Uh, no.
You pay the money you owe, don't try and slither out.
Despicable.
This kind of stuff is pretty common, London is owed £105 million by foreign diplomats who don't pay the congestion charge
If they wanted relations with the country that diplomat is from to unravel at the seams, yes.
Maybe if the landlord wanted to be paid they could get an actual job instead of being a leech.
Do you mind expanding on that point because that's possibly one of the dumbest things I've seen written.
Being a landlord contributes nothing to society. Instead of just letting someone live in a house, you're inserting yourself in the middle of the process and charging more than the actual worth of the home so you can make a buck. Most aren't even the ones who built the things - they just remove them from the reaches of people who would otherwise need one so they can skim off the top.
Maybe if the landlord wanted money they could try doing something useful?
That's not what a Landlord does.
I don't know if it's different in Australia but it's a Landlord's responsibility to take care of the upkeep of your house
Diplomats are important figures in national politics, they're seen as an extension of the country they represent. It's why the expulsion of Russian diplomats recently was a pretty big deal.
lol are you fucking serious?
So I should pay off mortgage for 10/15 years and then let some cheap-skate live in my house free of charge?
Holy fucking shit, I will never understand the stupidity of this logic.
People can't afford to buy houses coz landlords buy em all up and charge rents high then use that money to buy more houses.
Sure landlords have responsibilies and liabilities (like tenants who fuck stuff up) but most peoples' first experience with landlords (myself included) are tend to be negative coz landlords for young/poor people/students are generally not so helpful and don't give a fuck about their tentants. Sadly that negative first experience along with the whole money situation means people have bad first impressions which they will probably hold for a while even once their older and the landlords tend to get more reasonable.
Well I don't really think people should have to pay for shelter or anything, whether it's a mortgage or rent. If we're going to be hostile here, I don't think I could ever understand the inhumanity involved in thinking that people should be denied shelter - something that's needed to live - just because of their material situation. I also don't get the implication of your statement - I don't think people should be forced to live with others, I think that we should prioritise people having shelter before people being able to make a profit.
In the UK we have Hostels where people can go for free/cheap accommodation if they're homeless. When you pay rent to live in a house you are also paying for the luxury and safety of that. It'd be nice if stuff where free but the government ain't gonna do that anytime soon.
I guess I am coming from the position that housing should be something that is provided to someone regardless of whether they have the means to pay for it or not.
I don't really want to continue this discussion further because it's kind of off-topic. I do apologise for my first post because it was off-the-cuff and not too relevant to the discussion.
My mortgage payment is a lot cheaper than the rent that most citydwellers pay for a shitty little hole in the wall.
In Ireland there is also housing crisis but there are free shelters for homeless.
Many homeless people refuse them (for whatever reason), beggars cant be choosers, surely you cant give up free property to someone who's picking where he wants to stay.
My plan for retirement (in 40 years) would be to have few properties by that time - have them rented out and just travel/do whatever, maybe retire early.
"I guess I am coming from the position that housing should be something that is provided to someone regardless of whether they have the means to pay for it or not." - Government should provide it, you can't expect private sector to invest their earned money into it and get nothing in return.
There are schemes in Ireland where you basically lease out your property to government - and they house homeless/low income people in it, you get money directly from government and have no risk of getting delayed/no payment.
The problem is - many of these homeless/low income families will trash the place beyond restoration and government will tell you to take a hike basically - as a result, people rather rent out their property to private party.
Plenty of those stories happen day to day in Ireland.
Housing is provided to people who can't afford rent in many countries around the world in the form of homeless shelters. People still generally choose to pay a mortgage or rent instead when they can afford it. You are being a huge dumbass
So, just a quick back-of-the-card.
I think Diplomatic Immunity is bullshit, but I also think it's necessary bullshit.
Immunity stretches back to Monarchies and Aristocracies, when Privilege, that is Class-Based Law existed. In those times, nobility or their appointed agents were often the essential diplomatic ties between nations. This meant in essence that those persons were so ludicrously above the law that anything short of assassination was just a bit of aristocratic eccentricity.
As Republics and Democracies took off, many of those diplomatic traditions stayed in place. Partly as a matter of convenience, since it is important that diplomacy be a steady, relatively unchanging affair filled with familiarity and good feelings. However, there's also a practical knife's-edge beneath the spoil and corruption.
In order to carry out high-level diplomatic work, diplomats are often privy to very secret matters of state. Nations are constantly trying to pry free those secrets from those diplomats.
A short example:
Prior to WW2, the U.S. intelligence service staged a fire in the Japanese diplomatic embassy so that a team of lockbreakers disguised as firemen could enter the Japanese embassy in Washington D.C., crack open their vault and steal the Japanese communication ciphers. This would prove to be a vital part of the coming war effort, allowing the U.S. to, unknown to Japan who had not expected such an underhanded trick, intercept communications with ease.
On top of their practical knowledge, diplomats are also often high-profile people in their home country. Former Vice-Presidents, Nobel Prize Winners, War Heroes, and more. It would be an absolute public-relations coup if, in an imaginary scenario, the Russian FSB arrested say, Ambassador Joe Biden on charges of the exploitation of minors. OH WHOOPS, says the FSB, it was just a mistake, here have your allegedly-kiddy-diddling former-VP back, and we promise he was treated fairly while we had him under arrest, the broken ribs are merely self-inflicted.
So, in order to safeguard both the diplomat's essential classified knowledge, as well as their character, they are exempt from criminal charges.
This has the practical effect of allowing incredibly valuable, high-level persons to move and operate freely as vital points of contact between nations, regardless of whatever level of animosity or subterfuge might exist between them. By asserting Diplomatic Immunity, anything overtly-underhanded would be immediately snuffed out, on pain of creating a relations-terminating incident.
However, the avenue for abuse is beyond obvious, and has been well, abused, for as long as is imaginable. Unfortunately, closing the loophole ends up destroying any practical benefits of Diplomatic Immunity, by making diplomats vulnerable to a wide ranging gamut of intrigues, from blackmail to blackbagging.
So it's bullshit, bit it's essential bullshit.
Why should people have to settle for homeless shelters? The conditions in them aren't exactly great, and the way in which they are run can often be disruptive to the occupants' lives, such as when people have to exit shelters in the morning and queue up again at night to sleep there.
Either way, my point is why should people be allowed to stockpile housing and make a profit off of it before everyone is adequately housed? Would people still choose to pay rent if they could have liveable housing without paying for it? It really isn't that dumb if you think about it for a little bit.
You aren't factoring in the upkeep on the house. It's not just the mortgage, it's maintenance, taxes, and contingency funding.
That's just to break even.
You have some serious misunderstandings about economics if you think that outlawing landlords will decrease housing shortages.
The only reason that housing gets built in the first place is because it's profitable. Many people cannot afford a downpayment and won't qualify for a mortgage. Without landlords, you will have an increase in homelessness, and in some cases will actually have housing prices skyrocket.
And it's not something you can just waive away by giving away mortgages either. Lowering the qualifications needed to receive a mortgage is how 2008 happened.
Because that's not how things work.
If everybody had housing free - nobody would go bother getting education, getting job, striving for promotion and improvement.
The world where there is no doctors, no police no firemen, no farmers, no progress in science - because why bother if you can do nothing and still get a mansion?
Housing doesn't just get built to make a profit, and it doesn't need to be. Plenty of vital infrastructure is built and maintained without people needing to profit (for example, many modern healthcare systems), if the cost of housing is spread out using fair taxation, the costs wouldn't be much of a burden, but there would be quite a benefit.
Who's gonna pay for your "fair taxation"?
And how are you going to deal with people that destroy everything around them? How do you incentivize people to actually want something more?
Everything you say only works in a perfect post shortage utopia where nobody breaks any laws or lies and cheats to get ahead. The real world doesn't work like that.
They shouldn't settle. They should improve their life to the point where they can afford rent.
Having a roof over your head is a vital necessity, fair enough, but beggars can't be choosers.
if the only thing incentivising you to self improve is money/the desire to own a house, then you live a very very sad life
but more importantly, judging by the studies that have been done so far on the impact of UBI, what you've said isn't actually what happens in reality
House/Mansion - was just an example, it really applies to everything.
I love my job but if I wasn't paid to do it - I would have little motivation to work at all.
The whole point of starting in entry level, learning and upskilling as you progress through career path is great but I cant imagine doing it for free (because then you can't afford shit and it feels kind of pointless just doing job every day knowing there is nothing coming to you).
Without money - there is fuck all you can do, you can't travel, you can't take bus you can't get food, you can't go places or go watch a movie, you can't buy anything, even going on a date requires some money.
right, but why the hell are you talking about any of that when the poster you were responding to was talking about the concept of social housing
like, he wasn't saying "it's time to go full star trek post-scarcity society boys", he said "Either way, my point is why should people be allowed to stockpile housing and make a profit off of it before everyone is adequately housed? "
the worst you can say about this statement is that it's idealistic, but otherwise it's about a million miles from "let's destroy the concept of money"
My point was that its just stupid and naive to get mad at landlords in the world where a lot of things are driven/depend on money.
your words were
"If everybody had housing free - nobody would go bother getting education, getting job, striving for promotion and improvement."
that is very far from "landlords are a symptom of a money-based system"
and like, if the argument is that landlords are doing it to survive, i'd love some examples of that - i know there's definitely people that let out their house just to get a bit of income, but these aren't the people buying huge swathes of housing (who are the actual problem)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
