• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maximum Rent?

Lursa said:
The poster is on the record claiming that landlords do almost nothing but sit back and collect $$.

Many many times. He claims we're leaches on society and provide/perform no useful labor or services to society.
Click to expand...

We had a legitimate disagreement. There's no need to be disingenuous about my arguments, except to score cheap points.
 
Lutherf said:
I think the point is that these things have a price on them to begin with. If I understand the argument correctly, food, shelter and medical care are all necessities of life and should be provided freely to all who need them.
Click to expand...

Freely? Who made that argument?
 
tecoyah said:
Which is why our current system is in place......people choose what they can afford and prices are set by property type, location and quality.
Click to expand...

Is your argument that people are simply choosing to spend half of their income on shelter? Do you think Americans are just stupid? That there is no fundamental problem?
 
Stealers Wheel said:
I think the OP would be wise to read up on some relatively recent history. During the Nixon administration, they came up with a terrific idea to counter inflation: Pass a law against it. This became known a Nixon's Wage and Price Controls. The basic idea was simply make it illegal for anyone to raise their retail prices and make it illegal to increase wages. A simply concept that was an unmitigated disaster for the economy.

If I have a mortgage on a house that I want to rent, I have to know how much I need to charge in rent in order to make it financially feasible to do so. If I have to rent to someone who can't meet my minimum requirements, I can't rent it. And, if I do rent it to someone, and their income goes down, do I also have to lower their rent accordingly? My mortgage obligation isn't going to change, is it? The bank is still expecting the agreed upon payment, right? If a landlord cannot predict how much rent he will collect in any given month based on your OP scenario, rental properties would be a terrible investment.

The fed tweaking interest rates (making it more or less expensive to borrow money) is pretty much the extent that the government ought to be involved in manipulating the economy.
Click to expand...

Do you also argue that the government has no role to play when unemployment is consistently high? During the depression, unemployment was at 15% for nearly 10 years. We shouldn't do anything about it? And if homelessness is increasing and rents are out of reach? Just let it be?

Why?
 
eohrnberger said:
If the government passes rent cost control legislation, wouldn't you end up with a housing market like NYC?
Click to expand...

It's great for those who have the rent controlled units. The rest of their market is like any other big city in this country.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Hell, that's not even legal today. Although Trump's dad was notorious for it.

But what happens if say a couple 'qualifies' for the asking rent, but then one of them loses their job? Do they automatically get their rent reduced?
Click to expand...

You can absolutely turn people away today if they can't afford the rent. Where did you hear otherwise?
 
phattonez said:
It's great for those who have the rent controlled units. The rest of their market is like any other big city in this country.
Click to expand...

In order for the housing market to correct itself, all rent controls should be vacated and rescinded all at the same time, with perhaps a phased in approach, so as not to shock the market into over reacting.
I'd bet that within 6 months to a year the housing market would have normalized itself to actual market values again, rather than the government enforced distortions.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
I think the OP would be wise to read up on some relatively recent history. During the Nixon administration, they came up with a terrific idea to counter inflation: Pass a law against it. This became known a Nixon's Wage and Price Controls. The basic idea was simply make it illegal for anyone to raise their retail prices and make it illegal to increase wages. A simply concept that was an unmitigated disaster for the economy.

If I have a mortgage on a house that I want to rent, I have to know how much I need to charge in rent in order to make it financially feasible to do so. If I have to rent to someone who can't meet my minimum requirements, I can't rent it. And, if I do rent it to someone, and their income goes down, do I also have to lower their rent accordingly? My mortgage obligation isn't going to change, is it? The bank is still expecting the agreed upon payment, right? If a landlord cannot predict how much rent he will collect in any given month based on your OP scenario, rental properties would be a terrible investment.

The fed tweaking interest rates (making it more or less expensive to borrow money) is pretty much the extent that the government ought to be involved in manipulating the economy.
Click to expand...

Maybe of you would be required to lower the rent of the tennents income goes down, maybe the bank should be required to lower the mortgage payment if your income goes down.

I wonder how much chaos that would cause to the economy.
 
Grand Mal said:
No problem for us. Would have been one less house in the rental market is what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

And one more for purchase. So like I said, how is this a problem with the proposal?
 
eohrnberger said:
In order for the housing market to correct itself, all rent controls should be vacated and rescinded all at the same time, with perhaps a phased in approach, so as not to shock the market into over reacting.
I'd bet that within 6 months to a year the housing market would have normalized itself to actual market values again, rather than the government enforced distortions.
Click to expand...

These are a lot of platitudes, not arguments. None of this has any argument to support it.
 
Mason66 said:
Maybe of you would be required to lower the rent of the tennents income goes down, maybe the bank should be required to lower the mortgage payment if your income goes down.

I wonder how much chaos that would cause to the economy.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about mortgage payments. This is exclusively for rent.
 
Tying rent directly to household income like that would just cause widespread discrimination on the basis of income. Why would I ever rent a unit out to someone that would force me to lower the payments?
 
Deuce said:
Tying rent directly to household income like that would just cause widespread discrimination on the basis of income.
Click to expand...

And this isn't already done?
 
phattonez said:
Not entirely. There are only so many people with an income of $6000 per month.



And what would happen with those rental units?
Click to expand...

They would either sit vacant for a while or be subdivided into two units renting for $1000/month each.
 
phattonez said:
And this isn't already done?
Click to expand...

It would increase the problem. Two applicants apply. One makes 50k. The other makes 60k. Why would I choose the former when I can charge the latter more money?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They would either sit vacant for a while or be subdivided into two units renting for $1000/month each.
Click to expand...

Doubtful that they would sit vacant. The latter is very likely to happen.

So how is this worse than the status quo?
 
Deuce said:
It would increase the problem. Two applicants apply. One makes 50k. The other makes 60k. Why would I choose the former when I can charge the latter more money?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you now when the same thing applies?
 
phattonez said:
Why wouldn't you now when the same thing applies?
Click to expand...

Because right now I post rent at $1000/month before I know the income of the applicants. Either applicant will pay me the same amount of money.

In your scenario, I have to know their income first because I'm not allowed to charge more than 25% of their income. I've also got the problem where the applicant signs the lease, is a dip**** and gets fired, and now I'm not allowed to charge them anything.
 
Deuce said:
Because right now I post rent at $1000/month before I know the income of the applicants. Either applicant will pay me the same amount of money.

In your scenario, I have to know their income first because I'm not allowed to charge more than 25% of their income. I've also got the problem where the applicant signs the lease, is a dip**** and gets fired, and now I'm not allowed to charge them anything.
Click to expand...

1. You can turn away people who don't have the income to qualify.
2. Yes, it's a risk, much like lending money. There's no guaranteed income.
 
phattonez said:
1. You can turn away people who don't have the income to qualify.
2. Yes, it's a risk, much like lending money. There's no guaranteed income.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get it. In your scenario I have to let that person live in my building for free, by law.

Today, I can evict someone who doesn't pay rent.

In your scenario, I'd just turn away anyone whose income was 400% of what I intend to charge. How is anyone helped?
 
Deuce said:
No, you don't get it. In your scenario I have to let that person live in my building for free, by law.

Today, I can evict someone who doesn't pay rent.

In your scenario, I'd just turn away anyone whose income was 400% of what I intend to charge. How is anyone helped?
Click to expand...

Make the rent for a certain amount of time, like now. After the term is expired, then you can look for another tenant.
 
phattonez said:
Make the rent for a certain amount of time, like now. After the term is expired, then you can look for another tenant.
Click to expand...

Zero rent means I'd go bankrupt and close the building down, now nobody has a place to live. Again I ask, how does this help?

I'm not renting to a single person ever who is less than 400% of the rent in income. You've just made it harder for people around the borderline to find a place to live. Who is being helped?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom