Printable View
That's not how it works. Landlords - and employers- will get every single penny they possibly can. They have all of the power. People don't have the time and resources to move at will, change jobs at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
These are the exact types of things that NEED to be regulated.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Nah dude. There's nuances to the this type of stuff. You're just broad brushing landlords.Quote:
Originally Posted by blams
Keep in mind that landlords get lots of postential tax benefits (including “passive activity losses”) which help mitigate the burden of ownership.
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/common...dlords-2125238
Actually, that's EXACTLY how it works. It's called supply and demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by blams
If I list my rental property for 1500/mo what am I going to do if nobody will pay that? Let it sit empty until someone does? It's no different than, say, making furniture. I may know what I think I should be able to sell it for, but if nobody will pay that amount, I'm going to reduce the price. Jobs can be the same thing- if I'm an employer and list a job for $X but nobody will do the job for that, I have little choice but to offer more.
However, you're certainly right that people can't just readily move every time they need a job change, especially minimum wage jobs. One, those are everywhere and two, moving has costs someone having been making minimum wage can't afford.
I don't, however, know what things you're wanting to regulate.
And btw, 7.25 is the FEDERAL minimum wage. 29 states have minimums higher than that.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-...d%20Tennessee.
Sure, but you're just talking tax credits.....that's not exactly replacing lost rental income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
Sure... but but here is an example where the government has a finger on the scales tipped in the owners favor. They can take a hit on a few units (especially if they have many) to play hardball with the people living in those places by raising rents beyond market value and forcing a cost (moving costs money and time) onto the tenant knowing they won't take the same kind of hit. IF it doesn't work, they can rent to a new tenant at a lower price than the one they tried with the person living there.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiteWolf
It's not pure supply and demand until it's empty, before it's empty it's a game with loaded dice.
well, another example depending a lot on the location of the property...and the type of ownerQuote:
Originally Posted by flips333
In any business, the larger company is set up to sustain a loss for a longer period of time...that's why the PPP program was geared to small businesses. A property owner with hundreds of units is used to a certain percentage of vacancies just as a normal course of business and can sustain it. That same percentage of vacancies for someone who just owns a single 12-unit building could force price reductions before allowing units to sit empty
You say this as if it is a bad thing. It is capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by blams
When you go looking for a job (or ask for a raise) don't you try to get every single penny you possibly can???
It''s capitalism.
……………
The problem with the rent for an apartment is this………
No matter what the property is, someone owns it. It is an asset. Just like your IRA or stock investments, that asset needs to be maximized. If they are not doing well enough , you will move them. A builder can build a home that sells for half a million on the same piece of property that he can build a home that sells for $150K. And the half million dollar home would probably be an easier and faster sell. What do you think he is going to do???
Low income housing or apartments needs to be built and managed by local governments that do not need to make a profit to succeed. They should be priced to break even.
Local governments should take over abandoned properties or condemned properties, level them and build reasonable housing that can then be rented (or even sold) to low income families at cost. These properties should not be population dense and tenants need to be made to take care of the properties. Massive projects should be avoided. (See Stuyvesant Town in NYC, or Cabrini Housing Chicago) Keep them small and pleasant to live in and hold tenants accountable.
The Federal Government should be involved as little as possible. it should all be handled locally.
I don't know what the answer is on low income housing, but two things tend to be significant problems with much of what has been happening
1) Gov't contracts tend to get bloated and exploited, costing taxpayers far more than the value created
2) Far too often, those properties are not just NOT properly cared for, but are quickly devalued significantly by tenants. I don't know why that is, but I see it over and over again...in my local first hand experience...whether those tenants are on welfare or are natives.
1…It would help if you kept the feds out of it and keep it as local as possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by SiteWolf
2…Tenants MUST be held accountable by the local government and by other tenants (talk about the blue wall for police…do you think tenants in public housing would ever turn in another tenant. That needs to change but good luck.). Maybe semi annual inspections by housing authorities etc. People that should be booted out need to be evicted. Do that and other tenants will get the message. HOA'a are effective in some housing developments…maybe something along those lines. It is also why it would be important to keep the buildings small and manageable (2-3 stories) Keep them as attractive places to live.
Holding tenants accountable can be a very tough thing.
For example, a lot of low income housing is in rent-assisted complexes. Many tenants are only paying a portion of the rent because they're on gov't assistance of some sort, the complex owner is theoretically getting the rest of the rent from the gov't. But most property owners don't feel they're getting enough overall, so tend not to keep those properties up as much as they would a property they're getting 'full market value' for. Tenants, then, see owners not fixing things, updating things, etc so treat the place with the same lax attitude the owner does...or whichever chicken and egg thought you put to it.
....the same kind of thing happens with nursing homes....every nursing home defines how many 'medicare beds' they'll allow in their facility....the higher that number is in a facility, the lower the standards tend to be in keeping the place up because, again, they don't feel they're getting 'fair value' from the gov't.
It'd be easy to say, then...well the gov't should just give them more. Unfortunately, the same kinda BS skimming, etc, being talked about with the NRA right now happens ongoing virtually ANY place gov't money is doled out- billions of taxpayer dollars going out, nowhere near enough monitoring going on.
Here is exactly the misconception of the American economy that causes confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
We are not a capitalist system based entirely on supply and demand as some might have us think or imagine us to be. We are regulated capitalist system with certain limits established by the government, particulary on essential goods: housing, health, food.
We can argue what those limits should be, but to say it’d just supply/demand is disingenuous.
and therein lies the largest problem with the system.....to put it plain and simple, it's rigged...those in power have the ability to create regulations that benefit them, giving them even more power to create even more regulations that benefit them and on it goes.....until those in power (the real people in power) have leeched what little wealth the rest of us had even further......causing more and more to need government assistance those in power are more than happy to pay for...with even more money leeched from the middle.....if the classes in this country were compared to the measurements of a woman, the bustline (wealthy) and hips (lower class) keep getting bigger while the waistline (middle class) keeps having the girdle tightenedQuote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
Right………Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
And communism is not exactly communism. It's regulated.
Socialism is not exactly socialism. It's regulated.
Monarchies are not exactly monarchies. It's regulated.
And on and on and on.
Point being what???
Capitalism, profits, profit maximization, loss avoidance, supply and demand is what drives the US economy.
Call it whatever you want.
Here’s a guy who gets it. Unlike the other guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiteWolf