The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > In praise of renters > Comments

In praise of renters : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 8/5/2009

Over the years, the benefits of home ownership have been mythologised by social commentators.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Isn't it amazing how the Elite view other people .
I am astounded why Andrew has bothered to write this , he must be burnt up with grief because he doesn't qualify .
What exactly is a jobless region? Hay Plains , Maralinga or Tooleybuc ?
Under our current Master no one has a permanent job and eventually nobody will now that Govt has found out that Balancing the Books is unnecessary if they can generate enough Spin to run on inertia .
That young people aspire to make an investment such as a home that later they can use as security demonstrates their commitment to organized society and to their maturity , they are going places !

Your belief that rising property prices are a good thing is flawed , good for who ? Definitely not for the first home buyer. The Govt grants
make this worse because grants offer parents the opportunity to cash in by financing their children into a first home of fifty squares etc etc .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Sunday, 10 May 2009 6:12:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How did I miss this!!

I'm unsure if your argument against home ownership is because of Government grants that should not be paid, and thus people cannot afford to buy ,-and therefore renting is the better option? OR:

Simply that renting IS the better option. IT IS.

Home ownership in itself is a myth; an absolute myth. Unless you purchase outright, the bank/financial institution owns your house, not you.

But as you say,-it's big business! Perish the thought that this entire system of regaling the merits of home ownership ensuring that 'money shops' have sold you some very expensive money that will come back to them for decades,-whilst for that entire period, they own the property......Well we can't burst that warm brown fuzzy, now can we?

I don't own. I never wanted to, because I could not REALLY own. I have lived very comfortably, and sometimes luxuriously,-when income permitted-; and watched the stress and distress of those who are captive to this myth, forcing them to do anything to keep their jobs, forcing them in general, to stay in one location, forcing them into debt to these greedy money factories.

Yes. I know all about Mc'Mansions, and wanting bigger n' bigger-and YES! you DO 'have a choice' not to do that. I agree. But the myth of home ownership is a whopper, and society is VERY STRONGLY encouraged to 'own' a home.

It is a ludicrous lie. To lead hapless punters by the nose straight into a greedy system, tying them to that system for years.

Excellent thread!

.........1 Server error.
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 10 May 2009 6:49:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
renters are sukkers
you heard me

investers get full deductability..home owners pay for maintanance and rates[and investers get the cast as a tax deductable 'cost'[and an extreemly valuble asset paid off by the sukker]read tax payer/renter

with houses increasing the investers clean-up, with both a riusinbg rent and a rising value as the sukker pays it off for you[ass its equity increases the invester keeps bying up other houses creating ever more sukkers]

add in the rent subsidy[allways increasing further the rent[and govt subsidy direct to the invester is huge]thus we get these paid to report[paid to decieve] reporters in the media[who are directly responsable for raising the real price of houses]

it is interesting to look at spain more intently[noting the high unemployment has directly res.ulted in the govt expending the peoples resources on creating their 'green economy'[with the nett result each new gren job has cost 2.9 jobs[the high unemployment is directly the result of the gren revolution]

the falling price of real estate reflects the real value of real estate[that is that land cant be taken anywhere]that when the revolution eventually comes squatters will inhabit that the bankers or investors think to own[witness the destruction of houses in america[in the pathetic attempt to create artificial shortage]

hom,eless living in tents[while the banks sell off for cents in the dollar,..all from a fiction of 'lending' money[our signing loans creates the money[as we sign less the monetary supply lessons[and banks stop lending[pumping in ever more govt[read tax payer funds only inflates the monetary supply[and gives hyper inflastion

[great for those investor types who get the timming of the intrest cycle roight and fix the intrest[bad for the renter paying the inflating rent][bad for govt subsidising the rent[bad for the tax payer paying the govt debt bill[as well as rent
Posted by one under god, Monday, 11 May 2009 7:09:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13551
What we fail to acknowledge is that the system itself is totalitarian.This means that it is designed to exert total control over the lives of individuals.

We are accustomed to use this label when thinking of anachronisms of history like communism or fascism.We do not understand that globalist finance capitalism and the government which protects,enables,or even regulates it are also totalitarian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6257122.ece
What has happened in the last year as the financial system has seemingly gone belly-up,and is coming back only through massive government bailouts,is part of a pattern that has been around for decades if not centuries.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174053175598779.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/05/its-snowing-all-over-world.html
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=10554
How the controllers work was laid out in 1967 when Dial Press published a leaked copy of The Report from Iron Mountain.
http://www.projectcamelot.org/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf

This was a study put together by a team of academics and analysts who met at the underground facility in New York that was home to the Hudson Institute.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkjggUgdKgVgBkxil87UF?p=The+Report+from+Iron+Mountain&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=

The report began by identifying war as the central organizing principle of society.
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/photo-essay-honour-your-mother-by-boycotting-apartheid/
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/photo-essay-new-york-jews-continue-to-say-no-to-the-blockade/
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/27-04-2009/107459-american_capitalism-0
http://news.goldseek.com/EuroCapital/1241809381.php
http://uruknet.com/?p=m54077&hd=&size=1&l=e
It stated,“War itself is the basic social system,within which other secondary modes of social organization conflict or conspire.It is the system which has governed most human societies of record,as it is today.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/short-sales-banks-blockin_n_199099.html

The report said that,“The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers.”
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/616.html
It said that any failure of will by the ruling class could lead to“actual disestablishment of military institutions.”The effect on the system would be,the report said,“catastrophic''
http://www.poketheeye.org/?p=210
http://mantiqaltayr.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/notes-quotes-hate-speech-and-goats/
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6256745.ece
Posted by one under god, Monday, 11 May 2009 8:22:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew,

You are one of the 70% of Aust's who own a house. You are also one of Australia's top 20% of earners.

So what do you propose to help Australia meet its housing needs given Aust's problems ahead? Community housing.

It is not good enough to just highlight the negative side of an argument. You (and Steve Keen) also need to offer or discuss policy alternatives
Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 11 May 2009 8:40:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The trouble is for every renter there has to be a homeowner/investor, unless of course you are only referring to government housing.

I prefer to own my home and it gives me security. I don't have to move everytime a landlord puts up the rent unreasonably or decides to sell or move in. I also started work in the days before Super was compulsory and added to that staying at home to raise children we were behind the pack as far as retirement security goes - still are. Luckily our house will be our biggest asset that we can sell and downshift to live within our means.

We were lucky we could afford to buy a house and we bought in the days when house prices/repayments did not represent a large portion of one's wages.

The reality is home ownership is becoming less accessible to younger people who may not be eligible for government housing. In any case, government housing waiting lists in each state are unbelievably long - even for those on the priority waiting list.

Community housing schemes and collectives might be one way of attacking the problem as well as more government housing to reduce waiting lists. The social benefits would far outweigh the cost considering that the cost of not doing so is already very high in terms of homeless support, social support and payments like rent assistance etc.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 11 May 2009 9:34:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find this article, 'In praise of renters' by Andrew Leigh curious for its obvious narrow focus on some of the downside of home ownership. This is not to say that he does not make a number of valid points; however, a list a mile long of advantages to the individual, the community, and the nation could also be made extolling the upside of home ownership. To me, what Andrew has done is bit like focusing on one of the downsides of building a hospital: a lot of people will die within its walls.

As just one example on the upside, the merits flowing from low turnover populations for suburbs and towns got no mention, and is it just me, or is Andrew's contention 'Another downside of home ownership is that having virtually all your wealth locked up in one piece of property is a risky investment strategy' contrary to the age long general success of the property market; that is, haven't we been taught, for valid reason, that, on average, one of the safest investments of all time is one's home?

Anyway, it seems to me that while many particulars in his article are valid, overall it's just a peculiar piece of gristly red herring.
Posted by Payton L. Inkletter, Monday, 11 May 2009 9:50:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I grew up in the same house most of my life, and I am well aware that my kids having been moved between cities for the first few years have very strong views about not moving now.

Owning a home is probably as much an emotional investment as financial. The sense of permanence is a solid foundation for raising a family. I have friends renting, who have been forced to move twice in the space of 4 years when the owners sold.

While I understand that economics dictates that renting is better, I feel that the other non tangible issues out weigh this and any politician who challenges this is in for a short career.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 11 May 2009 10:49:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Typical tory a hole

Ignores the fact that moving sucks and takes people away from family and friends and familiar support networks. Ignores the fact moving house is up there in the top ten of stressful events in peoples lives. Only sees the dollar signs.
Ignores the fact that renters have no security and can be evicted at any time for any (or no) reason. Renters live constantly with the fear they could shortly become homeless. Renters cannot change or improve anything without protracted negotiations and why would they when it is all lost to the owner if they move. Renters have no freedom when it comes to decoration, gardens, repairs, renovation and improvement or indeed who stays etc. Landlords dont fix the small maintenance problems since they arent there to see them and dont care as long as the rent keeps rolling in.

He seems to think workers should be willing to move wherever the boss tells them to. Like some sort of slaves who have no mind or desires of their own. Its all about economic "efficiency' and bugger the fact that workers are real people who can think for themselves and may not want to move where the "work" is. Tossers like this think we should all bow down to them and show them blind obedience. That we should respect them as our masters and ignore their gross failings and the regularity of their errors.

So tell us how many Chinese own their own home? Whats the Chinese unemployment rate? I think you will find the answers put somewhat of a dent in your highly selective and misleading use of the statistics.

Overall an appalling essay designed to mislead and annoy. If it was a post i would accuse it of trolling. Sadly this is the way the right wing rulers would like all of us to live. As feudal subjects paying them a large proportion of the wages they so kindly allow us to earn for the privilege of existing, while they live in luxury on the backs of us peasants. F ing parasites.
Posted by mikk, Monday, 11 May 2009 10:52:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Renters are suCkers, one under;-suckers!!

If you have to be insulting-do it properly!

There is nothing worse than than a religious fella without a spell-checker....

YOU HEARD ME!!

1 server error.
Posted by Ginx, Monday, 11 May 2009 12:04:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author of the thread is an economist, lawyer and bureaucrat, a statistical analysis of the verifiable outcome for people of these qualities in public policy, would show a 99% failure rate.

The need to keep people renting is so corporate social dictatorships can manipulate the population, moving it where it wants,purely for for corporate profit growth. Home owners stay in area's of unemployment, supporting local business and in most cases create more small business. It also allows people to become creative with their living environment, something you can't do in rented property, except superficially and mostly only within 4 walls.

Renters get no return for their input into housing, are subject to non renewal of lease, increasing rents, eviction and intrusion by owners. Whilst home owners/buyers are guaranteed a return, even if at a slight lose. Psychologically, stability, security and feelings of ownership are all essential for happy families communities and a healthy working and social environment. What Poor old Andrew Leighs is advocating, only destroys communities as people leave for financial gain, rather than social a family stability. He certainly doesn't have any idea of real life outside his elitist comfort zone.

His co-authored book,“Prince's New Clothes: Why Do Australians Dislike Their Politicians?” is a great read, if you like the comedy of elitists trying to fathom out something they have no idea of, reality and putting forward ideas which eminently support they are clueless. I wonder how many rentable investment properties the author has an interest in.
Posted by stormbay, Monday, 11 May 2009 1:05:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know; this is interesting.

Either it is a 'Tory' style plot by this author. OR:

Could it be that some of you home owners are a tad snobby? It comes across strongly that most of you see renters as a spit short of vagrants!

You hold your view, I'll hold mine.

I was pleased to see an article that put up the merits of renting, whatever the motivation. It is nice to see someone discussing it as a very viable option.

(Btw: there are many thousands of renters like me who are happily AND securely ensconced in their dwellings, and who have excellent relationships with landlords who fix problems when they occur).
Posted by Ginx, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 6:21:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If everyone rents, who owns the houses?
Or, to put it another way, who are the renters making rich?
Renting out a house is a great way to increase your capital. Someone else pays off your house for you, you end up owning a house you didn't pay for, and the renter ends up with nothing.
The author makes some (superficially) valid points. Perhaps the answer is to change the mindset.
Just because you own a home, doesn't mean you have to live in it.
As the gap between wages and house prices continues to widen, our children have Buckleys of owning their own homes anyway.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 8:40:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
renters may think they are getting a good deal[and thats fine]

i recall my first rental 35 dollars a week
i recall my first house 29,000
how absurd the renter says to give up 35 to repay 50
well i decided i could pay 55

10 years laTER I SOLD IT for 89,000
bought a 60,000 block of land and built my current house on it for 45,000[it took 10 years to pay off the land[the equity built up in the first house built the home]

so scince 2002 i been living for the cost of rates..[arround 3 dollars a day]till my kids..[both rentors required me to mortgauge my home to pay off their credit-card/debt]

ok im still living rent/free..[but those damm'renters'have mortgauged my home]..ok im the sukker[but its their inheritance they risk losing]

when the bank comes..to ask for their eventual default..[i will ask that the bank prove they lent me money..ask them to REVEAL THE ORIGONAL CONTRACT..you see they cant,..they onsold it,yet still claim the right to force repayment FAULSLY..they got no proof of contract[cause they on/sold it]

[see that my signing their..mortgauge-documents..created the money,my mortgauge document was securitised..[sold/off[ie repayed]tp the bank by/those..'securities'-bundlers..[who made the document into a security they traded in new york],..that now could rest's in some bank in switzerland by now..but the thing is..ITS NOT HELD BY THE BANK...[taking my kids debt..lol..repayment]

because banks cant produce the origonal contract..the court claims they got no case..IF the kids default..[no origonal contract/no court case]..but hey im not telling the kids,..let them sweat for being ignorant..[just like all them other..'renters''...lol..]

[yet the ignorants..[sorry kids]..are still repaying money to the bank..they think the bank..'lent'..them...but such is the mindset of those ignorants who think..renting really works

you cant explain it to them no matter how hard you try
cause renters only got half a brain...lol

go ahead get your info from newspapers..lol,..cause your flat out working to pay the rent...thus can never afford to think/retire

[you cant afford to buy books..lol..so cop the cost of ignorance,and in time will no doudt work just to pay for food/rent]
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 10:04:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"..you cant explain it to them no matter how hard you try
cause renters only got half a brain...lol" (Quote: St John the Craptist).

That from an expert. rcm.

1 server error.

2 server error.
Posted by Ginx, Thursday, 14 May 2009 11:04:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy