are unethical too, but if your retirement account was stolen by someone to pay for their medical expenses you'd still feel it unjustified. Landlords as a class should be eliminated, but that doesn't mean literally senile landlords should be left with no safety net.
It's an unequal exchange that could end up in the elderly man losing his home due to loss of income. If the tenant had paid the cost of the house in rent, you'd be more justified in thinking this. If the tenant had only been living there for a few years, then it's a different story. You don't get to play "not my responsibility" when one party is directly responsible for the state of the other.
Which is exactly why I don't approve of the landlord stealing rent.
Oh, I didn't realize the tenant was the one collecting property taxes, causing the landlord's disabilities, or crafting policy such that they wouldn't have a safety net.
The tenant is not directly responsible for the landlord's state. He's just not relieving the landlord's state by giving him money out of his own pocket. He is no more responsible for giving him money then you are. You could track down the user and offer to venmo them every month, and the fact that you're not doing so makes you exactly as "directly responsible" for his state as the tenant's actions.
It is like comunism has a specific bias against rent seeking behavior and the system of lordship that still remains as a remnant fo the feudal order.
That's not comparable. The 401k is not extracting value from one specific person who could then end that exploitation by obtaining it, like what's happening here.
I have no idea how you're getting that from that. Obviously the sentence is a grammatical mess but the fact that income, property, house, etc are singular implies that you're wrong.
You're just trying to force that interpretation to try to win an argument lol.
Again not the tenant's fault. Agree it's the system that has to change, not the tenant's actions.
And you can enjoy the taste of leather
By one minute lol, sorry I didn't refresh my page.
Very normal response.
If you resort to name-calling, I will respond in kind.
If the old man is a landlord, yeah it is. It's the least he deserves.