Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you can see, paragraph (d) above would limit the number of college students living together in one unit to a total of four—unless, of course, all the students were brothers and sisters from the same biological family. (Other communities, especially “college towns,” have even stricter unrelated person limits—some as few as no more than one unrelated person. For example, if a brother and sister are sharing a rental unit while attending college, they may not be able to ask another person to live with them as the other person is unrelated to both the sister and brother—creating a two unrelated person situation.)
As you can see, paragraph (d) above would limit the number of college students living together in one unit to a total of four—unless, of course, all the students were brothers and sisters from the same biological family. (Other communities, especially “college towns,” have even stricter unrelated person limits—some as few as no more than one unrelated person. For example, if a brother and sister are sharing a rental unit while attending college, they may not be able to ask another person to live with them as the other person is unrelated to both the sister and brother—creating a two unrelated person situation.)
I didn’t know that. Thanks for sharing. Seems like Michigan has some strange laws.
Do you how they got around the federal guidelines?
Go back and read it again. I said if the taxes remain the same, nothing has changed for you the owner to offset your rent to pay for these fees, what other reason do you have to raise the rents?
What other reason? Spoken by someone who has never owned a property and rented it out. Ever heard of maintenance costs, property management fees, insurance? Yes, you can increase the rental price because of the going market rate, despite having no increase in expenses. However, the opposite is also true. You can have increased expenses, but you can't increase your rent to make up for those increased expenses, because of the going rental rates. I WISH taxes was the only expense I had to consider when I was renting my home out. I WISH that the rent I charged was based on my expenses for that property rather than the market rate. When I spent $6,000 in one year on maintenance cost for a house I am renting out for $1,000 a month, I WISH I could increase the rent 50% the next year to make up for the previous years loss. When my house sat empty for 3 months waiting to rent it out to a new tenant, and I had to pay my property manager half a months rent once he got it rented out, I WISH I could have raised my rent enough to cover the time it was vacant and my management fees. If I had a mortgage on the house, there are a few years where I would have taken a terrible loss that would have taken years to make up for. Luckily since my house was paid off, and I was working overseas where my housing was provided for free by my company, maintenance cost did not hurt me terribly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
There is a reason why there's an exodus from places such as San Francisco. Real estate has become prohibitively expensive. So those with common sense find jobs where the cost of living isn't outrageous and make a go of it. After all, there are plenty of places in the Mountain West, the Midwest, and the South where the economy is good, jobs are going begging, and people can enjoy an excellent quality of life without bankrupting themselves.
Yep. Too many people are afraid to step out of their comfort zone. They complain about the costs and job opportunities in their area, but are unwilling to look for a job in another city, much less in another state or country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Homeowners have a huge entitlement mentality and nobody ever calls them out. They think they deserve more every year just because they own their home. When your rent goes up 10% a year, did you get 10% more value?
Another post from someone who has never owned property and rented it out. The rent can only increase by what the market can bear. You can try to increase your rent just because you "feel like it", but if the market says your house should be renting for $1000 to $1200 a month, good luck trying to get even $1300 a month for it. Also, a 10% increase in rent does not necessarily cover any expenses incurred for that year(or for previous years).
Rodantraiser, I didn’t say I paid for it “all on my lonesome”. You should try reading exactly what I said and the methods of payment available and the options available.
As I already said in this thread, my family lost everything a few years before I graduated high school. I was in college in the heart of the Great Recession in the single hardest hit state in an area bleeding to death after the industry that kept it afloat for a century crumbled into bankruptcy. Minimum wage was 6.95 an hour and gas was well over $4 a gallon.
You said no one paid for your 5 years of education. Did you get them free then? And if you did, I would like to point out that not everyone can get a Pell grant or get their college paid for. When I went to apply for help, an SAT score was required. I was 35 years old and had never taken an SAT. Where does that leave people like me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
Here's the "But things are different this time" argument, followed by the additional infusion of information that's supposed to bolster your argument.
When I started college, interest rates were 21%, unemployment in my city was 15%, right up there with Flint, Michigan, and my architect father and realtor mother were burning through the last of their savings. I managed to snag a partial scholarship and paid for the rest. I literally went to school from 9-3 and then worked from 4-Midnight. For three long years. And while I started out at minimum wage, I managed to work my way up a salary. Not a big one, but a salary nonetheless. Then I worked two jobs after college, chiefly because my dad died without any insurance or savings. I worked one job for me and one for my mother to get her back on her feet. So don't tell me I don't get it.
What's more, all this is irrelevant to the basic logical hole of the thread: Those earning minimum wage working a full-time job are an absolutely miniscule percentage of the working-age. Those few who do can find living arrangements by sharing apartments, avail themselves of programs, and whatever else. But the straw man argument of the OP is that everyone earning minimum wage is automatically entitled to earn enough to afford an apartment. I just don't agree.
I mean, do you really want to see wages rise? Then support policies that create a scarcity of labor. Oppose attempts to normalize illegal immigration in this country. Fight any attempt to repeal the current corporate tax cuts, which actually make it more viable to manufacture on American soil. Stop the ongoing march of regulation that makes it more expensive to do business. Do thos things and we'll be a full employent.
Before the last recession hit, my metro area had the second-lowest unemployment rate in the country, so employers were paying through the nose for labor. Counter help at convenience stores were paying $30K plus benefits. McDonalds was paying short-order cooks $14 an hour. All without jacking up the minimum wage. Because the law of supply and demand is what will result in wage hikes, not some artificial monkeying by means of top-down edicts.
Congratulations on your degree.
And yes, I do want to see wages rise. Why not? The cost of living has risen far beyond what wages have risen. And please don't tell me that raising wages will raise prices. If that were the case, we'd be lowering wages to bring the cost of living down.
For what it's worth, when I was making $8 an hour, I could rent a broken down trailer. When my salary was raised to $10.50 an hour, I stayed where I was, but I replaced my 17 year old truck and got cable for the first time in my life. That was money that went to two companies because of a raise in pay.
Now multiply that across hundreds of thousands of low wage earners. Isn't anyone at all curious about why the economy is so good right now? Partially it's because in a capitalistic economy, people with more money spend more money and that makes the merry-go-round turn.
Oh, by the way, here's your price rise in goods if a company like Walmart raises their wages:
Walmart currently pays its employees either minimum wage, or a market determined wage that is in excess of the minimum. They do this in every case, with every single employee. There are no exceptions. For the taxpayers to be subsidizing Walmart's labor cost, Walmart would have to be paying employees LESS than minimum or a market determined wage, with the government kicking in the difference. This isn't happening. Not even in one single instance.
Instead, what's happening is that Walmart employs large numbers of no-skill workers who would otherwise be 100% on the public dole. Due to their employment at Walmart, they are on less than 100% of the public dole. Providing employment to these no-skill workers results in a reduction in welfare benefits, not an increase. To believe otherwise is ridiculous in the extreme.
Go back and read the article again. The risk factor isn't Walmart employees on public assistance. The risk factor is that the reduction in public assistance will result in many Walmart customers having less money to spend at Walmart.
You go back and read the article again. The risk factor is the same risk factor in all grocery stores. If food stamps are cut back and eliminated, grocery stores will take a huge financial hit in profits. Walmart realizes this and along with everything else they think can impact their profits, they now include the cut to food stamps as something that can hurt them.
And let's face it, many employees of Walmart, like many of our armed service people, are on food stamps.
But let me be clear on this. Walmart pays their employees, what, $10 an hour now. For all I know, they cut hours to do it but let's say all their employees work 40 hours a week with no OT, forced or otherwise. That's $19,200 a year. That's below poverty level.
So depending on what state this employee lives in, he may qualify for food stamps. Food stamps are paid out of a program that you, the taxpayer (as well as this employee) pay into with your tax dollars.
How wonderful this employee isn't 100% on the dole. But somehow, I don't see the fact that he still needs to get food stamps because of his low wage as any sort of win. Do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
The vast majority of property owners WANT and VOTE FOR zoning laws. Zoning laws keep our communities safe and attractive and keep property values stable.
As for your question:
It's like this - if your credit sucks, and you're "lucky" enough to get a loan, you're going to pay a higher interest rate than someone whose credit doesn't suck.
If you buy a gallon of milk at a convenience store, you're going to pay more for it than if you bought it at a grocery store.
If you have an expensive car, or a bad driving record, or you live in an area that has a greater risk for hail, or fender benders, you will pay a higher premium for car insurance.
Problem is, after 2008, many, many people found themselves with credit blemishes and therefore they couldn't get hired at jobs that did credit checks. The result? Companies complaining that they can't find anyone to work for them. I bet if you were one of those people who had a bad rating after losing your house and your car, you wouldn't be so cavalier about how those bad credit ratings affect people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
Please cite sources on where it says most low wage earners do not have a fixed schedule.
I couldn't afford an apartment in 1985 on $3.35 an hour. Minimum wage was never supposed to be a livable wage that would set you up in an apartment. At least my understanding.
And isn't it interesting that in 1975, I was able to afford a one-bedroom apartment on the minimum wage of $2 an hour, but by 1985, Peregrine couldn't. By 1985, the cost of housing was already outpacing the minimum wage. And some people still think we need to keep that minimum wage at the lowest possible level? And in the same breath they complain about all the homeless people. How many times do we need to draw people a picture about the relationship between the high cost of housing, low wages, and being homeless?
Last edited by rodentraiser; 06-26-2018 at 02:01 AM..
I don't if y'all remember the good old days accurately but I think I do. My first job paid $1.50 an hour (this was about 1969), a little more than the minimum wage of $1.25. At 40 hours a week, that's $60 a week, minus taxes, which meant I could rent an apartment for about $60 a month. But those didn't exist, so I had roommates. It turned out $50 a month was the going price for a room in an apartment with other people. So that's what I did.
Health benefits were a pipe dream. If you got sick, you went to the doctor and paid the bill of $25 or so.
I was a student so I moved up in the world pretty quickly, but I was never under the illusion that I was making a living wage, much less a family-sustaining wage, at the minimum wage plus a few pennies. Making peanuts is a very powerful motivator to go to and stay in college!
The good old days were fun but not because we had any money. We were young, knew some girls, etc. but money was not part of the equation until we got our educations and even then we had to wait to see if we could succeed at something. Only the tiniest few made good money right out of college, although if you went to graduate school you could get a good paying job right away. This was 40-50 years ago and things were not that different from the way they are now.
That may be allowed, if the rooms are sufficiently small.
Where do you live? I’d be happy to research it for you. I’m sure it would be difficult for you to do with your “impaired” internet. . .
Didn't you hear? My internet is no longer impaired. The sex offender from whom I, as a subtenant, was renting a room, got evicted for nonpayment of rent. (He collected rent from the rest of us but blew the money instead of paying the landlord.) As the house needed a LOT of work - furnace was inoperative and the kitchen stove became the source of heat - the landlord decided it was a great time to fix up the house, remodel, and return it to market at 2x the old rent. So I moved, got my own internet, and it works great.
But yeah, I think you nailed it. The bedrooms here are all painfully small, like maybe 75 sq ft, so it's likely the rooms are not allowed to have a second occupant.
It's like this - if your credit sucks, and you're "lucky" enough to get a loan, you're going to pay a higher interest rate than someone whose credit doesn't suck.
If you buy a gallon of milk at a convenience store, you're going to pay more for it than if you bought it at a grocery store.
If you have an expensive car, or a bad driving record, or you live in an area that has a greater risk for hail, or fender benders, you will pay a higher premium for car insurance.
Rental property is more risky than owner occupied property, so the insurance is higher.
As for property taxes, I am not sure you realize this, but there's not a huge difference in the taxes for a homestead vs rental property in most states. Laws vary by state, but generally speaking the difference is not great and part of the reason for the exemption is to help keep elderly people from being forced out of their homes by tax rate increases, though like I said, the difference is often quite minimal.
What does that have to do with TAXES on rental property? Michigan Republicans created a steep tax on rental property but they have never offered any reasoning or justification for it. In Michigan, the school tax rate on rental property is 4x the rate on homesteads and that adds over $1,000/yr to the tax on a typical rental house.
The vast majority of property owners WANT and VOTE FOR zoning laws. Zoning laws keep our communities safe and attractive and keep property values stable.
Thank you for setting me up. This is one of my favorite issues to discuss.
Back in the '90s, Reason magazine (libertarian) published an article about a zoning proposal referendum in Houston, which is famous for not having zoning like other towns and cities.
According to the article, the Houston Post did some polling in selected neighborhoods, and concluded that zoning was most supported in middle class neighborhoods, and opposed in both rich and poor neighborhoods. (I think they SHOULD have polled on rent/own because I think that's where the fundamental divide is, and this divide would have been glaring between owners and renters..)
Well just DUH! Protectionism rears its ugly head. And lower-income people demonstrated they correctly understood that their interests are best served by free markets and rigorous property rights, as opposed to government restriction of property rights and housing supply.
As interesting as the voters' rejection of zoning is where the decisive opposition came from: low-income residents. As tabulated by the Post, 72 percent of "low-income blacks" and 68 percent of "low-mid-income whites" voted against zoning, results echoed by "affluent" voters (56 percent against) and "predominantly Hispanic" voters (58 percent). Middle-income voters, fearful of multi-family dwellings and mixed land-use encroachment in residential neighborhoods, strongly favored zoning, with 63 percent of whites and 56 percent of blacks casting ballots in favor of the legislation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
