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 11-15-2018, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
7,755 posts, read 4,764,587 times
Reputation: 28410

Advertisements

Social Security isn't GARNISHABLE income.

If you wreck the apartment, the LL hasn't a prayer of coming after you for damages.

THAT is why it's not accepted as an income source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-15-2018, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Planet Woof
3,139 posts, read 3,516,429 times
Reputation: 9889
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat View Post
Social Security isn't GARNISHABLE income.

If you wreck the apartment, the LL hasn't a prayer of coming after you for damages.

THAT is why it's not accepted as an income source.
I just said that! But that is the premise they choose to use at that place. Where I live now there are plenty of us whose only or primary income is SS.

Whether there is a law against this form of discrimination in my state I do not know. But I can find out pretty easily and I plan to do just that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 07:30 PM
 
12,077 posts, read 5,165,692 times
Reputation: 19051
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat View Post
Social Security isn't GARNISHABLE income.

If you wreck the apartment, the LL hasn't a prayer of coming after you for damages.

THAT is why it's not accepted as an income source.
Well that explains that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 07:34 PM
 
661 posts, read 313,435 times
Reputation: 1246
How many people old enough to collect SS will "trash" an apartment? Likely a bit past wild parties. . . .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 07:45 PM
 
12,077 posts, read 5,165,692 times
Reputation: 19051
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihatetodust View Post
How many people old enough to collect SS will "trash" an apartment? Likely a bit past wild parties. . . .
It's not just about trashing an apartment. It's about going after someone for past due rent when they don't pay for 2-3 months and just leave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 08:03 PM
 
18,467 posts, read 20,251,858 times
Reputation: 27046
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBCjunkie View Post
I will play Devils Advocate for a moment and say that if the SS income exclusion was taken to court, the outcome would probably be that because it's indirect discrimination, it doesn't violate existing law. The landlords have a legal right to set their own conditions for housing applicants as long as those aren't based directly on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, presence of children (unless it's an over-55-only complex), or physical disability. There's no law against specifying any other requirements, such as type or minimum amount of income considered.

I agree that by disallowing SS (or SSI) across the board as a form of income, it discriminates against people over 60 because in almost all cases that's who receives it. I'd assume that a landlord who disallows it would be requested to provide valid reasons why not, which would probably be a tough argument to make.

If I were a landlord looking to discriminate against seniors (for whatever reason) I'd probably have better luck by allowing SS income BUT also setting a high minimum threshold... for example, say, $2100/month. The current max is $2788 and so a $2100 floor would be 75% of that. Then also disallow income from alimony, investment, and pension/IRA/401K sources because those are subject to possible fluctuation or discontinuance, and you've probably eliminated all but the most well-heeled of seniors.

Honestly I don't think the up-front costs are discriminatory in and of themselves. IMHO it's the complete disallowance of SS income across the board that gets into that category, albeit in a back-door fashion, because that applies to a specific segment of the population. A clever landlord would simply set a high minimum SS benefit threshold instead.
You can’t discriminate based on source of income. Ll can’t say he won’t take Sec 8 payment. What he can say is he’s not enrolled in the program and that’s why he can’t accept sec 8 payment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat View Post
Social Security isn't GARNISHABLE income.

If you wreck the apartment, the LL hasn't a prayer of coming after you for damages.

THAT is why it's not accepted as an income source.
But a LL can come after your assets if you have any.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,657 posts, read 17,640,506 times
Reputation: 27762
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
It's not just about trashing an apartment. It's about going after someone for past due rent when they don't pay for 2-3 months and just leave.
But that could happen to anyone for practically any reason.

At least as of a few years ago, the rental market in many metros was so tight that a landlord could simply move on to the next tenant. I left my apartment in Indy on about one month's notice with about half the lease fulfilled. I was about to lose my job, and was moving back to Tennessee.

They sent me a bill equivalent to the rest of the lease. I threw it in the trash. They sent progressively smaller bills. I paid them essentially the next month's rent and they kept the deposit. There were tenants lining up to get into this complex. I left everything immaculate. They could have moved on to the next tenant in a couple of days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 08:32 PM
 
1,694 posts, read 583,264 times
Reputation: 3145
The non-garnishable SS thing does answer the question of why landlords would exclude that.

This thread piqued my curiosity to look up the landlord/tenant laws in my state on NOLO.

Here there is no limit on how much a landlord can charge for a security deposit, unless the apartment is a rent-controlled unit (in which case any county or city limits on deposit amounts may exist, and if so, those take precedence.) Landlords must put the security deposit in a bank, tell the tenant what bank it's in, and if the property has six or more apartments in it, must pay the tenant interest on the deposit during the tenancy. BUT the landlord is also allowed to charge up to 1% as an 'administrative fee' on the security deposit.

Landlords can ask applicants for their histories of employment, income, credit, past housing whether rental or not, and also criminal history. In NY and CA they are not allowed to ask someone if they are a legal resident of the USA. In NY, New Hampshire and Wisconsin they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (cannot refuse to rent to a same sex couple, for example) but they can do so if the applicant is transgender.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 08:37 PM
 
1,694 posts, read 583,264 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrician4you View Post
You can’t discriminate based on source of income. Ll can’t say he won’t take Sec 8 payment. What he can say is he’s not enrolled in the program and that’s why he can’t accept sec 8 payment.
Actually that depends on where you live. In my state (NY) landlords have been able to do that until a major push this year although I can't find anything that says it has actually been signed into law. The governor does support it though.

From a May 2018 report from the Regional Plan Association:

"Discrimination based on source of income means that there are some landlords that discriminate against would-be renters who pay rent with housing vouchers (like Veterans Affairs Support Housing or HUD Section 8 vouchers), from Social Security or Disability income, or from other lawful sources of income which aren’t wages. That’s not fair, but as of now, it’s also technically legal in New York State.

Not renting a home to someone with the ability to pay keeps people needlessly homeless. It’s also used as a way to de facto discriminate against seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, people with HIV/AIDS, and other people who are supposed to be protected from housing discrimination. For instance, in New York State it’s illegal to deny someone housing because they’re a veteran. But it’s completely legal to deny someone housing because they’re paying their rent with a voucher from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

New York State is overdue to join New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York City in banning housing discrimination based on source of income."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 08:47 PM
 
12,077 posts, read 5,165,692 times
Reputation: 19051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
But that could happen to anyone for practically any reason.

At least as of a few years ago, the rental market in many metros was so tight that a landlord could simply move on to the next tenant. I left my apartment in Indy on about one month's notice with about half the lease fulfilled. I was about to lose my job, and was moving back to Tennessee.

They sent me a bill equivalent to the rest of the lease. I threw it in the trash. They sent progressively smaller bills. I paid them essentially the next month's rent and they kept the deposit. There were tenants lining up to get into this complex. I left everything immaculate. They could have moved on to the next tenant in a couple of days.
Breaking your lease isn't what I was talking about. I'm saying there are people out there of all ages who get into an apartment or house, pay for 2-3 months and then don't make another rent payment. They stay there as long as possible rent free before being evicted which could take 90 days depending on what state you're in. They basically are living rent free for as long as it takes to have them evicted which could be up to 3 months. Then the property owner needs to try and get the back rent from them often times from garnishing their income if that's possible. They can't do that if their income is SS.
That's not the same as having a year lease but then needing to move out sooner but paying for the time you were there. Did you ever see the movie Pacific Heights?

Last edited by marino760; 11-15-2018 at 08:57 PM..
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
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