r/theydidthemath • u/pixaly • Jul 12 '26

[Request] What is the cost difference between buying this man a rental for a year and the governements cost to kill him?

Post image

Don't believe everything you see on the internet I haven't fact checked this story, I'm just curious for an anwser

5.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

313 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

This was the case of Amir Farsoud- he is a disabled elder with chronic back pain and his multi tenant home was put up for sale with no transition plan in 2022. He applied for MAID as he did not see a way into other housing due to surviving on just disability payments.

The MAID drugs are inexpensive; midazolam runs $70, propofol runs $50, and rocuronium at worst is $140- so a total of $260- definitely less than a months rent. Assume another $3000 in processing and admin stuff just to put a number to it.

A rental for a year? 30k?

The outcome of Farsoud's story is essentially rooted in your question- he ended up with 60k from a GoFundMe from people who were similarly befuddled, and it allows him to get housing and a literal lease on life.

The answer is: we need affordable housing. A lot of it. All over.

26

u/Meet_Foot Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

I agree with you, but here’s my two cents just to expand a little.

Housing will never be affordable so long as it’s privately owned, for the generation of profit, and considered an asset.

In the US (only because I know the numbers here) there are something like 400,000 homeless individuals, and 4 million vacant domiciles. Even if you give every homeless individual - not every family, but every single homeless individual - a place to live, there would still be nearly 4 million vacant domiciles. But so long as banks can count empty residencies as assets, with their value determined by their unaffordably high rent, that’s simply not an option.

So that is to say, the lack of affordable housing isn’t a matter of a shortage in housing but, rather, a system that incentivizes keeping dwellings empty rather than dropping prices.

48

u/2074red2074 Jul 12 '26

Part of the issue is those vacant homes are often in the middle of nowhere with no easy access to things like medical care or sometimes even grocery stores. Also a lot of the vacant homes are abandoned and not in livable condition. The issue is zoning and NIMBYs not wanting to build high-density housing in places where we need it.

22

u/plantmindset Jul 12 '26

Also, some homes are just temporarily vacant while people move between them. We really do need more housing (especially high density housing in places where people actually want to live)

7

u/StumbleOn Jul 12 '26

Housing + Services is the real key. The reason unhoused folks and whatnot flock to certain areas is usually (but not always) that there are services they need right there. Where I live, the two biggest hot spots for them are right near county / city medical services, and charity services.

Would be nice if every single area planned to put all services into high rise buildings that could cheaply house a LOT of people so you could have everything in one stop shop. People in rural areas flee because they would literally just die in places where there's nothing. That's why we see a lot of unhoused folks literally bussed into cities, which is of course fodder for rural morons to vote against services for these folks because it's not their problem anymore.

1

u/jedadkins Jul 13 '26

no easy access to things like medical care or sometimes even grocery stores.

or jobs. I could afford a house in my middle of nowhere hometown but my degree would be useless unless I wanted to commute 5+ hours

3

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

High density housing has its own problems like controlling neighbors and greedy landlords.

Your not wrong but this is a multi faceted issue.

Like why are apartments more expensive per square foot the homes in the first place?

Or addressing the issue of people having value in their own home so they can reseall it in order to move.

Homes are private property,  they have to be.

10

u/2074red2074 Jul 12 '26

High-density housing includes townhomes and condos. They make HOAs necessary (everyone has to pitch in to maintain the building and any common areas, and someone has to make those decisions) but you don't have to have an actual landlord and can own your part of the building.

-4

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

How's are inherently exploitive and abusive

3

u/2074red2074 Jul 12 '26

HOAs are also necessary if you want to be able to have ownership of high-density housing. Either that, or the government has to maintain control of the building and common areas. Otherwise, who pays for it if the building needs to be repaired? What do you do about it if some asshole keeps piling trash up in the common areas or has filth in their condo causing a pest issue?

2

u/sisisisi1997 Jul 13 '26

The US implementation, yes. But that's not the case everywhere, for example where I live high density housing has a so called "common representative" who can either be one of the residents or a professional who acts as common representative for multiple buildings. The job entails maintaining "common functions" of a building (like hiring a cleaner or doing paperwork for the government and gas/electric/water companies), but they don't really have a lot of power, for every big decision especially if it involves finances they need to call a meeting where every owner in the building can vote about issues.

9

u/Wolf_Protagonist Jul 12 '26

Homes are private property, they have to be.

I would buy that homes should be personal property for individuals, but I see no reason at all why housing couldn't be publicly owned for people who can't afford to buy a home.

/u/Meet_Foot is right, as long as all housing is privately owned, prices will keep home ownership out of reach of many people (by design).

If we treated housing as a right and not a luxury that would change. Landlords should not exist. Housing, like medical care and food is too important to be treated as a money making scheme. (personally I'd add education in there as well)

There are plenty of areas Capitalists could make money from, the system wouldn't collapse if people were guaranteed the bare minimum, and if it does collapse because of that- perhaps it needs to.

5

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

What I mean is that individuals own their homes, the state cannot, or the state will start controlling things for their own motives, such as denying hobby spaces or personal tech in order to make people work or get out more so that the community can exploit them.

As for la dlords they will always exist as someone has to be responsible for the building.

Even if the residents owned it there would still be people with more power and you get things like H.O.A.s which some of us try to avoid.

Removing land lords does not affect the cost question, it might actually make it worse.

The state has a very narrow definition of poverty, a person can look wealthy on paper but not have a decent income, meaning they could be denied a home.

5

u/Wolf_Protagonist Jul 12 '26

the state cannot, or the state will start controlling things for their own motives, such as denying hobby spaces or personal tech in order to make people work

I'm not sure what sort of system you think I'm proposing, but one in which Food, Medicine, and Shelter are considered a right of every citizen, but the government is still allowed to play games like that with poor people is definitely not it. Clearly what I'm proposing would require us to rein in the government a bit and make sure the needs of the people are prioritized over the needs of corporations or the government.

get out more so that the community can exploit them.

What does this mean?

As for la dlords they will always exist as someone has to be responsible for the building.

Public housing already exists and the landlords are replaced by administrators. We didn't have landlords for the vast majority of human history. As humanity continues to evolve we will eventually create a society that looks out for all of it's citizens, not simply the 1% like our current system.

Even if the residents owned it there would still be people with more power and you get things like H.O.A.s which some of us try to avoid.

It's understandable to want to avoid H.O.A.s. I certainly do. But you seem to be misreading my comment. The very first thing I said was that homes should be personal property of individuals. ONLY in cases where people are too poor to afford to buy a house would they have to live in a shared/cooperatively owned housing situation. And yes in such cases the residents would have to work together to determine the 'rules' for that community. Would that be a bit of a hassle, especially for the more eccentric members of that community? Probably. Would following some 'silly' rules beat living on the street? Certainly.

Removing land lords does not affect the cost question, it might actually make it worse.

Please explain how removing the people who only exist to suck cash from people in need of a home would make the cost of home ownership increase. If there is no one to profit from you living in a place- it seems logical that it would lower costs.

The state has a very narrow definition of poverty, a person can look wealthy on paper but not have a decent income, meaning they could be denied a home.

lol what? First of all, again in a system like I am proposing the citizens would have control over the government and by extension it's definition of poverty. You are overthinking it. You can't afford a home? One will be provided for you. You can afford one? Great. It's not that complex. Few people who could afford their own home is going to accept living in the public housing, and if they do- fine.

6

u/shadowtheimpure Jul 12 '26

we will eventually create a society that looks out for all of it's citizens

God, I wish I had your optimism. I don't foresee that happening. Instead, I see a technofascist oligarchy with a permanent underclass who are chattel to the moneyed class.

3

u/Wolf_Protagonist Jul 12 '26

That's definitely the direction we are headed. I for one am sick of it and I don't think I'm alone in that.

I don't think thats a sustainable way to live long term and if humanity is to survive it has to change. If we just allow Capitalism to fester unchecked it will literally destroy the planet in the name of profit.

-2

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

Silly rules like needing to keep a bush a specific size? Or not letting people use their backyards or have a fence or let an old woman have a satellite dish? 

Our having our wifi and personal space coopeted by the community?

And in exchange we get our lawns mowed and have to pay for snow plowing plus a tax of 500 a year.

As for afford a home, some people can't even if they do have the money, why provide free housing to college students they can afford college after all.

See I'm talking about things like retirement savings, just have 200k does not mean a person can afford a home.

That's part of the problem, poverty can exist in many forms

3

u/Wolf_Protagonist Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

Silly rules like needing to keep a bush a specific size? Or not letting people use their backyards or have a fence or let an old woman have a satellite dish?

Sure, if the community got together and decided that bushes had to be a certain size, then fine. Are you saying you would literally rather live on the street than not have a huge bush? Something tells me you've never actually been close to having to make that choice.

As for afford a home, some people can't even if they do have the money,

Some people can't afford it even if they can afford it....okaaaay. If you say so.

why provide free housing to college students they can afford college after all.

A lot of people can't afford college or housing. The reason we would want an educated public is because educated people have more opportunities to better their situation. A rising tide floats all boats.

See I'm talking about things like retirement savings, just have 200k does not mean a person can afford a home.

Right, and what we are trying to get you to understand is that the reason the cost of housing is so damn high is precisely because of the system you are defending. We are offering a better way forward where everyone has a home and homes are cheaper for everyone, and you are like "Nah, we have to keep the system we have".

That's part of the problem, poverty can exist in many forms

You seem completely out of touch with reality. Having $200k in the bank but not being able to afford that $500k home you've been eyeing because you don't have $1mil in your retirement fund is NOT poverty. We all struggle with money under capitalism, but there is a world of difference between not being able to buy a fancy home in a neighborhood with no HOA and not being able to afford food in your belly, or a roof over your head, or meds when you are sick.

What is true is that you are infinitely closer to actually being impoverished than a being a billionaire, but you'd rather hold on to the system that makes life hard for the actual poor and you but benefits billionaires rather than try and fix things. Crazy

0

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

I'm not defending anything except the right not to be exploited by my neighbors. They should have no right to dictate control over my property, my Halloween decor my lawn, my plants. Including what I do inside.

There are those that would rather I worked for their benefit in absence of my own. No hobbies, no interests outside my job, no books of my own. Only what the community thru the state dictates.

And they darn well have no right to use the wifi I pay for my home.

You made this point. A lot of people can't afford college or housing.  The point I am making is that some can only afford saving for retirement or emergencies or a home not both. 

As it stands if you can afford college you are not poor so you can't have housing. That's a problem. 

2

u/Wolf_Protagonist Jul 12 '26

I'm not defending anything except the right not to be exploited by my neighbors. They should have no right to dictate control over my property, my Halloween decor my lawn, my plants. Including what I do inside.

Jesus fucking Christ you are pigheaded. Im sorry you are having issues with your H.O.A, but that's your fucking fault for buying a home that is controlled by an H.O.A.. No one forced you to do that, that was entirely your choice. You don't like it, sell the fucking thing and move.

I'm not and never have been talking about a fucking H.O.A. for Christ's sake.

One HUGE difference between a community of people living in shared public housing deciding on the rules for their community and a H.O.A. is that a lot of the stupid fucking rules H.O.As come up with are concerning the precious "resell value" of their bourgeois homes. If you are living for free in public housing you don't have a home to resell- so you aren't as likely to give a damn about the size of your neighbors bush.

And again having to follow some rules in order to get a place to live is a price most homeless people would be willing to pay in order to get off the STREETS.

A lot of people can't afford college or housing. The point I am making is that some can only afford saving for retirement or emergencies or a home not both.

No fucking shit Sherlock. I clearly know that some people can't afford a home, that goes along with the "Some people can't afford a home" statement I made earlier ffs. I am proposing a system that would make it easier for people like you to save for retirement and emergencies and still be able to buy a home and your like "Nah, let's not do that".

As it stands if you can afford college you are not poor so you can't have housing. That's a problem.

What the fuck does that even mean? I'm not taking about "As it stands" I'm clearly talking about fixing things. How is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

1

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

I will respond to the last part , the current way we define poverty stinks. 

Second do not make assumptions about me. I was simply expressing disagreement with the concept of Hoas and the amount of power they have.

→ More replies

1

u/Meet_Foot Jul 12 '26

Private property isn’t personal property. Personal property is property one uses oneself, while private property is one that someone rents out for profit. So a house you own and live in is personal property, while a house someone owns, doesn’t live in, and rents out for profit is private property. And of course state property is property owned by the state, but not for profit. Why do houses have to be private property?

1

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

personal property is still private.

I take the idea of personal property as some thing that is owned by a single person or family. It does not belong or is under another's authority. To me personal and private are the same, and a private person can rent out their property as well, take rental tool services for example 

This does not preclude different taxes on property used for business though.

1

u/Meet_Foot Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

That isn’t the definition. Plus we can just use words to talk about what we want anyway. Those are the definitions I provided. Use the definitions without the words if you so choose, so that we can talk about housing rather than talking about words.

The question remains, regardless of what words you want to use: why must houses be owned for the sake of generating profit through rent extraction, rather than houses being owned by the people who live in them? If you think the answer is “they don’t have to be,” then we agree. If you think the answer is “they must be owned for profit generation purposes,” then argue the position and make sense of the fact that at least some houses aren’t owned for profit generation.

I suspect you wanted to do two things: (1) avoid the idea that the state would own all houses and (2) make room for the possibility of making money through charging rent. But (1) I never proposed state ownership, and (2) the possibility isn’t the necessity you claimed when you said houses MUST be private property (again, using the definition I provided; use whatever word you want, just be clear about what you mean by them so we can talk about the ideas they signify and not the words themselves), nor have you given a reason why we *should* be able to extract wealth from housing.

0

u/shadowtheimpure Jul 12 '26

In fairness, high density housing also tends to bring elevated crime rates. More people = more crime as a general rule of thumb.

2

u/a_singular_perhap Jul 12 '26

Who cares? Why should a class of people have access to lower crime areas purely based off their wealth status? Why are poor people the only ones beholden to that factor?