this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
532 points (94.9% liked)

News

23397 readers
3427 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that.

This is fallacious and it plays into what I said. There is no follow-up on those people. You don't know if they would be worse off if they weren't helped.

He "built 100 houses and gave them away" earlier this year. Great. Is he going to pay to maintain those houses? Is he going to pay to insure them? Is he going to pay the property taxes? And, of course, now they're tied down to one specific area because they have a house and if they don't like their job and there isn't another job available? They're stuck.

Home ownership isn't necessarily cheaper or better than renting. They may very well have been better off before the IRS let them know what they owed for that house.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Can't they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money? Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc? Feels like it's hard to argue against giving people a free house.

That being said, if even a small part of what is being said about him is true, then he's a massive piece of shit.

I'd still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money?

Possibly. If they didn't sign some sort of contract agreeing not to do so and if there would be a market for that house. And then there's just the psychological burden of having to give up a free house because it turns out you can't actually afford to own a free house.

Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc?

That is not a simple thing. And it puts you legally on the line for a lot. That's why corporations tend to do it.

Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.

I can show you so many stories of people who inherit valuable things only to end up in more debt than they started with. Did MrBeast make sure all of those people actually were good at managing their money before he gave them a house? If they weren't, did he give them some way to become financially literate? We have no idea because he won't tell us. We also have no idea what will happen to these people and their houses in one year or five years or ten.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Fair enough, I see how it could all fall apart if not done properly. And based on what people are saying.. it's unlikely that he did things properly.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Maybe if it's just me, but if you're unable to do the research to become financially literate after being gifted a $200k investment for free... I'm not really going to turn your problems into ill will for the person that gave it to you. Library's are free.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Lots of people "do the research" on such things and end up becoming things like sovereign citizens.

That's the problem with doing your own research with no one to guide you. That's especially dangerous in areas like financial literacy.

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

Most of those “houses” were three room shacks in third world countries. No way they were worth 200k. They were roofs over peoples’ heads yes, but not investment vehicles.

And please, explain to a war ravaged town in sub-saharan africa financial literacy. See how that goes.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

I'd still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.

And that's pretty much my argument.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting.

If you're given a house, paying property taxes and insurance is almost certainly better and cheaper than renting.

I agree with your other points and overall with your perspective, but not this one.

Typical property taxes run about 1-2% of the home's overall value. Unless they were all given multi-million dollar mansions they'll be paying like 2-4k a year in property taxes. That's far less than the cost of renting a place of equivalent size basically anywhere. You can probably afford basic homeowner expenses on a job at McDonald's if you own your place outright.

[–] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

And in a lot of states you don’t need full home owners insurance if you own the place. Would be even easier to live in a home on a McD’s job.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Well they are not forced to keep the house. They can sell it, or if they don't want it at all, they can give it away. But then why did they sign up for it in the first place?

You are saying as if they were forced against their will to get a free house.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Would you say no to a free house? People do things against their interest all the time.

You also don't know that they weren't required to hold on to the house for a certain amount of time in order to accept the house. I would be surprised if there weren't such conditions. Maybe you are financially literate enough to turn down a deal like that, they aren't necessarily.

They're also only one job loss away from a tax lien against the house they thought they could afford to live in because they got it for free.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You also don't know they weren't given ongoing support. We can both play this game.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why wouldn’t that be made clear?

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because an 8 part youtube series with 7 parts detailing their monthly budget and giving the update, "yeah, they still own the house" doesn't get views or make money?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Maybe it could have been made clear before the house was given to them in the first place? Game shows have to put all the catches in fine print when they give prizes. Mr.Beast doesn't do that.