Maximum Rent?

[Lursa]

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?

So we see now that, if someone has a hopeless perspective in bettering themself in life, they create a picture that looks like this:

secure=bad, poor=good

 

[Individual]

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.

I'm getting the feeling that you're serious about a "Maximum Rent" not to exceed 25% of ones income.
Why do you feel the landlord should share proportionately in the pain of the tenant when the landlord has nothing at all to do with the tenants employment or wages paid?
The landlord like the tenant are initially imposed upon by the tenants lack of ability to pay the rent, leaving the tenant to either accept the wage loss or find a way to regain the loss while the landlord should be allowed the same freedom of choice to keep or replace the tenant.
The landlord has to pay the bank and property taxes and neither of those would be decreased as a result of the tenants loss of wages.

 

[Individual]

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?

You're assuming the landlord owns the property free and clear. Perhaps the landlord has a bank loan, but certainly has to pay property taxes with or without a tenant.

In the distant past most people had children not simply because of a want, but also a need, to help perform the daily tasks necessary to provide for their survival. Today, many people have children they knowingly are incapable of providing for, and others who are capable of providing for until they become adults but with no available employment opportunities for them to avail themselves of once they become adults. IMO, population growth has become the major contributing factor to most all our problems. As such, government has taken advantage of the situation NOT to solve anything but only to impose greater control being exercised from a central location. Today, again IMO, we are no longer a Republic, comprised of Republics as once guaranteed by Article IV, section 4 of our U.S. Constitution, but instead have become more of a Unitary State based upon a collectivist agenda. The Federal Reserve Act, created in 1913, at the behest of some of the wealthiest Americans and brought to fruition as a result of the 'Great Depression" has put us on a path of constant accumulation of debt and inflation insuring the wealthiest from loss by eliminating the possibility of offsetting periods of deflation from occurring in the future.
I have yet to see a suggestion which would reduce the wealth of the wealthiest or decrease the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest. All so called solutions at best can ONLY reduce the rate at which the gap widens, and for those who are working a slower rate does not necessarily produce the best results. People tend to be very protective of their property and wealth is not so much the dollars one possesses, but any currency which it can be exchanged for.

 

[Pedestrian]

Maximum rent is like maximum profit.

This is capitalism where the capitalist isn't into numbers except his 'maximized' profit.

That means the capitalist is here to make some money and every penny [he] can...no matter what.

And...[he] pretty much doesn't give a damn how he goes about doing it.

In the American plutocracy of legalized bribery, [he] will prevent any limits whatsoever...to his profits.

In many cases when he doesn't get it, he will purchase further help from the govt. (taxpayers) by law.

 

[Individual]

Maximum rent is like maximum profit.

This is capitalism where the capitalist isn't into numbers except his 'maximized' profit.

That means the capitalist is here to make some money and every penny [he] can...no matter what.

And...[he] pretty much doesn't give a damn how he goes about doing it.

In the American plutocracy of legalized bribery, [he] will prevent any limits whatsoever...to his profits.

In many cases when he doesn't get it, he will purchase further help from the govt. (taxpayers) by law.

I accept that as your complaint. What changes might you suggest be made to resolve it?

 

[Nap]

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?

The pain should fall to exclusively on the tenant because the Landlord has absolutely zero influence on the tenant's job. The landlord is not garaunteed income because if the tenant cannot pay then he has to evict him until another tenant can be found. The landlord has a responsibility to provide whatever is documented in the agreed upon lease, same as the tenant and their responsibilities toward the landlord including the designated rent owned to him.

Ultimately, if people are so stupid to pay more than they can afford in rent then that is on them. You are blaming the wrong people. If you want cheaper rent and housing the advocate for the government to stay the hell out of it and prices will fall, it isn't all that difficult.

 

[Nap]

I'm getting the feeling that you're serious about a "Maximum Rent" not to exceed 25% of ones income.
Why do you feel the landlord should share proportionately in the pain of the tenant when the landlord has nothing at all to do with the tenants employment or wages paid?
The landlord like the tenant are initially imposed upon by the tenants lack of ability to pay the rent, leaving the tenant to either accept the wage loss or find a way to regain the loss while the landlord should be allowed the same freedom of choice to keep or replace the tenant.
The landlord has to pay the bank and property taxes and neither of those would be decreased as a result of the tenants loss of wages.

Look at his location.....It is really all you need to see what all this is. He is simply bitter about the outrageous cost of living in California and wants someone else to pay for his decisions.

 

[phattonez]

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.

There is no right to modify the contract. I'm simply making any payment greater than 25% illegal.

Notice how you place all of the responsibility, and risk, on the tenant. Why is it all placed on the tenant when it is the landlord who has greater financial security?

 

[phattonez]

I'm getting the feeling that you're serious about a "Maximum Rent" not to exceed 25% of ones income.
Why do you feel the landlord should share proportionately in the pain of the tenant when the landlord has nothing at all to do with the tenants employment or wages paid?

Because if you are going to profit from their gains, then why should you be excluded from their privation?

The landlord like the tenant are initially imposed upon by the tenants lack of ability to pay the rent, leaving the tenant to either accept the wage loss or find a way to regain the loss while the landlord should be allowed the same freedom of choice to keep or replace the tenant.
The landlord has to pay the bank and property taxes and neither of those would be decreased as a result of the tenants loss of wages.

You can choose to do nothing about your job loss, sure, but what do you think will happen when you try to sign another lease? Who would take you? I'm not removing all responsibility from the tenant.

 

[phattonez]

You're assuming the landlord owns the property free and clear. Perhaps the landlord has a bank loan, but certainly has to pay property taxes with or without a tenant.

In the distant past most people had children not simply because of a want, but also a need, to help perform the daily tasks necessary to provide for their survival. Today, many people have children they knowingly are incapable of providing for, and others who are capable of providing for until they become adults but with no available employment opportunities for them to avail themselves of once they become adults. IMO, population growth has become the major contributing factor to most all our problems. As such, government has taken advantage of the situation NOT to solve anything but only to impose greater control being exercised from a central location. Today, again IMO, we are no longer a Republic, comprised of Republics as once guaranteed by Article IV, section 4 of our U.S. Constitution, but instead have become more of a Unitary State based upon a collectivist agenda. The Federal Reserve Act, created in 1913, at the behest of some of the wealthiest Americans and brought to fruition as a result of the 'Great Depression" has put us on a path of constant accumulation of debt and inflation insuring the wealthiest from loss by eliminating the possibility of offsetting periods of deflation from occurring in the future.
I have yet to see a suggestion which would reduce the wealth of the wealthiest or decrease the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest. All so called solutions at best can ONLY reduce the rate at which the gap widens, and for those who are working a slower rate does not necessarily produce the best results. People tend to be very protective of their property and wealth is not so much the dollars one possesses, but any currency which it can be exchanged for.

My system would destroy the banks. A collapse in home prices completely destroys their profits. I didnt make this explicit in the OP, but it's there.

We're far more like minded than you think.

 

[phattonez]

The pain should fall to exclusively on the tenant because the Landlord has absolutely zero influence on the tenant's job. The landlord is not garaunteed income because if the tenant cannot pay then he has to evict him until another tenant can be found. The landlord has a responsibility to provide whatever is documented in the agreed upon lease, same as the tenant and their responsibilities toward the landlord including the designated rent owned to him.

Oh that poor landlord! He has to go a few months without rental income. Meanwhile, the tenant goes without any income or shelter. Yes, how dare I expect anything of the poor landlord!

Ultimately, if people are so stupid to pay more than they can afford in rent then that is on them. You are blaming the wrong people. If you want cheaper rent and housing the advocate for the government to stay the hell out of it and prices will fall, it isn't all that difficult.

And the capitalist will be right there to profit off of the stupidity of the poor. Yeah, you're really selling me on this system.

 

[phattonez]

Look at his location.....It is really all you need to see what all this is. He is simply bitter about the outrageous cost of living in California and wants someone else to pay for his decisions.

You're far too short sighted. California used to be cheap. As the country becomes more crowded, this will happen to you also. It's already happened to all cities across this country. You've been warned. You're complacent in your relative comfort.

 

[jimbo]

Not entirely. There are only so many people with an income of $6000 per month.



And what would happen with those rental units?

And amazingly, there are only so many rental units catering to that segment of the market.

The units in question would either be sold at a loss or go to foreclosure. And no more investors will be interested in providing housing.

Every city has tried what you propose. The city owned properties become hell holes where not even the poor will live. In many cases the projects get demolished.

 

[jimbo]

Oh that poor landlord! He has to go a few months without rental income. Meanwhile, the tenant goes without any income or shelter. Yes, how dare I expect anything of the poor landlord!



And the capitalist will be right there to profit off of the stupidity of the poor. Yeah, you're really selling me on this system.

I can't believe you actually posted this. Since when is it the job of a landlord to guarantee a roof or an income?

 

[phattonez]

And amazingly, there are only so many rental units catering to that segment of the market.

The units in question would either be sold at a loss or go to foreclosure. And no more investors will be interested in providing housing.

And then where do they go? They don't just disappear.

Every city has tried what you propose. The city owned properties become hell holes where not even the poor will live. In many cases the projects get demolished.

Government owned housing isn't my end aim here. I want families to own homes.

 

[phattonez]

I can't believe you actually posted this. Since when is it the job of a landlord to guarantee a roof or an income?

You tell me why I should place more responsibility on the more powerful party in a financial transaction.

 

[jimbo]

And then where do they go? They don't just disappear.



Government owned housing isn't my end aim here. I want families to own homes.

In many cases they do. If they can't be sold or rented, there is no incentive to keep them.

Government owned housing isn't my end aim here. I want families to own homes.

And how do you propose that to happen? I suspect you are attempting to make the argument that if properties are rendered valueless then poor people would be able to afford them. More Robin Hood solutions to a problem we don't have.

 

[phattonez]

In many cases they do. If they can't be sold or rented, there is no incentive to keep them.

Government owned housing isn't my end aim here. I want families to own homes.

And how do you propose that to happen? I suspect you are attempting to make the argument that if properties are rendered valueless then poor people would be able to afford them. More Robin Hood solutions to a problem we don't have.

What happens to the housing market when those homes go for sale?

And there isn't a problem? Bud, you're not living in reality.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

 

[Nap]

Oh that poor landlord! He has to go a few months without rental income. Meanwhile, the tenant goes without any income or shelter. Yes, how dare I expect anything of the poor landlord!



And the capitalist will be right there to profit off of the stupidity of the poor. Yeah, you're really selling me on this system.

Of course how dare you expect anything out of the landlord as the tenant changing jobs is outside of his control and therefore not his responsibility.

 

[Nap]

You're far too short sighted. California used to be cheap. As the country becomes more crowded, this will happen to you also. It's already happened to all cities across this country. You've been warned. You're complacent in your relative comfort.

Assuming you have idiots limiting the creation of new housing, yes it will happen. It isn't rocket science, it is simple supply and demand. If more people come into an area more housing needs to be built than the number of people coming in to prevent the prices from rising. The issue then becomes government being used to prevent the building and thereby raising the value of the homes of those implementing the overly cumbersome regulations, zoning, restrictions, and various other ways to prevent new housing

 

[Lursa]

Look at his location.....It is really all you need to see what all this is. He is simply bitter about the outrageous cost of living in California and wants someone else to pay for his decisions.

He refuses to acknowledge that moving is an acceptable option in finding work and affordable housing.

He is in CA and has continually disputed that commuting 30 miles or more is common. Which is a joke. Just draw circles around the cities in CA encompassing the 'bedroom communities' and see how far people are commuting. He also finds such long commutes 'unfair.'

 

[Nap]

What happens to the housing market when those homes go for sale?

And there isn't a problem? Bud, you're not living in reality.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

If you want to see the root issue, find a chart that checks wage growth tracked alongside productivity and remember 1971 was when Nixon took us off the gold standard.

 

[Lursa]

There is no right to modify the contract. I'm simply making any payment greater than 25% illegal.

Notice how you place all of the responsibility, and risk, on the tenant. Why is it all placed on the tenant when it is the landlord who has greater financial security?

Are you unaware that renting is a business and for some, rental income is the entire source of income? And that means that landlord/property owner DEPENDS on that income the same way anyone else working does?

Why do you assume that unpaid rent is no financial hardship? Are you STILL, after all these threads, that blind to the realities of property ownership? :roll:

 

[Lursa]

Because if you are going to profit from their gains, then why should you be excluded from their privation?

Why is your assumption that ANY service provider is responsible for the issues/problems of a customer that was not caused by the service provider? If that's not the case, then why should the landlord be held responsible for the tenant's issues/problems?

 

[Lursa]

You can choose to do nothing about your job loss, sure, but what do you think will happen when you try to sign another lease? Who would take you? I'm not removing all responsibility from the tenant.

Well thanks, you finally articulated the scenario far enough that I can point out a huge flaw:

What's to stop any person for applying for a job that meets the 25% qualification...and then quitting or intentionally getting fired as soon as they move in? They now have free rent for 11 months, according to you.

Do you find that scenario acceptable for the landlord?