Rent is theft

You dont own your house/land/property if you must pay taxes on such for simply existing with it under your name

Rent is someone voluntarily exchanging money for something they want.

>I have a right to a house

No you don’t.

that still looks a million times better then soviet low quality appartments

Attached: old-soviet-era-concrete-apartment-buildings-in-city-of-petropavlovsk-AYR0EH.jpg (1300x960, 256.17K)

>Gotta be a massive cuck to care about the outside appearance of your body.

See how stupid you sound?

Taking a livable space without paying isn't.

>all

>then build your own house
ftfy

Attached: 1539629740531.jpg (768x1091, 248.01K)

and some paki whos daddy gamed the system does?

damn these past few months have led to some good pastas.

it is truly happening lads.

>victims of society like me

Attached: 6D372719-D75E-4B2F-A7C3-639370761CC3.jpg (250x239, 11.05K)

>You were lucky, I wasn't lucky
Typical SJW communist assumption. most landlords are paying mortgages

Attached: 1581532714795.jpg (1024x610, 85.84K)

Mao is right about landlords.

Imagine renting when you can get an almost free house using a federal program literally available to every American just by filling out a form.

Attached: 1472937961479.png (390x470, 6.49K)

No organism ever born on earth has a right to survive, it’s called struggle and competition sorry

So why would socialists complain about the state of architecture? Also, those buildings look far better than anything ever produced by socialists, ugly disgusting communist architecture we're forced to deal with. As for people moaning about paying rent, why did they agree to a contract in the first place? There are options available, surely, in the US for cheaper apartments.
>but i don't want to live around niggers
That's the reality isn't it? Whites in the US don't want to pay for the lower cost apartments because they'd be forced into high nigger, high crime areas. I don't blame them, but saying it's the fault of "rent" is dishonest. America didn't have this problem until it became a globalist hellhole "for everybody".

no, they're not. the people who they rent to are paying them.

No... no one deserves a house. Maybe you should figure out how to game the system.

>under socialism all housing you will be forced to live in would be drab, low-quality and inaccessible

>I have a right to a house
why?

So your solution is the government sponsoring low-income housing for people? Effectively everybody gets to live a fucking student dorm? Gas yourself.

Do I have the right to be left alone to live in my cardboard box?

ok. what if i got some ethnonationalists together, got a few guns, killed your family, and took your home by force?

if I rent your car are you stealing from me
oh it's
>1pbtid

No one forces you to rent.

Because of the large voter base of construction, they're generally more protected from market forces by government than the average citizen is. I don't think categorising it as completely "capitalist" is accurate, it's one of the more croneyistic sectors.

Government places such restrictions on what kinds and sizes of buildings can be built that you can hardly call it truly "free". The bottom rung on the property ladder is too high precisely because of these government restrictions.

You could be in your own, likely tiny, home for what you are currently paying in rent, leveraging that into a larger home as your career advances, but your stuck in the rental trap because of the government.

>Maybe you should figure out how to game the system.
>The Russian oligarchs hate him! Find out how one man abolished private property with this neat trick!

You simply underline the fact that the collapse of the family, rise of feminism, and growth of globalism produced impossibilities and inconsistencies in society. These problems didn't happen to your grandparents because they had stronger family ties, less diversity (and therefore less undercutting of value and less draconian laws of enforcement), and women were not expected to work. The last part is a factor because naturally when 2 parents work people will simply charge more due to the growth of demand.

It's not theft. It's a convoluted price fixing scheme. Should be illegal, but politicians usually own more land than the average American and home owners have more resources to lobby their bullshit to them.

No, because that demonstrates unhealthy insides too.

True. Taxation is theft too. Stay based.

And doomed an entire people to a future of poverty, unemployment, and alcohol addiction.

Not if you’re on my lawn. I pay into a mutual property owners fund that hires armed men to enforce our rules. The fund is called ‘taxes’, the men are called ‘police’ and the rules are called ‘Law’.

You’d be no better or worse than the system who currently uses organisation, guns and force to hold onto their property.

Honestly you guys are pathetic emotional children, you flail around lashing out at society when you don’t even understand the first thing about how it works. Literally just whining that it’s unfair expecting anyone to hand you anything for free.

Banks are the rent collectors.

Attached: happy merchant real life.png (1323x569, 1.44M)

that was stalin

Willing to bet those are luxury apartments that go for 2500-3500 a month.

horrible bait

Go buy a house you fucking slog

>You’d be no better or worse than the system who currently uses organisation, guns and force to hold onto their property.
yeah, but I'd have your house.

That is the definition of armed conquest user. Nobody is preventing you from becoming the next Genghis Khan, might even be kinda based kek

They were all the same, the only difference was in the body count and varying levels of open/secret corruption and influence of secret police. Stalin was simply more open about his activities, the other Communists used more underhanded corruption tactics.

High rent unironically prevents people getting a deposit to pay their own mortgage, it's a stupid system although I can't think of a better one.

>never been to old Soviet bloc apartments that are molding and crumbling from the inside out.

Imagine being pro-Capitalism when the vast majority of CEO's and bankers in the west are j*ws.
Just imagine it.

Probably because commieblocks were built 60 years ago and had to suffer awful climate.

No you wouldn’t, because you’d get shot by miltarised police.

Landlords are always the winners, happy tenants in the middle, and whining tenants at the bottom.

Even under communist rule the landlords would be at the top of society in another way because they are natural born winners

>all housing

Tell me OP, is that ALL HOUSING

Or by me. And the Law would be on my side.

>conquest
it's not conquest. that implies briton wasn't ours to begin with. it was taken over by a bunch of incestuous kike-worshippers. it would be ending the rule of an invading ideology.
america exists specifically because they made life impossible for traditional whites who held on to their anglo-saxon values. americans should take briton back. it's not like they have guns to defend themselves, lul.

yeah? how many people did those pakis kill before they got shot down by cops?
oh wait, they blew themselves up after they ran out of ammo. huh. image what our civilian militias could do.

no, because you don't own a gun that could outshoot an ar15. you'd just die.

If rent is theft, don't sign a lease. Otherwise explain why you have a right to live in someone else's property without compensation to them.

If you are going to argue that they aren't doing anything, then obviously it should be trivial to go and buy a house of your own to live in.

They were always shit. It was very cute when the authorities later tried to paint them, they called it like a "humanizing" effort. fucking lel and absolutely pathetic

It’s a legal scam. Most landlords leverage mortgages against the income from their last property building up large buy to let empires really quickly. This drives up the property price in an area to the point where only boomers who already own their houses can afford to buy.

talk about painting the town red heheheh

Yeah just live for free in someone elses house then. Fuck off commie.

holy shit the only other person who knows this

Actually my block of flats was called the "red" sector. There were other color-coded sectors. What was amusing is that as kids we formed little "gangs" out of these colors. Quite literally growing up in that environment produced bored kids forming into teams and fighting a la "Red vs. Blue". Truly a remarkable system.

Yeah, if many of those militia didn’t own homes themselves.

Idk what your point is here. You need education on the basic function of society. You seem to think like a child.

>yeah but yeah but yeah but
Ok, let’s dick measure instead of discussing principles, not. You’re hopeless, I’m out

How did commieblocks work anyway? did the government just give them to people or did people have to buy them?

It's more like extortion.

Attached: EUabguxVAAAo0BM.png (1093x516, 612.36K)

the principle here is that you're actively striving for a society where violence is the most viable subsistence strategy by simultaneously denying one's right to housing while making property unobtainable to the vast majority of workers, you filthy kike-worshipper.

Well then we need to structure society so that it mitigates the impulses of the greedy few rather than rewards them.

Government built at a strictly reduced cost. It sounds kinda nice but the problem was that maintenance was a rarity and you had to rely on the State for that kind of support. So naturally most people just did the work themselves. There were cases of people being "given" these flats but I guess my family never fit into whatever requirement was needed. You could qualify, I think, depending on family size too. I was just a kid during that period of time and thankfully it ended before I got too old.

"Affordable housing" always means your neighbors are literal animals for some reason.
You don't pay for the house, you pay for security and a nice quiet environment.
Because we live in lawless societies where fucking up everyone's life is not a crime.

Attached: Coronavirus Challenge 2.png (633x543, 402.85K)

people were assigned houses. the usa spun it as "it was illegal to be homeless. in the usa, you have that right".

>There were cases of people being "given" these flats but I guess my family never fit into whatever requirement was needed.
interesting, any idea what the requirements were besides family size?

i mean, at least in theory, taxing on property exists because its an act that denotes an economic capability susceptible of taxing by the state. The owning of land is not taxed, you are taxed for being able to afford it. I still think is bullshit and all these legal theories serve the state to justify an invasive taxing activity that burdens society and prevents it from thriving, only to sustent an unefficient spending policy that very rarely truly beneficiates the majority of citizens.

No one said you had to move in OP

Attached: 511.png (972x648, 523.23K)

Ok look, in order to properly allocate housing as a resource, you need to have a hole in the bottom draining money out. This can be property taxes, rent, it ultimately serves the same function. By competing for the payments to these spaces, the market filters occupants accordingly. This makes sense to me. This is how the free market distributes housing, it is efficient, fair, and ultimately functional

It seems that this function should ideally be served by the local government collecting property taxes, and then recycling that money into services for the community (so you accrue some benefit on the back end). But right now this function is being served by a combination of banks, and landlords. The banks have so many regulations and standards, they can be thought of as somewhat of an extension of the state. Although they have competitive pressures on them too, and professional talent pools

The bank is assigning it's mortgage based on it's assessment of property values, it tries to get as close to the true market rate as possible.
But what function is the landlord serving in this equation? It seems like he is just a middleman between the bank and the renter. Maybe he makes some money by smoothing over miscalculations the bank has made with their mortgage assessment. The bank also doesn't directly deal with people, and isn't judging demographics and other potential risk factors the way a landlord is. So a landlord can be sort of a freelance "agent of the banks" to make this calculation more perfect, so the "true rent" is achieved

But since the banks are dealing mostly with landlords, the competitive mortgage will factor in what the landlord expects to take off the top. In this way it seems the landlord is just a middleman who is not creating any value. Closer examination is needed, is there a parasitic element to their behavior? There are exploits in the system landlords use, such as manipulating laws.

Attached: 1558316219167.jpg (708x1000, 406.87K)

he who doesnt work doesnt eat. if i decide i have something of value to trade but you dont you dont get my shit. its simple. and if you think violence will work theres trades for that as well. grow the fuck up.

Never forget Yas Forums is 25% Cato institute shills and 50% dupes that go along with them.

Rent isn't theft but it oppression and a detriment to the white ethnostate, equivalent to usury and highly jewish. It's a self-fueling system where the profits from each rental fuels the purchase of more rentals on credit, the poor 'tennants' being forced to pay their landlords mortgage plus tip when they could actually afford the house itself if the landlord didn't own 50 properties he doesn't live in and didn't put up the money to build in the first place.
Landlords create nothing of worth and any right wing traditionalist or nationalist on Yas Forums should be against excessive property ownership.

Of course there was the realpolitik level of corruption. For example, if your family were known to be "friendly" with Party officials you could expect a better flat/position/better service. On the other hand if your family had any agitators you could expect the exact opposite. As for requirements beyond this I am not particularly sure. The concept was simply: "everybody gets a place to live affordably". The ideal was the Marxist doctrine of "each according to his need". So the division of the property would be based on the varying levels of each family. If it sounds complicated thats because it was, massive amounts of state bureaucracy was involved here (like almost everything).

You cannot justify taxes