Now that there is no such thing as a free election, expect more of this. Property ownership is absolutely hated by Communists. Stand by.
China’s takeover of Hong Kong continues. Most of the protesters who were in the news as China took over? They are either dead or in a reeducation camp, as are their families.
This is where Communism and Socialism always ends: Poverty, death, and prison.
Now the fight for a $26 minimum wage is on. Why stop there? If 26 is good, wouldn’t $100 an hour be better? Why not $500 an hour?
Amanda Rinehart is a mother in Pennsylvania who left her job to care for her 8 year old child. She complains that her child is too young to receive a vaccine, so she has to keep her child out of school until there is a vaccine for children. For that reason, the US taxpayer should continue to pay for her to not go to work, according to her. In all, she has received more than $37,000 from the government since she quit working, if you only count unemployment, the free money for having a kid, and the COVID stimulus money.
On the other hand, only 39 percent of the US public paid Federal taxes last year. I was one of them. While a large part of the US population was sitting at home for the past year, not doing anything, I was working, investing, and providing the money for her to sit on her ass and complain that she isn’t getting enough of MY money.
I would argue that Ms. Reinhart isn’t losing HER unemployment. She is merely losing her ability to suck even more of my money out of my wallet, and the wallets of my fellow taxpayers.
You will note that there is absolutely no mention of a Mr. Rinehart. Where is the father of this child? How am I responsible to provide for his child, yet he is not?
The people on the left will say that I am greedy because I don’t want to help her. I have no problem helping the poor, as long as they are attempting to help themselves. I don’t see how it is greedy for me to want to keep my money for my own use, yet not greedy for this woman to demand access to my money with the only claim to it being that she couldn’t keep her legs closed.
Delta Air Lines plans to charge workers who refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccination an extra $200 per month for their health care insurance. The average Delta employee hospitalized for COVID-19 has cost the company $50,000, CEO Ed Bastian said in a memo to employees released by the airline, so this is intended to have the unvaccinated workers pay for that cost.
Why stop there? We could institute a social credit score, like China has. Like private credit scores, a person’s social score can move up and down depending on their behavior. The exact methodology would be a secret, like credit scores. Still, some examples of infractions would include bad driving, smoking in non-smoking zones, buying too many video games, not being vaccinated, and posting fake news online.
The system can be used for individual people, but also for companies and government organizations. The message is clear: be a responsible citizen, or pay extra.
Like having bad credit, a below average score would mean paying more for meals, cell phone service, or insurance. A score that drops further would mean slow internet, a ban on travel, the inability to get a hotel room, or restrictions on what kind of car you can buy.
Of course, those with the lowest scores would be required to attend courses on being a responsible citizen. To eliminate distractions while also preventing unsocial people from affecting those around them, these classes would be taught at a government owned boarding school. To ensure that everyone could afford it, clothing, meals, and lodging would be entirely at government expense for those attending this school.
Doesn’t that sound nice? The world could use a little kindness, equality, and social responsibility, and the government can make sure we all get that while also making us safe from the poor behavior and decisions of others.
We are constantly told how we should allow immigrants illegally crossing our southern border into the nation, and opposition to that makes one a racist.
The administration is not so accommodating when it comes to Cubans, who are being sent back where they came from.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Cubans tend to vote against Democrats’ failed Communist policies.
A recent poll found that the majority of Democrats favor socialism. That doesn’t surprise anyone. What surprises me is that they now admit it openly.
Read this article, and laugh with me. They claim that what makes a tax fair is people pay in proportion to the amount of use they get out of roads.
The gas tax was fair because it was based on a simple principle: user pays, user benefits. Before the gas tax, all taxpayers paid for the upkeep of roads and building new ones. But this was particularly unfair to the poorest people who could not afford a car.
They go on to then admit that the tax isn’t about revenue- it’s about punishing the rich.
Originally introduced as a fair way for automobile drivers to pay for the upkeep of the roads they use, it has become less fair as rich people buy hybrid and electric vehicles.
They go on and on about those people who aren’t poor.
This unfairness is compounded by the fact that hybrid or electric vehicle (EV) owners are likely to be well-educated, young, and comparatively well-off. A study by TrueCar.com, for example, found that the average owner of a Ford Focus Electric had a household income of $199,000 a year. The people who are paying the most for road upkeep are more likely to be less well-educated, older, and poorer than the hybrid/EV owners.
So poor people don’t benefit from roads? Obama claimed that business owners “didn’t build that” because all of society made business possible because infrastructure is paid for by all. Doesn’t that also mean that everyone is responsible to pay for that infrastructure?
Since electric cars do just as much damage to roads as gas-powered cars, we will still need to spend just as much on maintaining roads in a world with electric cars as we do today. Also, as long as most of the electricity is still coming from fossil fuels, we should want the tax to discourage driving in general.
Nope- just more communism sneaking into our political landscape.
When a property owner rents the property that he owns to another, he is doing so because he wants to make money. It doesn’t matter if that property is a saw, a car, or even a home. The owner buys the property and lets the renter use that property for an amount of time in exchange for money. It’s just that simple. Let’s look at a residential rental.
- The property owner offers to rent a home to someone. This is called the offer.
- The renter signs an agreement, agreeing to pay money (or sometimes other commodities) in exchange for living there. This is the acceptance.
- The renter pays the money, the owner lets the tenant live there. Consideration.
What happens when the renter lives there, but doesn’t pay? The property owner loses money and must get the renter to move out so that he can rent it to someone who will actually pay. Any property owner would rather collect the money he is owed than evict, because eviction is an expensive thing to do.
The Post claims that the trials are unfair because the property owner wins the majority of the time. I don’t see how that is a problem. If the tenant signed the lease, lived in the rental property, and didn’t pay, there are very few defenses that would let him continue to live there for free.
The Post wants the US to declare that housing is a human right. So if it is a right, who is to provide it? The only answer is the complete elimination of private property in this country.
Today is finally the day that most American landlords can begin getting rid of the people who have been stealing their property. That’s right, the eviction moratorium is finally going to be allowed to expire. The Biden administration refused to extend it and even the Communist wing of the Democrat party couldn’t muster the votes in Congress to make it a law.
For some landlords, it has been YEARS since they were paid a cent in compensation for the use of the property that they purchased and were still required to maintain, insure, and pay taxes on, while the government refused to intervene as people were living there for free, even while destroying the place.
In the beginning, it was the government who created the problem- they forced everyone to stay home, which caused businesses to shut down, some permanently. What began as “two weeks to flatten the curve” became “until there is a vaccine.” Then the government mailed out billions in free money, paid billions more in enhanced unemployment benefits, all the while telling people that they didn’t have to pay rent because evictions were prohibited.
Instead of paying their bills, many Americans went on a shopping spree. Amazon, Netflix, and other companies saw record profits. Many businesses, including landlords, were bearing the costs of this orgy of spending. A year and a half later, and people are now upset that the evictions are coming, as if landlords are the villains.
Yes, landlords are being made into the villain here. Read this piece from Politico. They claim that 12 million people are behind on rent, including 50 percent of all black families. The article blames landlords for that, pointing out that Forty-eight percent of voucher holders are Black and 18 percent are Hispanic, so the refusal to accept vouchers is a coded form of racial discrimination, in other words, calling landlords racist. Why?
The reasons that many landlords, myself included, don’t accept government Section 8 vouchers is purely financial.
- People who are poor have poor rental payment histories and are likely to default
- People who are paying for things with someone else’s money don’t value the things that the money bought, because they didn’t have to work for it
- the government puts too many restrictions on the landlord, including more paperwork, more bureaucratic administrative burden, and more headaches. All in exchange for taking less money
All of the above increases my financial risk, my workload, and decreases my income. The only way to make money with Section 8 is to buy cheap, shitty, substandard housing. In other words, be a slum lord. I don’t want to do that, so I avoid Section 8.
The fact that most people who are receiving Section 8 housing vouchers are black has nothing to do with it. I am not in business to do people favors, I am in business to make the most money that I can by doing the least amount of work and taking the smallest risk that I possibly can. If I could make money selling goods to black people by taking little risk and expending minimum effort, I would do so. The money just isn’t there.
That isn’t enough. Some governments have made it illegal to discriminate against those who are receiving Section 8 vouchers. The latest effort is a push to get banks behind an effort to refuse loans to landlords unless they agree to rent to low income, Section 8 recipients. This will drive more landlords out of the market, especially smaller ones, leaving nothing but larger, self funded landlords in the market.
This is a push for the removal of the entrepreneur from the American experience.