Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 300 of 709 FirstFirst ... 200250290298299300301302310350400 ... LastLast
Results 4,486 to 4,500 of 10632
  1. #4486
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    32,893
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    If a landlord is asking $1500 a month for their property but no one rents it from them, the landlord will have no choice but to lower the asking price. But if the property immediately gets rented, it confirms the landlords asking price was appropriate and therefore the price remains the same.
    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.

    These are the exact types of things that NEED to be regulated.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  2. #4487
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    20,550
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    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.

    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.
    GJO- You will never be forgotten. "MORE THAN MINFINITY"!

  3. #4488
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,965
    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

  4. #4489
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    19,036
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    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.

    These are the exact types of things that NEED to be regulated.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    Actually, that's EXACTLY how it works. It's called supply and demand.
    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.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  5. #4490
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    19,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    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
    Sure, but you're just talking tax credits.....that's not exactly replacing lost rental income.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  6. #4491
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    15,233
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Sure, but you're just talking tax credits.....that's not exactly replacing lost rental income.
    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.

    It's not pure supply and demand until it's empty, before it's empty it's a game with loaded dice.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  7. #4492
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    19,036
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    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.

    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 owner
    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
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  8. #4493
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,623
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    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.

    These are the exact types of things that NEED to be regulated.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    You say this as if it is a bad thing. It is capitalism.

    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.

  9. #4494
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    19,036
    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.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  10. #4495
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,623
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    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 possible

    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.

  11. #4496
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    19,036
    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.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  12. #4497
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    You say this as if it is a bad thing. It is capitalism.

    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.
    Here is exactly the misconception of the American economy that causes confusion.

    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.

  13. #4498
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    19,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Here is exactly the misconception of the American economy that causes confusion.

    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 tightened
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  14. #4499
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Here is exactly the misconception of the American economy that causes confusion.

    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.
    Right………

    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.

  15. #4500
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,965
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    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 tightened
    Here’s a guy who gets it. Unlike the other guy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •