Is buying to rent immoral?

Original post by frankieboy

I'm not sure this is how a capitalist society is supposed to work. It's how a capitalist society works without any trace of philanthropy chucked in, which should sit side by side with capitalism in order for capitalism to work properly.

Your suggestion that this is how it's supposed to work suggests a very cold society with no real sense of "society".

No it doesn't, I'm only talking about one aspect of our capitalistic society - that is, the side which isn't philanthropic. I've said this so many times on this thread: the government already has measures in place to counteract the effect of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, for example progressive tax rates ranging from 0% to 50%.

To single out little thing like buy-to-let and say it is immoral because it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer is really strange, because it seems to forget that half of our entire economy is based on this concept.
Naturally, rich people have more money to invest, more money to earn interest on, more money to start businesses with, more money to hire financial advisors with, more money to pay for their own education etc. thus being able to increase their own wealth at a greater rate than poor people. To say that something is immoral because it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer is like saying it's immoral to be rich.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 102

dannydoy

OP

2

I think being rich could certainly be seen as immorral.
But it depends how you are getting rich.
In ghe example given the landlord is "getting rich" at the direct expence of the tenant.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 103

Original post by tazarooni89

No it doesn't, I'm only talking about one aspect of our capitalistic society - that is, the side which isn't philanthropic. I've said this so many times on this thread: the government already has measures in place to counteract the effect of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, for example progressive tax rates ranging from 0% to 50%.

And it's patently clear that the government's measure aren't enough, especially in the area of housing where the rich are driving down the standard of living of the poor for profit.

To single out little thing like buy-to-let and say it is immoral because it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer is really strange, because it seems to forget that half of our entire economy is based on this concept.
Naturally, rich people have more money to invest, more money to earn interest on, more money to start businesses with, more money to hire financial advisors with, more money to pay for their own education etc. thus being able to increase their own wealth at a greater rate than poor people. To say that something is immoral because it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer is like saying it's immoral to be rich.

We needn't have a thread detailing everything that is immoral in order to be able to say anything is immoral, and actually that would be impossibly messy.

Reply 104

frankieboy

13

Original post by tazarooni89

is like saying it's immoral to be rich.

Many people might argue it is. I mean, I don't know whether I'd take that view myself, but many would. And in a way I can see where they're coming from.

Reply 105

Original post by Hopple

And it's patently clear that the government's measure aren't enough, especially in the area of housing where the rich are driving down the standard of living of the poor for profit.

As I said, I'm not interested in debating whether the government's measures are "enough" or not. What the appropriate gap between rich people and poor people's standard of living should be is not an absolute matter of fact. It isn't really something that can ever be settled.

We needn't have a thread detailing everything that is immoral in order to be able to say anything is immoral, and actually that would be impossibly messy.

That's the exact point I was making. If you believe that the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is immoral, or that it's immoral for some people to be much better off than others, why not just say that our economy is fundamentally immoral? Or that the concept of wealth is fundamentally immoral? I don't particularly see the need to zoom into the economy this far and start picking at tiny details of it, if the point being made is that the whole system is immoral.

Reply 106

Original post by frankieboy

Many people might argue it is. I mean, I don't know whether I'd take that view myself, but many would. And in a way I can see where they're coming from.

If they want to argue that, then that's fine. I just find it strange that someone who simply believes that being rich is immoral would want to zoom so far into our economy (which is fundamentally built on the principle that some people are richer than others), pick a tiny detail of it in particular, and argue that this detail is immoral for reasons A, B and C, when they could just say that being rich is immoral, for the same reasons.

It's like a vegetarian making a big deal of arguing that it's immoral to eat Haribo starmix because it contains gelatine, which requires animals to be killed. It just makes you wonder why they'd want to pick on that one product in particular.

It's not very common for people to simply believe that "being rich is immoral" or that "the concept of wealth" is immoral. So when the OP picks on buy-to-let housing in particular (as opposed to everything else that involves wealth), it makes me think he may have forgotten that his entire society works this way, not just buy-to-let housing, or that he might not be applying his principles consistently.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 107

It's****ingWOODY

The landlord makes money by renting their property out to people, and people who can't afford to buy a property outright can still live in a property by renting it. Call it immoral if you like, but without the ability to rent a house, half the nation would be homeless...

Reply 108

Original post by tazarooni89

As I said, I'm not interested in debating whether the government's measures are "enough" or not. What the appropriate gap between rich people and poor people's standard of living should be is not an absolute matter of fact. It isn't really something that can ever be settled.

Even if the size of the gap is increasing and shows now sign of stopping? Even if it is the rich directly (collectively) causing the poor's standard of living to drop?

That's the exact point I was making. If you believe that the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is immoral, or that it's immoral for some people to be much better off than others, why not just say that our economy is fundamentally immoral? Or that the concept of wealth is fundamentally immoral? I don't particularly see the need to zoom into the economy this far and start picking at tiny details of it, if the point being made is that the whole system is immoral.

Tiny details? I'd argue that housing, along with food prices, water, gas and electricity, are the most important things. If a group of people take a stranglehold of those things and start driving up prices because people need them, of course the government (and we) should take a greater interest in the issue than if, say, the same was true of the computer game market. You don't have to oppose the whole system to oppose the parts that are damaging.

Reply 109

Original post by Hopple

Even if the size of the gap is increasing and shows now sign of stopping? Even if it is the rich directly (collectively) causing the poor's standard of living to drop?

Yes, even then. There's no way to turn an argument about what "should" be the case into an objective one.

Tiny details? I'd argue that housing, along with food prices, water, gas and electricity, are the most important things. If a group of people take a stranglehold of those things and start driving up prices because people need them, of course the government (and we) should take a greater interest in the issue than if, say, the same was true of the computer game market. You don't have to oppose the whole system to oppose the parts that are damaging.

Yet the only reasons that have been provided to explain why certain parts are "damaging" (which all come under the umbrella of an increase in the gap between rich and poor) apply, in lesser or greater degrees, to the entire system - other than the measures taken specifically to counteract this.

Reply 110

Bill_Gates

21

it does drives aspiration. Nothing is stopping you or anyone from obtaining their own buy to let portfolio you can say the same about business capitalists.

Reply 111

frankieboy

13

It's like all things. You want to buy to rent? Not immoral in itself, people investing a bit, making a bit etc.

It's when people get greedy with it that it starts becoming questionable.

Reply 112

Original post by tazarooni89

Yes, even then. There's no way to turn an argument about what "should" be the case into an objective one.

It's pretty objective that people's living standards shouldn't be decreasing, blips aside. And for people to set out to lower others' living standards is objectively immoral.

Yet the only reasons that have been provided to explain why certain parts are "damaging" (which all come under the umbrella of an increase in the gap between rich and poor) apply, in lesser or greater degrees, to the entire system - other than the measures taken specifically to counteract this.

Indeed, hence why someone need not oppose the entire thing. You do see the difference in need between a place to live and computer games, don't you?

Reply 113

Original post by Hopple

It's pretty objective that people's living standards shouldn't be decreasing, blips aside. And for people to set out to lower others' living standards is objectively immoral.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "objective" then.

A sentence which says "It's objective that X should be the case" or "It's objective that X is bad", or "It's objective that X is better than Y" doesn't make sense.

Indeed, hence why someone need not oppose the entire thing. You do see the difference in need between a place to live and computer games, don't you?

The need to live, and the need to have computer games? Sure. But that's not what's under discussion, is it? All parts of our economy which cause rich people to get richer and poor people to get poorer dampen people's ability to pay for not only luxuries, but essentials as well.

For example, if a rich person invests in a computer games company and earns lots of profit, while a poor person can't do this because he doesn't have the money, (and so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer), then it doesn't only influence their ability to buy computer games. It influences their ability to pay for anything.
There's no reason why the rich person can only buy computer games with his profit. He'll be buying food and clothes and houses and all the other essentials, driving their price up, and making it more difficult for the poor person to do buy these things. It doesn't merely deprive the poor person of computer games.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 114

Original post by tazarooni89

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "objective" then.

A sentence which says "It's objective that X should be the case" or "It's objective that X is bad", or "It's objective that X is better than Y" doesn't make sense.

If you wish to be pedantic about definitions then pick another word. Otherwise, tell me why higher living standards are not something we should aim for, and why those who aim to do the reverse are opposing progress.

The need to live, and the need to have computer games? Sure. But that's not what's under discussion, is it? All parts of our economy which cause rich people to get richer and poor people to get poorer dampen people's ability to pay for not only luxuries, but essentials as well.

It isn't what's under discussion for this thread, but since you've decided to make an issue of people having varying levels of opposition to different things, it very much addresses your issue.

For example, if a rich person invests in a computer games company and earns lots of profit, while a poor person can't do this because he doesn't have the money, (and so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer), then it doesn't only influence their ability to buy computer games. It influences their ability to pay for anything.
There's no reason why the rich person can only buy computer games with his profit. He'll be buying food and clothes and houses and all the other essentials, driving their price up, and making it more difficult for the poor person to do buy these things. It doesn't merely deprive the poor person of computer games.

Perhaps you didn't see the difference between housing and computer games - one is a need and the other a complete luxury. To block people from having their own home and moreover to profit from their need is really the same to you as profiting from someone buying a luxury?

Reply 115

Original post by Hopple

If you wish to be pedantic about definitions then pick another word.

What do you mean, "pedantic about definitions"? What did you think "objective" means?

Either way, picking another word doesn't change matters. The fact of the matter is, a debate based on whether or not something "should" happen, or whether or not something is "good enough" has no end, which is why I'm not interested in engaging in one.

Otherwise, tell me why higher living standards are not something we should aim for, and why those who aim to do the reverse are opposing progress.

Why would I do that, when I haven't claimed to support this position?

Perhaps you didn't see the difference between housing and computer games - one is a need and the other a complete luxury. To block people from having their own home and moreover to profit from their need is really the same to you as profiting from someone buying a luxury?

You don't seem to be getting the point. Profiting from anything which requires initial capital, whether it's houses or computer games increases the rich/poor divide, because rich people have a greater ability to do this. And that makes it more difficult for poor people to buy food, clothes and houses. Their real wealth decreases.

It doesn't matter whether you profit from essentials or profit from luxuries - either way, it makes it more difficult for poor people to buy anything, including essentials.

To say that buy-to-let is immoral because it reduces poor people's ability to buy their own home requires that one, if applying this principle consistently, also holds that almost all types of profit in the economy are immoral, since they also reduce poor people's ability to buy their own home. Investing in a computer games business also ultimately reduces poor people's ability to buy their own home.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 116

Original post by tazarooni89

What do you mean, "pedantic about definitions"? What did you think "objective" means?

Either way, picking another word doesn't change matters. The fact of the matter is, a debate based on whether or not something "should" happen, or whether or not something is "good enough" has no end, which is why I'm not interested in engaging in one.

Why would I do that, when I haven't claimed to support this position?

Then why are you posting in this thread about the morality of buying to let?

You don't seem to be getting the point. Profiting from anything which requires initial capital, whether it's houses or computer games increases the rich/poor divide, because rich people have a greater ability to do this. And that makes it more difficult for poor people to buy food, clothes and houses. Their real wealth decreases.

It doesn't matter whether you profit from essentials or profit from luxuries - either way, it makes it more difficult for poor people to buy anything, including essentials.

"Everything gets more expensive, so it's alright to intentionally exacerbate the problem for the poorest", is that what you're arguing?

What is your position?

Reply 117

Original post by Hopple

What is your position?

My position is that, unless the OP (and those who share his view) disapprove of almost everything in this economy, they are not applying their principle consistently.

"Everything gets more expensive, so it's alright to intentionally exacerbate the problem for the poorest", is that what you're arguing?

No. I make no argument about whether buy-to-let is moral or not. I'm merely discussing the validity/consistency of other people's arguments on the subject.

Then why are you posting in this thread about the morality of buying to let?

As above.

Reply 118