politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Subsidize what? Profit?
Rent control causes newer tenants (read: young people) to pay higher rates than older tenants ( old people) because the old tenants are shielded from market rates.
It’s a policy which enriches old people who never move at the expense of new renters.
So you are saying it subsidizes old people? I guess you can feel like that is a bad thing.
But once in, the new people become the old people and benefit as well. Where as without rent control they would pay the same price on move-in, then higher and higher as time goes by. All while the landlord is paying the same mortgage, and gaining equity as the value of the property goes up.
Without rent control, old people would be forced to move out of the city, taking thier income (social security, pension and what not) with them. The amount of jobs in the city won't have changed, so there will be less money overall. Vacancy will go up, Rent will stagnate as will property value. Properties will not be maintained and close down. Small businesses won't have as many customers, so they will shut down. Urban decay will set in. City services will get a lot more expensive due to all the dead areas and the people laft will have to pay for it. But it won't be enough. So they will move out too.
Sounds like rent control is working as intended, and actually benefitting both sides.
If forces young poor people to subsidize rich old people.
How is that a good thing?
I need you to explain why you think it's bad. What is the harm you're perceiving. that other person explained why they think it works. you haven't explained why you think it doesn't, you just say "it's not a good thing." that's not good enough. clearly i either don't agree with whatever morality you're waving at or i dont see its application to the situation. dont be lazy, defend yourself. what if you're right and all i see is that guy attempting a point and you being like, 'nuh-uh.' what am i supposed to think.