• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

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

            • GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              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?

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                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.