Amsterdam in the clutches of totalitarian socialism

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

So when you are born into a poor family who can only afford to rent one crowded house, and who can’t afford you a good education or any opportunities to improve your situation even if you work as hard as you can within the means available to you, then that’s fine.

But when action is taken to stop those who grew up in a situation where they can become financially successful (even if they did nothing but simply inherit the money they have) from making more money by doing nothing (simply having a house because you have money, and accepting more money for it didn’t build the house, it existed and was usable whether someone rented it out or not!), then it’s suddenly inhumane totalitarianism?

I see this time and time again - this seething hatred towards accountability.
If someone or some group of people makes a decision, it’s oppression, but when they set up a system where it’s no longer clear who’s to blame for people being restricted and held down (e.g. Capitalism) then it’s fine because nobody seems to be directly accountable. It’s as though oppression is fine as long as nobody is accountable for it(!)

I have ceased to think of this problem in such intangible ideological terms as “individual rights” and “moral oughts”. The only real issue is what CAN be done. And what CAN be done is that the economy CAN be made to work more efficiently for more people.

If there are less opportunities to sit back and do very little when you are clearly able to contribute more to your country’s wealth - and therefore by extension your own, and
if there are more opportunities for those trapped in a situation that prevents them their health and freedom to contribute more to their country’s wealth - and therefore by extension everyone else’s,
then surely we have ourselves a much improved situation for all!

The poor don’t give a toss about individual rights and moral oughts, unless they are told they do because, well, they’re just great(!) - they do not have the time nor education to consider such things. Liberal ideals are for the bouregois. Socialism is for the poor, who only care about getting out of a shit situation.
Even the rich don’t really give a toss about individual rights and moral oughts! As long as they have some market freedom to get a little richer and as long as this arrangement doesn’t change, they’re fine. They may devote their greater amounts of free time to giving these intangible ideological terms some thought in order to rationalise the situation and alleviate their guilt, but could they not be pondering how to improve the bigger economic picture?

Sitt, Xun and Mad Man P are the only ones making sense… no, sod that. Why are we simply taking sides when we could be looking at this afore-mentioned bigger picture?!

22

Yes, the idea that the economy is some sort of natural reflection of the actions of a collection of equal and rational actors is idealized nonsense. Moreover, it is an excuse to look the other way at the real life relations of control and domination that capitalism creates. And if it were true, who gives a fuck to maintain it anyway, when it results in povertcy for many and horrible amounts of wealth for few. We can pull people out of poverty, we can give people a decent life who currently live in filth. What force could an ideological position or philosophic argument have in response to that.

It’s like complaining about a light breeze when the person next to you is being punched in the face - So concerned about a person’s right to own a second superfluous home, while simultaneously condoning the fact that many people are prevented from owning even one home or having access to adequate shelter at all.

23

I have to laugh - I am curious as to where this whole family history of the homeowners made it’s introduction. It certainly was not in my post or the newsreport. And also the notion that those owners were making money off their house is cooked up by the people here.

Many of the homeowners have started with nothing, worked their way through a successful academic career, bought a house, and eventually a second, smaller one, where they spend their weekends.
Somehow, to a lot of people here, they’re parasites and useless to the economy because of that.

Funny. I can see now more clearly the mindstate where the impulse of the city comes from

Where precisely was anyone defending Capitalism without accountability?

So your idea is that people who own a second home are by definition sitting back and doing nothing… even if they work 80 hours a week to pay for it?

We’re talking about college professors here, and doctors and lawyers. Wealthy but hard working people.
If this law had been for the real estate mafia, people who own lots of houses and rent them out at the top of the market, I would have been all for it. But, in the rare cases where something is being done about that sort of thing, the owners are treated a lot more carefully - their possessions don’t get confiscated, but bought by the city for the full exuberant asking price.

The question is indeed what CAN be done - by politicians who way to careful with their career to go after the big fish.

24

Dude, why does adding the adjective “hard working” always result in someone having carte blanche to say that that person is entitled to do anything, yet when it is the working poor it entitles them to exactly nothing?

Hard work gets you exactly what circumstances outside your control allows it to get you, and That is exactly what is at issue.

25

Got that right! By the way, here in the USA the phrase “hard working” is racist code also.

26

Could you do me a favor and read a bit more accurately?

Who said anyone is entitled to do anything? What I’m saying is that the biggest owner in this story, i.e. the state, is NOT entitled to whatever it deems appropriate. That’s what you seem to be advocating.

And who said that the working poor are entitled to nothing? Not me.

In case you need a bit of context, we’re not talking about the working poor, but about students who want to move to the city but who have to pay twice or thrice as much as before because the government just cut all sorts of fundings and raised the prices for attending universities.

This is about the state making money, and doing so at the cost of those who have too much to lose and too little power to fight. It’s very clever. The city will never disown the serious capitalists - because, lets’ face it - the state is and has always been owned by them.

Seriously dude, what are you talking about when you say “entitled to do anything?” Owning a second home isn’t exactly blowing up the world trade center. I don’t know why these people deserve your or anyones scorn.

27

Jakob, you just said this:

You say here that you are for preventing some wealthy people from owning multiple homes and renting them out, and you are against others doing the same. The only relevant distinction you make between the two is “Wealthy but hard working people”. So being wealthy does not mean you get to own multiple homes, and being hard working certainly doesn’t, so there is something about being both wealthy and hard working that you think means one gets to own multiple homes. At the same time you recognize that having the means to own multiple homes does not give you the right to do so, as per your claim you would be all for it if it applied only to the real estate mafia.

So, you are in fact arguing that being both rich and hard working entitles one to own multiple homes whereas being one or the other does not.

We’re all waiting to hear, Jakob, what is it about being both rich and hardworking that means one can own multiple homes?

28

Fair enough, but like I said, My first counter is that it is just obviously wrong, and all the structures we’ve created in society prove it. There is not really an argument for me to make here. People would have to “provide” people property because everything is pretty much already owned, just like in some places people have to provide people access to water because local water resources are pretty much already owned. That’s not an argument that my conception of property is different, it is an argument that my conception of property rights is not currently being practiced.

A proper analogy is if there was a war here recently and some side had laid land mines down all over our communities. They would be obliged to actively remove them in order for me to have robust right to security. They are simply addressing past infringements, and there is nothing a priori about my right to security that makes them have to perform actions, it’s just the fact that they were infringing on me in the past that makes my right demand they take some action.

29

We’re back at the question of what the right to property actually means. You have my reasons why someone not owning a home is a violation of their rights, as per my definition of personal property not being a hypothetical right. It is a rather direct connection in my mind that a system set up where some people can own two homes while others own none violates this. The policy acts to fix this.

I would argue that owning multiple homes perpetuates the system of infringement and sucks up resources that other people need to actualize their control over a home, but perhaps this fixation on whether individuals who own two homes misses the point, and as Silhouette said, we need to look at the bigger picture.

30

I would agree if that were the case… But it seems to me that the only time you lose money in this scenario is when you borrow money from the bank so as to buy the second house.

I’m sure you’d be making a profit from renting the place out if the only expense was that of actual ownership, such as a property tax and what have you.

31

No, we really don’t. Lives can be conducted as though we do, but these rights exist absolutely nowhere except in the sympathy of individuals towards others, or in the ethereal realm of moral ideals that stem from this at least. I maintain that the question is not about “individual rights” or “moral oughts”, but about what CAN be done to make the economy benefit everyone better by getting it to work more efficiently. As explained, the ethical questions are a luxury of the educated bourgeois with time on their hands to rationalise that the unaccountable oppression of the Capitalism that they benefit from in the name of freedom. Now they don’t have to feel guilty for the majority who are crushed by it because they’re ‘free’.

Your reaction to the newsreport gave more away than what you specifically wrote. Your apparent shock and wording communicated your aversion to the change, implying you would prefer if such Socialist changes were avoided and the previous more Capitalist situation was preferable. This previous more Capitalist situation implies “the whole family history” I introduced many times over. The Socialist changes are to alleviate this for whatever ends. If they result in a better economy, then I’m all for it, whatever the actual intentions.

Instead of ramming the poorer people into cramped huddled housing, restricting their lives and feelings of freedom and relaxation - and their health in general, if they had access to these 2nd homes that aren’t even used half the time, these problems could be lessened. This would improve the lives, and therefore the work quality and quantity of the poorer, helping national growth, increasing standards of living for everyone. The extra money of the rich tied up in houses would be turned towards more temporary consumption, where there is a faster flow of money to lubricate the economy. Perhaps with less opportunity to spend the vast riches of traditionally well-paid jobs, there would be less incentive to pay these jobs as much, meaning business could grow, or taxes could be increased for higher earners to help the workers who play just as important a role in businesses as the richer managers and owners.

I’ve nothing against rich people working 80 hours a week for their riches when they don’t need to. But spending the riches on decadent luxuries like houses that are only used half the time, when they could be used all the time, and when the riches could be spent on more economically strengthening activities and projects - it trades a little personal frivolity at the cost of a great deal of more widespread richness.

In the case that the 2nd houses are rented out when the owner is away, few do it at a loss so that the occupant can live cheaply - quite the opposite in fact. I am not saying that the homeowners always choose this option rather than letting their 2nd house grow fallow half the time - but one or the other option is taken, both at the cost of the economy and the resulting shared growth. Too often the rich are useless parasites to the economy, and it is simply bad economic sense to allow this. I am not saying this is always the case. But since it often is, this is a huge unbeneficial waste - how is this ‘mindstate’ of the city something funny again?

Capitalism has inherent unaccountability. Even when someone can be pin pointed to hold a lot of the blame, it’s still extremely blurred. Socialism actually condones having the guts to be accountable - for both good and bad. Private business hides under the mysterious radar as a matter of definition - people are paid a lot of money to hide the bad further, in the name of maintaining a misleading reputation or whatever - to help direct even more money away from others and towards them. The bad is obvious enough even with the secrecy - imagine if the truth was actually revealed. There is no such thing as Capitalism with accountability.

32

I don’t see how this applies.

They took away some of the “advantages” of owning two or more homes, sure… but that’s what laws do, they prevent you from doing stuff that is harmful to other people and society at large. In this case, reducing the actual number of people with housing or having other people pay unreasonable amounts for their homes, because of your debts and/or greed.

33

Quite so. My thinking is that over-crowding and high cost of living might make it hard for many people to find affordable housing. I’m not sure that forcing people to rent out their home at a loss is the answer, though. What might work better is making a law limiting people to the ownership of one home of a maximum size, and building subsidized housing for those who can’t afford to own.

34

I’m not sure that’s what is being done.

Like I said… I’m sure you’d be perfectly able to make a profit from renting out a place you OWNED.
What you CAN’T do is acquire that ownership by borrowing money from the bank and then forcing the people renting the place to pay your debt!
The only loss here seems to be in the form of interest owed to the banks… which is a loss you agree to every time you borrow money!

35

I just happened to come across the issue of De Telegraaf (“The Telegraph”) that featured a report on this matter, and it gave precisely the same info as you have given in this thread. Knowing the newspaper, that is enough to be highly suspicious as to the accuracy of the data. And indeed, the matter is much more nuanced:

http://www.deondernemer.nl/regionieuws/502790/Geen-verbod-op-pied-a-terres.html

Amsterdam owners of two houses can be forced to rent, sell, or actually occupy their second house if it is a so-called “social residence”.

Your stance in this thread seems to be liberal (in the sense of Locke etc.). Liberalism leads to the dissolution of society, as it’s basically everyone for himself. When cells are liberal we call it “cancer”.

36

Well, the way I read Jakob’s post, the owners were forced to rent the second house at a loss. Like I said, my solution would be for the state to make a law limiting home ownership to one home per household or person, and then building low-cost and subsidized housing that would make it possible for everyone to have a home or apartment.

37

Not covering the “mortgage” does not equal “not enough to cover the costs of ownership”.

38

1.) If Amsterdam does not like the rents being charged to the citizens, then what Amsterdam should do is build their own houses/housing complexes which would thereby force Non-Government landlords compete with the prices that they set.

2.) It is true that the homeowner retains 100% of the equity while the renter pays the rent, however, I fail to see where there is anything wrong with that since the homeowner is the person that owns it.

3.) I believe that it is erroneous to look at it from the standpoint of whether or not the renter is paying in excess of the mortgage. The renter pays in excess of the mortgage for a number of reasons, including:

A.) The landlord probably had to put some sort of downpayment on the property to begin with, so he is already upside-down.

B.) If something goes wrong with the place, the landlord has to fix it. It’s usually a general practice to set a portion of the rent aside every month that would go to fixing something if it breaks, and there are multiple things that could go wrong with a place that would cost in excess of $1,000.

C.) The landlord should/must carry insurance on the house, whether or not he lives in it. He should carry insurance no matter what, but he must carry insurance if he has a mortgage on it.

D.) I don’t know about Amsterdam, but in America, the landlord would have to pay property taxes on the house.

E.) The person renting the house could do damages to the house in excess of whatever deposit they pay, insurance does not generally cover such damages caused by a tenant, so the landlord would have to shell out those costs.

F.) The person renting the house could fail to pay rent at some point, and in the U.S. (Most states) someone has to be in excess of thirty days behind on the rent before a landlord can even begin the eviction process.

In short, even if you don’t take into consideration the things that merely could happen, a landlord would still take a loss by charging only the monthly amount of rent to cover the mortgage payments because there is still insurance and property taxes to take into consideration. I know that in the U.S. if soemthing happens to a property that makes it, “Unlivable,” the renter does not have to pay any rent on it during such time that it is unlivable and landlords are generally required to reimburse the renter for whatever temporary accomodations the renter has to find.

39

That only makes it worse for the owner. Really, the state should just buy the house at cost and then turn it into subsidized housing.

40

That’s not how it works…
This is how it works:
I want to use a second house, and I don’t care if some loser has to sleep on the street in order for me to do so!
I take out a loan so I can buy a house I don’t need, but want, yet can’t pay for currently
The government says “You don’t really need two houses, and there are people who need homes, so you’re going to have to rent one of those out!”
So your plan to make someone homeless in order to prance about in two different homes was shot to hell! Damn them!

More like “you can’t charge anything you like on the rent! There’s a limit to how much profit you’re allowed to make by merely owning property but otherwise doing nothing, and also people who work jobs that don’t pay as well, should still be able to afford basic housing!”
“But I took out a loan, I don’t actually own the house yet… I’m still trying to pay for it… I was hoping I could have the guy renting the place pay my debts for me!”
“So sell the place to someone who can actually afford it, and pay back the loan”
“You bastard!”

Making a “limited” profit makes it “worse” than NO profit?
I don’t follow.

Which you could easily pay and still make a profit, if you actually owned the damn property… You paying back the loan you took in order to make a profit from letting other people use what you bought is no one elses problem, nor should it be!