Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on July 21, 2018, 01:30:19 PM
-
Kamala Harris's latest boondoggle: Anyone who pays more than 30% of their salary in rent gets free money. Sounds just like the ACA, where somebody who makes $50K/yr gets zero supplement, but somebody who makes $47K can get a free Bronze plan.
Seems to me that "30%" has been a reasonable number for housing for a long while.
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2018/07/21/really-sen-kamala-harris-wants-federal-govt-to-ease-the-burden-of-rent-reality-comes-calling/
-
Does she know America's is twenty trillion dollars in debt right now?
I keep hearing these libtards bloviating new plans to spend $$$$$ that the country doesn't have, and wondering where they're going to get the money?
Print it? Yea, but the dollar will go Weimar Republic on us pretty soon.
Tax us? We don't have enough.
I need to get busy and get better prepped.
Again...... :facepalm:
-
Sounds like a good time to become a landlord. >:D
Seriously, this won't, really, help "the 99%" at all. It'll just encourage landlords to keep raising the rent. After all if the tenant can just get more of a tax credit why not?
-
Sounds like a good time to become a landlord. >:D
Seriously, this won't, really, help "the 99%" at all. It'll just encourage landlords to keep raising the rent. After all if the tenant can just get more of a tax credit why not?
Exactly! Subsidized stuff gets the prices jacked up.
-
Exactly! Subsidized stuff gets the prices jacked up.
Well, except in this case, short term, I think it will somewhat be the opposite. Surprisingly to me, an article I read on this in the commie pinko San Fransisco Chronicle (linked below), actually admitted that the vast majority of the landlords that will take hits are "mom and pop" landlords. Similar to what I was before I dumped my rentals (none too soon by the looks of things). People who buy a house or a duplex or similar and use it as an investment towards their retirement, or as a good portion of their retirement income.
Once rent control hits, their expenses continue to go up, but their income doesn't. Certainly equity grows, but as one of the people quoted in the article said, "Plumbers don't take equity as payment for repairs." So you're left with income loss, or selling out. Certainly selling a single family home or even a duplex is, in CA, and easy way to get your money out (at least right now) because you can sell them as primary residences. Though depending on the situation, the seller can take huge tax hits, especially on depreciation tax.
Once you get to the Triplex and larger places, with strict rent control (and where there is rent control, there are usually other draconian (and expensive) requirements for landlords), I will guess those properties will be depressed, because who wants to pay $5mil for a San Francisco 4 unit apartment that you're only making 1-2%/yr on after expenses? Stick the money in a couple of Vanguard funds and make 8% sitting on your ass doing nothing. Those "mom and pop" multi-family properties will end up being sold to real estate corporations that know their way around rent control laws. Then all the "people power" tenants can deal with a faceless entity that has lawyers on retainer.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/California-gearing-up-for-big-battle-over-rent-13092956.php
-
Except what Harris is proposing isn't rent price control, but a tax credit for those paying "too much" in rent. Which will do nothing to reduce the amount of rent charged, just transfer money from us to them.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mBF_JR0VLBk (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mBF_JR0VLBk)
-
Except what Harris is proposing isn't rent price control, but a tax credit for those paying "too much" in rent. Which will do nothing to reduce the amount of rent charged, just transfer money from us to them.
Correct, but the SF Chronicle is talking about a rent control ballot proposition, which I'm reading as different than Harris's harebrained scheme. I went and veered from my OP. :)
-
Except what Harris is proposing isn't rent price control, but a tax credit for those paying "too much" in rent. Which will do nothing to reduce the amount of rent charged, just transfer money from us to them.
Later on the same liberals will be complaining about govt programs that give money to the rich.
-
Once rent control hits, their expenses continue to go up, but their income doesn't. Certainly equity grows, but as one of the people quoted in the article said, "Plumbers don't take equity as payment for repairs." So you're left with income loss, or selling out. Certainly selling a single family home or even a duplex is, in CA, and easy way to get your money out (at least right now) because you can sell them as primary residences. Though depending on the situation, the seller can take huge tax hits, especially on depreciation tax.
Even the mere prospect of rent control can result in the cessation of construction of truly "affordable", economic housing because of the prospect that it might become rent controlled. That's why cities with rent control have to force their construction companies to build cheaper apartments and such.
The true answer is deregulation - allow smaller apartments in taller buildings. Don't allow local districts to shut down affordable housing in their area via their various means. Etc...
-
As an aside, a friend of mine is a builder here in Portland, OR.... He posted on facebook how much he paid in permits to the city to build a modest, 2000 square foot house..... Over $45,000 just in building permits. that doesn't include electrical, plumbing, mechanical, HVAC, etc...........
-
That kind of stuff makes me appreciate where I live.
1800 sq ft house on 3.25 acres and my property taxes rent to the government is less than $1000 a year.
I'm in an unincorporated part of the county so I don't have to bribe pay for a permit for upgrades or repairs. 19 years ago I added a 1500 sq ft shop, no permits.
-
Even the mere prospect of rent control can result in the cessation of construction of truly "affordable", economic housing because of the prospect that it might become rent controlled. That's why cities with rent control have to force their construction companies to build cheaper apartments and such.
The true answer is deregulation - allow smaller apartments in taller buildings. Don't allow local districts to shut down affordable housing in their area via their various means. Etc...
Everyone wants affordable housing....................somewhere else.
-
A few points mentioned in the comments that I hadn't thought about:
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/07/26/kamala-harriss-bill-would-give-back-money-to-families-paying-more-than-30-percent-of-their-income-on-rent/
What's to keep people from getting a three bedroom ocean view apartment that's 50% of their income instead of the two bedroom no-view that's 30% of their income?
-
A few points mentioned in the comments that I hadn't thought about:
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/07/26/kamala-harriss-bill-would-give-back-money-to-families-paying-more-than-30-percent-of-their-income-on-rent/
What's to keep people from getting a three bedroom ocean view apartment that's 50% of their income instead of the two bedroom no-view that's 30% of their income?
Yup. People will just move into more expensive spaces, and owners will jack up the rent.
-
I was thinking I could transfer my house to a company (owned by me). Then set up a rental agreement for 50% of my income and get the Govt to spot me the 20%. That 20% should cover my current mortgage, property taxes, and insurance. Somehow I doubt that would fly, but that is just my first stab at scamming this proposal.