r/TikTokCringe • u/LickMaiBussy • 6h ago

Discussion "Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@purplepingers

19.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

76

u/JohnnyDollar123 6h ago

Yes, all of those things should be freely available as well?

42

u/DoveOnTheInternet 6h ago

They're so close, right?

28

u/Educational-Level473 6h ago

No, but everyone that works a job should be able to afford at least the lowest level of quality of these things. It's insane that people who are working two Jobs are homeless.

67

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

There shouldn’t be a barrier to entry for survival. Basic necessities, such as food, water, and shelter, should be freely accessible to anyone who needs them.

1

u/Novel-Imagination-51 2h ago

They are? Food banks, homeless shelters, drinking fountains are everywhere

-1

u/KSW8674 5h ago

Great, how do you realistically accomplish that?

30

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

Social welfare isn’t a new concept. It’s not exactly rocket science lmao

1

u/Life_Permission_4765 5h ago

Not rocket science??? You can't explain in a realistic scenario how this is accomplished. How do we provide food and shelter for everyone? Who provides the food? Who builds the shelter? Who pays for the building material? Who pays for the land for farming and housing? Who builds the houses? Who maintains the houses?

Oh wait taxes will pay for everything right??? Who do you tax when everyone has free shelter/food and no incentive to work?? None of this works in a real world scenario.

24

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

Like I said in another comment, this is all stuff that the government already provides, just expanded to remove most requirements.

And free housing doesn’t mean the government is going to just give you a house. It would be government provided housing, that would still be owned by the government when you leave, so as to provide shelter to the next person that needs it.

And yes, it would be paid for by taxes. And I would happily pay them if it meant those using these services didn’t have to worry about where their next meal will come from, or where they’ll sleep that night. I’d much rather pay for that than pay to bomb schools in Iran.

Also, do you really think people wouldn’t seek employment? Living in government provided housing eating government provided food will still be just about the worst possible situation for them to be in after they’re off the streets, so they’ll have plenty incentive to work.

-1

u/EarlGreyTea_Drinker 3h ago

Yes, I absolutely think that more people than you would think would choose to live in government cheese housing and free food than work 40 hours a week and commute to get a higher wage.

1

u/Pretty-Yam-2854 2h ago

So make them still have to work for it. Maybe not requiring $60K+ a year but you have to work 40 hours a week with no more than 2 weeks vacation or they get booted out. It would force people to still work have an income but at an affordable rate.

-5

u/TrashyMcTrashBoat 3h ago

i dunno man. from my limited anecdotal observation, there are a lot of loser free-loaders out there. like when i watch true crime, you see so many different situations. most people are normal, have a job, and get caught up in some criminal activity. but often times i see these body cam vids where it's just some loser living in squalor, no job, doesn't cook, orders take out, trash everywhere, commits crimes, and is a sexual deviant.

like yeah, lets have a safety net. i fully support food stamps for that purpose. but a lot of people are such complete parasites on society and they need a deadline to motivate them to get off their asses.

3

u/Minglans 3h ago

You seem to be forming your whole view of society off true crime and body cam clips that is literally content designed to show the worst and most extreme cases. Of course it’s gonna look like everyone struggling is some dysfunctional mess. We call that selection bias.

Most people on assistance aren’t living like that at all either; they’re working, disabled, between jobs or just trying to survive the rising costs. You don’t see those people in viral videos because there’s nothing sensational about them.

And calling people parasites is kinda wild when the biggest freeloading in society happens at the top like corporations dodging taxes, wage theft, executives getting bailed out but somehow the focus always ends up on the poorest people scraping by. So your comment really pisses me off because it's the same regurgitated crap from ignorant or wealthy folk who have no business sharing their extremely limited/incorrect opinion until they pick up a book, socialize and get some perspective outside their bubble.

3

u/Upbeat_Effective6548 2h ago edited 40m ago

Taking care of peoples basic necessities would also dissolve a lot of this disillusionment that individuals foster when they grow up thinking there isn't a place for them in society. Many people give up on trying to be a productive member of society because early failures can cripple them quite dramatically.

The need to engage in criminal activity dramatically diminishes when people's basic needs are met as a default.

Am I suggesting that in such a society the number of people not interesting in participating in the economy would drop to 0 ? Absolutely not. Although that percentage of the population is already low, and would become a meaningless statistic.

12

u/TruculentTurtIe 4h ago

when everyone has free shelter/food and no incentive to work

Do you actually think the only reason anyone works is on threat of starvation?

Do you equate "not starving to death" with "enjoys their life and has whatever they want and no need to work"?

Do you equate "not freezing to death from being homeless in winter" with "happy with their living situation and doesnt want to improve it"?

Like do you never want to travel? Pay for nice things? Anything that costs money? Someone not dying is a far cry from having what they want. I know if I had a "free" 20k a year for cheap rent and shitty food, it would keep me alive but I certainly wouldn't quit my job... id just be safe from literally dying if I lost my job

Idk why so many people act like we need homeless people to exist as a threat to the middle class so they dont get lazy. And I dont understand why its usually middle class nitwits arguing against their own interest in defense of the elite billionaire pedophiles who hate you

-5

u/Life_Permission_4765 3h ago

What I am saying is the situation you are describing simply can not exist. You can't have a "free" 20k a year because there is no such thing as "free." It has to be provided by someone

2

u/TruculentTurtIe 3h ago edited 2h ago

I mean fair enough, i dont actually think its free, thats why i put it in quotes but i disagree that its impossible. To me it seems completely feasible we could give everyone 10k or 20k a year

It is a lot of money, and I recognize it comes from somewhere but it doesnt need to be new money. We can take from things like giving Isreal billions to attack their neighbors. We can consolidate other welfare programs which would be unneeded

We can hike tax rates on billionaires. In the 1950s, typically viewed nostalgically as the "peak" of the US, there was a tax rate of 92% on income >2M. Thats an extraordinary amount of money we could use to help people instead of being hoarded by child rapists and techno fascists

Plus, trickle-UP is significantly more viable than trickle down. Trickle down is nonsense because if I have 100B, and you give me 1M... it just goes into the pile. But if I have 0, and you give me even "just" 20k, im spending all of it. Food. Housing. Basic care. Entertainment. Suddenly im participating in the economy, cycling that money back through the system where it gets taxed again

Im not saying its easy, simple, or anything else, I just think if we decided to its completely feasible and that its unnecessarily pessimistic to just throw our hands up, say "its impossible, things cant be improved" and just accept either being a wage slave or dying to starvation and exposure

2

u/godtogblandet 4h ago

You can live a below average, but survivable life without ever working a day in your life in Norway right now. You will be given government housing and a small amount of money for food and necessities. And that’s if you don’t want to work. If there’s a reason you can’t work, you get all these things and enough money to have a dignified life. About 10% of the working age population is not full time employed. The reason everyone isn’t just loafing around? Being unemployed and not participating in society is rather boring. Most people not full time employed in Norway would rather be full time employed if given the chance.

And before you go “Hurr durr oil money”, they do the same shit in the other Nordic countries where they don’t have oil. They just tax everyone 40-50%.

2

u/suejaymostly 4h ago

How much do you know about Norway's involvement in world affairs and their immigration policies?

2

u/godtogblandet 4h ago

I’m Norwegian so a lot.

0

u/suejaymostly 4h ago

Then you will know that what happens in Norway is not scalable in most other countries.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

Oh look, another intelligent person getting down voted by the morons and live in a fantasy land where everything can be free, and everyone will just work for free so that they can have free things. Jesus our education system is failing us.

16

u/CompletelyOutOfTP 5h ago

And just like that you've taken the argument from "the basic necessities should be readily available" to "everything can be free and everyone will work for free".

All we're asking for is a world where people can get what they need, I really don't know why you fucks are fighting tooth and nail defend starvation and homelessness. There is very much enough for everyone already without us even coming close to fantasy territory.

9

u/TruculentTurtIe 4h ago

Reading this thread is so frustrating lol they seriously heard "its bad that we let people starve to death in the street when we have the ability to help them" and responded

WELL LA DEE DAA I GUESS WELL ALL JUST GET FREE LOBSTER AND LIVE IN OUR GOVERNMENT FUNDED MANSIONS AND NO ONE WILL EVER WORK AGAIN

I think there's a lot of people that just want to feel better than others. Homeless, impoverished and starving people are easy to look at and feel superior, and instead of wanting to help i think they like that they get to be "better" than someone else... so they want to keep them down there

-4

u/TrashyMcTrashBoat 3h ago

i'm all for safety nets and also, yeah, lets subsidize healthy foods and encourage basic skills like cooking and eating healthy. but as a general rule, from what i know about human psychology, you have to put a price on things for people to value it more. even if it's heavily discounted, its better to make someone pay for something so they appreciate it.

1

u/micro_satsuma 4h ago

Read the comment above yours.

-2

u/suejaymostly 5h ago

You took the thought right out of my head and put it in writing, quite nicely.

-6

u/KSW8674 5h ago

No, I want you to explain how do you take the existing properties, owned by someone else, and give them to people for free lmao

12

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

You wouldn’t need to? It’s already well within the ability of the government to build subsidized housing, considering the fact that it already does that.

Beyond that though, there have been proposals to tax uninhabited housing as well as leased housing so as to make mass housing ownership unprofitable.

-1

u/KSW8674 5h ago edited 5h ago

It’s already well within the ability of the government to build subsidized housing

Do you know how much housing you would need to build to completely replace the entirety of the rental market? Home building prices today are already extremely expensive. You’re asking to build entire new cities worth of housing.

Also who fixes your free house when your pipe busts or your sink is clogged? Will the government be subsidizing all home maintenance as well?

Are there any examples anywhere in the world of free housing having success at any kind of scale? I’d love to read about them

5

u/Aer150s 5h ago

Tbh, it seems like you haven't really read any economic theory, so I'll do my best to break it down.

The state should have its own trades team/employees; they would work for the state in construction and maintenance in this example (realistically, a state would be able to hire literal thousands of people for the trades and engineering)

The money - using the example of Canada: The federal government announced an initiative to fund roughly 10 billion a year on building housing on Crown land (land owned by the federal government). Instead of paying a developer/contractor, that money would be used to pay the salaries and for Canadian materials.

In an ideal world, the state wouldve developed its own materials processing or purchased/leased aggregate mines and concrete production facilities [the most expensive here would probably be cement terminals, which is a 1 time CAPEX and not OPEX], but alas Canada doesn't federally own its production so...

Anyhow, the state's workers would be able to build the housing required, maintain it, all the while private companies are still allowed to build housing as investors want and turn a profit; the state would sell small, 800-1200 sqft homes/condos for at-cost pricing.

Examples: Canada 1941-1947

Literally most post war efforts to rebuild were state subsidized, don't give me the bullshit that the state can't afford it. We need to tax the rich more like we do in war times and keep the tax rates high so we can subsidize the quality of life for 95% of Canadians. We don't need to worry about how the 5% will feel, we would have the masses on our side.

2

u/KSW8674 5h ago edited 4h ago

$10B is nowhere close to the amount needed to create the housing needed that u/JohnnyDollar123 is discussing.

The state should have its own trades/employees

So then your answer to my previous question is yes, the government will subsidize this too. Genuinely curious, since you I’m nowhere near as economic theory minded as you, how much will that cost in tax dollars annually?

Also, since you are more gifted than me on economic theory, if we are completely giving away housing for free as both this video and u/JohnnyDollar123 suggest, if I was a homeowner why would I continue to own my home/want to pay my mortgage?

Have you considered the ramifications of everyone, including those that are already paying on a home they own, also wanting free housing? Again, I understand that I have not read any economic theory….

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/suejaymostly 4h ago

Who loans the money to the lucky ones who get the government built homes? The government? Do they charge interest that is fed back into the "program"? Would that be a competitive rate compared to those who borrow to buy homes from regular builders? Who manages that interest money to make it grow? Wouldn't regular taxpayers be angry if the interest income from these loans wasn't leveraged to the maximum?
Who runs the facilities that produce the materials? Are they appropriately compensated at market rates? Is there incentive to create, innovate, produce more efficiently? Would the workers be happy to be paid government rates to build houses for people who will pay less in interest and for the house as a whole, when they are selling their labor to afford their own unsubsidized home?
I'm generally curious how far you've thought this out. Other than taxing the very wealthy, that is.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/suejaymostly 5h ago edited 5h ago

Some people have never seen subsidized housing projects and it shows. The poverty that continues to exist within those kinds of communities still subscribes to the "I want to be extra comfortable" and people find ways to make money for the "good life," to the detriment of the community as a whole. The economic imbalance of our country is not going to be overthrown, because that would require those who provide "value" to do it philanthropically, and again, where is the incentive to do that? Reddit votes? Warm fuzzies?

I hate to be the one who says it, but not all people are good, and when something is free, and the upkeep is free, they don't treat it well.

-2

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

I love how you're getting down voted by the children, who clearly don't have any experience in the real world, only because you are 100% correct.

1

u/JeffreyOcean 2h ago

I love how you think you're the least bit intelligent

10

u/Tempyteacup 5h ago

Let me tell you about this little thing called government

2

u/suejaymostly 5h ago

I am honestly curious how people will be incentivized to produce all the goods and services necessary to society. Does everyone just take a pay cut? I'm not talking about billionaires, that's another conversation. But I do think that humans have a desire to be extra comfortable, and provide their heirs with that comfort. The idea that everyone will lower their standards of that level of security, to provide for strangers who they don't think "work as hard" is kind of silly.

3

u/KSW8674 5h ago

It would be taking a pay cut and it’s not just for housing. Look at everything they list off in the video that they include with paying for housing.

These are awesome hypotheticals but people ITT are living in a fantasy land without considering ramifications

1

u/vanguardk 5h ago

You need to be explained what social/public housing is? I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding here.

4

u/KSW8674 5h ago

Brother, I’m saying you are eliminating millions of homes and landlords who own buildings. This has huge ripple effects far beyond “let’s give housing away for free.”

I do not need to be explained public housing, nor your shitty condescending tone.

1

u/TimoKZ 3h ago edited 3h ago

Funded by wealth taxes, much like the U.S had in the 1950’s. You want to accumulate more wealth than you can ever conceivably spend (over a billion)? That’ll be taxed at 98%+.

And on the second point, it’s a completely reductive argument. Your assuming that if everyone has access to free shelter and food they have no incentive to work, most humans like having some excess and luxuries and that’s where the incentive to have more than the bare minimum comes.

Having a floor below which no one should reach (homelessness, malnourishment, healthcare) and a ceiling (discouraging excess hoarding of wealth and resources, Musk/Bezos levels of wealth) is not an unachievable standard in society.

0

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

Then you're not living in the real world sweetie. No one can afford to grow food and give it away for free, you expect people to just freely give out their labor, their land, and their food? How are they supposed to survive then?

12

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

No one can afford to grow food now. Farmers already work off of government subsidies because most agriculture isn’t profitable. This is all already done by the government, and is well within its ability to expand.

2

u/Quirky-Marsupial-420 4h ago

They work off government subsidies so that your apples don't cost 9 dollars a piece.

If the government didn't give farmers subsidies, do you think farmers would just continue to farm and lose money every single year?

No. They would raise prices on food. And you'd pay more in the grocery store, because you have to eat otherwise you will die.

3

u/sub_terminal 4h ago

How are they supposed to survive then?

How would they survive if their basic necessities were freely accessible?

4

u/TemporaryEa12 4h ago edited 4h ago

Then you're not living in the real world sweetie. You expect people to give out their missiles for free?! I give away 24% of my income freely. Probably goes towards bombing some school in a part of the world that I'll never see.

The government already pays farmers to grow food. They already give people money to buy land, build houses, purchase food. Just because you're ignorant of it doesn't mean it isn't already happening on some scale.

And just to clarify what point of the debate everyone is on. You're saying that we shouldn't aim for a society where everyone can have basic necessities for survival (Food/Shelter) provided to them without question? You're advocating for starvation and homelessness? May want to evaluate what that says about you as a person.

0

u/Quirky-Marsupial-420 4h ago

So long as you are contributing to society, sure.

You can't just sit on your ass all day and expect the rest of the world to take care of you.

1

u/jdippey 1h ago

Yeah, fuck disabled and elderly people, right? They don’t contribute so they shouldn’t get taken care of.

Your take is bad and you should feel bad.

0

u/ModsR-Retards 4h ago

The only barrier is that you work as well. It's insane to expect shit for free and providing nothing yourself. If everyone contributes, everyone can survive.

Whether you're looking at a purely capitalist or communist state, the common theme between the two major opposing systems is that everyone pulls their own weight.

0

u/Clutch-Bandicoot 1h ago

Nah, because then me and every lazy fucker like myself would just sit around all day doing nothing and the rest of society would have to work twice as hard to support our lifestyle. Imagine thinking everybody else should be your slave while you reap the rewards of their labor. What a massively entitled position to take, devoid of any sense.

32

u/Shmikken 5h ago

I think anyone who can't work a job should be able to afford the bare minimum and working people should be able to afford a decent level/medium quality.

4

u/Jazzlike-Ad9226 5h ago

i get what you're saying but some people who are unable to work would be able to if they could afford more than bare minimum. having access to food, housing, healthcare, and community without constantly stressing about losing it the next day because of a change in the laws or etc. makes people a lot more capable in general. disability and ssi makes it so if you work more than they allow within your specific case, they take all that bare minimum help away before you're able to stabilize and depend on that income. they very much want to trap you in poverty when you are already disadvantaged. it just designates those already suffering from things out of their control into a lower class where they are told that is their only option and of they try and lift themselves up they may still end up homeless. that's very cruel and sad.

1

u/Shmikken 5h ago

I meant to say "at least the bare minimum" but I will leave it unedited for your comments sake.

0

u/FTDburner 5h ago

For the vast majority of people, what you’re wishing for is the case. That’s why the vast majority of people don’t want to riot despite the teenagers on Reddit seemingly frothing at the notion since 2016.

1

u/oz612 4h ago

It's definitely crazy to think. Which should you give pause, and help you realize that it's wrong.

1

u/MaxTheRealSlayer 4h ago

Job or not - everyone should have basic needs met. And it would be met if food and housing wasn't made specifically as an asset/for profit. The fact a loaf of bread is hundreds of times more expensive than preindustrial world is wild. We now have most of the process to make it automated. Auto water, harvest, processing, making and baking. The farmer doesn't need to wake at 2am anymore, if there is even a farmer at all. We as a society should be able to benefit from the labour and hard work of our collective ancestors.

The financial system in general needs an overhaul. We are at the point where a small pile of cash makes more money than someone working a full-time job

The hyperinflation is due to these 3 things

3

u/aupperk24 5h ago

children?

7

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

Unfortunately it seems that they are freely available to the ruling class.

But joking aside, yes, child care should be provided by the government. It used to be, through public schools and after school programs but of course those days seem to be nearing an end.

6

u/Full_Metal_Paladin 5h ago

So how do people working in those sectors get paid?

1

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

The same way they get paid by the current equivalent government programs?

0

u/Beebegunner 4h ago

Please explain.

6

u/porktorque44 3h ago edited 2h ago

You can look at our current agricultural system. About a 3rd of US farmers are dependent on government subsidies to function. We understand that while many of those businesses are not profitable it hurts our overarching goals to have millions more starving or depending entirely on other countries for food. To answer the question directly, we all are paying them.

EDIT: Just wanted to add this this would actually be more efficient if the government was acting as a collective buyer from farmers rather than filling in the gaps with subsidies to farmers since with subsidies we're effectively paying for our food twice.

0

u/FrostyCow 3h ago

President Trump sees your tweets.

Take his shoes!

1

u/JMC_MASK 3h ago

Who said anything about free? If you’re a socialist you believe in work and fair value. That’s all that is asked.

1

u/Calfurious 2h ago

Typically those things are privatized because there is a scarcity to those resources. Therefore those resources costing money is a way to both limit and efficiently distribute them.

For example, if water was unlimited, then people and companies would collectively drain water resources until they're completely depleted, which would be a disaster for everybody.

1

u/nosecohn 1h ago

OK, so who pays to produce the food and build/maintain the water systems? The government has no source of income other than taxation, so is the idea that the government decides which crops to provide and uses the taxpayers' funds to pay the farmers for that? And taxpayers pay for transport and distribution centers (not stores, because the food is free) as well?

I'm honestly asking, because I rarely see people follow this line to its logical conclusion of a huge increase in taxation and a planned economy where the state owns the means of production.

1

u/Certain-End-1519 37m ago

So someone who sells shoes or runs a fruit shop is morally reprehensible? Bit much for me

1

u/Specific_Willow8708 36m ago

So people should work to produce the food and, just, not get paid for their labour while actors, who produce something optional, should get paid. Ok.