Maximum Rent?

[Lursa]

So you have no response to the real situation I provided?

Feel free to clarify your solution. I've asked several times: what stops the landlord from taking a tenant that is willing to pay more than 25% of their income?

 

[Lursa]

I didn't say it didn't exist. 3 million in a country of 300 million isn't all that much.

Dont backpeddle now...it's significantly more than 3 million, which was pointed out in my post.

And more than half of those 300 million are children and retirees, and other people NOT commuting.

Just admit you're wrong and that a commute of 30 miles one way is not even unusual.

 

[phattonez]

Feel free to clarify your solution. I've asked several times: what stops the landlord from taking a tenant that is willing to pay more than 25% of their income?

Currently? Nothing. In the situation that I provided? The law.

 

[phattonez]

Dont backpeddle now...it's significantly more than 3 million, which was pointed out in my post.

And more than half of those 300 million are children and retirees, and other people NOT commuting.

Just admit you're wrong and that a commute of 30 miles one way is not even unusual.

You're the only one here changing definitions.

Many years ago, before I retired, my job was relocated far from my home. Rental costs were extremely high near my job, and after renting for one year I found an apartment 30 miles away that cost less than a quarter of what I had been paying, and moved. Living on the street was not an acceptable alternative.

And a 30 mile commute is? That's a lot of time away from your family.

That's a norm. Are you kidding? Most people are lucky to have that short a commute. I'd say it's average.

Have you done your research before making your comment?

You were the one who said it was "a norm" and "average". Who backpedaled, again?

 

[Lursa]

You're the only one here changing definitions.







You were the one who said it was "a norm" and "average". Who backpedaled, again?

Yup...it's common. Just as I posted. So I'll stick with 'norm' and 'average' as accurate. You seem to be unable to do the math yourself. I had to point out to you that your 300 million werent all commuters, now I have to point out that there are still the millions commuting 30-50 miles one way that were NOT accounted for in the links? :roll:

75 million commuters (1/4 of the population with kids, etc removed), and at least 20% are commuting more than 30 miles one way with that additional 30-50 mile group factored in.

IMO, 20% = an average amount, a norm for many people.

 

[Lursa]

Currently? Nothing. In the situation that I provided? The law.

The courts already shot down a similar proposal here in Seattle. They tried to pass legislation that would force a landlord to take the first qualified applicant. It was not legal. It was a violation of the property owner's rights to not have any choice on who was living in and using their property

Your solution wouldnt be legal.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why are we pretending that most landlords are losing money on these repairs. This isn't a serious argument.

It isn't a matter of the cost of the repairs alone it is how that cost must be paid. If your home needed $5K of roof repair work then that month's "rent" would be $6K instead of the expected $1K.

 

[Nap]

Why are we pretending that most landlords are losing money on these repairs. This isn't a serious argument.

You must not own your own home, it doesn't take much to go wrong for you to quickly go into debt when it is your property. Last year I remodeled my bathroom using most of my savings at the time to do it, soon after I had issues with my roof, HVAC, and plumbing which plunged me into debt. Owning a property is nice but incredibly expensive when things go South.

 

[phattonez]

Yup...it's common. Just as I posted. So I'll stick with 'norm' and 'average' as accurate.

The average has a definition. 30 miles is not the average. You are wrong.

IMO, 20% = an average amount, a norm for many people.

20% is not what average means!

 

[Lursa]

The average has a definition. 30 miles is not the average. You are wrong.

20% is not what average means!

I never meant mathematical average. So yes, the 20% works just fine for norm, average, etc.

An adult would admit they were wrong. You dont have to tho, as the facts are all in my post with the links. Anyone can read that.

However it does demonstrate just how poorly informed you are on the issue and just dont want to admit that your proposals are workable.

 

[phattonez]

The courts already shot down a similar proposal here in Seattle. They tried to pass legislation that would force a landlord to take the first qualified applicant. It was not legal. It was a violation of the property owner's rights to not have any choice on who was living in and using their property

Your solution wouldnt be legal.

That's not what my proposal is.

 

[longview]

It isn't a matter of the cost of the repairs alone it is how that cost must be paid. If your home needed $5K of roof repair work then that month's "rent" would be $6K instead of the expected $1K.

I think what is lost here is the idea that the landlord only make a net profit, after all the expenses of maintaining the property are covered.
This includes repair items like roofs , AC's and plumbing, but also large reoccurring expenses like taxes and Insurance.

 

[phattonez]

It isn't a matter of the cost of the repairs alone it is how that cost must be paid. If your home needed $5K of roof repair work then that month's "rent" would be $6K instead of the expected $1K.

But no one is arguing that landlords ought not be compensated for maintenance. Maintenance is estimated at 1% of the property value per year. So I can find a $300,000 condo in the Los Angeles area. That says that maintenance should cost $3000 per year. That's $250 per month. Can you find ANY 1 bedroom apartments that cost $250 per month in Los Angeles, or anything even close to that?

The maintenance argument isn't a serious one. Profits are far beyond compensatory for maintenance.

 

[phattonez]

You must not own your own home, it doesn't take much to go wrong for you to quickly go into debt when it is your property. Last year I remodeled my bathroom using most of my savings at the time to do it, soon after I had issues with my roof, HVAC, and plumbing which plunged me into debt. Owning a property is nice but incredibly expensive when things go South.

And you think those costs aren't borne by tenants? This isn't a serious argument. Landlords don't go into business to lose money.

 

[phattonez]

I never meant mathematical average. So yes, the 20% works just fine for norm, average, etc.

An adult would admit they were wrong. You dont have to tho, as the facts are all in my post with the links. Anyone can read that.

However it does demonstrate just how poorly informed you are on the issue and just dont want to admit that your proposals are workable.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Lursa]

That's not what my proposal is.

I was making a comparison.

 

[phattonez]

I was making a comparison.

An improper one. The proposal you brought up was declared illegal for a reason that does not apply to my proposal.

 

[Lursa]

Pot, meet kettle.

Nope, and I had to point out the difference to you in an earlier post.

You just dont want to accept that you're wrong. I said it was common, the norm, average. 20% fills all those boxes.

The proof is in just looking on a map at the bedroom communities surrounding metropolitan areas. But you go on with your fantasy...your entire line of thinking on this issue is a bitter fantasy.

 

[Lursa]

An improper one. The proposal you brought up was declared illegal for a reason that does not apply to my proposal.

What reason? Fair market value for a rental isnt gouging...so it's a violation of property rights to not allow a landlord to decide what to charge.

 

[phattonez]

Nope, and I had to point out the difference to you in an earlier post.

You just dont want to accept that you're wrong. I said it was common, the norm, average. 20% fills all those boxes.

The proof is in just looking on a map at the bedroom communities surrounding metropolitan areas. But you go on with your fantasy...your entire line of thinking on this issue is a bitter fantasy.

I'm not going to quibble with you over what average means.

 

[phattonez]

What reason? Fair market value for a rental isnt gouging...so it's a violation of property rights to not allow a landlord to decide what to charge.

Landlords can still charge whatever they want, as long as they find a tenant who meets the income requirements for that rent.

 

[Hypothetical]

I want to hear everyone's thoughts about this. We have had minimum wage laws for decades now, and we've had plenty of debate about it and we know more or less where everyone stands. I want to talk about another price control, and that is rent. What if we passed a law stating that landlords could charge no more than 25% of a household's income as rent. That is, a family that makes $4000 per month could be charged no more than $1000 per month in rent.

The immediate reaction I hear is that this will just increase homelessness, but let's think this through. Is that really true?

For the rich the impact is negligible, at least on their primary residence. Now what about the poor? Well, they're already paying 50%+ of their income toward rent. Are we really expecting for all of them to be homeless? That's quite doubtful, just like minimum wage increase don't cause unemployment rates to skyrocket to 15%. On the margins there are effects, but they're never as large as detractors make them out to be. So landlords would take a hit, yes, but the poor would also have more money to spend, helping other industries to have a larger market.

So let's think this out and have a real debate on the issue. Or, are you totally oblivious and fine with the fact that massive numbers of Americans are being absolutely fleeced just to have a roof over their heads?

the reason people would eventually increase homelessness is that if you can't make money renting a place because you constantly have to follow such a socialist rule, you're not going to invest in rental property and will sell it off for whatever purpose, that may nto be renting.

then you get a shortage of rental properties.

NO law can supercede supply and demand... unless you can be the one nation who can implement a non corrupt government control of everything.

...but you can't,, then you just get corrupt central government who decides who gets the most potatoes based on who they like.

 

[Lursa]

I'm not going to quibble with you over what average means.

Good, as that wasnt the original claim. Which was common and a norm. 20% is both.

So then you can no longer use that point in your arguments, as it is proven incorrect.

 

[Lursa]

Landlords can still charge whatever they want, as long as they find a tenant who meets the income requirements for that rent.

Er, that's what we do now. And we just reject the ones who apply and dont.

 

[Nap]

And you think those costs aren't borne by tenants? This isn't a serious argument. Landlords don't go into business to lose money.

Of course they are, hence much of the reason it costs more to rent than it is to own.