Tenant in $100 per month NYC rent control apartment “I’m never leaving “ (rating, income)

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Colorado^

Why doesn't she pass along her great deal to the Airbnb people? Double standard?

This women is nothing more than a thieving, hypocritical fraud. Just like all the posters that support such communist non-sense.

$50/day is still a steal for temporary lodging in NYC, that is Motel 6 prices in most cities.

I remember the Hilton on 53rd St in midtown Manhattan was charging $250/night back in 1995 (don't know how much it is now)

[Colorado^]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

$50/day is still a steal for temporary lodging in NYC, that is Motel 6 prices in most cities.

I remember the Hilton on 53rd St in midtown Manhattan was charging $250/night back in 1995 (don't know how much it is now)

Oh, I see. She's allowed to make a profit, but the land lord isn't.

[redwood66]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

$50/day is still a steal for temporary lodging in NYC, that is Motel 6 prices in most cities.

I remember the Hilton on 53rd St in midtown Manhattan was charging $250/night back in 1995 (don't know how much it is now)

The $1500 rent the owners are not getting is likely on the cheaper side in NYC as well.

[redwood66]

Originally Posted by Colorado^

Oh, I see. She's allowed to make a profit, but the land lord isn't.

This right here.

[shadowne]

Originally Posted by Colorado^

Why doesn't she pass along her great deal to the Airbnb people? Double standard?

This women is nothing more than a thieving, hypocritical fraud. Just like all the posters that support such communist non-sense.

Indeed she is. She got an invalid, who she called a vegetable, just 3 weeks before he died to adopt her as a daughter at 58 years old to get his pension and life insurance.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by redwood66

This right here.

or the landlord is allowed to make a profit, but the tenants aren't.

The person knew what they were getting into when they bought the units. Say there are 100 units, this is but one, who is not moving out. The rest will eventually make the $1500 or $1800 and the person investing knows this, they didn't get into it blind.

They can sell, if they are not happy with the profit margin.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by shadowne

Indeed she is. She got an invalid, who she called a vegetable, just 3 weeks before he died to adopt her as a daughter at 58 years old to get his pension and life insurance.

and a landlord can harass their tenets to get them to move?

[shadowne]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

or the landlord is allowed to make a profit, but the tenants aren't.

The person knew what they were getting into when they bought the units. Say there are 100 units, this is but one, who is not moving out. The rest will eventually make the $1500 or $1800 and the person investing knows this, they didn't get into it blind.

They can sell, if they are not happy with the profit margin.

If you bothered to read the article you would know this is a 6 unit building. The elderly couple bought it in 1980
and expected once this old man who had lived there 85 years died they could raise the rent to market rate. And yes, due to this scheme by the con, the elderly immigrant couple are selling their property. The grifter is hoping for a big payout from whomever purchases the building.

[Vector1]

Originally Posted by Moth

Winner of the Post of the Year Award.

Especially this:

Funny how leftists always envision a Utopian, fair, and benevolent government controlling everything for the best interest of every citizens. But did you ever think why the leaders of such communist countries not live exactly like the people they control?

That is kind of you to say, and hopefully it can help enlighten some who think in different terms.
,
,
,
,


Oh wait, apparently not with the person I replied to.

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Oh please

I'm a taxpayer and I work, and have massively improved my station in life in just the last 5 years (at least from an income standpoint).

But at the same time, it seems that every time I make more money, rent and other expenses keep going up, so it's like I'm working harder just to stay at the same level rather than improve; while I'm sure those who aren't earning more are finding themselves downwardly mobile.

Heck good example, my first apartment rented for $700/month just 5 years ago (don't live there anymore), but the same apartment in the same complex now is $1,000/month. So if I had still been living there, I would have had to earn an extra $900/month just to still afford the lease

Finally, not all of us are business owners; and it shouldn't only be business owners who can attain lodging. Us workers need a place to live as well...

I think you skimmed over my post and missed the bigger picture.
We are all in the same boat dealing with rent increases, cost of living, fuel, etc. as those things are constantly in flux going in both directions(typically higher).
I would also note something advantageous to your point that you didn't allude to. Going into a higher tax bracket which can pair down your tangible profit margins. For some people who know they are unlikely to advance significantly higher (based on limitations without expansion), they will purposely stay in the lower tax bracket, even if it means less gross income without enough deductions to make it worth their effort.
Hence the reason cutting taxes (especially for small businesses) in many cases creates more jobs and fuels expansion which everyone benefits from.

This of course is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people being able to game the system, and those who cheer them on.
Then, in defense of the indefensible, you and a few others extrapolate how the big bad capitalistic system (i.e. the man) would otherwise make this persons rent so high, that only the 1% could afford to live there. I've got news for you,,,,,the average 1% is paying well above $1,800 per month in rent/mortgage payments. The ridiculous example you gave is closer to what they pay every month, but that of course is not the point either.

As to your last comment, most business owners don't just magically become that way. My Dad worked for the same employer for 36 years and never once considered starting a business. The closest he came to owning one was wanting to buy an existing bar, but he could not afford the $5,000 it would have taken to buy it back in the day.
I started with regular jobs, and worked a long time before I could save the capitol to start leasing a share of a company for a better return on my time/labor. Then saving more from that, continued on to peaks and valleys.
Many a business owner fails, and they are left with nothing, but you need to take risks to get out of the 9-5 work cycle (if you so choose). So they start up again. The point is that I never lived in a tent nor slum just because I didn't own a business. Becoming a business owner takes effort, otherwise most would do it. Yet I hear millennial's today saying "sure I'd like to be a doctor or lawyer, but who wants to go to school for that long".
I know a guy who was poor yet worked his way through medical school. He came home after school, and his job after that, to ice baths to keep himself awake long enough to study. He made it because of the effort and drive, despite his station in life.

Frankly, even the dirt poor in this country are the envy of the worlds poor. Most have free or subsidized housing, food, utilities, transportation, education, medical care, etc., etc., etc.
That is fine for those who are down and out and need a helping hand. But the so called safety net was not designed to permanently hold the weight of those who are inclined to perpetually relax in it.

The irony in this case is that many poor people would object to this person getting over on the system by only having to pay $100 per month in rent. That's because few in most of our country pay that little, regardless of cost of living in their city/state.
Instead it is the envious and leftist malcontents that lament of a rigged system (in their warped way of thinking), and relish when people are able to stick it to "the rich".
Some even like it when banks are robbed, glamorizing a Robin Hood type victory. After all as long as no one gets hurt in the robbery, big banks can absorb to loss because money grows on trees, right?

You see it all the time with leftist class warfare rhetoric, making it seem as if "Big Pharma", "Big Oil", etc., are evil corporations, owned by greedy 1%ers. They conveniently forget that those businesses not only employ millions of people (excuse me slaves & peasants), but they also provide income to investors via capitol gains. They also forget that those jobs allow people to have and provide a good living for their families.
More importantly, they provide energy for our society at an affordable cost to keep the lights on, the Netflix flowing, interstate commerce going, producing life saving drugs, etc., etc., etc. for all Americans, rich and poor.

I don't want to get too far off the subject, but rest assured it is easier to demonize a class of people or type of industry, rather than think of what those people/business provide to society. The person who scammed their way into $100 rent they were not entitled to, hurts everyone with unintended consequences.


`

[shadowne]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

and a landlord can harass their tenets to get them to move?

What specifically have the elderly owners done?

It is quite telling of those who identify with this *********.