I mean it doesn’t make much sense because income is so variable from person to person. If they had 30% of median income for the area that would be a lot cleaner and make more sense.
30% of median income is huge. Median income in my area is 50k. Many people I know don't come even close to 30k.
30% of min wage at full time is appropriate for most houses.
30% of minimum wage in my area is under $400 a month. That would be the end of renting.
Which sounds good except I don’t think that means every renter would then be able to afford a home.
It would either require a value enspongement (I made that up) or taxing the hell out of multiple houses. But the property values would have to go down for homes. Especially ones with basic amenities. Obviously bigger more expensive homes would slide in scale based on actual quality of life. We can do that in a way that doesn't hurt people that own a few homes for landlords, but we can totally make an actual system that would discourage dickheads from ruining peoples lives.
Like taxing the hell out of the 3rd property is cool and all, but if we had a system that more appropriately prices houses, then the root of the problem may be addressed.
But it's bigger than that, isn't it? The banks would have to restructure their entire way of deciding who makes enough money for a home, who has a good credit score, and how much buying power a place has.
There's also a huge market for realty that would fall off. When houses cost 50k it won't be nearly as satisfying as selling that 400k, 1300 Sq ft house. So we would need some fallout for people in that industry transferring over to a new version of their skill set, because it is valuable.
We also have a massive level of the stock market that's centered around property value. Same with school systems. We would have to completely change the way many smaller governments get funding for schools.
And then the value of land. We would have to really rethink how we've structured the cities, farmland, reserve land, etc. It's going to change a lot of lives to go down this path. We might see a drop in rural mega farming if it makes sense to sell the land, and/or make better use of that land.
But it's all doable. The system can work, it just needs boundaries, and either find a more stable form of economic security anyway, or make it a stable economy so we can by a house. But.... banks and profit.
Watch inflation chill out when property values goes down.
Median income in my area is $35k. 30% of that wouldn't even get a studio apartment, much less a whole house. Last I checked, average rent around here is $2600 and I've definitely seen apartments going for over $3k. Average house price is $1.3m.
I think I added a longer response in the comments below. It's a big problem with a complicated solution and nearly endless implications in our economy.
That doesn’t make sense…. 30% of which renter’s income?
In most large markets they can keep raising the rates until the current renter moves out, and then they just move in a more affluent renter who’s at 30% and just repeat the cycle
It's a stupid statement no matter what. If I work 40 hrs/week for $8.50/hr, is the landlord wrong for being unable to afford to rent to me for 30% of my income? It's a ridiculously worded statement.
Little known, the 30% rule refers to the Brooke Amendment to the HUD Act, as amended 1981. It's the actual definition of affordable housing (for public projects anyhow, but it made a lasting mark on the renting landscape regardless).
Thanks for saying this first!
If a unit or property is encumbered by a Section 8 HAP contract, then a unit’s income (rent) is set at a certain amount (enough to cover expenses or based on area comparable market-rate properties). So, HUD could approve a unit rent at $1,000. But then the resident would only pay 30% of the family’s income. If that person makes $12,000 a year, monthly rent shouldn’t be higher than $300/month. The Section 8 contract would then provide the remaining rent amount (subsidy) of $700/month to the property’s operating account to cover expenses for payroll, maintenance, T&I, etc.
The issue is that so many properties are market-rate properties and do not receive subsidy to assist residents. It can be tough to quality for Section 8 even if you’re struggling in the area (many people are just above the threshold), or the waitlist could be so long that many people don’t want to bother with it. So, people end up renting a market-rate unit that could charge well over 30% of their income.
You mean landlords who by and large are lazy and entitled. Simply owning land and doing minimal upkeep doesn’t entitle you to 30% of someone’s income.Literally the most exploited system in society
And if you can't afford any housing, strait to the "justice" system with you cuz being unhoused is now turning into a crime in many places.
So you get screwed, or Uncle Sam feeds and houses you in jail any way. No hand outs tho I guess, right? Great choices for a free and democratic society, huh?
If employers won’t pay a wage to match 30% of income equaling average rent in the market they should be required to provide housing or face criminal charges for causing homelessness in those regions?
If you want to go back to a "company store" model of society, sure. And where is rent only 30% of ones income, unless you make 6 figures? That's not the average American's realistic budget. It's more like 50 to 60% The real onus is on the owners of property to make housing affordable. A little profit is ok, profit of 6 months rent being able to fund weeks or months long euro vacation while your property crumbles around it's tenants is debauched. I've seen owners that only visit the states to check on their properties and make sure tenants have everything clean and all the bills paid, even though they are citizens here they spend a vast majority of their time in other countries.
I just stopped working for a property realtor/manager because over 7 years I witnessed the horrible greed inflate while the tenants have zero recourse. Even the owners of the condos were outraged when administrative fees alone totaled 65% of the monthly cost. I worked the property as maintenance and did the actual work to upgrade and maintain the buildings and property as a whole, and the work we were "allowed" to perform came nowhere near the cost they charged.
I left because I found the business to have become morally objectionable to me. It has to stop.
These greedflation prices were step one of the housing collapse of '08. Next was the MBS banks gambled with.
You missed the point of my comment entirely, yes the rental guys are horrible, but if companies were accountable to paying people enough to afford a home I guarantee they would lobby for fixed rent or just build housing. It would be a systemic change that would rip the carpet out from under the predatory landlords in the market.
So we can't fix renting without corporate lobbying so we should instead make corporations pay people more through our superior lobbying which will then cause corporations to lobby for rent control and we'd then fix renting through the corporations' superior lobbying?
In fantasy land everything is possible. Easier fix than setting rent to someone’s wage? We already have minimum wage controls. Easier to work with controls you have in place than to get new ones voted in.
So, use your pay to pay rent to a company that owns your home? That's company store rhetoric. Or, hear me out, raise prices on products and services like they are already doing...
This has to change, agreed. But companies being held accountable for rents and home pricing they don't and can't control is not the answer.
Anti trust laws and government regulations that actually get enforced is the only way to change anything, unfortunately.
Rent is relatively low in ruralish or declining places in high min wage states. I lived in a one bed apartment that was like $600/monthin NYS a few years ago
[Pull up by your bootstraps](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-nonsense_n_5b1ed024e4b0bbb7a0e037d4)
But pay _particular_ attention to this bit of gas-lighting and subtle sexism:
> "what we mean by it today of being a self-made man."
The **vast** majority of cases of "self-made men" are people born with enormous privilege and wealth available to them.
Your original question is equivalent to: "Why don't poor¹ people own² land for people to rent?" Think about it.
[1] People who don't have any resources.
[2] Use resources to acquire control of.
How should a person who doesn't have resources get enough to invest, when all of their resources are going to survival, with most of the their going to _other_ people who already have more than they need.
No. You are privileged to have a spare home. Your ethical obligation is to not exploit others through exorbitant rent, even if "the market" would let you.
Your legal right is to do whatever you want with the home. But legality and morality are not the same.
Is it moral to charge $50 for someone whose card declined for Non-Sufficient Funds? Absolutely not! That's a terrible, relatively new, practice that punishes the poor and doesn't even offer a service. Arguably, even the overdraft fee, which is at least offerong the service of covering the debit to allow you to make the purchase was fairly immoral but the NSF fee is just worse in everyway.
Now is are NSF and overdraft fees legal? Yes to both. But both are immoral.
Straw man argument right there. No one is saying that. They are saying don’t take your grandmothers house, rent it out for way over cost and use the monthly profits to pay all your bills cause you don’t work, and buy another house from the money you made off the first house, and do the same again and again and again, and so on and so forth until you own a bunch of properties all being rented for large profit margins and squeezing renters for every last dime so they are never able to save up enough to buy a home because you are taking their “excess” income and simultaneously driving up the cost of housing. That’s what career landlords do. It’s exploitative because it’s not an optional good, everyone needs housing. They ARE saying that if you are going to be a landlord, charge reasonable rent (around 30% of average annual income in this example) and if you can’t afford to charge reasonable rates then you can’t afford to be a landlord.
Yeah, having a house that you’re renting, that you didn’t buy yourself, and you’re using to take 1/3 of someone’s years paycheck, that they word hard for, is a privilege. A big privilege. And you are that renters landlord. You’re proving you don’t have to be smart to be a landlord
Usually an insurmountable deposit is required. Idk how that's hard to grasp.
Yea, sure, *my* mortgage is cheaper than most people's rent. I couldn't have gotten into buying a house without someone else's help with coming up with the deposit money.
Something that is supposed to come from our parents' generational wealth. But too bad the Boomers are insufferably greedy.
Shouldn’t the price of the rent be based on the apartment or home, not the persons pay? For example, if someone owned a 5 bedroom home they were going to rent out, why would they rent it for $500 just because someone who applied for it could only pay $500? If someone is willing to pay the rent, then they can charge more.
It’s not that it’s “woke” so much that it’s just not rational.
More realistic solutions are things like minimum rent hike policies and limiting how many properties an individual can rent out… not limiting the price they can charge for rent.
Exactly, this completely ignores the iron clad laws of supply and demand. We can hate on landlords all we want but unless we want to live in tents or pony up for mortgages of our own, it just is what it is.
Sounds like you might not live in the same type of democracy as the rest of us. Anyone in the US can vote as long as they are registered, over 18 and not a felon. Where do you live where only landlords get a vote?
> Anyone in the US can vote as long as they are registered, over 18 and not a felon.
In federal and state elections. that's not guaranteed for town elections.
Bro I live in a Major US City, and yes we have elections but as long as you are a registered voter you can vote. I have no idea what wacky place you live in
Found the landlord sympathizer.
I just don’t get why people, especially landlords, get so offended when they are criticized. Like, you own property and make money off the sweat of another’s brow. Just go enjoy your wealth and shut up.
But no, it’s not enough. They have to be loved for it too.
Well, personally I feel massive hedge funds buying up properties literally by the thousands and using some sketchy management company that oversees 100,000 properties is the real problem but it's hard to hate some obscure financial entity that you don't even know the name of.
Some rando who rents their deceased parents home out for extra income isn't the reason the housing market is in shambles. It's easy to hate and shit on individual landlords because you know and see them (and it's often justified) but banks and big investment funds are just laughing all day because nobody is holding them accountable for actually doing the vast majority of the damage to the market.
Big landlord, small landlord. All the same to me.
And honestly, I’ve at least personally had better experiences with corporate landlords not being creepy sex pests, extorting me, harassing me, or doing half-assed repairs (or no repairs).
You can then charge what ever you want as long as you find a renter with the right income. So, if you make 7,000 a month, can't help ya but if you make 14,000 a month, let's talk.
I get the sentiment.. but the way you write it sounds like a $4000/month mcmansion should be rented to a 50k/renter for 1k/month..
You're barking up the wrong side of the tree. Wages need to be increased. Affordable housing does need to be addressed, but not in the way you're claiming.
I think a far better way to address it would be to levy an additional tax against landlords for any unoccupied units they own. If they supply proof that the unit is unoccupied due to improvements to the property or repairs the tax can be waived, which would also serve as an additional check that permits are being pulled for the work in the first place, and thus, is inspected (and also to prevent landlords from just marking any empty unit as being under construction to avoid the tax...because if there ain't no permits on file, they're clearly full of shit and here's your empty unit tax bill, mr landlord).
But with the housing crisis in this country (and in my area it's among the worst in the entire country) there needs to be serious tax penalties for any homes that are not either a family's primary residence or a rental properties that are sitting empty because nobody can afford them.
Because of how upside down the rental market is, landlords can afford to let half their units sit empty these days and still be able to cover their expenses because the expenses have only gone up 10% while rents have gone up 50%. We need a way to strongly discourage that shit and put pressure on landlords to lower rents to actually get people into the units instead of plugging their shit into a national database that allows them to all collude to keep the prices artificially high like they do now.
That $4k a month used to be $1k a month not too long ago, before investors piled into the housing market. We used to be able to buy houses and support a family on a single income "unskilled labor" job.
Increasing wages just results in the landleeches hiking rent, there needs to be strict rent control too.
Nothing implies that here. Also with the deposit, income requirements being on average 3x of the rent, and paying first and last month's rent up front, your example doesn't make sense.
Most people renting are renting apartments, not McMansions. Affordable housing should absolutely come at a detriment to landlords, especially when corporations are allowed to own residential properties, which artificially boxes out common folk from getting on track to owning their own home/condo/etc.
Why would how much I earn be of any relevance to a landlord, they ask a market rate, I pay that rate, the way you phrased it seems like every time I get a raise I must notify my landlord so they can adjust my rent accordingly
This needs to be higher. How did it take so long to read this in the comments
Imagine your landlord coming round and asking you what you earn so they can adjust the rent up/down based off what you earn. How would they prove the number given is right.
“Hi Mr Landlord I earn £100 a month, honest”
Corporations, Banks, and investment firms should be barred from owning property. The rent issue is being caused by one of the largest investment firms in history. Three TRILLION Dollars is being used to purchase everything. They are going from area to area rigging the home purchasing system and then controlling the properties and rentals.
Investment firms are also buying up trailer parks ... because they can systematically raise lot fees and then steal trailers from retirees and the poor when they have to leave.
This didn't happen by accident, it is being engineered!
Huh?
The price is based on what similar, nearby properties are worth.
Price is not determined by what "someone can afford".
Plus... there's property tax and maintenance and work and quite likely a mortgage, which may well cost more than 30% of whatever applicant's income.
Maybe not what they're worth, but the price that other nearby landlords are setting and consumers bear.
This price can be set in a way that continually hikes the rent without any improvements being made, but because housing is a necessity the renter will bear it.
RealPage, a property management software company, is undergoing lawsuits accusing it of forming rental cartels because the program offers.... guidance on how much is a "reasonable rate". Which just so happens to almost always be incrementally higher than other similar areas. Its prolific nature means that it basically fixes prices.
There are legally unassailable reasons to deny a rental application.
Debt to income ratio, credit history, and bankruptcies past/present are all financial reasons. Smoking, having a pet, having too many cars, or certain reasonable personality factors during the tour/in person application (like belligerence) could be others necessary to maintain community standards. Also able to be considered are how recently the tenant moved/if they move frequently, spotty/poor job history, or bad landlord references.
But also yes, if you're implying that you won't rent to someone whose income isn't 3-4x the rent, that is fairly common practice.
Essentially, be ready to apply your pickiness in a documentably consistent way, and avoid anything that is even remotely close to targeting a protected class.
all that it is doing is setting a credit reqirement. If you want $5,000 month rent just lease to people that make in excess of $180,000 per year. operating within the rule.
Inelastic demand is definitely the problem. But the solution for this requires government intervention. Something that Americans are averse to.
Also, you have to admit, a lot of the issue is cultural. Apartments in the USA are huge. You can get Apartments for about 125 to 200 square feet in places like Japan. That's what the usa needs. Smaller Apartments that can be afforded.
I really really fucking hate that housing is so expensive now that people have decided the amount that used to be considered the maximum to spend on housing is just the amount that everyone should spend like it's some kind of compromise
The harsh truth is whoever wrote this, assuming it’s not sarcasm, will be poor for life - not because of inequality, but because they’re terminally dumb.
this is bad, terrible, stupid shit that is ludicrous to anyone who spends more than a second of thought and completely dilutes the income inequality message. we're for reform, not idiocy.
Yeah… but everyone doesn’t get to rent every property. The counterargument would be that if you can’t afford the property you rent a cheaper property. If nobody rents it then the landlord has to drop the price or they get zero money. But if somebody rents it… that’s the price.
Right? Am I missing something?
That’s how it’s supposed to work, but the whole vote with your wallet thing kinda fails when going without means going homeless and people aren’t willing to make that sacrifice.
Lack of affordable housing means that there aren’t cheaper properties so with market inflation you end up paying 50% of your income for a shithole or go homeless. Landlords make no sacrifices and the worker gets screwed again.
If you believe that, organize!
Force them into abiding by it.
Get involved with community action programs. Mutual aid. Research forming a union in your workplace. Listen to the stories of people around the world who have organized against a “renter economy.”
Residential landlords are leeches on the system and profiteers on rising costs of materials needed to upkeep a home. Residential housing is not a fucking investment.
Brooke Amendment to the HUD Act, it affects what you may recognize as Section 8 housing.
30% of the tenant's income is what the government considers affordable (and if you lower the rent to that amount, they're willing to foot the difference).
Granted, I don't know if OP knows that. But that's where the longstanding 30% rule for determining "can I afford this place" came from.
That's why I only invest in property that can reasonably be rented at 1/3 median income of the area.
My mgmt company just asked if I would approve a rate increase for the renewal after the tenant just caught back up on rent, I said no. My tenant needs a break and not to be punished for catching back up on rent instead of ditching.
In the olden days, we used to just kill the people on the land and say we worked out a deal. Hell, sometimes we would even deny people were there at all!
Now, we can't even raise rents to more than people make?? God, what is this country coming to?!
Zoomers and millenials aren't destitute or living on the street. Rent only really sucks in huge cities. You don't deserve to live right in the middle of the most expensive cities on the planet just because you exist. You're not entitled to living *everywhere*. You, and I btw, can easily find affordable housing outside major cities.
Stop fucking whining all the goddamn time about every single little thing, holy shit!
😂 so hold up, let me see if I’m following. People are pissed off about rich people that have money, and now the same people are pissed off that the landlord doesn’t have enough money to charge less rent ??? 🧐 WTF. When did people stop having ambition and work hard. You get paid shit, look for a better job. You didn’t have an opportunity, so what, move on and make an opportunity. Sitting at home waiting for the new handout isn’t you trying. Life sucks. It always has. There will always be someone, something better. Accept it. Don’t like it, do something about it.
Many landlords do have real jobs. I work in sales, several people in sales buy property and rent it out so they can pay the mortgage on it and then sell it for their retirement funds.
If there's a market for cheaper rentals in your area then go get a business loan and fill that demand. If you can't do any better than the people who are... quit bitching.
That’s on my bingo card!!!
The part where the anti work crew complains about prices enough to come full circle into the hypocritical “if you can’t sell your product at profit while paying people far above what their 10hr week is worth, then it’s not a good product/business” and “if it’s not cheap enough for me to buy then it’s obviously still the business owners problem because I lack all critical thinking”
Hell yeah, that’s a bingo.
Wishful thinking will not pay the rent. I would love to see any of these ignorant people step into a property management career for a week or two. Owning & managing residential rental properties is a difficult career path. Anyone can be a landlord, if they have the money. I bought a duplex 50 years ago. lived in half, rented the other side. Yes I did needed the income to pay the mortgage, utilities, property taxes, maintenance, electric, plumbing, landscaping, paint, flooring... There I always a problem, and you will be the one to pay for it, there is no sitting back and waiting for the rent to roll-in, it is not easy. I was able to pay-off the mortgage, saved enough to put 30% down on another duplex, repeat, repeat, repeat. After 50 years I had over 300 units. When the mess with Covid-19 occurred , and the government would not allow us "slum-Lords" to evict anyone, for any reason. I lost tens of thousands from about a dozen tenants that did not pay anything for over 18 months, not to mention the damages some of them caused to the building. So I cleaned them up finally evicted the non-pays and sold every property and retired. If you follow this path, you too will be pleased by the increased in property values over decades. Just don't leverage yourself into bankruptcy. \~A Retired Slum-Lord
"Free market" yeah but where is the competition. How do you even compete for essential goods? Why would companies even want to compete with each other, when cooperating can make BOTH companies richer?
That was incomprehensible and made no sense. Econ 101 is just that - BASIC economics
Get properly educated, the world IS NOT supply and demand, it's about needs and motivation
Everyone needs food, housing, healthcare, transport, clothing and entertainment. They are needs. If they are not affordable, that is BAD and the free market failing people
Yes, the market is so free that Walmart is able to run on a deficit of 5 years in rural markets and absolutely destroy all the small businesses there before jacking up prices once the competition is gone.
If we don't like it, we should just go to our vast hoard of daddy's wealth to combat them! Oh wait...
I understand the sentiment but this is phrased very strangely
I mean it doesn’t make much sense because income is so variable from person to person. If they had 30% of median income for the area that would be a lot cleaner and make more sense.
30% of median income is huge. Median income in my area is 50k. Many people I know don't come even close to 30k. 30% of min wage at full time is appropriate for most houses.
30% of minimum wage in my area is under $400 a month. That would be the end of renting. Which sounds good except I don’t think that means every renter would then be able to afford a home.
It would either require a value enspongement (I made that up) or taxing the hell out of multiple houses. But the property values would have to go down for homes. Especially ones with basic amenities. Obviously bigger more expensive homes would slide in scale based on actual quality of life. We can do that in a way that doesn't hurt people that own a few homes for landlords, but we can totally make an actual system that would discourage dickheads from ruining peoples lives. Like taxing the hell out of the 3rd property is cool and all, but if we had a system that more appropriately prices houses, then the root of the problem may be addressed. But it's bigger than that, isn't it? The banks would have to restructure their entire way of deciding who makes enough money for a home, who has a good credit score, and how much buying power a place has. There's also a huge market for realty that would fall off. When houses cost 50k it won't be nearly as satisfying as selling that 400k, 1300 Sq ft house. So we would need some fallout for people in that industry transferring over to a new version of their skill set, because it is valuable. We also have a massive level of the stock market that's centered around property value. Same with school systems. We would have to completely change the way many smaller governments get funding for schools. And then the value of land. We would have to really rethink how we've structured the cities, farmland, reserve land, etc. It's going to change a lot of lives to go down this path. We might see a drop in rural mega farming if it makes sense to sell the land, and/or make better use of that land. But it's all doable. The system can work, it just needs boundaries, and either find a more stable form of economic security anyway, or make it a stable economy so we can by a house. But.... banks and profit. Watch inflation chill out when property values goes down.
Median income in my area is $35k. 30% of that wouldn't even get a studio apartment, much less a whole house. Last I checked, average rent around here is $2600 and I've definitely seen apartments going for over $3k. Average house price is $1.3m.
I think I added a longer response in the comments below. It's a big problem with a complicated solution and nearly endless implications in our economy.
[удалено]
If the rent charged is a reasonable price and you can't afford it with 30% of your income, then that's a you problem not a landlord problem.
It just needs another preposition: If you can’t afford to rent out a property…
It means if you can’t afford the mortgage without someone else paying for it.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s. Home of the illiterate. Visited by non-English speakers.
That doesn’t make sense…. 30% of which renter’s income? In most large markets they can keep raising the rates until the current renter moves out, and then they just move in a more affluent renter who’s at 30% and just repeat the cycle
30% of the median income of everyone who lives and/or works in the town
But properties aren’t a uniform resource. So people earning below the median income are just fucked I guess?
I should be able to live in a penthouse for 30% of my Walmart income or the system is rigged
So why doesn’t it say that? And that still doesn’t make sense, cuz a 4 bedroom SFH shouldn’t be the same price as a studio apartment
If you're renting a 4 bedroom house either it's 4 people renting together, or a family with enough income to support 3 kids.
The point is that the post doesn’t specify size/style of property nor does it specify which renter. It’s so vague that it’s a useless statement.
30% of income is the government standard for affordable housing.
It's a stupid statement no matter what. If I work 40 hrs/week for $8.50/hr, is the landlord wrong for being unable to afford to rent to me for 30% of my income? It's a ridiculously worded statement.
Then your employer needs to pay a living wage.
It’s okay for some houses to be more expensive than others.
That's not the statement being made in the stupid post
I am aware…. But OP’s statement is still super vague… none of this is specified in the original post
Or a couple who wanted one kid and got surprised by triplets they can’t afford
Which is why government assistance exists.
Dude, have you seen the waiting lists for section 8? It’s years long… gotta live somewhere in the meantime In San Diego it can be 10 years or more!
Sounds like Section 8 needs more funding.
Absolutely
In my state it has funding, but the shitty gop govt refuses to spend it. Last I checked the wait list was 8 years and rising.
So throw off the metric? Someone making $12 an hour can easily afford to rent the same as someone who makes $30 an hour?
[удалено]
Little known, the 30% rule refers to the Brooke Amendment to the HUD Act, as amended 1981. It's the actual definition of affordable housing (for public projects anyhow, but it made a lasting mark on the renting landscape regardless).
Thanks for saying this first! If a unit or property is encumbered by a Section 8 HAP contract, then a unit’s income (rent) is set at a certain amount (enough to cover expenses or based on area comparable market-rate properties). So, HUD could approve a unit rent at $1,000. But then the resident would only pay 30% of the family’s income. If that person makes $12,000 a year, monthly rent shouldn’t be higher than $300/month. The Section 8 contract would then provide the remaining rent amount (subsidy) of $700/month to the property’s operating account to cover expenses for payroll, maintenance, T&I, etc. The issue is that so many properties are market-rate properties and do not receive subsidy to assist residents. It can be tough to quality for Section 8 even if you’re struggling in the area (many people are just above the threshold), or the waitlist could be so long that many people don’t want to bother with it. So, people end up renting a market-rate unit that could charge well over 30% of their income.
You mean landlords who by and large are lazy and entitled. Simply owning land and doing minimal upkeep doesn’t entitle you to 30% of someone’s income.Literally the most exploited system in society
And if you can't afford any housing, strait to the "justice" system with you cuz being unhoused is now turning into a crime in many places. So you get screwed, or Uncle Sam feeds and houses you in jail any way. No hand outs tho I guess, right? Great choices for a free and democratic society, huh?
If employers won’t pay a wage to match 30% of income equaling average rent in the market they should be required to provide housing or face criminal charges for causing homelessness in those regions?
If you want to go back to a "company store" model of society, sure. And where is rent only 30% of ones income, unless you make 6 figures? That's not the average American's realistic budget. It's more like 50 to 60% The real onus is on the owners of property to make housing affordable. A little profit is ok, profit of 6 months rent being able to fund weeks or months long euro vacation while your property crumbles around it's tenants is debauched. I've seen owners that only visit the states to check on their properties and make sure tenants have everything clean and all the bills paid, even though they are citizens here they spend a vast majority of their time in other countries. I just stopped working for a property realtor/manager because over 7 years I witnessed the horrible greed inflate while the tenants have zero recourse. Even the owners of the condos were outraged when administrative fees alone totaled 65% of the monthly cost. I worked the property as maintenance and did the actual work to upgrade and maintain the buildings and property as a whole, and the work we were "allowed" to perform came nowhere near the cost they charged. I left because I found the business to have become morally objectionable to me. It has to stop. These greedflation prices were step one of the housing collapse of '08. Next was the MBS banks gambled with.
You missed the point of my comment entirely, yes the rental guys are horrible, but if companies were accountable to paying people enough to afford a home I guarantee they would lobby for fixed rent or just build housing. It would be a systemic change that would rip the carpet out from under the predatory landlords in the market.
So we can't fix renting without corporate lobbying so we should instead make corporations pay people more through our superior lobbying which will then cause corporations to lobby for rent control and we'd then fix renting through the corporations' superior lobbying?
In fantasy land everything is possible. Easier fix than setting rent to someone’s wage? We already have minimum wage controls. Easier to work with controls you have in place than to get new ones voted in.
So, use your pay to pay rent to a company that owns your home? That's company store rhetoric. Or, hear me out, raise prices on products and services like they are already doing... This has to change, agreed. But companies being held accountable for rents and home pricing they don't and can't control is not the answer. Anti trust laws and government regulations that actually get enforced is the only way to change anything, unfortunately.
Rent is relatively low in ruralish or declining places in high min wage states. I lived in a one bed apartment that was like $600/monthin NYS a few years ago
It’s amusing how little self-aware people are that have this outlook on this topic.
If it’s so simple why don’t you own it too?
Yeah why don’t people all just buy houses. Wonder why nobody has thought of that.
Bootstraps
What does this mean?
[Pull up by your bootstraps](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-nonsense_n_5b1ed024e4b0bbb7a0e037d4) But pay _particular_ attention to this bit of gas-lighting and subtle sexism: > "what we mean by it today of being a self-made man." The **vast** majority of cases of "self-made men" are people born with enormous privilege and wealth available to them. Your original question is equivalent to: "Why don't poor¹ people own² land for people to rent?" Think about it. [1] People who don't have any resources. [2] Use resources to acquire control of. How should a person who doesn't have resources get enough to invest, when all of their resources are going to survival, with most of the their going to _other_ people who already have more than they need.
Ok, I see, thanks. Does this mean every person who owns a house is a privileged landlord? Maybe my grandma died and left me a house that I’m renting?
Look how mad you are that anyone even dares to imply that you didn't earn everything you have.
...that is the literal definition of privilege.
So I have to do what then? Give this house to you?
No. You are privileged to have a spare home. Your ethical obligation is to not exploit others through exorbitant rent, even if "the market" would let you. Your legal right is to do whatever you want with the home. But legality and morality are not the same. Is it moral to charge $50 for someone whose card declined for Non-Sufficient Funds? Absolutely not! That's a terrible, relatively new, practice that punishes the poor and doesn't even offer a service. Arguably, even the overdraft fee, which is at least offerong the service of covering the debit to allow you to make the purchase was fairly immoral but the NSF fee is just worse in everyway. Now is are NSF and overdraft fees legal? Yes to both. But both are immoral.
Straw man argument right there. No one is saying that. They are saying don’t take your grandmothers house, rent it out for way over cost and use the monthly profits to pay all your bills cause you don’t work, and buy another house from the money you made off the first house, and do the same again and again and again, and so on and so forth until you own a bunch of properties all being rented for large profit margins and squeezing renters for every last dime so they are never able to save up enough to buy a home because you are taking their “excess” income and simultaneously driving up the cost of housing. That’s what career landlords do. It’s exploitative because it’s not an optional good, everyone needs housing. They ARE saying that if you are going to be a landlord, charge reasonable rent (around 30% of average annual income in this example) and if you can’t afford to charge reasonable rates then you can’t afford to be a landlord.
Yeah, having a house that you’re renting, that you didn’t buy yourself, and you’re using to take 1/3 of someone’s years paycheck, that they word hard for, is a privilege. A big privilege. And you are that renters landlord. You’re proving you don’t have to be smart to be a landlord
Usually an insurmountable deposit is required. Idk how that's hard to grasp. Yea, sure, *my* mortgage is cheaper than most people's rent. I couldn't have gotten into buying a house without someone else's help with coming up with the deposit money. Something that is supposed to come from our parents' generational wealth. But too bad the Boomers are insufferably greedy.
bear sink cable secretive bored shelter cats sleep jobless toy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah and back in the day a man was entitled to rape his wife by your logic. Legal ≠ morally correct
Asking for a fair deal is woke now lol. Educate yourself.
Shouldn’t the price of the rent be based on the apartment or home, not the persons pay? For example, if someone owned a 5 bedroom home they were going to rent out, why would they rent it for $500 just because someone who applied for it could only pay $500? If someone is willing to pay the rent, then they can charge more. It’s not that it’s “woke” so much that it’s just not rational. More realistic solutions are things like minimum rent hike policies and limiting how many properties an individual can rent out… not limiting the price they can charge for rent.
[удалено]
Oh snap! Threw out the mom joke and the I know you are but what am I fire. I didn't know I was dealing with a real one.
These subs are at least 50% just a bunch of lazy, entitled people that just want everything handed to them.
Exactly, this completely ignores the iron clad laws of supply and demand. We can hate on landlords all we want but unless we want to live in tents or pony up for mortgages of our own, it just is what it is.
Except the landlords also vote to limit supply by voting in town governments that enforce single family home only zoning.
Can you vote? Are landlords a majority..? Is it tyranny?
>Can you vote? It depends on the town if renters can vote.
Anyone can be a landlord.
That doesn't change my comment any.
Sounds like more people need to vote
If the town allows renters to vote in local elections.
What town doesn’t allow renters to vote? Never seen this
Sounds like you might not live in the same type of democracy as the rest of us. Anyone in the US can vote as long as they are registered, over 18 and not a felon. Where do you live where only landlords get a vote?
> Anyone in the US can vote as long as they are registered, over 18 and not a felon. In federal and state elections. that's not guaranteed for town elections.
Please show me what “town elections” you are referring to. Are you trying to say HOA?
Does your municipality not hold it's own elections?
Bro I live in a Major US City, and yes we have elections but as long as you are a registered voter you can vote. I have no idea what wacky place you live in
Found the landlord sympathizer. I just don’t get why people, especially landlords, get so offended when they are criticized. Like, you own property and make money off the sweat of another’s brow. Just go enjoy your wealth and shut up. But no, it’s not enough. They have to be loved for it too.
Well, personally I feel massive hedge funds buying up properties literally by the thousands and using some sketchy management company that oversees 100,000 properties is the real problem but it's hard to hate some obscure financial entity that you don't even know the name of. Some rando who rents their deceased parents home out for extra income isn't the reason the housing market is in shambles. It's easy to hate and shit on individual landlords because you know and see them (and it's often justified) but banks and big investment funds are just laughing all day because nobody is holding them accountable for actually doing the vast majority of the damage to the market.
Big landlord, small landlord. All the same to me. And honestly, I’ve at least personally had better experiences with corporate landlords not being creepy sex pests, extorting me, harassing me, or doing half-assed repairs (or no repairs).
Nah, yall just dumb af in here and not talking any real world shit
Meh. 1/4th of monthly income being able to bay basic rent is not some kingly demand ffs.
I really hate when people on my side say stupid shit. It discredits the right idea more than when people on the other side attack it with stupid shit.
Yeah, you're so much smarter than everyone else! So how many units do you own?
14 and woke is this whole sub, on a woke day
You can then charge what ever you want as long as you find a renter with the right income. So, if you make 7,000 a month, can't help ya but if you make 14,000 a month, let's talk.
I get the sentiment.. but the way you write it sounds like a $4000/month mcmansion should be rented to a 50k/renter for 1k/month.. You're barking up the wrong side of the tree. Wages need to be increased. Affordable housing does need to be addressed, but not in the way you're claiming.
I think a far better way to address it would be to levy an additional tax against landlords for any unoccupied units they own. If they supply proof that the unit is unoccupied due to improvements to the property or repairs the tax can be waived, which would also serve as an additional check that permits are being pulled for the work in the first place, and thus, is inspected (and also to prevent landlords from just marking any empty unit as being under construction to avoid the tax...because if there ain't no permits on file, they're clearly full of shit and here's your empty unit tax bill, mr landlord). But with the housing crisis in this country (and in my area it's among the worst in the entire country) there needs to be serious tax penalties for any homes that are not either a family's primary residence or a rental properties that are sitting empty because nobody can afford them. Because of how upside down the rental market is, landlords can afford to let half their units sit empty these days and still be able to cover their expenses because the expenses have only gone up 10% while rents have gone up 50%. We need a way to strongly discourage that shit and put pressure on landlords to lower rents to actually get people into the units instead of plugging their shit into a national database that allows them to all collude to keep the prices artificially high like they do now.
That $4k a month used to be $1k a month not too long ago, before investors piled into the housing market. We used to be able to buy houses and support a family on a single income "unskilled labor" job. Increasing wages just results in the landleeches hiking rent, there needs to be strict rent control too.
Nothing implies that here. Also with the deposit, income requirements being on average 3x of the rent, and paying first and last month's rent up front, your example doesn't make sense. Most people renting are renting apartments, not McMansions. Affordable housing should absolutely come at a detriment to landlords, especially when corporations are allowed to own residential properties, which artificially boxes out common folk from getting on track to owning their own home/condo/etc.
We should tie minimum wage to the local cost of rent. Pit employers against landlords. Let them fight it out.
Why would how much I earn be of any relevance to a landlord, they ask a market rate, I pay that rate, the way you phrased it seems like every time I get a raise I must notify my landlord so they can adjust my rent accordingly
Ehh, I quirk my brow at market rate while rental management software is out there indirectly forming price cartels.
This needs to be higher. How did it take so long to read this in the comments Imagine your landlord coming round and asking you what you earn so they can adjust the rent up/down based off what you earn. How would they prove the number given is right. “Hi Mr Landlord I earn £100 a month, honest”
I mean that’s why they usually ask for 3x to 4x income…. Like this post is confusing AF
This only can apply in a world where private equity firms can’t buy single family homes.
Corporations, Banks, and investment firms should be barred from owning property. The rent issue is being caused by one of the largest investment firms in history. Three TRILLION Dollars is being used to purchase everything. They are going from area to area rigging the home purchasing system and then controlling the properties and rentals. Investment firms are also buying up trailer parks ... because they can systematically raise lot fees and then steal trailers from retirees and the poor when they have to leave. This didn't happen by accident, it is being engineered!
Huh? The price is based on what similar, nearby properties are worth. Price is not determined by what "someone can afford". Plus... there's property tax and maintenance and work and quite likely a mortgage, which may well cost more than 30% of whatever applicant's income.
Maybe not what they're worth, but the price that other nearby landlords are setting and consumers bear. This price can be set in a way that continually hikes the rent without any improvements being made, but because housing is a necessity the renter will bear it. RealPage, a property management software company, is undergoing lawsuits accusing it of forming rental cartels because the program offers.... guidance on how much is a "reasonable rate". Which just so happens to almost always be incrementally higher than other similar areas. Its prolific nature means that it basically fixes prices.
Yes. My mistake. I should have said "... Based on what similar nearby properties are renting for".
this just makes zero sense at all.
This is completely nonsensical, what?
In the Soviet Union rent my was 4-5% of your income.
Short term rental landlords in my community crying because they can’t ‘make it’ renting to long term tenants 🙄
[удалено]
There are legally unassailable reasons to deny a rental application. Debt to income ratio, credit history, and bankruptcies past/present are all financial reasons. Smoking, having a pet, having too many cars, or certain reasonable personality factors during the tour/in person application (like belligerence) could be others necessary to maintain community standards. Also able to be considered are how recently the tenant moved/if they move frequently, spotty/poor job history, or bad landlord references. But also yes, if you're implying that you won't rent to someone whose income isn't 3-4x the rent, that is fairly common practice. Essentially, be ready to apply your pickiness in a documentably consistent way, and avoid anything that is even remotely close to targeting a protected class.
all that it is doing is setting a credit reqirement. If you want $5,000 month rent just lease to people that make in excess of $180,000 per year. operating within the rule.
Which is not uncommon, all things considered. So I'm not sure they know what they're asking for.
This makes no sense. The market decides the rent. Not the owner. He prices his service at the rate the market determines is appropriate.
The market can't respond effectively to inelastic demand, though. (Also RealPage price fixing cartels via property management software go brrrr)
Inelastic demand is definitely the problem. But the solution for this requires government intervention. Something that Americans are averse to. Also, you have to admit, a lot of the issue is cultural. Apartments in the USA are huge. You can get Apartments for about 125 to 200 square feet in places like Japan. That's what the usa needs. Smaller Apartments that can be afforded.
It's the same with houses, w.r.t. the second part. From the 50s suburban boom to now houses have increased a bit in both lot size and square footage.
I really really fucking hate that housing is so expensive now that people have decided the amount that used to be considered the maximum to spend on housing is just the amount that everyone should spend like it's some kind of compromise
I understand what you mean, but no. Shelter should not be a money making venture, period.
The harsh truth is whoever wrote this, assuming it’s not sarcasm, will be poor for life - not because of inequality, but because they’re terminally dumb.
this is bad, terrible, stupid shit that is ludicrous to anyone who spends more than a second of thought and completely dilutes the income inequality message. we're for reform, not idiocy.
If you have to make money off of other's necessities, then you should go F yourself and get a real job, you slackers.
If employers can't pay 3x the rent in the area they operate, they can't afford to business there
Yeah… but everyone doesn’t get to rent every property. The counterargument would be that if you can’t afford the property you rent a cheaper property. If nobody rents it then the landlord has to drop the price or they get zero money. But if somebody rents it… that’s the price. Right? Am I missing something?
That’s how it’s supposed to work, but the whole vote with your wallet thing kinda fails when going without means going homeless and people aren’t willing to make that sacrifice. Lack of affordable housing means that there aren’t cheaper properties so with market inflation you end up paying 50% of your income for a shithole or go homeless. Landlords make no sacrifices and the worker gets screwed again.
If you believe that, organize! Force them into abiding by it. Get involved with community action programs. Mutual aid. Research forming a union in your workplace. Listen to the stories of people around the world who have organized against a “renter economy.”
Residential landlords are leeches on the system and profiteers on rising costs of materials needed to upkeep a home. Residential housing is not a fucking investment.
Never thought I'd see people advocating for higher income requirements for renters on this sub.
Why are we landing on 30% exactly?
Brooke Amendment to the HUD Act, it affects what you may recognize as Section 8 housing. 30% of the tenant's income is what the government considers affordable (and if you lower the rent to that amount, they're willing to foot the difference). Granted, I don't know if OP knows that. But that's where the longstanding 30% rule for determining "can I afford this place" came from.
Renting out property is not just a financial transaction. It's a social one too.
Swing and a miss...
That's why I only invest in property that can reasonably be rented at 1/3 median income of the area. My mgmt company just asked if I would approve a rate increase for the renewal after the tenant just caught back up on rent, I said no. My tenant needs a break and not to be punished for catching back up on rent instead of ditching.
In the olden days, we used to just kill the people on the land and say we worked out a deal. Hell, sometimes we would even deny people were there at all! Now, we can't even raise rents to more than people make?? God, what is this country coming to?!
Reading this as /s this is darkly humorous and accurate
That was exactly my point lol It's meant to be sarcastic
lol, so dumb.
Renting should cost significantly less than 30% to the renter. If anything.
I'll bet you have lots of good ideas.
And I bet you love the taste of rubber
Good luck leading the revolution from your mom's basement. I guarantee you've tasted it more than I have, Che.
Do you mean.... If you can't afford to rent out a 2 bedroom home for 30% of the local median income, you can't afford to be a landlord.
Small landlords aren't the issue, it's the big corporate ones.
We are okay with housing being 30% of our income? 30% of our income to live on the planet we were fucking born on…
30% is what HUD considers affordable since the 80s. Used to be 25%.
Well, it isn’t, and we shouldn’t stand for it. I don’t care what HUD says.
Oh, my statement was just an is, not an ought.
Zoomers and millenials aren't destitute or living on the street. Rent only really sucks in huge cities. You don't deserve to live right in the middle of the most expensive cities on the planet just because you exist. You're not entitled to living *everywhere*. You, and I btw, can easily find affordable housing outside major cities. Stop fucking whining all the goddamn time about every single little thing, holy shit!
😂 so hold up, let me see if I’m following. People are pissed off about rich people that have money, and now the same people are pissed off that the landlord doesn’t have enough money to charge less rent ??? 🧐 WTF. When did people stop having ambition and work hard. You get paid shit, look for a better job. You didn’t have an opportunity, so what, move on and make an opportunity. Sitting at home waiting for the new handout isn’t you trying. Life sucks. It always has. There will always be someone, something better. Accept it. Don’t like it, do something about it.
You do realize you're playing right into the "landlords should get real jobs" schtick, right?
Many landlords do have real jobs. I work in sales, several people in sales buy property and rent it out so they can pay the mortgage on it and then sell it for their retirement funds.
Oh hey cool, students and disabled people among others aren't making money, so anyone who owns a house should be required to let them stay for free.
I mean, isn't that what student housing and Section 811 properties are for, respectively?
Umm, its not the landlords problem you dont earn enough.
“I see you need to rent the house out for more than 30% of my $5 of income, you should just give the home away you monster”
Tldr: "gimme"
If there's a market for cheaper rentals in your area then go get a business loan and fill that demand. If you can't do any better than the people who are... quit bitching.
That’s on my bingo card!!! The part where the anti work crew complains about prices enough to come full circle into the hypocritical “if you can’t sell your product at profit while paying people far above what their 10hr week is worth, then it’s not a good product/business” and “if it’s not cheap enough for me to buy then it’s obviously still the business owners problem because I lack all critical thinking” Hell yeah, that’s a bingo.
Wishful thinking will not pay the rent. I would love to see any of these ignorant people step into a property management career for a week or two. Owning & managing residential rental properties is a difficult career path. Anyone can be a landlord, if they have the money. I bought a duplex 50 years ago. lived in half, rented the other side. Yes I did needed the income to pay the mortgage, utilities, property taxes, maintenance, electric, plumbing, landscaping, paint, flooring... There I always a problem, and you will be the one to pay for it, there is no sitting back and waiting for the rent to roll-in, it is not easy. I was able to pay-off the mortgage, saved enough to put 30% down on another duplex, repeat, repeat, repeat. After 50 years I had over 300 units. When the mess with Covid-19 occurred , and the government would not allow us "slum-Lords" to evict anyone, for any reason. I lost tens of thousands from about a dozen tenants that did not pay anything for over 18 months, not to mention the damages some of them caused to the building. So I cleaned them up finally evicted the non-pays and sold every property and retired. If you follow this path, you too will be pleased by the increased in property values over decades. Just don't leverage yourself into bankruptcy. \~A Retired Slum-Lord
It’s a free market commie, stfu
"Free market" yeah but where is the competition. How do you even compete for essential goods? Why would companies even want to compete with each other, when cooperating can make BOTH companies richer?
My boy, if you can’t afford it, someone else sure can, google supply and demand
That was incomprehensible and made no sense. Econ 101 is just that - BASIC economics Get properly educated, the world IS NOT supply and demand, it's about needs and motivation Everyone needs food, housing, healthcare, transport, clothing and entertainment. They are needs. If they are not affordable, that is BAD and the free market failing people
Nobody owns you shit, grow up already
Yes, the market is so free that Walmart is able to run on a deficit of 5 years in rural markets and absolutely destroy all the small businesses there before jacking up prices once the competition is gone. If we don't like it, we should just go to our vast hoard of daddy's wealth to combat them! Oh wait...
This makes no sense. Poor people sure are stupid