Tue Aug 4, 2015, 01:37 PM

Why not outlaw landlordism?

Consider for a moment: What would happen if real estate could not be rented, leased, or borrowed against, but only either bought, sold, or used by the owner?

An obvious initial objection would be "But most people can't afford to buy real estate!" Then a beautiful thought occurs: Because they can't afford it, and the owners can no longer rent it out, lease it out, or borrow against it, owners have only two ways to make money from it - either sell it or use it as productive capital that creates jobs.

Since the vast majority of people - including (in fact, especially) real estate speculators - have no interest in or capacity to run a productive enterprise, the only practical avenue of profit for most real estate owners would be to sell the property. If they have no personal or professional use for it, they're only in it for the money, and they can't make money on it except by selling it, then that is what they will do.

So what happens when people with property want to sell it, but consumers can't afford to buy it? The price goes down. And without the hugely inflationary forces of bubble-speculation and landlordism, it would go down massively. It would go down as far as necessary for people to afford it, resulting in a huge redistribution of wealth back to the average person.

Sure, some holders of surplus real estate would try to hold on to their property and wait for a more favorable market, but unless owners acted as a single giant monopoly, enough would sell that the price would just keep going lower, causing still more to sell to avoid future losses. The price would then stabilize far below what it is in a market supported by renting, leasing, and borrowing.

Also, since you can't borrow against it, homeowners would be less tempted to use their property as a cash machine, meaning they would be more likely to hold on to it in the long-term.

Pass the law such that it unfolds gradually, so that present renters are not thrown out on the street, and I don't see a downside.

Thoughts?

(Edit: Wow, I didn't realize I was thinking so far outside the box here. It just seems like common sense that the tenant-landlord relationship is a fundamentally Bad Thing for society and democracy, given that it reduces a "free" market into a medieval Manorial estate. This should not be a radical idea on a liberal discussion forum. Be less conservative and more thoughtful about how things can be better, folks.)

240 replies, 18859 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

240 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why not outlaw landlordism? (Original post)	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	OP
Western Civ would collapse immediately	pscot	Aug 2015	#1
Hence the point about unfolding gradually. But do you see anything wrong in theory?	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#2
Property rights are the keystone of Liberal governance	pscot	Aug 2015	#17
That's a radically libertarian position to take.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#22
Not libertarian; Historical	pscot	Aug 2015	#24
Libertarian. And no property rights are violated in this scenario.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#125
Commerce clause only covers interstate and international commerce	Nuclear Unicorn	Aug 2015	#86
According to Libertarians, not the jurisprudence of the 20th and 21st centuries.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#126
This might come as a surprise to you but real estate and in-state corporate law	Nuclear Unicorn	Aug 2015	#155
Um, no. That's quite false.	Fantastic Anarchist	Aug 2015	#35
I'm struggling to think of examples	FreeJoe	Aug 2015	#93
Cliven Bundy enjoys a great deal of political and personal freedom while using public property.	ieoeja	Aug 2015	#225
Those are your examples?	FreeJoe	Aug 2015	#236
"Socialism". I do not think it means what you think it means.	ieoeja	Aug 2015	#240
Not quite. The concept called 'commons' was a part of property rights until	PatrickforO	Aug 2015	#83
Doesn't make right, though. Does it?	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#205
Land owners do compensate the public on an ongoing basis.	Ace Rothstein	Aug 2015	#218
Yes, property taxes are a real thing.	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#222
The Constitution has nothing at all to say about what sorts of entities can be "property"	eridani	Aug 2015	#214
+1	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#223
+2	Fantastic Anarchist	Aug 2015	#238
So... that's a vote FOR the idea, then?	Scootaloo	Aug 2015	#152
How do you plan on seizing tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in private property?	Nuclear Unicorn	Aug 2015	#3
What are you talking about "seize"? Did you actually read the OP?	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#4
Seize? Eh - I think you're rubbing up against the 4th amendment...nt	jonno99	Aug 2015	#7
How? There's no "seizure" of anything. None even implied.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#8
regulating property to such a degree that it loses most of its value	geek tragedy	Aug 2015	#14
Simple fix: Compensatory tax deduction for those who purchased before.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#21
GT is correct. You run into the 5th amendment "Takings Clause" - which deals with	jonno99	Aug 2015	#28
This objection has already been addressed.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#123
"this would indeed work" - I'm sorry, but I missed the response(s) in agreement.	jonno99	Aug 2015	#130
I'm sorry, I missed the bit about reality being a democracy.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#134
Looks like you've got it covered. However, I'm curious -	jonno99	Aug 2015	#143
Yes.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#144
I think you underestimate the size of the "special cases" group.	jonno99	Aug 2015	#159
Tax deduction for the landowners, and grandfather on a case by case basis...	cherokeeprogressive	Aug 2015	#47
I don't think so	FreeJoe	Aug 2015	#95
The difference is that everyone who owns real property in California pays taxes on it. Everyone.	cherokeeprogressive	Aug 2015	#197
Don't we have a lot targeted taxes and tax deductions?	FreeJoe	Aug 2015	#237
You are depriving people of the free use of their private property.	Nuclear Unicorn	Aug 2015	#43
I think it would be a type of seizure if the government were suddenly to decree	pnwmom	Aug 2015	#151
I think you'd have better luck outlawing snark & sarcasm...nt	jonno99	Aug 2015	#5
Real estate is a regulated for-profit industry, not a Constitutional right.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#9
Au contraire	pscot	Aug 2015	#19
There's no Constitutional right to profit.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#23
This message was self-deleted by its author	jonno99	Aug 2015	#34
The constitution doesn't bestow rights, it keeps government from interfering with inherent rights.	Nuclear Unicorn	Aug 2015	#79
The Constitution grants the government explicit authority to regulate commerce.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#92
It can't regulate intra-state commerce.	Nuclear Unicorn	Aug 2015	#112
I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning.	Adrahil	Aug 2015	#115
Jury nullification? n/t	Uncle Joe	Aug 2015	#196
The idea of the Constitution was	Yupster	Aug 2015	#212
There goes tenantism	BeyondGeography	Aug 2015	#6
Meaning?	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#11
You should know the meaning.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#102
There would be a lot of homeless people	LittleBlue	Aug 2015	#10
You didn't read the entire OP, did you?	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#12
I did	LittleBlue	Aug 2015	#20
Then you're basically making the conservative argument about taxes:	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#25
That isn't true	LittleBlue	Aug 2015	#52
Holding on to property would be an unsustainable business decision.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#120
Ugh, really?	geek tragedy	Aug 2015	#13
Yes, really.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#33
Well, there is the "long run" problem.	rogerashton	Aug 2015	#15
Actually that's a long-run solution.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#44
Materials cost money.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#176
My air conditioned just broke down	Yupster	Aug 2015	#213
What would you do with all the 2nd and 3rd mortgages already on the books? nt.	Juicy_Bellows	Aug 2015	#16
Grandfather, or tax credit, or some other combination of mitigations.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#45
You would blow up municipal budgets across the country	hack89	Aug 2015	#18
That is an interesting point. Let's think about that.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#49
People who own today will be under a mountain of debt	hack89	Aug 2015	#61
I literally addressed that in the very first sentence of the comment you're replying to.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#91
The government is not going to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of home owners	hack89	Aug 2015	#94
total US mortgage debt is $11.6 trillion.	Amishman	Aug 2015	#106
LOL. It would cost about 1/4 of the money spent on Fed bailouts after 2008.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#118
Where did the 2008 bailout money come from?	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#121
Clearly you never owed a home	yeoman6987	Aug 2015	#101
I've both owned and rented, and owned rentals too	whatthehey	Aug 2015	#136
"Renters pay for all that just not in discrete chunks" - and THAT is the essence of the problem -	jonno99	Aug 2015	#156
You are mistaken about the economics.	Ms. Toad	Aug 2015	#209
That was a huge problem in the Great Depression. And why income taxes are better.	ieoeja	Aug 2015	#66
Ummmm	1939	Aug 2015	#110
Yes, but with an income tax you are taxing the people who CAN pay and ONLY the people who can pay.	ieoeja	Aug 2015	#224
Let's see	1939	Aug 2015	#230
I think you're wrong on #4.	ieoeja	Aug 2015	#233
The banks paid fines because they did the foreclosures illegally	1939	Aug 2015	#234
Only bought, sold, or used by the owner?	SheilaT	Aug 2015	#26
I'm mainly wondering about the large-scale economic effect.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#54
You're delusional if you think that	SheilaT	Aug 2015	#153
My guess is this plan would be loopholed to death	Yupster	Aug 2015	#215
What would people who have to rent do?	Reter	Aug 2015	#27
But apparently (reading between the OP lines) you can afford property taxes...nt	jonno99	Aug 2015	#31
He's already paying them, likely at higher rates	whatthehey	Aug 2015	#57
For the record: the rent I charge does not cover my costs.	ieoeja	Aug 2015	#227
You have to rent because real estate prices are artificially inflated by landlords and speculators.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#55
So houses will drop down to 1980 prices?	Reter	Aug 2015	#58
If you read the post	laundry_queen	Aug 2015	#60
Glory be that this will never come true	yeoman6987	Aug 2015	#107
What kind of post is that?	laundry_queen	Aug 2015	#184
I have replies all through the thread	yeoman6987	Aug 2015	#207
As a landlord of exactly one property	Lee-Lee	Aug 2015	#29
The "minimum cost" of houses is something every contractor laughs about privately.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#63
I'm betting you have never owned a home	Lee-Lee	Aug 2015	#147
"You could have transfers of ownership that are shares in the property"	lumberjack_jeff	Aug 2015	#150
ha!	tammywammy	Aug 2015	#169
No, it's not what we do today. We take out loans	TexasMommaWithAHat	Aug 2015	#178
LOL- in the end what this half-backed idea would result in is rent being replaced with	Lee-Lee	Aug 2015	#219
What if, when the person who "bought" a room in the house.......	WillowTree	Aug 2015	#235
As the son of a life-long contractor, that's bullshit.	X_Digger	Aug 2015	#174
Sounds a lot like Communism...	TreasonousBastard	Aug 2015	#30
I would say it's more perfectly capitalistic than the present system.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#67
The systems humans come up with are organic	olddots	Aug 2015	#32
"The main reason I have been at odds with money" I'm curious: other than bartering,	jonno99	Aug 2015	#38
Didn't you ever think they might just tear it down and take a loss...	Historic NY	Aug 2015	#36
A total loss rather than a lower profit? Bullshit.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#70
Yes. It's called bankruptcy. nt.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#104
In which case the property would be auctioned off anyway, and they'd see none of the proceeds.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#129
Correct.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#166
You think they're going to care about the difference between a $300,000 loss and a $305,000 loss? nt	jeff47	Aug 2015	#181
Most insurance companies, banks, and pension funds are heavily invested in REITS	JCMach1	Aug 2015	#37
The simple (though by no means easy) solution would just be to guarantee them all.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#73
Is this from The Onion?	Snobblevitch	Aug 2015	#39
Post removed	Post removed	Aug 2015	#74
Are You?	ProfessorGAC	Aug 2015	#131
I think the UK tried this with its council housing.	Starry Messenger	Aug 2015	#40
Thanks, that would be interesting reading.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#77
The folks that own property are the ones that make the laws...	ileus	Aug 2015	#41
Only because the rest let them.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#78
Let's outlaw carbon dioxide next. I hear it contributes to global warming	FSogol	Aug 2015	#42
CO2 is a molecule. Landlordism is a business arrangement.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#80
Yes. That poster is a real tea party supporter.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#105
Except I haven't heard a single objection that withstands the simplest scrutiny.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#114
You have heard tons of well thought out reasons why.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#167
You don't think that people needing to live somewhere for only a short time	SheilaT	Aug 2015	#217
You were the subject of an alert. I was juror number 5.	guillaumeb	Aug 2015	#172
This isn't a good idea	mythology	Aug 2015	#46
I've addressed most of this in earlier comments, but I'll reiterate here.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#88
How does this make sense	whatthehey	Aug 2015	#133
Y is not the value of a property. Y is the value of property that someone's income lets them buy.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#137
And what do you think will replace the mortgage?	TexasMommaWithAHat	Aug 2015	#185
You are in the running for first place FYI...probably will at least get 2nd	snooper2	Aug 2015	#48
First place in what?	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#132
Wait - what if I WANT to rent? nt	jonno99	Aug 2015	#50
That's what hotels are for.	Cleita	Aug 2015	#53
Ok - but what if I like the idea of renting a house - something bigger than a hotel w/ one-room? nt	jonno99	Aug 2015	#59
Explain why you would rather do that and pay a rent expense instead of	Cleita	Aug 2015	#64
Many folks - especially those who are older like their own (quiet) space, but	jonno99	Aug 2015	#72
I'm never for one size fits all, but trends where there might be a few exceptions, not enough	Cleita	Aug 2015	#82
Why is it illegal for a landlord to rent real estate, but a hotel can? NT	1939	Aug 2015	#113
It's a different type of business.	Cleita	Aug 2015	#119
Not the way the OP states it	1939	Aug 2015	#128
It's just speculation. So don't worry your head over it. eom	Cleita	Aug 2015	#135
That's illegal under this proposal. A hotel is renting out property. (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#179
You're asking what if you WANT to pay an exorbitant markup for the same living arrangement?	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#139
Silly argument. If I want to quit my job for another job, I am free to do so. If	jonno99	Aug 2015	#228
Well, I never liked the idea of owning an apartment, but it's	Cleita	Aug 2015	#51
Yes, that's the general idea: To reunite ownership and usage.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#141
Well, there was a time on earth when landlordism didn't exist. And this thread ...	Auggie	Aug 2015	#56
The (unstated?) false premise of the OP is that "landlordism" is a BAD THING. But, like everything	jonno99	Aug 2015	#62
The OP just opened the subject for theoretical discussion ...	Auggie	Aug 2015	#76
Agreed. Too, it should be understood that the landlord/tenant relationship is not	jonno99	Aug 2015	#85
I am sort of for the extended family living, if not under the same roof, on the same property.	Cleita	Aug 2015	#90
"Modern life" - it's sad really. How did we get to the place where old age (hopefully with wisdom)	jonno99	Aug 2015	#108
There always have been landlords. Often they were known as lords, Kings or	Cleita	Aug 2015	#68
Well not always though.	whatthehey	Aug 2015	#75
Or in later times even as late as the eighteenth century, everything you owned technically belonged	Cleita	Aug 2015	#84
Go further back in time ...	Auggie	Aug 2015	#81
Lemme see. Nomadic tribes don't own property other than their tents and sheep or	Cleita	Aug 2015	#87
Probably, then, with the development of agriculture and/or domestication of livestock ...	Auggie	Aug 2015	#97
No. Good hunting grounds were very valuable before agriculture. (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#183
Are you suggesting hunting grounds were "available for lease" by those that laid claimed to them?	Auggie	Aug 2015	#188
No, I'm saying one tribe would claim ownership over them	jeff47	Aug 2015	#193
That's not a landlord situation then.	Auggie	Aug 2015	#199
Sure it is.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#200
Not sure but certainly pre-classical Rome	whatthehey	Aug 2015	#69
Poverty too. Always been there, so let's do nothing about it.	True Blue Door	Aug 2015	#142
We need to End Real Estate as a Commodity Market	daredtowork	Aug 2015	#65
You are right.	Cleita	Aug 2015	#71
I wonder how easy it would be to get a home loan in a depressed housing market, especially	hughee99	Aug 2015	#89
That's not allowed in the OP scheme - "real estate could not be ... borrowed against"	muriel_volestrangler	Aug 2015	#99
Lol. Wow. Sorry but thankfully this is just talk.	yeoman6987	Aug 2015	#116
If you can't borrow against real estate, then only people with cash on hand would be able to buy,	hughee99	Aug 2015	#122
No, OP is claiming houses would cost 1/5th the cost of a car.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#186
Well shit, that wouldn't even be worth what it costs to build it,	hughee99	Aug 2015	#201
That's the OP's plan - make land nearly worthless.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#202
I assumed the OP was talking about the house (structure) specifically.	hughee99	Aug 2015	#204
Why stop there? Let's outlaw profit while we're at it.	Throd	Aug 2015	#96
Renting is a wonderful option for people in society.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#98
Can't POSSIBLY account for the myriad situations that exist,	elleng	Aug 2015	#100
A bit like rent control	FreeJoe	Aug 2015	#103
I move every few years...	Positrons	Aug 2015	#109
ok	hill2016	Aug 2015	#111
Sometimes renting makes sense.	Adrahil	Aug 2015	#117
I'm a good, kind, landlord	PasadenaTrudy	Aug 2015	#124
That would be financially destructive to many of the poor who need mobility.	Xithras	Aug 2015	#127
This idea is dumber than the no air conditioning thread someone started a few weeks back.	Ace Rothstein	Aug 2015	#138
They lived in a state where it rarely gets over 90 degrees?	alphafemale	Aug 2015	#158
boredom nt	steve2470	Aug 2015	#163
a silly idea - some folks like to rent - they do not want to be burdened with home ownership	DrDan	Aug 2015	#140
Could hotels still rent rooms or would they have to "sell" them?	onenote	Aug 2015	#145
I want to rent. Specifically I want to rent space in a house/neighborhood than I couldn afford on my	alphafemale	Aug 2015	#146
Poorly conceived.	lumberjack_jeff	Aug 2015	#148
This is just unworkable. Even assuming people agreed to this concept (and no one would),	MADem	Aug 2015	#149
You would create a situation where there are huge numbers of empty houses	GitRDun	Aug 2015	#154
In our area there is a 1/2% vacancy rate & housing costs are high. Many students....	Hekate	Aug 2015	#157
What a dumb idea. n/t	Lil Missy	Aug 2015	#160
Don't ban it. Tax rent seeking at a reasonable rate	Taitertots	Aug 2015	#161
Taxes are paid on income received from rental property. Property taxes are paid on rental property.	Thinkingabout	Aug 2015	#190
+1	jonno99	Aug 2015	#231
As a long-time tenant, I can speak to this easily	steve2470	Aug 2015	#162
I Posted above.	alphafemale	Aug 2015	#182
yes, renting works for a large number of people	steve2470	Aug 2015	#187
Fridge breaks. tree crashes the roof?	alphafemale	Aug 2015	#191
yep, one of the beauties of renting! nt	steve2470	Aug 2015	#192
So many people I know have been paying a mortgage for years	alphafemale	Aug 2015	#194
yea that's a sad situation nt	steve2470	Aug 2015	#195
What's really funny about this thread	MFrohike	Aug 2015	#164
there are at least two fatal economic issues	hill2016	Aug 2015	#165
Why do you assume people don't want to rent?	Travis_0004	Aug 2015	#168
I like it	SoLeftIAmRight	Aug 2015	#170
Lolno.	X_Digger	Aug 2015	#171
No thanks, I owned for over 20 years and am much happier renting	independentpiney	Aug 2015	#173
So in your world, houses sprout out of the ground for free?	jeff47	Aug 2015	#175
Good idea but can't be done without some radical transformation of the underlying order	Cheese Sandwich	Aug 2015	#177
the cost of materials	lancer78	Aug 2015	#180
Bad idea.	Blue_In_AK	Aug 2015	#189
That's a fairly traditional pattern.	hunter	Aug 2015	#206
^^ THIS ^^ nt	jonno99	Aug 2015	#229
Economics of being a landlord	1939	Aug 2015	#198
With you 100%. n/t	cheapdate	Aug 2015	#203
You still have not addressed the issue of those	SheilaT	Aug 2015	#208
Yes, I've paid nearly 100K in rent where I live. I could have had a home, but couldn't make a down.	freshwest	Aug 2015	#210
Any term with a "lord" in it is about feudalism, period n/t	eridani	Aug 2015	#211
Or - NOT, period.	jonno99	Aug 2015	#232
sounds like a Chamber of Commerce solution	DrDan	Aug 2015	#216
If real estate could not be borrowed against, then	SheilaT	Aug 2015	#220
It would change the college experience, that's for sure.	Orrex	Aug 2015	#221
Nope - would never agree to this n/t	JustAnotherGen	Aug 2015	#226
Because some of us actually PREFER to rent	Travelman	Aug 2015	#239

Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 01:39 PM

pscot (21,006 posts)

Why not outlaw landlordism?

1. Western Civ would collapse immediately

2. Hence the point about unfolding gradually. But do you see anything wrong in theory?

17. Property rights are the keystone of Liberal governance

22. That's a radically libertarian position to take.

24. Not libertarian; Historical

125. Libertarian. And no property rights are violated in this scenario.

86. Commerce clause only covers interstate and international commerce

126. According to Libertarians, not the jurisprudence of the 20th and 21st centuries.

155. This might come as a surprise to you but real estate and in-state corporate law

35. Um, no. That's quite false.

93. I'm struggling to think of examples

225. Cliven Bundy enjoys a great deal of political and personal freedom while using public property.

236. Those are your examples?

240. "Socialism". I do not think it means what you think it means.

83. Not quite. The concept called 'commons' was a part of property rights until

205. Doesn't make right, though. Does it?

218. Land owners do compensate the public on an ongoing basis.

222. Yes, property taxes are a real thing.

214. The Constitution has nothing at all to say about what sorts of entities can be "property"

223. +1

238. +2

152. So... that's a vote FOR the idea, then?

3. How do you plan on seizing tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in private property?

4. What are you talking about "seize"? Did you actually read the OP?

7. Seize? Eh - I think you're rubbing up against the 4th amendment...nt

8. How? There's no "seizure" of anything. None even implied.

14. regulating property to such a degree that it loses most of its value

21. Simple fix: Compensatory tax deduction for those who purchased before.

28. GT is correct. You run into the 5th amendment "Takings Clause" - which deals with

123. This objection has already been addressed.

130. "this would indeed work" - I'm sorry, but I missed the response(s) in agreement.

134. I'm sorry, I missed the bit about reality being a democracy.

143. Looks like you've got it covered. However, I'm curious -

144. Yes.

159. I think you underestimate the size of the "special cases" group.

47. Tax deduction for the landowners, and grandfather on a case by case basis...

95. I don't think so

197. The difference is that everyone who owns real property in California pays taxes on it. Everyone.

237. Don't we have a lot targeted taxes and tax deductions?

43. You are depriving people of the free use of their private property.

151. I think it would be a type of seizure if the government were suddenly to decree

5. I think you'd have better luck outlawing snark & sarcasm...nt

9. Real estate is a regulated for-profit industry, not a Constitutional right.

19. Au contraire

23. There's no Constitutional right to profit.

79. The constitution doesn't bestow rights, it keeps government from interfering with inherent rights.

92. The Constitution grants the government explicit authority to regulate commerce.

112. It can't regulate intra-state commerce.

115. I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning.

196. Jury nullification? n/t

212. The idea of the Constitution was

6. There goes tenantism

11. Meaning?

102. You should know the meaning.

10. There would be a lot of homeless people

12. You didn't read the entire OP, did you?

20. I did

25. Then you're basically making the conservative argument about taxes:

52. That isn't true

120. Holding on to property would be an unsustainable business decision.

13. Ugh, really?

33. Yes, really.

15. Well, there is the "long run" problem.

44. Actually that's a long-run solution.

176. Materials cost money.

213. My air conditioned just broke down

16. What would you do with all the 2nd and 3rd mortgages already on the books? nt.

45. Grandfather, or tax credit, or some other combination of mitigations.

18. You would blow up municipal budgets across the country

49. That is an interesting point. Let's think about that.

61. People who own today will be under a mountain of debt

91. I literally addressed that in the very first sentence of the comment you're replying to.

94. The government is not going to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of home owners

106. total US mortgage debt is $11.6 trillion.

118. LOL. It would cost about 1/4 of the money spent on Fed bailouts after 2008.

121. Where did the 2008 bailout money come from?

101. Clearly you never owed a home

136. I've both owned and rented, and owned rentals too

156. "Renters pay for all that just not in discrete chunks" - and THAT is the essence of the problem -

227. For the record: the rent I charge does not cover my costs.