https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/16pubsd/elderly_father_was_convinced_to_sign_over_the/
This fuckhead is probably only mad about it because he wants it for inheritance.
Why is an elderly man with memory loss depending on parasitism for income? He should be receiving assistance from the state, his old job, and/or children. Capitalists show this type of shit to me and smugly stand there waiting for me to admit that they are moral and upstanding people.
his old job
He should be collecting a pension from all those years working at the land factory
Just because he owns rental property now doesn’t mean it was always the case. The average American dreams of being and landlords for passive income when they become old because retirement benefits are a joke
The average American dreams of becoming the ultimate parasite throughout their entire life. Landlord is next to giving up for them.
Read the first paragraph and thought this was going to be some predatory scam company robbing a mentally unsound old man of his home and thought "What the fuck, why would you laugh at that"
Then I read the rest and was like
man who lives in this rental property convinced him to to sign over the deed to the rental house
Based, landlords like the Reddit thread’s OP deserve :gulag:
Nah this aint the take here, yeah landlord bad but with no social safety net what can the elderly man actually do otherwise?
Execute his will’s provisions now while he’s still alive and live off the state and any remaining Social Security checks. US policy only really gives help when you’ve finally ran out of money…
I would not want to live off of United States social security if I had severe short term memory loss
The alternative for the market is just someone else probably renting the building out anyway. Would rather have a disabled old man as a landlord than some corporate slime
disabled old man as a landlord
Perhaps, but what happens when he passes away?
ghoul son takes over sure but I still think it's bad to con a disabled person out of their only viable income...
Why is this random stranger expected to support this old man until death instead of the old man's family or the government? Its on them to figure out a way to support the old man now that he can't extort someone for a living. Like what are they even offering this guy in exchange for taking care of their father? Nothing but litigation? Guess the old man wasn't that important.
The government should be supporting him. There should a good enough system in place that it's normal to care for our elders. That is not the reality.
Old man is a tiny part of a vast system. Yeah, fine, we can be scientific Marxists and outline the implicit relationships going on here, or we can be compassionate leftists and see that this clearly is a weird hill to die on.
In my eyes, if you're living with a serious disability in a nation where there is a terrible social safety net then hey, fuck it, landlord a small property. I don't really care. I've got bigger shit to fry. There will never be a ruling disabled class.
true, just wondering if the ex landlord got another chunk of money for the deed or not, but it doesn't really matter
Here it is disabled old man as landlord, or owning the goddamn house yourself though.
Does something immoral become moral because a disabled person is doing it? Wouldn't tricking an able bodied/minded landlord into giving up their property be good? Or do you think we have to just be better than our enemies at all moments?
Landlords delenda est
Does something immoral become moral because a disabled person is doing it? Wouldn't tricking an able bodied/minded landlord into giving up their property be good? Or do you think we have to just be better than our enemies at all moments?
The weird thing about morality is that depending on the circumstances, the same action can become more or less justified.
An able-bodied landlord, at worst, would still be able to get a job like the rest of us. This man is entirely dependent on the income the property provides and has no way to augment his income at this point. The stock market is also unethical, would you feel the same if his 401k got signed over to someone? The answer is the dissolution of these predatory means of ownership while ensuring a good standard of living for everyone. Not taking an disabled, eldery man's main source of income for your personal gain.
The tenant is not some hero of the working class fighting against the landlords. They're most likely some shithead swindler who would have stolen someone's primary residence if they thought they could get away with it.
Why are we believing the best in the landlord's kid and the worst in the tenet? If we are believing someone is acting in bad faith, why chose the exploited and not the exploiter?
I just think this rigidity is pointless and feels like leftist internet edgelording. The disabled elderly man will be rendered helpless. He's taken a source of income that fits his means in a barbaric system. I don't see a viable alternative, really. Short term memory loss. That's severely debilitating.
Maybe he did it back when landlording wasn't his only means of income - I don't know. It doesn't matter to me because he probably wasnt educated about why landlording is exploitative. It's sadly a normal thing to do, and sort of a natural reaction to alienation from normal labour for many people who again, are totally uneducated on the topic and inundated in capitalist realism. The chances are, elderly man was and is just some guy. Not inherently evil, and in my eyes deserving of compassion. It doesn't sound like he owns a whole raft of properties.
Landlord delenda est but this particular one I have sympathy for.
No, we don't have to better than our enemies in all moments. I don't have a civility fetish. This is a fringe case.
Not begrudging him taking an abusive method of getting money is one thing, but acting like he should beyond that be insulated from any consequences of that abuse, even a relatively mild consequence that doesn't involve him losing the home he lives in, is ridiculous. If he wants to play the game and make enemies, that is his fucking choice.
this is a lot of sticking up for landlords for someone with Mao in their name
Just pretty weird to me for a person with Mao in their name to be defending a landlord, any landlord. If the man is truly that disabled, let his kid sell the man's house and put him in a rest home of decent repute, or move him in with them.
To be honest I don't even think Mao would've been appalled by this landlord. Rogue take I know, but read up on accounts of landlords in 50's China. Enslaving, raping, pillaging, torturing. Compare what they do to what this old man is doing. I don't even think rural peasants in the throes of revolution would've considered killing this defenseless old man.
If they dispossessed him of his house - well, alright - the conditions in which landlording has become normalized have now changed. It's fair. I just think this is not one of those scenarios, and the guy who stole the house off him probably isn't some epic internet leftist. Probably just a generic swindler.
Correct. If I somehow had the chance to persuade Biden to leak state secrets while he was sundowning, I would.
An elderly man with severe short term memory loss and one extra property is not even close to the same as Joe Biden and national security secrets.
I know you're sort of doing a bit, but that's a bad comparison. Of course I would con an establishment warhawk rapist out of national security secrets. I would not steal a house outright off an elderly man with short term memory loss.
Class antagonism applies in both cases, and when we have a means to benefit as a class, we should leverage it to the hilt. This dude seems to have several extra properties, but if it was just the one, then congratulations to him, he gets to be a prole like the rest of us and receive that level of consideration. Perhaps he should have asked the renter why they were in the situation they were in first.
As long as the landlord chooses to obstruct progress, he has made his bed and he can lie in it. We should not systemically discriminate against people with dementia, but not using a concrete practical advantage that you have over someone in terms of functional competence, whether the senile, confused codger is a landlord or the President, is bullshit moralism. If someone is on a crutch and threatening someone else with a weapon, you can be damn sure that I'm kicking it out from under them unless they can be talked down. That such an action could be confused by fools for ableism is of no interest to the person being threatened.
We have no choice but to live in brutal capitalism, and we must brutally use it or else abstain all the way to the grave knowing that we failed to improve the world but at least were able to save the very people fucking us over from getting hurt by the consequences of their own fucking actions.
If a disabled man is fucking someone over, they better be prepared to get fucked over by their victim.
Yes, but are they fucking them in some crazy way, or is this old man just doing what is often done by people are capable of it?
With severe short term memory loss, I would say this is a fringe case where landlording is fair enough.
Maybe he did it back when landlording wasn't his only means of income - I don't know. It doesn't matter to me because he probably wasnt educated about why landlording is exploitative. It's sadly a normal thing to do, and sort of a natural reaction to alienation from normal labour for many people who again, are totally uneducated on the topic and inundated in capitalist realism. The chances are, elderly man was and is just some guy. Now he's some guy with no alternative means of income possible. Not inherently evil, and in my eyes deserving of compassion. It doesn't sound like he owns a whole raft of properties.
A lot of excuses. I can't help think of the tenant who doesn't have a choice either. To pay the rent or become homeless but the tenant ain't potat, smolbean.
Yes, but the tenant, to my knowledge does not have short term memory loss. That is the key difference for me. They seem to be capable of working a normal job.
Slaves using their elderly slaver's dementia to their advantage is bad if slavery is normal in that society, I guess
What is this take? He can do the same as anyone in his position who doesn't own an extra house does. Why should some random person be expected to support him? The tenant could do more good donating the rent money to a charitable organization helping elderly in need - but then we should ask why we're asking that of that tenant specifically. We don't know what the elderly man's financial situation looks like but it's obviously not the tenant's responsibility to support him.
What is this take? He can do the same as anyone in his position who doesn't own an extra house does.
This is only really available in hindsight. The old man doesn't have the time nor money to figure out a new retirement strategy, especially if a rental property was just signed over. The best situation would be to sell the house and hopefully live off the investment from that until he passes. What's not good is is removing a source of retirement income from someone when they don't have a fallback.
Removing landlords as an occupation while ensuring a minimum standard of living is good. Swindling an old man out of his retirement plan for personal gain and possible throwing him into the streets without a safety net is not.
Absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying we shouldn't free elderly people's slaves because they need them to care for them. The elderly man isn't going to be "thrown into the streets" because he already has a home. Again, you have no basis to assume that this is his only source of income or that he doesn't have sufficient savings. He at the very least has family, like the person who made this post.
And what about the tenant? For all we know they could be elderly and disabled too, only they weren't rich enough to "plan for retirement" by setting up a situation where they can steal rent from someone else. They could be saddled with medical debt, they could be a single mother trying to support a family, if you get to speculate about the landlord's situation then I get to speculate about the tenant's.
Completely bizarre pro-landlord takes on Hexbear, can't believe what I'm seeing. It's not the tenant's responsibility.
The elderly man isn't going to be "thrown into the streets" because he already has a home. Again, you have no basis to assume that this is his only source of income or that he doesn't have sufficient savings. He at the very least has family, like the person who made this post.
Property taxes, medical expenses, etc etc. Being retired and owning a home doesn't mean you suddenly stop having to pay for things. They presumably live in shithole america where if you don't have the money to retire when you get older you just die in the streets. It's very reasonable to assume that if a significant source of your income disappeared overnight you wouldn't be in a great place.
And what about the tenant? For all we know they could be elderly and disabled too, only they weren't rich enough to "plan for retirement" by setting up a situation where they can steal rent from someone else.
Even in this situation, it would just be someone poorer fucking over someone else for personal gain. Stocks are unethical too, but if your retirement account was stolen by someone to pay for their medical expenses you'd still feel it unjustified. Landlords as a class should be eliminated, but that doesn't mean literally senile landlords should be left with no safety net.
It's not the tenant's responsibility.
It's an unequal exchange that could end up in the elderly man losing his home due to loss of income. If the tenant had paid the cost of the house in rent, you'd be more justified in thinking this. If the tenant had only been living there for a few years, then it's a different story. You don't get to play "not my responsibility" when one party is directly responsible for the state of the other.
if your retirement account was stolen by someone to pay for their medical expenses you'd still feel it unjustified.
Which is exactly why I don't approve of the landlord stealing rent.
You don't get to play "not my responsibility" when one party is directly responsible for the state of the other.
Oh, I didn't realize the tenant was the one collecting property taxes, causing the landlord's disabilities, or crafting policy such that they wouldn't have a safety net.
The tenant is not directly responsible for the landlord's state. He's just not relieving the landlord's state by giving him money out of his own pocket. He is no more responsible for giving him money then you are. You could track down the user and offer to venmo them every month, and the fact that you're not doing so makes you exactly as "directly responsible" for his state as the tenant's actions.
It is like comunism has a specific bias against rent seeking behavior and the system of lordship that still remains as a remnant fo the feudal order.
That's not comparable. The 401k is not extracting value from one specific person who could then end that exploitation by obtaining it, like what's happening here.
I have no idea how you're getting that from that. Obviously the sentence is a grammatical mess but the fact that income, property, house, etc are singular implies that you're wrong.
You're just trying to force that interpretation to try to win an argument lol.
Also, note that giving away the property disqualifies the old man from Medicaid coverage of long-term care (care he will need imminently, it sounds like): https://www.medicaidplanningassistance.org/medicaid-look-back-period/
In other words, it's the system that has to change. Not individual situations.
Again not the tenant's fault. Agree it's the system that has to change, not the tenant's actions.
By one minute lol, sorry I didn't refresh my page.
Very normal response.
Removing landlords as an occupation while ensuring a minimum standard of living is good. Swindling an old man out of his retirement plan for personal gain and possible throwing him into the streets without a safety net is not.
Hahhhahbahahahahahahahahhajahahahajajajajjajajakjajajajka
Swindling an old man out of his retirement plan for personal gain and possible throwing him into the streets without a safety net is not.
If the old man is a landlord, yeah it is. It's the least he deserves.
yes haha funny but the conditions are clearly different, this guy owns one property compared to a farmstead with acres and slaves and the ability to kill or take your daughter's with impunity. If the state dispossessed the guy of his home to give him an actual social safety plan it would be completely fine.
So, in the meantime, it’s cool that the burden of paying for this man’s retirement plan is placed onto the proletarians who pay the rent?
If a homeless person were suddenly gifted the deed to a house, would it be okay if they started renting it out for passive income? After all, there’s no social safety net, and this is the one opportunity they’ve been granted to gain stability. What are they supposed to do? Not take advantage of that? Call me a utopian, but yeah, they shouldn’t.
Renting out a property simply shifts the burden that you take onto the less fortunate. It’s a fundamentally capitalist act. I’m not sorry for being a dick to this old man. If he planned to retire using the funds siphoned from people simply seeking shelter, he should have understood the inherent risks that come with such a plan and the burden he has thus shifted over to his tenants.
Finding yourself oppressed in a capitalist system is not some magical moral hand-wave that allows you to conscientiously take up the position of the oppressor. Is he a victim of circumstance? Maybe. Sucks for him. Shouldn’t have staked his retirement on landlordism
for me, it depends if the homeless person is capable of other work
I'll just leave it at personally it's not something I would be able to do unless the old man was a truly vile human.
I was told landlords did a lot of work to earn their money? If he's clearly well enough to do such intense labor like owning property then he must be in good mental condition.
Totally agree. But I wouldnt like it if someone misled my parents like this and took the house they actually live in, so I dont like this.
It was not depriving someone of ownership of the house they lived in but precisely the opposite of that, granting someone that ownership.
but then that would be a completely different situation. why would you expect people to feel the same way about a completely different situation?
Its the same principle. Personally Id make second homes illegal ...it destroys communities and takes housing stock from people that actually need it, but hey ho. Thatcher fucked us as well selling off council houses.
Now if you replace landlord with Jew, then think about it tankies
The problem is your orginal statement. "Wanting the law to be upheld only in situations you like" would cover your parents. A law system that would not invoke such a desire cannot exist in a society that still has landlords.
Yeah, we should ban landleeches. Unfortunately that wont happen cause money talks.
If only there was some other place besides money that political power could grow from
Who the fuck wants racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-worker capitalist laws upheld?
'The rule of law' is a cloud of toxic farts youve been sniffing your whole life while the ruling class hang out on their mega yachts and in their towers (breaking any and all 'laws' they want)
all landlords should be given the choice between immediate execution and having their property expropriated, and having their property expropriated
Who the fuck wants racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-worker capitalist laws upheld?
Not me. Do you?
‘The rule of law’ is a cloud of toxic farts youve been sniffing your whole life while the ruling class hang out on their mega yachts and in their towers (breaking any and all ‘laws’ they want)
Totally agree.
all landlords should be given the choice between immediate execution and having their property expropriated, and having their property expropriated
Thats fine. Everything youve said has fuck all to do with everything Ive said...
U said "u can't just not want the law to be upheld in some situations" so his question "do u want racist, sexist, etc laws to be upheld" Is a relevant question I am curious abt ur answer btw because uve given 2 seperate answers
We cant just want the law to be upheld in situations we like dude.
If your stance is the destruction of the state, then using or avoiding its legal system by whatever means necessary to further the project of undermining it is a coherent position.
You don't have some hot take. You have no idea what you're talking about. Literally no one here only wants renters to only take possession of their homes in special cases, nor do we give a fuck about laws that protect landlords.
Do you have no reading compreshension? Take the landlord element out of it.
Because I have reading comprehension I understand that you made am ambiguous statement. In my generosity I interpreted you as saying something much less dumb. If your take is that we need to obey the laws that benefit the rich and powerful because if we don't how are we going to enforce drunk driving or age of consent that's some real smooth brain shit.
So yeah sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt don't worry it won't happen again
Except that guy that now has a house because he gave up on your principles
Put your principals in one hand and shit in the other. Which one fills up faster?
Hey Kids...
Did you know that you just playfully touched a Important Subject there . Very Good !
Show
@SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee did you realize how @GarbageShoot@hexbear.net tried to diss your principle , because you can not touch it ?
this is because the Principle is "Inmaterial" , you can not touch it .
Wanna know how the Grownups call it ? "Superstructure"
and @GarbageShoot@hexbear.net he talked about Poop (hi hi). While you should not really touch it (ha ha ha) , if you want you could touch it.
thats because "Poop" is "Material", you can Touch it (and smell it even )
Show
all you can touch , we call "Base" .. and many discussions of the Grownup world are actually just the conflict beetween the "Ideal" (that you can not touch) and the "Real Shit" (that smells) this is called "Dialektiks"
Show
Get over yourself. I presented many actual arguments that you are here ignoring. There, I was just making a joke based on a popular adage ("Wish in one hand . . . ").
I'm 90% sure he believes he is moderating a debate between an idealist and a crass materialist.
hey i was on your side . i just wanted to ground the lemmy in theory.. sorry if thats was not clear.
I think it was actually a devastating burn to talk down to someone so hard you could have said the same thing to a 5 year old and they'd get something out of the experience
i even cropped those teacher images and now garbage shoot things it was friendly fire ...Sad me .. It was a killer post i think..
As the guy who wrote “what good is principal” and forgot to come back for four days, garbage shoot’s post and your reply were perfect. Truly could not have hoped for better.
This is so well written I can't disagree with it. My original concern still remains, however.
This particular property was neglected because I didn't know he owned it until I gained access to his accounts and saw the monthly rental payments
Oh I just forgot that I had a fucking deed and tenant lying around
/r/legaladvice
This sub is probably mostly cops and maybe some law students. Their takes are extremely pro cop and often objectively wrong. Actual lawyers would face getting disbarred for giving out anonymous advice on the internet, even if giving advice based on Reddit posts wasn't incredibly negligent in the first place.
My father's estate lawyers have been notified...
Then what the actual fuck are you doing on Reddit asking for legal advice? Talk to the qualified and trained professional, you idiot.
Redditors believe Redditors are the smartest group of people that exist that's why
This sub is probably mostly cops and maybe some law students.
From what I remember almost all of the moderation team are cops yeah.
Because when his land leech father lost the sons inheritance, his second most important thought was about the upvotes.
If memory serves, the head mod is a former cop, not a lawyer, and there’s been drama about them getting pissy when people point out their sage legal opinions are horseshit.
The funniest outcome of this would be the father putting his foot down and being all “Jim’s been a good tenant, he deserves that house more than my dead beat son!”
Maybe dad's just try to right his wrongs before he goes to meet his maker.
