U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:06 AM
 
24,071 posts, read 17,669,039 times
Reputation: 12887

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I heard this on the radio, but since you asked, I looked it up and found these:

Calculated Risk blog:

Calculated Risk: Study: 26 percent of renters spend over half their income on housing

...which cited...

Washington Post:

From Dina ElBoghdady at the WaPo: Affordable rental housing scarce in U.S., study finds

aren't you even reading your own thread? i posted that link 40 minutes ago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:10 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,829,832 times
Reputation: 22174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
In the early 90's I had 3 roomates so I'd have enough money to save up for my own house, pay off my student loans, having no car and so on.

Seems like a lot of 18-26 crowd would rather stay poor all their lives while drowning in debt with new cars, nice apts and the latest toys. Good luck with that, it's a free country.
And it's funny how the low income types have the best cell phones with unlimited calls and textes, cable television with hundreds of channels.

You ask them how much they're paying for their iPhone service with all the features and they'll tell you - "only $130" a month.

And it's the 18-26 crowd that has all the money for $100 to $200 concert tickets. That's the group that has money to blow to see some pop celebrity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,384 posts, read 4,237,669 times
Reputation: 2273
Default It depends...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I just heard a short news item:

26% of (US) renters are paying more than half their pre-tax income for housing (rent plus utilities). This is the highest in over 50 years.

I have been predicting an "affordable housing crisis" of unprecedented proportions, although I thought that was about 3-5 years out from today, so it's getting worse faster than I expected.

Renters tend to be lower income; median renter income is about 40% of median homeowner income.

Some people in this forum have suggested that poor and low income Americans aren't paying enough taxes.

In the context of the high housing costs they face (see above), this is a good place to ask:

Exactly how much should lower income Americans pay in taxes?
I think the question you should ask is, what is everyone's fair share, since taxes not only provide for schools, government, law enforcement, roads, etc, at what point does someone's income become low enough that you shouldn't ask that they help provide for all the services they use?

According to 2009 IRS figures, 10% of the population pays almost 75% of the taxes.

If we had the "fair tax", there wouldn't be an income tax, goods and services would be taxed, EVERYONE would pay their fair share, (even criminals), AND since the employer share of taxes are already rolled into the costs of goods and services, the cost won't really change that much, since the employer share no longer need be rolled into the cost of everything, and we would be able to keep our entire paycheck..

But, that's asking too much I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:26 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,800,688 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Proof?
Quick Facts: Resident Demographics - NMHC


Whenever I need data on rental housing, I run to the National Multi Housing Council (nmhc.org), a nationwide organization of apartment owners and managers.

According to their website, there are approx 38 million rental units in the US, of which 24 million are in structures of 2 or more units, and 13 million of which are single-family homes. (The remainder are mobile homes or 'other' whatever that means.)

While there are approx 7.5 million structures of 2-4 units, the website gives no clue as to how many are duplexes and how many are 3 or 4-plex units. I could guess that perhaps one-third of these 7.5 million units are duplexes, and the other two-thirds are 3 or 4-unit, but really I have no way to know for sure, and I think my guess isn't atrociously off the mark.

I would make a ballpark guess (how's that for vague uncertainty) that approx half the single family rental houses are occupied by families and half are occupied by roommates living together. Families tend to strongly prefer houses over apartments, and would rather rent a house than an apartment.

So out of 38 million rental units, I'd ballpark estimate about 21 million are apartments in buildings of three or more units.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:31 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,800,688 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
aren't you even reading your own thread? i posted that link 40 minutes ago

I was writing a different reply when you posted and it took me a while to catch up to where you were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:45 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,800,688 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
And it's funny how the low income types have the best cell phones with unlimited calls and textes, cable television with hundreds of channels.

You ask them how much they're paying for their iPhone service with all the features and they'll tell you - "only $130" a month.

And it's the 18-26 crowd that has all the money for $100 to $200 concert tickets. That's the group that has money to blow to see some pop celebrity.

This brings to mind an article which appeared in a liberal 'alternative' weekly newspaper...

They seemed to think that there was some evil discrimination happening because - gasp - local African Americans were paying more for cell phones than white people.

Right there in the article I also saw that African Americans were getting a lot more minutes per month than white people.

In fact, on a per-minute basis, African Americans were getting a MUCH BETTER cell phone deal than white people.

But the liberal newspaper completely failed to notice that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:51 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,800,688 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
I think the question you should ask is, what is everyone's fair share, since taxes not only provide for schools, government, law enforcement, roads, etc, at what point does someone's income become low enough that you shouldn't ask that they help provide for all the services they use?

According to 2009 IRS figures, 10% of the population pays almost 75% of the taxes.

If we had the "fair tax", there wouldn't be an income tax, goods and services would be taxed, EVERYONE would pay their fair share, (even criminals), AND since the employer share of taxes are already rolled into the costs of goods and services, the cost won't really change that much, since the employer share no longer need be rolled into the cost of everything, and we would be able to keep our entire paycheck..

But, that's asking too much I guess.

Under the "fair tax" homeowners would enjoy untaxed housing consumption, therefore everyone would NOT pay their fair share, and whenever a homeowner and a renter have equal housing consunmption, the renter will always pay more tax.

Because the largest tax embedded in rent is the property tax, and property taxes would not be affected by the fair tax, rents couldn't fall as much as prices might fall for other things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:51 AM
 
2,210 posts, read 1,531,814 times
Reputation: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
And it's funny how the low income types have the best cell phones with unlimited calls and textes, cable television with hundreds of channels.

You ask them how much they're paying for their iPhone service with all the features and they'll tell you - "only $130" a month.

And it's the 18-26 crowd that has all the money for $100 to $200 concert tickets. That's the group that has money to blow to see some pop celebrity.
Huh...interesting how your perception of reality works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:54 AM
 
9,857 posts, read 6,750,849 times
Reputation: 3282
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I just heard a short news item:

26% of (US) renters are paying more than half their pre-tax income for housing (rent plus utilities). This is the highest in over 50 years.

I have been predicting an "affordable housing crisis" of unprecedented proportions, although I thought that was about 3-5 years out from today, so it's getting worse faster than I expected.

Renters tend to be lower income; median renter income is about 40% of median homeowner income.

Some people in this forum have suggested that poor and low income Americans aren't paying enough taxes.

In the context of the high housing costs they face (see above), this is a good place to ask:

Exactly how much should lower income Americans pay in taxes?
Keep in mind that just a few generations ago most people rented two families to a house the size of a two car garage.
It depends on what size house people choose to live in.

People in Los Angeles can get a little one bedroom in 90001 starting at $700.

You can get a single in Beverly Hills starting at $1450.

You can rent a room for $400.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:57 AM
 
9,857 posts, read 6,750,849 times
Reputation: 3282
The landlord has to pass on the property taxes, the insurance cost, the cost of water and trash, other code requirements and include something for repair. After that there isn't that much profit for the landlord unless they are new units.

I rent stuff out in Beverly Hills, and let me tell you, most all the tenants when they leave have somewhat destroyed the unit, which also has to be added to the cost of rent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top