TWeaK

Grrr

Communism is a very decent idea. It's the transition to it that always tends to be spoiled by incumbant powers. Writers of Communist theory recognised this somewhat, and their solution was to have a violent revolution that would hopefully come end with the new system they devised. Now, however, the word is basically lost - there are/have been too many "Communist" countries that don't really operate in that manner, with too many people that have suffered under that name.

Socialism doesn't have quite the same level of stigma, but still a good deal. However, when you think about it, a significant portion of any government is "Socialist" - we pay taxes, our taxes fund roads, schools and various other social services. Socialism, or more specifically socialist policy, is that which benefits society as a whole rather than any specific group. When you see it like that, it's hard to paint it as a bad thing, not without being completely selfish that you or your group aren't getting an exclusive benefit.

Depends, I was chatting with someone without using any charged terminology, then he blurted out "but that's socialism!!"

I mean you could also say that Capitalism is a dirty word in some circles. And yet, it addresses many of the aspects of trade, which are needed through all societal systems.

I agree that there is a lot more wrong with the system than just mortgage rates being higher than rents. The tax, fees and interests are certainly a good target for how things are wrong. With regards to damages, obviously tenants should be more easily held liable for damages they cause - and equally landlords should be more easily held liable for failing to provide a well maintained property (eg no mould).

The system is generally screwed up through and through. The people on the bottom get shat on, but even as you work your way up there's always still someone above shitting down hill. But that's no excuse for resigning and not sorting the shit out.

For starters, we need to sack all MPs and implement something closer to a direct democracy, or at least representation truly as a public service.

I'd appreciate if you could justify your position. I think, when you carefully consider it, you'll understand that it's skewed the wrong way and not justifiable.

If I buy a house with a mortgage, it costs a lot of money, but I can live in it right away and afterwards I have a house, which I can sell. If I rent, I only get to live in it for so long as I pay rent - I own nothing at the end. You get more for your mortgage but pay less, surely the rent should be lower and proportionate to what you're getting?

Sure, if rent was cheaper than a mortgage, people would be far less inclined to be landlords - but why should that be a given path to profit? Why should the housing supply by usurped by those who already have an excess of wealth?

Pretty much exactly the same, except CRT got knocked down before it even had established itself as a positive thing.

Yep! What's annoying is that YouTube have started adding tracking links when you share, those parts need to be trimmed out.

I didn't really notice it as a mistake lol they do look quite annoyed sometimes!

“A lot of it is bred from misunderstanding and how the word is smeared,”

The same could be said about "communism" and "socialism". The words have been turned dirty, such that people shy away from what is objectively a good thing when done honestly and to the letter of the principle.

It doesn't, though. The owner should cover the cost of ownership, as they're the one who gets the valuable asset at the end. The tenant should pay proportionally less than this, merely the cost of them living there for a temporary period.

If you live with someone and pay towards their mortgage, you can rightfully claim a share in the equity of their house. However, if you're a tenant and pay the entire mortgage, and then some, you don't get anything. That's patently not right.

https://youtu.be/p46A3HMuoCo?t=193 Straight to the call