Conquer Club

So my jerk of a neighbor, who bought about 3 years ago at around the market peak (I had that hono about 2.5 years ago), goes and walks away from his house (laughing all the way to the bank, having just re-fi'd for 30K more than he paid for the stupid house (and they say mortgage originators are supposed to be paying attention now!)... and I just found out that in the foreclosure sale, his house went for nearly $200G's below market. OK, no problem, right... new family will move in and we'll have business as usual, right? It was a foreclosure, so it won't affect valuations on the street as long as there aren't any more in foreclosure, right?

NOPE... sold to a freaking flipper who is going to spend a couple grand on paint and landscape, and then probably sell it off for a quick $100G... leaving the rest of us screwed for the foreseeable future on our home valuations.

First I'm thinking - isn't there a country where they cut off your fucking head for doing shit like this!

Now I'm the first guy who doesn't care for taxes, but then I'm thinking there's a simple way to fix this. Homes are not commodities. Homes are not capital investments any more than a car is (actually they are both depreciating non-performing assets... you just sink enough money into the house to constantly extend it's usable life semi-indefinitely). Right now, if you hold a house long enough, you get capital gains rates on the sale. Otherwise its ordinary income. Seems to me the missing piece of this puzzle is a tax on short term sales - short term being long enough to keep flippers from waiting it out, of course. Say you don't live in a house, and you sell within two years, I think ordinary income + penalty of 30% on the net profit (after costs I guess). 2-6 years... tax as ordinary income. 6+ years, capital gains. If you actually live in the house as primary residence, then current regime would still apply.

Tax increase would drive a wedge between sellers and buyers, increasing the market price but decreasing the price to sellers. This would help prop up valuations of long term homeowner properties (as well as tax based, if you live in that kind of area), and at the same time reduce the number of homes on the market. WIN WIN WIN.

Now some of my fellow anti-tax folks take the opportunity to convince me I'm wrong before I write to dear old Mr. Paulson.

Property is theft

radiojake wrote:Property is theft

From whom?

radiojake wrote:Property is theft

Not quite. Theft is the taking OF property.

InkL0sed wrote:

radiojake wrote:Property is theft

From whom?

The commons. Who/whatever had it before.

spurgistan wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

radiojake wrote:Property is theft

From whom?

The commons. Who/whatever had it before.

But if they "had" it before, didn't they also steal it?

I just disagree with land ownership - who or what gives us the right to alter and use land in a way that we see fit, no matter how detrimental it is to the given land base

In Australia, atleast - property is the theft of land from the indigenous Aboriginals who actually worked with the land and helped take care of it, and it intern took care of them. Today there is no such balance, mainly because of this whole conception of 'property and land ownership'

InkL0sed wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

radiojake wrote:Property is theft

From whom?

The commons. Who/whatever had it before.

But if they "had" it before, didn't they also steal it?

I feel like it's pretty easy to contrast the holistic way native peoples only used the land to get what they needed whereas settlers use it to get what they want. In a sense, it's comparing adoption to enslavement. Anyways, even if they did steal it, does that make it right?

radiojake wrote:I just disagree with land ownership - who or what gives us the right to alter and use land in a way that we see fit, no matter how detrimental it is to the given land base

In Australia, atleast - property is the theft of land from the indigenous Aboriginals who actually worked with the land and helped take care of it, and it intern took care of them. Today there is no such balance, mainly because of this whole conception of 'property and land ownership'

If I remember correctly, the Aborigines hunted. Also, they used fire, a lot, on the landscape for various reasons, not to mention you could say they stole the land from the native species, like one really huge lizard that made the Komodo Dragon look small (the name escapes me at the moment) as well as several other species. I could go on, but then I could just as easily substitute "Aborigine" for "Gaul" or "Celt" or "Phoenician" etc.

radiojake wrote:Property is theft

Hijack!

/edit: Also, nobody cares about your Communist/Green views except other Communists and Greens, and there aren't a lot of them in this world.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

radiojake wrote:I just disagree with land ownership - who or what gives us the right to alter and use land in a way that we see fit, no matter how detrimental it is to the given land base

In Australia, atleast - property is the theft of land from the indigenous Aboriginals who actually worked with the land and helped take care of it, and it intern took care of them. Today there is no such balance, mainly because of this whole conception of 'property and land ownership'

If I remember correctly, the Aborigines hunted. Also, they used fire, a lot, on the landscape for various reasons, not to mention you could say they stole the land from the native species, like one really huge lizard that made the Komodo Dragon look small (the name escapes me at the moment) as well as several other species. I could go on, but then I could just as easily substitute "Aborigine" for "Gaul" or "Celt" or "Phoenician" etc.

I know they hunted animals and I know they used fire to rejuvenate land. What has this got to do with anything? They didn't destroy land bases though, they participated in a two-way relationship in which they gave back to the land as much as they got out of it. That's the difference, we don't give back at all. Property doesn't give back to the land at all, because pretty much the sole purpose of property these days is to make the owner money or profits. It's a one way transaction that can be comparable to slavery.

Property = Theft

Could you please provide statistics on just how common "flipping" is?

Also, what do you mean by people being screwed over by home valuations?

I understand your displeasure, to some degree, but I don't seriously think that most people that live in houses for less than 2 years are flipping capitalists (oopah, a pun!). Many thoroughbred capitalists argue that penalties for short-term housing (like ANY mortgage is a penalty for short-term housing, regardless of your proposed taxes) are bad for the economy insofar as they make workers reluctant in moving to wherever work is needed.

radiojake wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

radiojake wrote:I just disagree with land ownership - who or what gives us the right to alter and use land in a way that we see fit, no matter how detrimental it is to the given land base

In Australia, atleast - property is the theft of land from the indigenous Aboriginals who actually worked with the land and helped take care of it, and it intern took care of them. Today there is no such balance, mainly because of this whole conception of 'property and land ownership'

If I remember correctly, the Aborigines hunted. Also, they used fire, a lot, on the landscape for various reasons, not to mention you could say they stole the land from the native species, like one really huge lizard that made the Komodo Dragon look small (the name escapes me at the moment) as well as several other species. I could go on, but then I could just as easily substitute "Aborigine" for "Gaul" or "Celt" or "Phoenician" etc.

I know they hunted animals and I know they used fire to rejuvenate land. What has this got to do with anything? They didn't destroy land bases though, they participated in a two-way relationship in which they gave back to the land as much as they got out of it. That's the difference, we don't give back at all. Property doesn't give back to the land at all, because pretty much the sole purpose of property these days is to make the owner money or profits. It's a one way transaction that can be comparable to slavery.

Property = Theft

First of all, you seem to be deluded in that the Aborigines were "oh so great and harmless." Fact is, they burned to kill animals, not to rejuvenate the land, considering that they really never farmed or cultivated the land in the first place.

And you are also deluded in that you seem to think that all people that own property are only in it for the money. Did you ever once think that people might actually take care of their property? Actually care for it? Obviously not. Don't have a one-tracked mind all the time.

muy_thaiguy wrote:First of all, you seem to be deluded in that the Aborigines were "oh so great and harmless." Fact is, they burned to kill animals,

Please, tell me more, with links, as I am curious.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

radiojake wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

radiojake wrote:I just disagree with land ownership - who or what gives us the right to alter and use land in a way that we see fit, no matter how detrimental it is to the given land base

In Australia, atleast - property is the theft of land from the indigenous Aboriginals who actually worked with the land and helped take care of it, and it intern took care of them. Today there is no such balance, mainly because of this whole conception of 'property and land ownership'

If I remember correctly, the Aborigines hunted. Also, they used fire, a lot, on the landscape for various reasons, not to mention you could say they stole the land from the native species, like one really huge lizard that made the Komodo Dragon look small (the name escapes me at the moment) as well as several other species. I could go on, but then I could just as easily substitute "Aborigine" for "Gaul" or "Celt" or "Phoenician" etc.

I know they hunted animals and I know they used fire to rejuvenate land. What has this got to do with anything? They didn't destroy land bases though, they participated in a two-way relationship in which they gave back to the land as much as they got out of it. That's the difference, we don't give back at all. Property doesn't give back to the land at all, because pretty much the sole purpose of property these days is to make the owner money or profits. It's a one way transaction that can be comparable to slavery.

Property = Theft

First of all, you seem to be deluded in that the Aborigines were "oh so great and harmless." Fact is, they burned to kill animals, not to rejuvenate the land, considering that they really never farmed or cultivated the land in the first place.

And you are also deluded in that you seem to think that all people that own property are only in it for the money. Did you ever once think that people might actually take care of their property? Actually care for it? Obviously not. Don't have a one-tracked mind all the time.

Burned to kill animals?? You mean animals they would then eat? The fires started were not merely for destructive purposes, which you seem to be implying. They never farmed or cultivated because they didn't need to and lived a nomadic life. Farms and cultivation destroys land bases as well. You're pretty ignorant on the whole discussion here.

People taking care of their property?? You mean having a nice cultivated garden with foreign plants and using water that has been channeled from a dammed river - (which intern kills said river and the fish that lived in that river) -

"Looking after" property, today, is in no way at all comparable to looking after a natural land base and what it needs. Looking after property is only aesthetic these days, too make it 'look nice'

radiojake wrote:I know they hunted animals and I know they used fire to rejuvenate land. What has this got to do with anything? They didn't destroy land bases though, they participated in a two-way relationship in which they gave back to the land as much as they got out of it. That's the difference, we don't give back at all. Property doesn't give back to the land at all, because pretty much the sole purpose of property these days is to make the owner money or profits. It's a one way transaction that can be comparable to slavery.

Property = Theft

You are one weird guy

silvanricky wrote:

radiojake wrote:I know they hunted animals and I know they used fire to rejuvenate land. What has this got to do with anything? They didn't destroy land bases though, they participated in a two-way relationship in which they gave back to the land as much as they got out of it. That's the difference, we don't give back at all. Property doesn't give back to the land at all, because pretty much the sole purpose of property these days is to make the owner money or profits. It's a one way transaction that can be comparable to slavery.

Property = Theft

You are one weird guy

Yes because that whole weird concept of looking after the land you live on giving back as much as you take is totally obscure. Here's a thought. Why don't you go do some thinking or research and try to work out what will eventually happen when one party (lets say humans) continually takes and uses resources to their heart contents without ever giving back to the land base that supplied the resources in the first place. It wouldn't be hard to realise that if someone keeps taking, without ever giving back, then there will soon be nothing left to take, and then we're fucked. Just actually think about it for once. Don't worry - you won't catch 'left-wing pinko disease' or whatever you seem to be scared of.

Burned to kill animals?? You mean animals they would then eat? The fires started were not merely for destructive purposes, which you seem to be implying. They never farmed or cultivated because they didn't need to and lived a nomadic life. Farms and cultivation destroys land bases as well. You're pretty ignorant on the whole discussion here.

http://www.lostkingdoms.com/facts/factsheet52.htm
The Megalania, as I mentioned before, was one of the species driven into extinction by the Aborigines. They used fire on the land so that it wouldn't have anywhere to hide from them, not to make the land better.

People taking care of their property?? You mean having a nice cultivated garden with foreign plants and using water that has been channeled from a dammed river - (which intern kills said river and the fish that lived in that river).

When the hell did I say that? Yes, people have gardens, and at times, will use plants that are often not from the area, however, this does NOT mean it will have a negative impact, especially when controlled and confined to a small area. But I was reffering to people who own several acres of land (at times, quite a bit of land) and merely hike, mountain bike, camp, or fish (sometimes a combination of them) without harming the area itself. Like I said before, you have a real deluded view on these things.

"Looking after" property, today, is in no way at all comparable to looking after a natural land base and what it needs. Looking after property is only aesthetic these days, too make it 'look nice'

By looking after, I mean, taking care of their property. And what's wrong with making it look nice? Nothing, just an added bonus.

I honestly have to ask, do you know ANYTHING about Conservation? Or are you another one of those tree huggers that will tie themselves to trees? Because if you are the latter, then it is because of people like you that a wood beetle outbreak has been devastating acres and acres of trees, even coming into towns. Making these countless trees as great fire fuel. Conservationists wanted to stop the beetles before it got out of hand, but little tree hugging pansies had a fit since a few trees would have been cut down. But now, well, let's just say if I ever run into any of them, they won't be too happy afterwards.

radiojake wrote:Yes because that whole weird concept of looking after the land you live on giving back as much as you take is totally obscure. Here's a thought. Why don't you go do some thinking or research and try to work out what will eventually happen when one party (lets say humans) continually takes and uses resources to their heart contents without ever giving back to the land base that supplied the resources in the first place. It wouldn't be hard to realise that if someone keeps taking, without ever giving back, then there will soon be nothing left to take, and then we're fucked. Just actually think about it for once. Don't worry - you won't catch 'left-wing pinko disease' or whatever you seem to be scared of.

What are you doing to give back to land other than bitching about how everyone else is doing wrong? Are you out there planting trees, vegetables, and fruit? Do you even have one shred of proof that mankind is 'only' taking and 'never' giving back? Do you use a car, any vehicle, or public form of transportation? How come you're not living in a hut? What are you doing using a computer? Do you personally fish and hunt for your food or are you hypocritically going to grocery stores and buying food distributed by...........CORPORATIONS!!! and FOOD CHAINS!!! Are you going out to the woods to poop and then using your own excrement to fertilize the soil? Really jake, let's hear how you're leading the way towards becoming one with the planet.

By the way, do you or your family own property? Even if you rent, are you renting from someone who owns property? If you are then you're the biggest hypocrite in the world because you're contributing to the very thing you're criticizing.

silvanricky wrote:What are you doing to give back to land other than bitching about how everyone else is doing wrong? Are you out there planting trees, vegetables, and fruit? Do you even have one shred of proof that mankind is 'only' taking and 'never' giving back? Do you use a car, any vehicle, or public form of transportation? How come you're not living in a hut? What are you doing using a computer? Do you personally fish and hunt for your food or are you hypocritically going to grocery stores and buying food distributed by...........CORPORATIONS!!! and FOOD CHAINS!!! Are you going out to the woods to poop and then using your own excrement to fertilize the soil? Really jake, let's hear how you're leading the way towards becoming one with the planet.

By the way, do you or your family own property? Even if you rent, are you renting from someone who owns property? If you are then you're the biggest hypocrite in the world because you're contributing to the very thing you're criticizing.

To be fair, at least in regards to the last statements, its rather difficult to maintain a position in the vast majority of societies today without being tied into in some regard, the property ownership system. To more or less be compelled by necessity to do something, and disagree with it on fundamental levels is not as hypocritical as many other contradictions that could be assumed.

got tonkaed wrote:To be fair, at least in regards to the last statements, its rather difficult to maintain a position in the vast majority of societies today without being tied into in some regard, the property ownership system. To more or less be compelled by necessity to do something, and disagree with it on fundamental levels is not as hypocritical as many other contradictions that could be assumed.

One could posit that in such a system it is ambiguously detrimental towards a more wholesome understanding of the ins-and-outs of how we arrived in these ownership dilemmas rather than accept the appearance of an ironclad statement in their favor. Upon further reconsideration we can sometimes ascertain that not everything we hold up as a positively valued substance could be held as a commodity as it relates to things in the total sphere of humanity. Otherwise, the hunter-gatherer relationship would more or less lose it's original intended specialness and might or might not lead us....aw screw it!

You want to go be a pompous orator, do it someplace else. Take a position or get the f*ck out.

got tonkaed wrote:

silvanricky wrote:What are you doing to give back to land other than bitching about how everyone else is doing wrong? Are you out there planting trees, vegetables, and fruit? Do you even have one shred of proof that mankind is 'only' taking and 'never' giving back? Do you use a car, any vehicle, or public form of transportation? How come you're not living in a hut? What are you doing using a computer? Do you personally fish and hunt for your food or are you hypocritically going to grocery stores and buying food distributed by...........CORPORATIONS!!! and FOOD CHAINS!!! Are you going out to the woods to poop and then using your own excrement to fertilize the soil? Really jake, let's hear how you're leading the way towards becoming one with the planet.

By the way, do you or your family own property? Even if you rent, are you renting from someone who owns property? If you are then you're the biggest hypocrite in the world because you're contributing to the very thing you're criticizing.

To be fair, at least in regards to the last statements, its rather difficult to maintain a position in the vast majority of societies today without being tied into in some regard, the property ownership system. To more or less be compelled by necessity to do something, and disagree with it on fundamental levels is not as hypocritical as many other contradictions that could be assumed.

Thanks tonkaed - I am well aware of the things that I participate in that aren't friendly to the planet. It's called civilisation. I do what I can, where I can, but I don't make out to be some kind of messiah of ultimate 'greeness' - I just call stuff when I see it. I think property is theft, but I'm still living in a house paying rent. What are my other alternatives really? I have friends who squat, but even then, it's still living in the confines of our society now.

Its actually ironic, silvan, that you called me the biggest hypocrite ever - because only just before as I had a quick shower before I have to go to work, I was only thinking the same thing. I sometimes draw parallels with that movie called the Matrix, and you have the chance to take the blue pill and the red pill. If you take the red one, you'll wake up in the morning and think nothing more than some really bad dream. Oh, how sometimes I wish I could take that red pill, and wake up in the morning without a care in the world - Too bad its just not that easy

muy_thaiguy wrote:http://www.lostkingdoms.com/facts/factsheet52.htm
The Megalania, as I mentioned before, was one of the species driven into extinction by the Aborigines. They used fire on the land so that it wouldn't have anywhere to hide from them, not to make the land better.

Lived: 1,600,000 - 40,000 years ago (Pleistocene)

You can hardly call the dissapearance of mega fauna 40,000 years ago being the fault of Aboriginals - Also that link doesn't mention anything about Aboriginals being the ones who killed them off.

I honestly have to ask, do you know ANYTHING about Conservation? Or are you another one of those tree huggers that will tie themselves to trees? Because if you are the latter, then it is because of people like you that a wood beetle outbreak has been devastating acres and acres of trees, even coming into towns. Making these countless trees as great fire fuel. Conservationists wanted to stop the beetles before it got out of hand, but little tree hugging pansies had a fit since a few trees would have been cut down. But now, well, let's just say if I ever run into any of them, they won't be too happy afterwards

Ooh big tough macho talk there, muy_thai. What are you going to do to those 'tree hugging pansies'?

I think direct action at logging sites definately has a place. I'm not aware of what circumstance you are talking abut with wood beetles, I'm assuming you're talking about somewhere in America, but I know in Australia the Tasmanian and Victorian old growth forests are being cut down to make WOODCHIPS - Is that a good enough reason to lock down on a logging machine or tree? Or is that just a hassle aswell?

Hologram wrote:

radiojake wrote:Property is theft

Hijack!

/edit: Also, nobody cares about your Communist/Green views except other Communists and Greens, and there aren't a lot of them in this world.

Then you don't need to worry about them.

If the OP doesn't mind, I'd like to open this thread up to all discussion related to "HOUSING".

Since this IS a "rant on housing", please share your hatred of landlords and roommates past and present, of mortgages paid and unpaid.

I think radio_jake has set a good precedent, whether you agree with him or not.

This could be massive.