Maximum Rent?

[phattonez]

Do you think someone earning minimum wage should pay 25% above to live in the penthouse of a beach front condo in miami?

No. Landlords can still ask for whatever rent they want. They're not forced to rent a $4000 per month apartment to someone who makes only $2000 per month. They just have to make sure that the income is high enough that only 25% of it goes toward rent.

 

[trouble13]

No. Landlords can still ask for whatever rent they want. They're not forced to rent a $4000 per month apartment to someone who makes only $2000 per month. They just have to make sure that the income is high enough that only 25% of it goes toward rent.

What happens if someone changes jobs. Does their rent change too?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

I'm not describing people coming from anywhere. I'm describing what will happen to the market when people are forced to pay less.

You havent described how they'll have to pay less. The landlord can ask any price he wants, you said so.

Why would he set a rent lower than he wants? You seem to think he'll run out of applicants if his rent is too high, is that it?

 

[phattonez]

What happens if someone changes jobs. Does their rent change too?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yes. Say you signed onto a 12 month lease. 6 months later you change jobs and now have a lower income. The rule still applies, but now your rent must go down over the duration of the rest of the lease.

It seems fair to me. Landlords ought not be exempt from loss. Tenants certainly aren't.

 

[phattonez]

You havent described how they'll have to pay less. The landlord can ask any price he wants, you said so.

The people currently renting at 50% will only be able to rent units that charge 25%. Paying 50% will be illegal.

Why would he set a rent lower than he wants? You seem to think he'll run out of applicants if his rent is too high, is that it?

Exactly.

 

[trouble13]

Yes. Say you signed onto a 12 month lease. 6 months later you change jobs and now have a lower income. The rule still applies, but now your rent must go down over the duration of the rest of the lease.

It seems fair to me. Landlords ought not be exempt from loss. Tenants certainly aren't.

Same applies to income raises too, I assume. The rent would go up

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Individual]

No. Landlords can still ask for whatever rent they want. They're not forced to rent a $4000 per month apartment to someone who makes only $2000 per month. They just have to make sure that the income is high enough that only 25% of it goes toward rent.

A landlord is renting to a tenant who is paying less than 25% of their monthly income as rent. The tenant loses their job and finds new employment with a lower wage resulting in the rent consuming 30% of their monthly income.
A high income earner is willing to rent the residence which would be 15% of their monthly income or even pay more in order to move in, but the existing tenant refuses to vacate although the rent is consuming 40% of their monthly income.
How should that be handled?

 

[Nap]

You're assuming that the rental market would stay the same in the scenario. With reduced demand, rental prices would fall.

Where did I assume prices would remain the same? I even stated that prices would likely come down in some places in the very first sentence......

 

[Nap]

Yes. Say you signed onto a 12 month lease. 6 months later you change jobs and now have a lower income. The rule still applies, but now your rent must go down over the duration of the rest of the lease.

It seems fair to me. Landlords ought not be exempt from loss. Tenants certainly aren't.

That is absurd, a better idea would be that the lease is now void since the original conditions are no longer the same. Landlords should certainly be exempt from the loss because it is completely out of their control whether you decide to change jobs or do something that gets you fired.

Scenario: You know you are likely to be laid off in the next couple of months but sign a lease to an apartment that you know there will be no way you can afford it after you lose your job. Now you get a minimum wage job and the Landlord must lower your rent to 25% of that income?

 

[Lursa]

That is absurd, a better idea would be that the lease is now void since the original conditions are no longer the same. Landlords should certainly be exempt from the loss because it is completely out of their control whether you decide to change jobs or do something that gets you fired.

Scenario: You know you are likely to be laid off in the next couple of months but sign a lease to an apartment that you know there will be no way you can afford it after you lose your job. Now you get a minimum wage job and the Landlord must lower your rent to 25% of that income?

I'd hazard a guess that the lower the income, the more often someone changes jobs. One crappy paying job is much the same as another.

So landlords would be stuck with this even more frequently.

As you wrote, why should a landlord be stuck suffering loss because of someone else's life choices?

 

[Hawkeye10]

I'd hazard a guess that the lower the income, the more often someone changes jobs. One crappy paying job is much the same as another.

So landlords would be stuck with this even more frequently.

As you wrote, why should a landlord be stuck suffering loss because of someone else's life choices?

How bout instead of guessing you launch an investigation and go find out before you start typing?

 

[Nap]

I'd hazard a guess that the lower the income, the more often someone changes jobs. One crappy paying job is much the same as another.

So landlords would be stuck with this even more frequently.

As you wrote, why should a landlord be stuck suffering loss because of someone else's life choices?

This is sadly the trend in America, no longer is life built around the idea of personal responsibility but that of societal responsibility. It is rather depressing to see the culture degrade to the level that it has.

 

[Lursa]

How bout instead of guessing you launch an investigation and go find out before you start typing?

*snicker* Just hunting to find a way to salve your ego?

The more ya do it, the more fragile we realize it is....

Carry on! *salutes*

 

[phattonez]

Same applies to income raises too, I assume. The rent would go up

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The OP did not dictate a rent minimum. Only a maximum. The landlord will have to wait for the end of the lease to raise the rent.

 

[phattonez]

A landlord is renting to a tenant who is paying less than 25% of their monthly income as rent. The tenant loses their job and finds new employment with a lower wage resulting in the rent consuming 30% of their monthly income.
A high income earner is willing to rent the residence which would be 15% of their monthly income or even pay more in order to move in, but the existing tenant refuses to vacate although the rent is consuming 40% of their monthly income.
How should that be handled?

The landlord will suffer loss until the lease expires. I always hear about how the landlord takes a risk. When a tenant suffers a job loss or something similar, then the pain ought not fall exclusively on the tenant, who clearly has less power in the landlord-renter relationship.

 

[phattonez]

Where did I assume prices would remain the same? I even stated that prices would likely come down in some places in the very first sentence......

You said in some areas, applying that there would not be a large, overall fall across the country. If rents are in line with area incomes, then your scenario would be uncommon.

 

[Mason66]

The landlord will suffer loss until the lease expires. I always hear about how the landlord takes a risk. When a tenant suffers a job loss or something similar, then the pain ought not fall exclusively on the tenant, who clearly has less power in the landlord-renter relationship.

This is a joke, right?

You think the landlord is responsible for the tenants work situation?

You also mention above a lease. What legal right would the tenant have to modify the lease just because his income has been reduced?

 

[phattonez]

This is sadly the trend in America, no longer is life built around the idea of personal responsibility but that of societal responsibility. It is rather depressing to see the culture degrade to the level that it has.

How depressing to think that the wealthier, more financially comfortable landlord feels no responsibility to help the tenant who is giving the landlord a massive chunl of his paycheck.

Don't talk to me about responsibility when you only expect it of those who are the worst off.

 

[phattonez]

This is a joke, right?

You think the landlord is responsible for the tenants work situation?

You also mention above a lease. What legal right would the tenant have to modify the lease just because his income has been reduced?

No joke. Why should you get guaranteed income while your tenant has lost his income? The landlord is in a far more comfortable financial position. Why should he be unaffected?

Further, the OP stipulates that rent can never be more than 25% of income. If income falls, then the landlord doesn't get as much money until either the tenant gets another job or the lease expires and he can get another tenant.

If we expect the tenant to go without income until he gets another job, then we can make that same demand of the wealthier landlord.

 

[phattonez]

That is absurd, a better idea would be that the lease is now void since the original conditions are no longer the same. Landlords should certainly be exempt from the loss because it is completely out of their control whether you decide to change jobs or do something that gets you fired.

Scenario: You know you are likely to be laid off in the next couple of months but sign a lease to an apartment that you know there will be no way you can afford it after you lose your job. Now you get a minimum wage job and the Landlord must lower your rent to 25% of that income?

Landlords already ask for work histories and employer information. If someone has a bad past then good luck getting a long term contract.

But yes, if income is lost then I don't see why that pain should fall exclusively on the tenant. Why should being a landlord get you guaranteed income? Should the wealthier landlord have no responsibility to his poorer tenant?

 

[Mason66]

No joke. Why should you get guaranteed income while your tenant has lost his income? The landlord is in a far more comfortable financial position. Why should he be unaffected?

Further, the OP stipulates that rent can never be more than 25% of income. If income falls, then the landlord doesn't get as much money until either the tenant gets another job or the lease expires and he can get another tenant.

If we expect the tenant to go without income until he gets another job, then we can make that same demand of the wealthier landlord.

Do you know what a lease is?

Please tell me another word for lease.

 

[phattonez]

Do you know what a lease is?

Please tell me another word for lease.

This isn't an argument. I'm talking about another way to view the relationship between landlord and tenant. The benefits of this to society are the following: solid, steady jobs are encouraged as landlords will want a good work history; home prices will fall and homeownership will increase; tenants will have more rights in the case of job loss; landlords will have an incentive to help tenants get a good job; and the resentment of tenants toward landlords will decrease as this is a major attitude underpinning socialism.

The proposal is entirely reasonable, seizes no property, and helps our current young generation which is overburdened by an increasing cost of living and massive debt burdens. I have heard of no serious proposals to deal with these problems. Instead conservatives here tend to ignore the problem. This proposal fixes the problem while avoiding socialism. The current path will inevitably lead to violence, chaos, and socialism. It's your choice.

 

[Mason66]

This isn't an argument. I'm talking about another way to view the relationship between landlord and tenant. The benefits of this to society are the following: solid, steady jobs are encouraged as landlords will want a good work history; home prices will fall and homeownership will increase; tenants will have more rights in the case of job loss; landlords will have an incentive to help tenants get a good job; and the resentment of tenants toward landlords will decrease as this is a major attitude underpinning socialism.

The proposal is entirely reasonable, seizes no property, and helps our current young generation which is overburdened by an increasing cost of living and massive debt burdens. I have heard of no serious proposals to deal with these problems. Instead conservatives here tend to ignore the problem. This proposal fixes the problem while avoiding socialism. The current path will inevitably lead to violence, chaos, and socialism. It's your choice.

The relationship between landlord and tenant is not friend with friend.

It is a business relationship just like any other.

A lease, in case you don't know, is a contract, a legally binding contract.

Now how do you propose giving the tenant the legal right to modify the contract just because his situation has changed?

If the landlord has a financial setback, can he modify the contract to charge more before the end of the lease? If not, why can only the tenant modify the terms of the contract and not the other party.

Also, where did you get the idea renters were poor?

 

[phattonez]

The relationship between landlord and tenant is not friend with friend.

It is a business relationship just like any other.

A lease, in case you don't know, is a contract, a legally binding contract.

Now how do you propose giving the tenant the legal right to modify the contract just because his situation has changed?

If the landlord has a financial setback, can he modify the contract to charge more before the end of the lease? If not, why can only the tenant modify the terms of the contract and not the other party.

Also, where did you get the idea renters were poor?

No, because the landlord has more financial security. I'm modifying those contacts because it's unacceptable that people who are working full time are spending 50% of their income just to have a roof, meanwhile asset holders are richer than ever. There's a major problem in society. The poor have seen decreasing incomes since the 70s while the rich have gotten richer. Why do you criticize me for wanting to do something about it? Why do you have no criticism for the rich who are doing nothing to fix this situation?

 

[Mason66]

No, because the landlord has more financial security. I'm modifying those contacts because it's unacceptable that people who are working full time are spending 50% of their income just to have a roof, meanwhile asset holders are richer than ever. There's a major problem in society. The poor have seen decreasing incomes since the 70s while the rich have gotten richer. Why do you criticize me for wanting to do something about it? Why do you have no criticism for the rich who are doing nothing to fix this situation?

What gives the tenant the legal right to modify the contract?

No criticism at all. The tenant has the responsibility to know if he can afford the rent, not the landlord.

If the tenant signs the lease he is legally obligated to comply with all of the terms, just as the landlord is.

What you want to do is get rid of contract law, which will not happen.