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.
The property laws are rigged in ways that allow owners to believe they have a right to free stuff. Just look at all the tax breaks, bailouts, HARP, yada yada yada that property owners get in this country.
The Rent Is Too High precisely because government rigged the rules to artificially restrict the supply of housing, to the benefit of property owners and to the detriment of rent slaves.
Just because the law - written by property owners - is on your side does not make it morally legitimate. Just like the Constitution which was written by and for property owners while the landless had no representation.
Well, I never got the breaks you speak of. I agree property taxes are excessive and as far as I am concerned poorly managed. I would much prefer to see less tax agencies or taxes done similar to how Australia manages theirs.
The property laws are rigged in ways that allow owners to believe they have a right to free stuff. Just look at all the tax breaks, bailouts, HARP, yada yada yada that property owners get in this country.
The Rent Is Too High precisely because government rigged the rules to artificially restrict the supply of housing, to the benefit of property owners and to the detriment of rent slaves.
Just because the law - written by property owners - is on your side does not make it morally legitimate. Just like the Constitution which was written by and for property owners while the landless had no representation.
People always bring out the mortgage interest tax deduction argument but really it's a poor one with interest rates so low. It doesn't give you that much money and you have to own a fairly expensive house to even get above the standard deduction and then you lose the standard deduction and have to itemize everything else which is really a pain in the butt.
There are some government programs that do boost the demand for housing such as section 8 and low interest loans but it's hardly a cash cow for a homeowner and there's still property taxes and upkeep. Basically you have to own a lot of homes and get really big before renting becomes a real cash cow.
As far as "bailouts" anyone with lots of debt gets bailed out.. it's called bankruptcy. Single mothers can claim they are bipolar and get section 8, medicaid, etc. so that they don't even have to work. I have a relative who does just this. In the end everyone will try to get every sort of benefit they can.. it's human nature. That doesn't give a person a right to squat in someone's property no matter how you try to justify it.
You apparently are taking for granted the legitimacy of our property laws, which are designed to artificially restrict supply for the benefit of property owners, and also to prevent lower income people from purchasing homes, and thereby enforcing an ample supply of rent slaves for fleecing by landlords.
By preventing lower income people from buying homes, the rules are rigged to leave those people perpetually vulnerable to displacement as soon as any newcomer with more money moved in.
I have repeatedly asked you for proof of this: that property laws are DESIGNED to keep low income people from purchasing homes.
And if that were possibly, why aren't there laws that are DESIGNED to keep low income people from renting in certain areas?
what woud happen if every body in the nation stopped paying rent
A bunch of freeloaders who want something for nothing would be evicted and living on the street or in their cars - unless they stopped paying for that too and got it repossessed.
After that you'd probably find landlords charging MUCH higher deposits and wanting first and last 6 months rent, not just first and last months rent, before renting to you.
A bunch of freeloaders who want something for nothing would be evicted and living on the street or in their cars - unless they stopped paying for that too and got it repossessed.
After that you'd probably find landlords charging MUCH higher deposits and wanting first and last 6 months rent, not just first and last months rent, before renting to you.
have a lot of new homeless - but what would happen if every prop mgr would lower their renters $300 once a year! for those who paid on time and keep the place nice??
Some make it a habit to not pay rent.. they pay the first month and the security and sit back and don't pay at all.. they wait months to finally get evicted and in the mean time when they are not paying rent.. the save up for the next place to pay rent and security then no payment after that.
I used to work in income maintenance in a welfare department in NJ and landlords would call saying they are not paying their rent and wanted welfare to pay them directly.
We would tell them that the check went out and was to cover the rent. If the recipient did not pay they would have to take them to court and evict them. It is just how the system works.
Some recipients would spend the rent money on clothes or vacations and not pay the rent. They would not pay the heating bills and the kids would suffer because the parents would buy drugs instead of buying food. It was a very depressing job and I left eventually because one saw the shady side of people daily and their lack of care for their children.
You apparently are taking for granted the legitimacy of our property laws, which are designed to artificially restrict supply for the benefit of property owners, and also to prevent lower income people from purchasing homes, and thereby enforcing an ample supply of rent slaves for fleecing by landlords.
By preventing lower income people from buying homes, the rules are rigged to leave those people perpetually vulnerable to displacement as soon as any newcomer with more money moved in.
I don't know where you get your information from, but in this country it is against the law to discriminate against anyone from buying a home, provided you can qualify for the home loan. Property values are not set by the owner, they are set by the county assessors office, so your home loan will reflect the current market value of the home.
If I choose to rent out my home, I'll rent it out for the monthly mortgage payment, property tax and up keep of the home, this is only in my best interest, regardless of who I rent it to. If a person can not make that monthly payment, I am not going to subsidize them for the balance, sorry, but it isn't good business sense to take a loss on your investment if you don't have to. And as far as tax breaks go, with the interest rates as low as they are, there are no tax breaks.
I have repeatedly asked you for proof of this: that property laws are DESIGNED to keep low income people from purchasing homes.
And if that were possibly, why aren't there laws that are DESIGNED to keep low income people from renting in certain areas?
In my experience, I have not known beneficiaries of government policy to be intellectually honest regarding said policy.
In my neck of the woods, there is currently a rental shortage with rents necessarily skyrocketing (TM Barry). There is also a statewide ban on rent control, going back 30 years to a time when rents were probably also skyrocketing and disgruntled renters were mumbling about rent control. So today there are renters and even politicians discussing repeal of the statewide ban on rent control - it's an actual substantive election issue here this year.
Since zoning - supply and density control - is the homeowner equivalent of rent control, and the mirror image of the regulatory coin, I believe government should either ALLOW LOCAL OPTION for both or for neither.
Since government allows - even heartily endorses - local zoning while prohibiting local rent control, government has effective chosen sides and picked winners and losers. But homeowners and politicians are unwilling to be intellectually honest and acknowledge their bias toward property owners.
Why would anyone want laws DESIGNED to keep low income people from renting in certain areas? Zoning already does a fairly good job of accomplishing that. (I once lived in a neighborhood where unrelated occupancy was reduced to a maximum of two - that effectively killed off new rental conversions. Thank God my rented home was grandfathered at a higher level of occupancy.) Wouldn't that just make more low income people homeless, and aren't low income homeless people what homeowners fear most in 'their' neighborhoods?
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.
