Is buying to rent immoral?

Original post by tazarooni89

I see the distinctions you're making - I just think you're making distinctions that aren't relevant (e.g. computer games vs. houses).

Then explain why. It's all very well for you to say "I disagree" without saying what your actual position is, but it's rather silly to expect me to come round to agree with your way of thinking if you won't stand by it.

No, I don't agree with that.
What if I don't want to buy an equivalent flat with the money I get from it? For example:

What if I want to buy a flat somewhere else in the country, where the proportion of tenants vs. homeowners is vastly different, so the effect of abolishing buy-to-let upon property prices is different?
What if I want to buy a large house, partially using the money I get from selling the flat - where again, there is a different proportion of tenants to homeowners, and so they won't reduce in price quite so much?
What if I want to move to another country and buy a property there - a country whose property prices are unrelated to our prices?
What if I want to buy a cheaper/lower quality flat, and use the remainder of the money I get for something else?
What if I want to do something completely different, e.g. move back in with parents and use my money to start up a business?

The assumption that anyone selling a property wants to buy an equivalent property is a bit unrealistic.

True, you might not always be able to get an equivalent property, but in most cases you will get close enough, and in most (all?) of the remaining cases you're as likely to benefit as you are to lose out - just look at a person making the opposite move to you.

Reply 122

Original post by Hopple

Then explain why. It's all very well for you to say "I disagree" without saying what your actual position is, but it's rather silly to expect me to come round to agree with your way of thinking if you won't stand by it

I already explained why the distinction you made between computer games and houses isn't relevant. See post No. 130 on this thread.

True, you might not always be able to get an equivalent property, but in most cases you will get close enough, and in most (all?) of the remaining cases you're as likely to benefit as you are to lose out - just look at a person making the opposite move to you.

So? What's your point?

I made the point that, not only are there people who benefit from an abolishment of buy-to-let, but there are people worse off as a result as well. So whether or not it's a "good" thing depends on whose point of view you're seeing it from.

Reply 123

Original post by tazarooni89

I already explained why the distinction you made between computer games and houses isn't relevant. See post No. 130 on this thread.

You said why computer games and houses are similar, not why their differences are irrelevant.

So? What's your point?

I made the point that, not only are there people who benefit from an abolishment of buy-to-let, but there are people worse off as a result as well. So whether or not it's a "good" thing depends on whose point of view you're seeing it from.

Not much worse off, if at all. And if they are worse off it isn't going to stop them from having a place to live.

Reply 124

Original post by Hopple

You said why computer games and houses are similar, not why their differences are irrelevant.

I highlighted the relevant part of the comparison between them (i.e. the effect that using them to make money has upon poor people) and showed that it is a similarity rather than a difference - namely that they both make poor people poorer, making it more difficult for them to afford necessities (such as houses).

The reason why this is the relevant part of the comparison is because the argument provided to explain why buy-to-let is immoral is because it makes poor people poorer, making it more difficult for them to afford necessities (such as houses). In short, exactly the same argument used to support the idea that buy-to-let is immoral can be used for almost any profit seeking venture, including those involving computer games.

Not much worse off, if at all. And if they are worse off it isn't going to stop them from having a place to live.

Yes, but it does make them worse off, regardless of whether it's by "much". It reduces the gap between rich and poor. This is "good" for poor people and "bad" for rich people.

To say that this is a "good" thing without any bias towards either of the two groups, one must assume that the current gap between the rich and poor is larger than the "correct" size of the gap, or growing faster than the "correct" rate of change of the gap. In which case one has to have a rigorous standard by which they determine what the "correct" size/rate of change of the gap is. No such thing has been provided on this thread as far as I can see (and in fact I don't even think such a thing exists).

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 125

playingcards

12

Original post by tazarooni89

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.

I don’t think this tallies too neatly.

Human beings need access to housing, whereas they do not need access to computer games. If computer game manufacturers operated as an effective cartel, and set prices well above a reasonable level and into the realms of extravagant profit, people would have the option to stop buying games. They don’t have the option to stop buying somewhere to live.

Personally, I actually do think the poor are systematically disadvantaged by the profit-making imperative, though generally reckon that this is tolerable provided the rising-tide lifts all boats. (And at this stage in my life, I class myself amongst the nation’s poor). But to exploit people for things they need, such as accommodation, food, water, by maintaining artificially high prices, is on the borderline of immoral.

Reply 126

Original post by playingcards

I don’t think this tallies too neatly.

Human beings need access to housing, whereas they do not need access to computer games. If computer game manufacturers operated as an effective cartel, and set prices well above a reasonable level and into the realms of extravagant profit, people would have the option to stop buying games. They don’t have the option to stop buying somewhere to live.

I know poor people don't need computer games. The point is that computer games help people make a profit. If I start up a computer games business, or invest in one now, I will make a profit. But only a person who is rich or highly credit-worthy is going to have the initial funds to be able to do this. A poor person is not. The result is that the computer-games industry enables rich people to get richer (and therefore the poor to get poorer, in real terms).

The poor people need access to housing and not computer games - but engaging in a computer games business works towards making them poorer, reducing their ability to buy anything, including housing, and not just games.

Buy-to-let and other types of investment all lead to an increase in the gap between rich and poor, making it more difficult for poor people to afford both luxuries and necessities.

Reply 127

Original post by tazarooni89

I highlighted the relevant part of the comparison between them (i.e. the effect that using them to make money has upon poor people) and showed that it is a similarity rather than a difference - namely that they both make poor people poorer, making it more difficult for them to afford necessities (such as houses).

The reason why this is the relevant part of the comparison is because the argument provided to explain why buy-to-let is immoral is because it makes poor people poorer, making it more difficult for them to afford necessities (such as houses). In short, exactly the same argument used to support the idea that buy-to-let is immoral can be used for almost any profit seeking venture, including those involving computer games.

I don't think you realise the different degrees of impact the two actions have on the poor's standard of living. Actually, I think you do, but are refusing to acknowledge it. Sure, people buying more luxury stuff will make producers raise prices, but that's completely differently to blocking someone from owning a home then charging them ever increasing rent just to live.

Yes, but it does make them worse off, regardless of whether it's by "much". It reduces the gap between rich and poor. This is "good" for poor people and "bad" for rich people.

To say that this is a "good" thing without any bias towards either of the two groups, one must assume that the current gap between the rich and poor is larger than the "correct" size of the gap, or growing faster than the "correct" rate of change of the gap. In which case one has to have a rigorous standard by which they determine what the "correct" size/rate of change of the gap is. No such thing has been provided on this thread as far as I can see (and in fact I don't even think such a thing exists).

Is it good or bad that the poor are finding their living standards pushed ever lower? There's only one answer to that question that someone can give with a straight face. As a country (or even world) looking to progress/develop/improve, decreasing living standards are a contradiction. Or would you disagree with improving living standards?

Reply 128

Original post by Hopple

I don't think you realise the different degrees of impact the two actions have on the poor's standard of living. Actually, I think you do, but are refusing to acknowledge it. Sure, people buying more luxury stuff will make producers raise prices, but that's completely differently to blocking someone from owning a home then charging them ever increasing rent just to live.

It doesn't matter whether there are different degrees of impact. The point is, the type of impact is the same.
It's like saying it's moral to steal £100, but immoral to steal £200, just because one causes more harm than the other. It doesn't matter which one causes more harm. They cause exactly the same type of harm. If you consider one immoral purely because it causes a particular type of harm, you must consider the other immoral because that also causes the same type of harm.

If there are different degrees of impact, then you can say that one is more immoral than the other. But you cannot say that one is moral while the other isn't. Otherwise you find yourself in the position of having to draw an arbitrary line, where you say "this level of impact is perfectly moral, but any impact beyond this is immoral".

By the way, the part I've highlighted in bold indicates that you still don't understand the argument. Buy-to-let is not analogically comparable with me buying a computer game for myself. One is a profit seeking venture, while another is merely consumption of one's own wealth.

The comparison is between buy-to-let and investing in or setting up a business which makes its profit through selling/lending computer games (i.e. another profit-seeking venture). Both of these push up the prices of houses in real terms. We don't care whether the price of computer games goes up. Both of these go some way towards "blocking" poor people from buying their own home and having to pay rent instead. Therefore based on the argument put forward, they are either both moral or both immoral.

This is the point that you don't seem to get, so I'll put it in nice and bold so you can see:
If I start a computer games business, it doesn't only push up the price of computer games. It pushes up the price of everything that I might buy for myself with my profits, including houses.

Is it good or bad that the poor are finding their living standards pushed ever lower? There's only one answer to that question that someone can give with a straight face. As a country (or even world) looking to progress/develop/improve, decreasing living standards are a contradiction. Or would you disagree with improving living standards?

You keep asking me whether I think things are good or bad, whether I think things "should" or "shouldn't" happen, and other subjective things like that. I've already told you, I'm not interested in proposing any position or debating anything regarding subjective matters. So I don't expect to be asked again.

The only thing I came on this thread to discuss is the consistency of the OP's argument.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 129

Original post by tazarooni89

It doesn't matter whether there are different degrees of impact. The point is, the type of impact is the same.
It's like saying it's moral to steal £100, but immoral to steal £200, just because one causes a greater loss than the other. It doesn't matter which one causes more loss. If you consider one immoral purely because it causes some loss, you must consider the other immoral because that also causes some loss.
Otherwise you find yourself in the position of having to draw an arbitrary line, where you say "this level of impact is perfectly moral, but any impact beyond this is immoral".

We punish/discourage varying levels of the same crime by different amounts, we have varying arbitrary tax thresholds, and I wouldn't imagine anyone could argue why the minimum wage should be £6.31 and not £6.30 or £6.32, but these are all accepted. Or do you oppose these as inconsistent too?

By the way, the part I've highlighted in bold indicates that you still don't understand the argument. Buy-to-let is not analogically comparable with me buying a luxury Rolex watch for myself. One is a profit seeking venture, while another is merely consumption of one's own wealth.
The comparison should be between buy-to-let and investing in a business, or setting up a business which makes its profit through luxury watches. Both of these push up the prices of necessities in real terms. Both of these make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Both of these go some way towards "blocking" poor people from buying their own home. Therefore based on the argument put forward, they are either both moral or both immoral.

One is a direct effect, whilst continuing to profit from the poor's poorness, and the other is so indirect you have to claim it goes 'some way'.

You keep asking me whether I think things are good or bad, whether I think things "should" or "shouldn't" happen, and other subjective things like that. I've already told you, I'm not interested in proposing any position or debating anything regarding subjective matters. So I don't expect to be asked again.

The only thing I came on this thread to discuss is the consistency of the OP's argument.

Okay, shy away from answering if you wish, but the answer is obvious and will keep being true (and obvious) for anyone intending to properly discuss the thread title.

Reply 130

username240699

2

Absolutely not. Realise that many people actually prefer to rent as they want to use their money for other purposes (newly married couples, people starting up new businesses, students) and many others want to rent simply because it's cheaper to do so that pay a mortgage.

As long as the landlord is decent and knows his/her obligations then there isn't a problem. Also don't forget the leasehold option...here the tenant has the chance to buy the property from their landlord should they want.

Reply 131

Rakas21

21

Original post by Mastermind007

Absolutely not. Realise that many people actually prefer to rent as they want to use their money for other purposes (newly married couples, people starting up new businesses, students) and many others want to rent simply because it's cheaper to do so that pay a mortgage.

As long as the landlord is decent and knows his/her obligations then there isn't a problem. Also don't forget the leasehold option...here the tenant has the chance to buy the property from their landlord should they want.

That's a good point.

Personally with the price of car travel these days (fuel, insurance) even if i was not in university i would still prefer to rent in Leeds City Center. Until i have a kid i don't see much point in moving to the suburbs.

Reply 132

Original post by Hopple

We punish/discourage varying levels of the same crime by different amounts,

Exactly my point. We say that a high amount of a particular crime is worse than a low amount of the same crime. We do not say that a high amount of a crime is immoral, whereas a low amount of that crime is moral.

we have varying arbitrary tax thresholds, and I wouldn't imagine anyone could argue why the minimum wage should be £6.31 and not £6.30 or £6.32, but these are all accepted. Or do you oppose these as inconsistent too?

It would be inconsistent if someone said that a minimum wage of £6.32 is moral, while a minimum wage of £6.30 is immoral - or that a tax rate of 41% is moral while a rate of 39% is immoral, yes.

Setting these rates isn't a case of deciding what level is moral and what isn't. We set rates arbitrarily because there's no other alternative, other than simply not having minimum wages, or not having taxes.

One is a direct effect, whilst continuing to profit from the poor's poorness, and the other is so indirect

So? The effect is the same. Whether or not it's "direct" is besides the point.
This is like claiming that shooting someone is immoral, but hiring an assassin to shoot someone is moral, because the former is a direct effect while the latter is only an indirect effect. The effect is of exactly the same type, so it doesn't make any difference.

To say that a person is "profiting from the poor's poorness" is just an attempt to add irony to make it sound worse. Again, the effect upon poor people's ability to buy what they need is the same either way.
This is like claiming that shooting someone with their own gun is worse than shooting them with any old gun. You can make it sound worse in a kind of poetic way, but that doesn't mean it actually is.

you have to claim it goes 'some way'.

They both go "some way" towards pushing up the prices of houses. Neither of them push up the price of houses infinitely, such that nobody can afford them.

Okay, shy away from answering if you wish, but the answer is obvious and will keep being true (and obvious) for anyone intending to properly discuss the thread title.

And as you know, I'm here to discuss the validity of the argument used to support the thread title, not the actual truth or falsehood of the thread title. The answer is just a matter of one's own opinion, not a matter of fact. It makes no sense to say that the answer is "true and obvious", any more than it makes sense to say that "it's true and obvious that red is a nice colour".

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 133

Original post by tazarooni89

Exactly my point. We say that a high amount of a particular crime is worse than a low amount of the same crime. We do not say that a high amount of a crime is immoral, whereas a low amount of that crime is moral.

It would be inconsistent if someone said that a minimum wage of £6.32 is moral, while a minimum wage of £6.30 is immoral - or that a tax rate of 41% is moral while a rate of 39% is immoral, yes.

Setting these rates isn't a case of deciding what level is moral and what isn't. We set rates arbitrarily because there's no other alternative, other than simply not having minimum wages, or not having taxes.

We can say which is worse, and hence treat it differently, have differing levels of reaction to it and so on. Someone can be being exploited on £6.31/hr, or even £100k/hr, but the point is we step in where (this is arbitrary, but we agree that we should step in somewhere) the exploitation is most damaging. We needn't call for a complete overhaul of the system.

So? The effect is the same. Whether or not it's "direct" is besides the point.
This is like claiming that shooting someone is immoral, but hiring an assassin to shoot someone is moral, because the former is a direct effect while the latter is only an indirect effect. The effect is of exactly the same type, so it doesn't make any difference.

To say that a person is "profiting from the poor's poorness" is just an attempt to add irony to make it sound worse. Again, the effect upon poor people's ability to buy what they need is the same either way.
This is like claiming that shooting someone with their own gun is worse than shooting them with any old gun. You can make it sound worse in a kind of poetic way, but that doesn't mean it actually is.

They both go "some way" towards pushing up the prices of houses. Neither of them push up the price of houses infinitely, such that nobody can afford them.

The effect is lesser, and of course it matters if it's direct. Hiring a hitman is still your intent, but driving along and not being able to brake in time is an accident. The "effect is the same" as you say, but thankfully the law disagrees with you and sees them differently.

As for your gun example, it's like you having a gun, and him going to get the last one to defend against bears or whatever, but you buying the gun first and ripping him off because he needs that gun.

And as you know, I'm here to discuss the validity of the argument used to support the thread title, not the actual truth or falsehood of the thread title. The answer is just a matter of one's own opinion, not a matter of fact. It makes no sense to say that the answer is "true and obvious", any more than it makes sense to say that "it's true and obvious that red is a nice colour".

You refuse to answer my questions because you don't think you can defend your position, let alone convince anyone of it. Of course it makes sense to say we should be improving everyone's standard of living, of course it does.

Reply 134

Original post by Hopple

We can say which is worse, and hence treat it differently, have differing levels of reaction to it and so on. Someone can be being exploited on £6.31/hr, or even £100k/hr, but the point is we step in where (this is arbitrary, but we agree that we should step in somewhere) the exploitation is most damaging. We needn't call for a complete overhaul of the system.

And as I said, we already do step in somewhere, with our (arbitrary)progressive tax rates. It's equally arbitrary for you to say that this isn't enough.

The effect is lesser, and of course it matters if it's direct. Hiring a hitman is still your intent, but driving along and not being able to brake in time is an accident. The "effect is the same" as you say, but thankfully the law disagrees with you and sees them differently.

This has nothing to do with anything. The issue is about whether the "directness" of a crime is relevant, not whether the intent is relevant.

As for your gun example, it's like you having a gun, and him going to get the last one to defend against bears or whatever, but you buying the gun first and ripping him off because he needs that gun.

No, it's not like that at all. Again, you're confusing "directness" with "intent". If I buy the gun because I want him to get killed by bears, then sure, that's immoral and illegal. If I buy the gun just because I want to buy a gun for some other reason (e.g. I'm in the guns trade) it's a different situation altogether.

You refuse to answer my questions because you don't think you can defend your position, let alone convince anyone of it. Of course it makes sense to say we should be improving everyone's standard of living, of course it does.

Baseless claim. You don't even know what my position is.
It seems as though you really want me to think that it's moral to exploit the poor, just so you can have something extra to argue about.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 135

Original post by tazarooni89

And as I said, we already do step in somewhere, with our (arbitrary)progressive tax rates. It's equally arbitrary for you to say that this isn't enough.

Things are getting worse, that's not arbitrary.

This has nothing to do with anything. The issue is about whether the "directness" of a crime is relevant, not whether the intent is relevant.

No, it's not like that at all. Again, you're confusing "directness" with "intent". If I buy the gun because I want him to get killed by bears, then sure, that's immoral and illegal. If I buy the gun just because I want to buy a gun for some other reason (e.g. I'm in the guns trade) it's a different situation altogether.

I'm trying to make your straw man arguments more relevant. If you still don't feel they're relevant then that just shows how far off your examples were in the first place.

Baseless claim. You don't even know what my position is.
It seems as though you really want me to think that it's moral to exploit the poor, just so you can have something extra to argue about.

I have a pretty good idea, as will anyone else who's read your posts. And indeed, I do want you to admit it, because then this discussion isn't just you criticising a position without offering what you feel is a better alternative, and why you feel it's better. You're not going to convince anyone you're correct if you don't even have the confidence in it to state it.

Reply 136

Original post by Hopple

Things are getting worse, that's not arbitrary.

You're the one who said that our tax rates are chosen arbitrarily. If that's true, then whether or not their effectiveness is "enough" is arbitrary as well.

Yes, the gap between rich and poor is increasing. This only qualifies as "getting worse" if you assume that the gap was larger than it should have been to begin with - a position which cannot be objectively supported, since it's an "ought" rather than an "is".

I'm trying to make your straw man arguments more relevant. If you still don't feel they're relevant then that just shows how far off your examples were in the first place.

Though you're making them less relevant, as I pointed out (e.g. apparently not being able to tell the difference between directness and intent)

I have a pretty good idea, as will anyone else who's read your posts. And indeed, I do want you to admit it, because then this discussion isn't just you criticising a position without offering what you feel is a better alternative, and why you feel it's better. You're not going to convince anyone you're correct if you don't even have the confidence in it to state it.

Which position have I criticised?
I've criticised an argument because it is inconsistent, not the position that it argues for.

You could be arguing something like "1+1=2", but if your argument supporting it is poor e.g. "I know because fairies came and told me so", then I'll criticise the argument even if I agree with the position.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 137

Original post by tazarooni89

You're the one who said that our tax rates are chosen arbitrarily. If that's true, then whether or not their effectiveness is "enough" is arbitrary as well.

Though you're making them less relevant, as I pointed out (e.g. apparently not being able to tell the difference between directness and intent)

Which position have I criticised?
I've criticised an argument because it is inconsistent, not the position that it argues for.

You could be arguing something like "1+1=2", but if your argument supporting it is poor e.g. "I know because fairies came and told me so", then I'll criticise the argument even if I agree with the position.

All you're really doing is refusing to acknowledge the obvious differences you've had to have pointed out to you. Your line of criticism was a sensible one, but it has been more than sufficiently dealt with so you should either accept it or try another line of criticism if you really are playing devil's advocate.

Reply 138

Original post by Hopple

All you're really doing is refusing to acknowledge the obvious differences you've had to have pointed out to you. Your line of criticism was a sensible one, but it has been more than sufficiently dealt with so you should either accept it or try another line of criticism if you really are playing devil's advocate.

I don't think it has, for the reasons I have already provided.
The only differences I've been provided with have been irrelevant ones. The most ridiculous of which is probably the "directness" difference, which somehow turned into an "intent" difference. I've still received no explanation as to how that happened.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 139