U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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 10-12-2017, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Planet Woof
3,139 posts, read 3,513,899 times
Reputation: 9889

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3 View Post
My heart weeps for landlords. They are at the mercy of others money/assets to fully fund their property. Scarry for the landlord to get stuck having to make a mortgage payment with their own money. They gotta make sure the cow is still giving milk.

I worked finance...Some folks didn't have a 'job'. Didn't need to. Trust fund babies are often established. And yes..Some rented because they traveled ..And didn't want the hassle of home ownership. I can't imagine a landlord saying or writing via advertising that it's because they can't garnish a wage. Seriously I think that's a bit made up to get the ops pt across. My landlord doesn't do a wage check.. they know they can follow us to court and most likely win if we are backwards on rent. seize bank accounts or valuables ..Place liens..Etc.
I do know in this area they won't rent directly to someone under 21. They require a co signer. Maybe the seniors can get that too!
Nothing was "a bit made up". The ad stated they would not rent to anyone who was on SS, pensions, self employed, or held multiple part-time jobs. It also specifically stated that this was because wages could not be garnished.

Last edited by HappyDogToday; 10-12-2017 at 08:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2017, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Planet Woof
3,139 posts, read 3,513,899 times
Reputation: 9889
Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731 View Post
This whole thread is a real disappointment to me. We plan to retire and move in the next few years. DH wanted to buy another house - but because I'm the one that does all the work inside and outside the house - I want an apt where someone else worries about the yards and repairs. We'll only have SS and our 401s - mind you that our income will be more then than it is now - but to think we wouldn't be allowed to rent because of our income is ridiculous.
I had never seen this before either and I hope it does not become a trend. I just renewed my lease for the 6th time with no plans to move. I was not on SS when I came here. I worked part-time and had a contract job as well.

I posted this to inform and to see if others were seeing this as rental requirements in their areas. Also to give a heads up to seniors who might be planning to rent .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 08:46 AM
 
Location: WA
5,398 posts, read 21,412,400 times
Reputation: 5903
The most important task in running a rental business is screening new tenants. If a tenant stops paying the financial stability of the business is put at risk.

Would you accept that an employer gets some slack in when and if they pay your wages?

Governments have made it difficult to remove a tenant is a timely fashion. Can you imagine laws forcing food stores to regularly allow people to walk off with merchandise, and expect the retailer to fund the practice?

There are two sides to this discussion and just because a landlord uses questionable rules trying to protect his livelihood we should not ignore that the business is making a real commitment of resources to the customer and must be assured it is a reciprocal arrangement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 10:16 AM
 
6,652 posts, read 3,761,413 times
Reputation: 13734
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyDogToday View Post
I have been looking at local ads lately and I am seeing something I've never seen before: owners of houses and apartments stating that they do not rent to retired tenants on SS or pensions because they cannot garnish wages should they fail to pay rent.
They also mention not renting to self-employed or people working multiple part-time jobs. Only full time workers. One even wants employer references detailing job security. I think that is particularly ridiculous.
But regarding retirees, I would rather rent to someone who has guaranteed monthly income like SS or a pension rather than someone who could be fired or laid off. No guarantees there of payment as one can lose their job at any time.
Anyway, I feel this is age discrimination and I was shocked to see a prejudice against renting to someone who is retired on SS and/or a pension.
Have you seen this? What do you think?
Sounds like: (1) It's a landlord's market; and (2) It's a low rent area, where more renters are likely to not pay their rent.

I've never heard of this. Seems to me they'd go by past landlord references, mainly, and credit score.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,647 posts, read 17,615,071 times
Reputation: 27721
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyDogToday View Post
I had never seen this before either and I hope it does not become a trend. I just renewed my lease for the 6th time with no plans to move. I was not on SS when I came here. I worked part-time and had a contract job as well.

I posted this to inform and to see if others were seeing this as rental requirements in their areas. Also to give a heads up to seniors who might be planning to rent .
I don't know if these specific requirements will be more common, but unless we shift back to a more tenant-friendly market, landlords can demand all sorts of things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 01:17 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,087,347 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyDogToday View Post
I have been looking at local ads lately and I am seeing something I've never seen before: owners of houses and apartments stating that they do not rent to retired tenants on SS or pensions because they cannot garnish wages should they fail to pay rent.
They also mention not renting to self-employed or people working multiple part-time jobs. Only full time workers. One even wants employer references detailing job security. I think that is particularly ridiculous.
But regarding retirees, I would rather rent to someone who has guaranteed monthly income like SS or a pension rather than someone who could be fired or laid off. No guarantees there of payment as one can lose their job at any time.
Anyway, I feel this is age discrimination and I was shocked to see a prejudice against renting to someone who is retired on SS and/or a pension.
Have you seen this? What do you think?


Because They Can. That's all you need to know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 01:18 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,087,347 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen View Post
Sounds like: (1) It's a landlord's market; and (2) It's a low rent area, where more renters are likely to not pay their rent.

I've never heard of this. Seems to me they'd go by past landlord references, mainly, and credit score.


My credit score has never affected my ability to pay rent timely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
7,720 posts, read 4,744,332 times
Reputation: 28300
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyDogToday View Post
Nothing was "a bit made up". The ad stated they would not rent to anyone who was on SS, pensions, self employed, or held multiple part-time jobs. It also specifically stated that this was because wages could not be garnished.
And as you were already told, none of those are protected classes.

You don't have to be "old" to be on Social Security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
7,720 posts, read 4,744,332 times
Reputation: 28300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3 View Post
My heart weeps for landlords. They are at the mercy of others money/assets to fully fund their property. Scarry for the landlord to get stuck having to make a mortgage payment with their own money. They gotta make sure the cow is still giving milk.
Yep, nobody loves landlords. Though for millions of people in this country, they'd have nowhere to live without landlords.

At the mercy of other peoples' money? Yes. Also at the mercy of other peoples' destructive urges. I think you forgot that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Rhode Island
6,854 posts, read 11,132,080 times
Reputation: 6842
I'd be curious to see the ads you're referring to. I've never seen a published rental ad like the OP describes.
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 > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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