extra costs of being poor

[Advocate]

[quote=RCSaunders post_id=478653 time=1604540316 user_id=16196]
[quote=Sculptor post_id=478624 time=1604516285 user_id=17400]
WHen a person "makes money" simply by having money, or assets, this means that they take wealth out of the economy without putting in any work or effort; paracitism.
[/quote]
You apparently have never owned property to rent. Property does not maintain itself, pay it's own taxes, or pay for any of the utilities that go with it. Where is the money to do those things supposed to come from? Why should someone be allowed to live in property without paying for it?

Just exactly what do you think those who collect rents do with that money? They eat, wear clothes, drive automobiles, raise children, and maintain homes just like everyone else. The money is hardly, "taken out of the economy." You obviously have not thought this through.
[/quote]

What he means, and should be obvious to anyone who knows Anything about the economy, is that the landlords don't earn the money so they're taking away from the economy of people getting paid to work. And no, they don't earn anything by managing their assets, that's not of value to anyone but themselves, and the fact that someone is spending that money doesn't help the economy when the money has already been taken from those who legitimately deserve it. Besides which, the biggest landlords are companies that hire management agencies. They don't even do any of the things you've mentioned. You ask why someone should be allowed to live in property without paying for it. I ask, why should someone be allowed to own more than they can reasonably use for themselves? It exacerbates the culture of imaginary value and harms literally everyone, even themselves.

[Sculptor]

WHen a person "makes money" simply by having money, or assets, this means that they take wealth out of the economy without putting in any work or effort; paracitism.

You apparently have never owned property to rent. Property does not maintain itself, pay it's own taxes, or pay for any of the utilities that go with it. Where is the money to do those things supposed to come from? Why should someone be allowed to live in property without paying for it?

Yes I have. Making money is like falling off a log. IN the UK the government restricts house building, whilst paying out £25 billion in benefits to homeless people. This is a MASSIVE subsidy to the industry. THere are always more people that need houses than available housing, and the benefits guarantee income for landlords. IN the last 50 years, with two exceptions between 1987-1989, and 2008-2010, house prices have increased well above inflation for the entire period. This pattern is repeated in most countries in the west If you can't make money in that environment then you are more stupid than Trump, or for most people too poor to buy in. Most young people these days have little of no prospect of buying in and are at the mercy of landlords.

Just exactly what do you think those who collect rents do with that money? They eat, wear clothes, drive automobiles, raise children, and maintain homes just like everyone else. The money is hardly, "taken out of the economy." You obviously have not thought this through.

BooHoo. Those poor little struggling landlords. What they do with that money is add it to the other pile of money they get from their regular job. When they have more than 3 properties they can give up their job and continue to buy more house and become slum landlords.

My Mum bought a 3 bed semi- in 1968 for £5500. Her annual wage was about £2000. The ability to acquire a mortgage is usuall based on a multiple of salary. When I sold it in 2010 it went for £375,000 in a run down state needed about £20,000 of work on it.
LIke they say do the maths!
She was able to buy as a single mum at 2.5 x annual salary. Image a couple today on average salary which is £25000 each. £50k x2.5, that would get them a mortgage of £125000, about one third of the house my Mum got by herself. You simply cannot buy any house for that anywhere in the UK let alone a 3 bed semi.
This represents a massive change in the economy and the fortunes of ordinary people and their likely expectations. This is Reaganomic/ Thatcher economics, which they learned from Milton Friedman and was tested on the unsuspecting population of Chile by Generalissimo PInochet the butcher of Santiago. It has caused widespread poverty and inequality all over the western world the end of unions, and the loss of employment protections.

[RCSaunders]

IN the UK the government restricts house building, whilst paying out £25 billion in benefits to homeless people.

And you want more government to solve the problem. Good luck with that.

[Sculptor]

IN the UK the government restricts house building, whilst paying out £25 billion in benefits to homeless people.

And you want more government to solve the problem. Good luck with that.

Run along

[Scott Mayers]

Sorry for any awkward reading of my writing. I spend a good deal of time with intended care but might begin a sentence and finish it an hour later! ...and in between I might have smoked something that made me forget how I begun the sentence

Thank you for your comments. I felt bad about misjudging your own preferences to prefer plain text but like many of your views too.

Never mind the prose, i know mine is tortured too, but too often people don't get feedback to know where they can improve, only insults. I've got both the smoking something issue and an ADD issue which vie for attention. My preference for dumping the formatting is that it's an extra insult to my attention-span. If technology doesn't "just work", i also have a short fuse for bad design and try to avoid it entirely.

Just recognize that while this choice of yours helps YOU to communicate more comfortably, it DOES have its drawback that others can find it harder to read and so just skip over it.

I'm not quite sure what the particular issue you are having. Maybe you can expand on what you mean and maybe I or someone else may be able to help. We'd need to know exactly what it is that is the issue. For instance, some have been insulted at how long I used to write and they demanded that I be more ''succinct". I disagreed because some things require 'complete' understanding or it risks being misunderstood.Yet these were people discussing things in forums like this. So, I asked myself, why are they potentially finding what I write problematic in light of assuming they are not just idiots.

I recognized that some are literally using cell phones to communicate in which there was a potential issue of trying to pass over long posts. Why should I alter the way I choose to communicate so that I could make it easier for them to read? In this case, some were likely able to recognize this and alter their own settings. One I suggested to them was to just block me. But it has the DISADVANTAGE that they may no longer be able to see what I write and I, not them, miss the opportunity to get feedback from someone potentially helpful.

It was a sacrifice that I make in suggesting it that I stick to. That is, I will keep writing more where I feel necessary even if no one may read it. I spend less time online these days because instead of getting more interaction, I get less. So be it. The point is that you would require recognizing that some will just look over your material for being harder to read, without necessary insult to those doing so (or complaining about it).

[Belinda]

IN the UK the government restricts house building, whilst paying out £25 billion in benefits to homeless people.

And you want more government to solve the problem. Good luck with that.

Once there lived small tribe who needed animal dung for building brick houses. Several families were large and extra houses were needed. There was one family who used up all the available dung for their building project.The tribal chief ordered an allotment of dung to each individual regardless of which family they came from.

A neighbouring tribe lacked governance plus some families lacked shelter and no provision was made so the people without mudbrick houses were attacked by wild animals and died. The tribe then suffered a smaller generation of fighting men and hard working women to maintain itself in power.

[Advocate]

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=478899 time=1604742585 user_id=11118]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478368 time=1604420084 user_id=15238]
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=478362 time=1604416207 user_id=11118]
Sorry for any awkward reading of my writing. I spend a good deal of time with intended care but might begin a sentence and finish it an hour later! ...and in between I might have smoked something that made me forget how I begun the sentence :)

Thank you for your comments. I felt bad about misjudging your own preferences to prefer plain text but like many of your views too.
[/quote]

Never mind the prose, i know mine is tortured too, but too often people don't get feedback to know where they can improve, only insults. I've got both the smoking something issue and an ADD issue which vie for attention. My preference for dumping the formatting is that it's an extra insult to my attention-span. If technology doesn't "just work", i also have a short fuse for bad design and try to avoid it entirely.
[/quote]
Just recognize that while this choice of yours helps YOU to communicate more comfortably, it DOES have its drawback that others can find it harder to read and so just skip over it.

I'm not quite sure what the particular issue you are having. Maybe you can expand on what you mean and maybe I or someone else may be able to help. We'd need to know exactly what it is that is the issue. For instance, some have been insulted at how long I used to write and they demanded that I be more ''succinct". I disagreed because some things require 'complete' understanding or it risks being misunderstood.Yet these were people discussing things in forums like this. So, I asked myself, why are they potentially finding what I write problematic in light of assuming they are not just idiots.

I recognized that some are literally using cell phones to communicate in which there was a potential issue of trying to pass over long posts. Why should I alter the way I choose to communicate so that I could make it easier for them to read? In this case, some were likely able to recognize this and alter their own settings. One I suggested to them was to just block me. But it has the DISADVANTAGE that they may no longer be able to see what I write and I, not them, miss the opportunity to get feedback from someone potentially helpful.

It was a sacrifice that I make in suggesting it that I stick to. That is, I will keep writing more where I feel necessary even if no one may read it. I spend less time online these days because instead of getting more interaction, I get less. So be it. The point is that you would require recognizing that some will just look over your material for being harder to read, without necessary insult to those doing so (or complaining about it).
[/quote]

>Using >> and > to mark out previous responses is an age-old, time-tested way of doing things in online forums and there's no reason it needs to change even if the new way did work as well. The real problem is that most people expect immediate submission in ANY area in which one participates. You're supposed to always do things the way everyone else is doing them, just because they say so. <spit> If they don't want to read me, that's easier than me dealing with bullshit design decisions some random other person, unconnected with this forum, made that have fuckall to do with me or my own communication needs. I leave the formatting when i can respond to the piece as a whole but when i've got to go inline it's just in the way. If ">>two responses ago" and ">last response" isn't clear to anyone, that's not my deficiency. Frankly, there's only 50% of people here who might potentially respond who aren't already on my foe list, and they respond much less often, so if not doing philosophy on this forum is the only other "acceptable" option for formatting, i'm ok with that too.

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=478908 time=1604748282 user_id=12709]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=478829 time=1604692884 user_id=16196]
[quote=Sculptor post_id=478681 time=1604585614 user_id=17400]
IN the UK the government restricts house building, whilst paying out £25 billion in benefits to homeless people.[/quote]
And you want more government to solve the problem. Good luck with that.
[/quote]

Once there lived small tribe who needed animal dung for building brick houses. Several families were large and extra houses were needed. There was one family who used up all the available dung for their building project.The tribal chief ordered an allotment of dung to each individual regardless of which family they came from.

A neighbouring tribe lacked governance plus some families lacked shelter and no provision was made so the people without mudbrick houses were attacked by wild animals and died. The tribe then suffered a smaller generation of fighting men and hard working women to maintain itself in power.
[/quote]

There's no point. People who don't understand/admit the value of collective action, society, the state, etc. don't Want to understand, and there's nothing about society, government, politics you can discuss with them in depth because at depth, that's all they've got.

[Advocate]

Everything a poor person earns, a rich person takes a piece of.

[henry quirk]

Everything a poor person earns, a rich person takes a piece of.

nowadays, here in 'murica, everything an employed person earns, a poor person takes a part of...unless the employed person just flat-out cheats on his taxes

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=484768 time=1607947179 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=484720 time=1607922594 user_id=15238]
Everything a poor person earns, a rich person takes a piece of.
[/quote]

nowadays, here in 'murica, everything an employed person earns, a poor person takes a part of...unless the employed person just flat-out cheats on his taxes
[/quote]

"Employed" includes people who sit on their ass-chairs paid for by their grandparent's parents hard work, managing imaginary derivatives. That's not a moral or factual argument.

[henry quirk]

Everything a poor person earns, a rich person takes a piece of.

nowadays, here in 'murica, everything an employed person earns, a poor person takes a part of...unless the employed person just flat-out cheats on his taxes

"Employed" includes people who sit on their ass-chairs paid for by their grandparent's parents hard work, managing imaginary derivatives. That's not a moral or factual argument.

it also includes self-employed folks like me who work long & a hard every day...and yeah, it's both a moral & factual argument