Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Helgoland]

Only in highly sought-after areas, where ren't controls don't make sense anyway - lower Manhattan, for example. In the usual areas, the prospective tenant could just take another flat. Raise limits would be just one more point during contract negotiations.

[Sheb]

Call me an elitist, but I believe tenants simply won't pay attention to this, or at least enough won't that it won't make a difference. Look how many people got shafted after signing variable-rate mortgage interest. People just discount future costs way too much.

[Helgoland]

That's their problem, though, innit? And once the first few horror stories go viral, people will start looking at their contracts more closely.

(Also, I know you're an elitist, Sheb - I'm one myself, after all )

[Sheb]

But then, why don't we simply limits the potential raises by law? Or let it work. I'm still not convinced this market need regulation.

[LordSlowpoke]

if you're going to introduce basic income, you need to put huge regulations on the market so it doesn't just take the money and run wild with it since well, you're basically going to spain/10 the economy otherwise

[Descan]

Well, since the idea of a basic income is to give people enough money to survive, if one survival aspect (shelter via rent) takes over all of the money, that's an issue. And it's not as easy to raise the price on food exorbitantly as it is on rent. There are only so many homes in an area/at all to rent, food is a lot more competitive... Well, besides monopolies :v

[Sheb]

Why? You're not adding new money, just distributing it differently. It's not something totally unheard off. For example, the recent tax reform in Italy has put 80 euros a month into the pocket of the lowest paid. I've not heard of landlords just running with all of it.

[LordSlowpoke]

yes

80 euros is a huge sum

it's enough to be noticeable on the scale of the sixth of italy's population to uproot the whole economy

it's literally a tenth of what would be needed for survival in a city, you could probably cut that by 300 in the countryside, but still - how is this comparable exactly?

[Sheb]

You only points out a difference in degrees. Why would the economy capsize if you were to redistribute more cash, outside of some adjustmentat the beginning? Why would the landlords run away with a basic income, but not now?

[LordSlowpoke]

you know, when i see the adjustments you're speaking of i see the market twisting and turning until the basic income is turned into pocket money, so the basic income gets increased and slippedy sloppidy doo everything is made of fuck and we're burning money like it's berlin 1929

and the reason they're not running away now is because there's nothing to run away with, if rents increased people would simply have no money to pay them since there's only this many people with this select amount of dosh in a specific area to live in your dwellings

now you're throwing more money into the mix and bam, problem solved

[Descan]

I'll admit it has it's flaws, considering that a basic income would change it from "80+%" to "100%" so it's only an extra few percentage of people, but the idea is that if landlords know that -everyone- has xxx amount of money, they know that that is the very least that people *can* afford. It's like, if you *know* someone has something, you'll try and get it, and if everyone tries, they have no real recourse if that person has to give that thing up in order to live. The other flaw's that there's no guarantee that everyone will try and suck up all the money, but the fact that there's only so many housing in a region means that you only need a few people to decide to do so. Edit: Yes, that too. Changing the basic-income to pocket-change. Of course it would be tied to inflation, but inflation would still be an issue, unless you want to buy a coffee for a grand every day

If I were to implement a basic income, I would put in two fail-safes. One, if the economy dips below a certain threshold within xxx years, then the basic income is discontinued. If that dip is from some external cause, like a recession or some other policy having a negative impact, then instead of an automatic discontinue it would just be investigated. The other fail-safe would be that after xxx years, it would be re-examined regardless of any dips in the economy, to see if it's functioning as-needed. If not, modified.

[Helgoland]

I'm still not convinced this market need regulation.

Me neither - but there are bad ways and there are worse ways. The best alternative IMO would be subsidizing new apartment buildings, thus driving down market prices.

[Owlbread]

Spoiler: I had a good laugh over this: (click to show/hide)

UKIP's new Scottish MEP has also said that he will work as hard as he can to rescind any potential Yes Vote.

[Loud Whispers]

Is it just me, or do the current 20-ish year olds (and teenagers) seem to have VERY different ideas to the politicians presently in power?

Bloody well depends.  Also just in general, no one agrees with politicians ever. It's a platinum rule.

[Kicior]

slippedy sloppidy doo everything is made of fuck

I had to sigg it xD