Why does rent exist?
Isn't it non-productive?
Why does rent exist?
Isn't it non-productive?
Other urls found in this thread:
bloomberg.com
twitter.com
Because I don't want to take care of my own land or lodging and agreed to pay someone else for the right to live in theirs instead.
>implying it's not because you have no land or lodging to call your own because it's all bought already
I have enough money to buy a house. I don't want to. It would go to hell in a couple months, I can barely handle throwing out trash.
Right, but that's what I'm talking about, cities are ripe with people living on heavily inflated land values. Land is scarce, especially land in overpopulated areas, and it is this overpopulation which gives rent its high cost in the first place.
Rent literally has to increase at an increasing rate. It's tucking sick, great boat to jump on.
See this link
People should take more than two seconds to determine who is really benefitting from this system, the benefactor to large fortunes, or non-productive work.
To meme people out of ever owning a house.
A lengthy mortgage will cost you as much as rent, so the only real barrier is a down payment.
Rent is a service that is provided against a fee. It doesn't need to be any more "productive" than a therapist session or a phone service fee
Fun fact: almost any broke fuck can afford rent, they just refuse to live in the shithole neighborhoods their money can buy. Same goes for home ownership as well
never heard of this, cool.
The complaint is the values are over-inflated, retard. It's not that I can't afford it. I am.
The point to be made is this: the portion of a price's good that represents land is over-inflated. The natural monopolistic tendencies of increasing expansion of civilization territorially work in the reverse with land. They start out small and grow larger over time. As the liquidity preference for money lowers, the upkeep for houses has to rise considerably as well, under Keynesian economics.
Most economists agree that the increasing landlord's share is a fundamental economic problem. They are non-productive wages as well, inherently.
Over inflated compared to what? If the prices were too high the market would adjust. If you're complaining about the rent being too high you're not the target demo and you need to adjust your requirements. I can guarantee you you can easily rent a shithole on the fringe of town for practically no money, how come that wasn't caught up in this meteoric rise of rent?
Because it's an agreement that is advantageous to all involved parties.
It wasn't caught up in the rise of rent because the costs of rent differ where they are, The crackhouses and traphouses in Detroit afford less rent than the apartment complexes because the buildings are less developed there. What else do you want to know about economics? I've read a bit.
>. I can guarantee you you can easily rent a shithole on the fringe of town for practically no money, how come that wasn't caught up in this meteoric rise of rent?
>why don't you want to spend $500 a month to have the pleasure of living your life in fear and being robbed by crackheads everyday you go to and fro work
huh really makes you think
Not really. Rent sucking up all productive improvements in machinery is not important for wages or the interest rate.
Rent is the price of using property you do not own.
The problem is that people who own property don't pay for it's protection, so it's free money subsidized by the government.
Holy shit it's almost as if rent isn't actually high, it's high for the neighborhoods everyone wants to live in thus cresting a lot of demand
I need to sit down to process this
Protection from what? Are you implying landlords don't pay taxes?
Are you an idiot? There's a literal problem with the proportion of money that goes to rent for anything from farms to property in suburbs. Too much of a good's produce, that you buy in a store, is part of the rent to some warehouse or farm. Not to mention the exorbitant difference between profit and interest that Henry George tackles in this book.
Rent is high period. Even in shitholes.
Protection from theft.
Property should be the primary tax, not income tax. The government doesn't protect your income, it does protect property.
No it isn't
Protection from theft isn't the responsibility of the property owner beyond reasonable measures like having a lock and maybe an alarm. This goes for landlords and regular owners. I don't know where you're going with this
are you stupid?
It's the responsibility of the government. People who have more property to protect should pay more, they are getting more of a service from the government.
If too much of the good is going to rent (I guess you're implying that makes it cost too much) it would lose its market and either drive that rent down or force the seller to find a lower upkeep place
People who have more property do pay more. The fuck is your argument?
That income and sales tax are always regressive and full of loopholes, but property tax can be straightforward to calculate and impossible to evade.
So you're not arguing against rent, you're arguing against tax evasion. Kind of a totally different topic
Coz muh spooky private property
why does value exist?
isn't it a physiological construct?
You're wrong. Economics doesn't work like that. You don't just say 'hey free market, work this complex arrangement of goods and institutions out by yourself'. There is a complex system of arrangements that gets taken advantage of by certain groups of people depending on the situation. In this case, landholders benefit from higher population and increased productivity of capital.
Tax reform. Because rent has an implicit value that does not exist without government protection. Income and sales are between customer and vendor, property is between owners and government.
Plenty of things wouldn't exist without government protection, not least of which your life. The value of using someone's house as your own seems pretty explicit to me
Don't really get your point, landowners do profit from that, how is their profit bad for society?
Initially, then it becomes psychological.
>Plenty of things wouldn't exist without government protection, not least of which your life. The value of using someone's house as your own seems pretty explicit to me
Everyone's life is worth the same, people have different amounts of property. The value of owning property that can't be stolen is obvious.
Which property can't be stolen? Also how does this relate to our discussion?
>how is their profit bad for society?
1) it is non-productive. Taken from the perspective of this, they are analogous to the leech on the back of a blue whale
2) they are in the process of being inflated higher as time goes on. As regards productive efficiency, the ability of population to increase production still necessitates the use of worse lands. As a result, population saturation raises the wages of the individuals while increasing the share of the good's price in terms of rent.
What this does, is it makes sure that the salary of the landlord is inflationary, because none of that revenue is being reinvested in productive processes, just indirectly productive by however much it is used for consumption, not savings.
Why does it need to be productive? Economy consists of products AND services. Masseuses and hairdressers also don't produce anything, are they leeches?
>inflated higher
Only proportional to property prices. Also why do you assume rent revenue is being invested it productive processes? What's stopping the landlord from buying a factory with rent money?
>*isn't being invested
If you are the legitimate owner of property, then the courts will uphold your claim against that of homesteaders.
>Masseuses and hairdressers also don't produce anything, are they leeches?
Yes and the more that money is spent in these areas, the more it is inflationary. Most landlords don't do anything to the productivity of the land, lets thing realistically.
Again, how does this relate to rent being good or bad?
It relates to the conditions that citizens should put on rentiers.
Why this cult of productivity, I don't understand. By your logic practically half of the economy is useless. Which means it shouldn't exist and yet here it is
I still don't see what those conditions are.
That taxes should be focused on property, not on income or sales. Rentiers are one kind of person who profits from ownership, so they would be affected by this.
Not useless, but non-productive. If the labor doesn't produce a good it is completely inflationary under Keynesianism. Now taken on the aggregate level, non-productive wages can help produce goods depending on the quantity of consumption, but this consumption is composed of goods and services, and you're damn straight half of consumption is by that nature inflationary.
There are already property taxes and the better your land is, the higher the taxes are.
Ok. Still don't see why being inflationary is bad then. Inflation auto corrects itself as well, barring retarded government measures
Not the user you are debating with, but inflation in practice never corrects itself. For it to correct, a deflation should happen or the average income should raise as well, what actually devalues currency, and can lead to different problems.
Erm... so any business that puts up prices will always put up wages at the same time, barring government interference?