Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Rent is Too Damn High (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BobbyLayne
- Start date
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Not a visual person AND you hate summation articles? Me too!
TRANSCIPT Rent: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
TRANSCIPT Rent: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
It's all going to come crashing down soon. When it does, buy a house.
Max Power
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
You would think, but every thread is about 1/6 mania, I hate Trump mania or a combination of both.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
I found parts of the report interesting (I’m not particularly enamored with Oliver but this piece was trending on Twitter all day.)
For instance:
….apartments are being built. But the problem is, thanks in part to local, nimby opposition to more affordable, multi-family housing, it’s mainly been at the high end. In fact, in the last three decades, the national stock of rental units available actually grew by more than 13 million. But, crucially, the number of units at the lowest end of the market fell by nearly four million. That might be why if you’ve ever tried to search for affordable apartments in your area, google just says “nope.” [Laughter] And this serious lack of new affordable housing has enabled landlords to charge higher rents for the units that exist, something that’s increasingly attracted institutional investors: these are corporate landlords, like private equity firms, or even publicly traded companies, that pool the rents of their tenants and sell them as investments. They’ve long been players in apartment rentals, but more recently, after the 2008 housing crash, companies like these popped up to snap up single-family homes and rent them out. And because institutional investors are always trying to maximize returns, they’ll take any opportunity to push rents higher. Take Monarch, which has been called middle America’s fastest-growing landlord. Here is their owner last year salivating at the prospect of rent hikes.
We have an unprecedented opportunity, at least in my working lifetime, to really press rents, press rents on renewals because the country is highly occupied. We’re 97.5%. And so, where are people going to go? They can’t go anywhere. They want to be in apartments, or they have to be in apartments, and we have a tremendous opportunity to press both on renewing leases for existing residents, and to reset market rates, which we’ve reset numerous times even this year.
John: Wow. “They can’t go anywhere, and for us, that’s an unprecedented opportunity to press them.” That is a terrible way to talk about people. Honestly, it’s barely an acceptable way to talk about paninis. “Those sandwiches can’t go anywhere, #### it, press ’em. Squeeze those ####ers! I wanna see lines!” [Laughter] So if you’re wondering why your rent is going up, it may well be because your landlord sees the current affordable housing crisis as a chance to “reset market rates.” And in a lot of the country, there are very few legal constraints to stop them doing that. You may have heard of “rent control,” which strictly limits how much a landlord can charge you, but vanishingly few people have access to that anymore.
WRT the bolded, affordable housing seems like a lot of things in the globalized economy, the marketplace is not going to provide solutions for the low end. The vulnerable just get squeezed more and more (just as vulnerable workers like rideshare drivers or waitstaff or unskilled factory workers get squeezed in order to lay gifts at ge feet of “increasing shareholder value.”)
Anyway, it’s a 20 minute piece, I’ve learned people don’t watch or read posted links. Bite sized portions only, please.
1/3 of the country ate renters. I was homeless less than two years ago and without a HUD-VASH voucher (special program for homeless vets) would have never escaped. Even then I had to view 51 apartments before I found a NYC landlord who would accept my fully guaranteed voucher.
I’m no longer “at risk” but what’s going on in the NYC rental market is insane. The average midtown 1-bedroom hit $4K last month. The standard qualification in NYC is 40 times rent. Meaning $160K salary is the floor now.
If 33% or so are renters, in FBG terms it’s probably 10% or less. Affordable housing might not be on anyones radar bc it’s someone else’s problem.
IDK
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Yeah I think he hits on good topics. He’s equal opportunity, he’ll roast anyone. I find Jon Stewart in his new long form show does a little better job at taking a deep dive into issues.
Max Power
Footballguy
On the flip side to all this, I posted an article last year about how some want the US to be a nation of renters. This was coming off the report that blackrock and real estate groups were buying up all the market at over asking price.I found parts of the report interesting (I’m not particularly enamored with Oliver but this piece was trending on Twitter all day.)
For instance:
….apartments are being built. But the problem is, thanks in part to local, nimby opposition to more affordable, multi-family housing, it’s mainly been at the high end. In fact, in the last three decades, the national stock of rental units available actually grew by more than 13 million. But, crucially, the number of units at the lowest end of the market fell by nearly four million. That might be why if you’ve ever tried to search for affordable apartments in your area, google just says “nope.” [Laughter] And this serious lack of new affordable housing has enabled landlords to charge higher rents for the units that exist, something that’s increasingly attracted institutional investors: these are corporate landlords, like private equity firms, or even publicly traded companies, that pool the rents of their tenants and sell them as investments. They’ve long been players in apartment rentals, but more recently, after the 2008 housing crash, companies like these popped up to snap up single-family homes and rent them out. And because institutional investors are always trying to maximize returns, they’ll take any opportunity to push rents higher. Take Monarch, which has been called middle America’s fastest-growing landlord. Here is their owner last year salivating at the prospect of rent hikes.
We have an unprecedented opportunity, at least in my working lifetime, to really press rents, press rents on renewals because the country is highly occupied. We’re 97.5%. And so, where are people going to go? They can’t go anywhere. They want to be in apartments, or they have to be in apartments, and we have a tremendous opportunity to press both on renewing leases for existing residents, and to reset market rates, which we’ve reset numerous times even this year.
John: Wow. “They can’t go anywhere, and for us, that’s an unprecedented opportunity to press them.” That is a terrible way to talk about people. Honestly, it’s barely an acceptable way to talk about paninis. “Those sandwiches can’t go anywhere, #### it, press ’em. Squeeze those ####ers! I wanna see lines!” [Laughter] So if you’re wondering why your rent is going up, it may well be because your landlord sees the current affordable housing crisis as a chance to “reset market rates.” And in a lot of the country, there are very few legal constraints to stop them doing that. You may have heard of “rent control,” which strictly limits how much a landlord can charge you, but vanishingly few people have access to that anymore.
WRT the bolded, affordable housing seems like a lot of things in the globalized economy, the marketplace is not going to provide solutions for the low end. The vulnerable just get squeezed more and more (just as vulnerable workers like rideshare drivers or waitstaff or unskilled factory workers get squeezed in order to lay gifts at ge feet of “increasing shareholder value.”)
Anyway, it’s a 20 minute piece, I’ve learned people don’t watch or read posted links. Bite sized portions only, please.
1/3 of the country ate renters. I was homeless less than two years ago and without a HUD-VASH voucher (special program for homeless vets) would have never escaped. Even then I had to view 51 apartments before I found a NYC landlord who would accept my fully guaranteed voucher.
I’m no longer “at risk” but what’s going on in the NYC rental market is insane. The average midtown 1-bedroom hit $4K last month. The standard qualification in NYC is 40 times rent. Meaning $160K salary is the floor now.
If 33% or so are renters, in FBG terms it’s probably 10% or less. Affordable housing might not be on anyones radar bc it’s someone else’s problem.
IDK
Several people on this board thought renting was a good things. Especially for the younger generation so they aren't tied down to a mortgage.
Now we're just seeing the downside and if someone wants to live in a desirable location, they now need to pay for it more than before.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
One issue driving rents up in NYC is we have the total number of Air BnB + VRBO listings is a multiple of the available units to rent/lease long term.
This issue goes far beyond the quirky NYC market. We have a dearth of affordable housing all over the country.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
What happened is younger generations figured out that the only chance they had to retire and not starve was the FI/RE movement. ( Financial Independence/Retire Early) One of the key components of that was DINKs ( Double Income/No Kids) and casual renting and mass savings/investment. Of course how is investment looking now?
Too many people doing that makes it hard to control the masses. Also it's a natural pathway to Conservatism. Operational scarcity is naturally conservative system.
Let's just be honest about what's happening here. Some elements in power in our society got tired of this experiment called democracy and now just want widespread modified socialism that makes sure the rank and file every day people know they are nothing more than cattle.
Widespread violence is coming. No one can stop the momentum now.
dkp993
Footballguy
This has nothing to do with politics outside of both sides being ok with unaffordable rent.
-fish-
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
This is the only solution if you don’t like rising rents. They’ll crater time to time but are always long term trending up. If you look at construction costs today, it’s near impossible to build what some call affordable housing to rent out. It’s not just corporate landlords raising either, I have to move my units up to market because all my maintenance and utility costs are up the same percentages. In raw dollars yes I am making more. But that’s why real property is a terrific inflation hedge, much better than gold.
glvsav37
Footballguy
now I remember why I stopped watching that show....JO cant go 2 thoughts w/o dropping a "it's like a..." joke. Out of 20 minutes there was prob 7 minutes of usable content.
IDK, I agree with some points but feel a ton of relevant reasons were passed over b/c they didnt fit the narrative. I'm not a lanlord, but it seems he could care less that being a landlord was a business and you know, getting paid for the service you provide is a bad thing. It just so happens that the service is providing someone else "a home" so GTFO and go kick rocks Mr Landlord when they cant afford it anymore.
• NYC rent has always been stupid high. Since before 2000 when I was working in the city, having a midtown appt was unattainable
• rent stabilization is great, (and I'm no expert), but when everything else around you is rising (taxes, utilities, insurance), you cant be paying the same reduced rent you've been paying 10+ years ago.
• IDK what they were talking about with evicting renters? But here on Long Island, everything is stacked against the landlords. Police and the courts will not physically remove squatters and I know landlords that have gone into their pockets to pay tenants to leave. And even then, there is a 90% chance the appt is trashed and the landlord needs to foot that renovation bill.
you cant tell me that at least part of this recent hike is LL's trying to recoup some of the money that they got screwed over on during the pandemic and the eviction mandates. Again, everyone was looking to shoo away the landlords as if they didnt matter and they were not counting on the rent to put food on their own plates. Yes, there are megga corporations, but most LL's I know are people that own 1-2 homes and they count on that income.
Around me (suburban Long Island), they are building a ton of these luxury appt complexes, each with pretty steep rent. But they are not the garden appts we use to have...they have spas, weight rooms, coffee shops, bars with friday night parties, luxurious pools...my buddy rented a place while his home was being built that had a golf simulator and a room stocked with wrapping paper for you to use for free. These things cost money to maintain and that comes out of your rent.
At least here, in the burbs, renting wasn't meant to be forever. You rented with the goal of getting a house in a year or 2. All these amenities and built in luxuries (along with not needing to cut your lawn) are disrupting that cycle b/c its making people too comfortable and buying that "starter home" is now a downgrade in lifestyle. I worry about my own home value and where it will be when I'm ready to downsize and get that little retirement home in a few years. Nobody will want to be traditional homeowners by then.
IDK, I agree with some points but feel a ton of relevant reasons were passed over b/c they didnt fit the narrative. I'm not a lanlord, but it seems he could care less that being a landlord was a business and you know, getting paid for the service you provide is a bad thing. It just so happens that the service is providing someone else "a home" so GTFO and go kick rocks Mr Landlord when they cant afford it anymore.
• NYC rent has always been stupid high. Since before 2000 when I was working in the city, having a midtown appt was unattainable
• rent stabilization is great, (and I'm no expert), but when everything else around you is rising (taxes, utilities, insurance), you cant be paying the same reduced rent you've been paying 10+ years ago.
• IDK what they were talking about with evicting renters? But here on Long Island, everything is stacked against the landlords. Police and the courts will not physically remove squatters and I know landlords that have gone into their pockets to pay tenants to leave. And even then, there is a 90% chance the appt is trashed and the landlord needs to foot that renovation bill.
you cant tell me that at least part of this recent hike is LL's trying to recoup some of the money that they got screwed over on during the pandemic and the eviction mandates. Again, everyone was looking to shoo away the landlords as if they didnt matter and they were not counting on the rent to put food on their own plates. Yes, there are megga corporations, but most LL's I know are people that own 1-2 homes and they count on that income.
Around me (suburban Long Island), they are building a ton of these luxury appt complexes, each with pretty steep rent. But they are not the garden appts we use to have...they have spas, weight rooms, coffee shops, bars with friday night parties, luxurious pools...my buddy rented a place while his home was being built that had a golf simulator and a room stocked with wrapping paper for you to use for free. These things cost money to maintain and that comes out of your rent.
At least here, in the burbs, renting wasn't meant to be forever. You rented with the goal of getting a house in a year or 2. All these amenities and built in luxuries (along with not needing to cut your lawn) are disrupting that cycle b/c its making people too comfortable and buying that "starter home" is now a downgrade in lifestyle. I worry about my own home value and where it will be when I'm ready to downsize and get that little retirement home in a few years. Nobody will want to be traditional homeowners by then.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I can't speak for NYC, and I know AL law and NYC law have to probably be at opposite ends of the spectrum, but this is pretty true even here. Sometimes you get bad tenants.
I have some small "condos" in a college town that are essentially apartments. I had bought some and fixed them up. I mostly rent to grad students and vet students where my complex is. This one guy was in grad school, from a foreign country. Not my stereotypical party guy. He paid his rent every month, never a problem,, and when we went in after he left he had somehow ripped down the entire bannister and railing for the stairs. I have no earthly idea how that happened and his damage deposit didn't near cover that. We have no real recourse here, I could go after him but I'd never see a dime of it. The guy left town at least, the country at worst, good luck to me.
When it comes to evictions I've learned it all depends on your local sheriff's office and their policy on those things. We have counties here in our state where evictions are way down their list of problems. They aren't that interested and you really have to push and prod to get help.
The one college town I mentioned, that sheriff is a little more interested in helping out, likely campaign contributions help and relationships with the property managers. I had bought a unit from someone who literally sold it because they had a problem tenant. When I bought it the manager apologized to me for not telling me but as a realtor here she couldn't disclose that prior to close. I told her I wasn't an idiot and could figure it out when I went out for inspection and met the guy staying there. The guy had some issues and had threatened some of the girls in the complex, the manager of the complex was seriously afraid he was going to hurt someone. That guy I never got paid a dime from. As soon as I was the owner, he was behind. The moment I could, I had the sheriff come out and post the eviction. They got out there the day we called, which isn't a given in most places. The guy's girlfriend's mother, who lived in another state tried to send one month, he was several behind. Our state law here is if you accept that payment it essentially resets the clock and he has more time to pay and the eviction process ceases. I had my manager mail the check back. The guy was still squatting there and wouldn't leave so I was still stuck for a few days. He had another incident elsewhere where he got into an altercation and got arrested. I had a little birdie notify me he was in jail. At that point I hired a couple college guys who do turn work for the real estate company like painting and minor repairs go out there and rent them a trailer on the way. They changed the locks and loaded all his stuff up he had been told to vacate and haul it off to the dump. I'll admit, yeah I got a little joy in that part given this guy was big on threatening college girls.
On the other side of the coin, after that problem guy I've had the same single guy living there ever since. The guy gives me no trouble. Only ever calls maintenance for the most serious of things, fixes other things himself. When the complex went up on rents for his size unit, that's the one unit I had them offer him a renewal at the old rate on. Having a good tenant is worth way more than a few extra dollars in most cases.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
is there anyone here who rents to someone ?
I know rent is high ... but the cost of upkeep on a place isn't cheap. Taxes are not cheap. Insurance isn't cheap. Paying taxes on the income of the property isn't cheap. The entire purpose of renting is to make money, that factors in as well.
its easy to look at someone renting their place and think they're making $$$ but it another I think to actually be the owner
I know rent is high ... but the cost of upkeep on a place isn't cheap. Taxes are not cheap. Insurance isn't cheap. Paying taxes on the income of the property isn't cheap. The entire purpose of renting is to make money, that factors in as well.
its easy to look at someone renting their place and think they're making $$$ but it another I think to actually be the owner
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Just got my insurance policy renewals in this morning on the two rental houses I have, both went up right at 10%. I was actually relieved it wasn't more. But to your point, most every cost is up that 10% at least, if you aren't matching it in rental increases you are doing worse.
Cjw_55106
Footballguy
How many renters do you think can buy but choose not to? I'm thinking a small percentage.
Getting the down payment is damn near impossible for many/most renters.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
so you pass that on to the renters, correct ?
on a $1500 rental, that's $150 more per month
its not an easy situation - but its also not the entirely the owners/landlord's fault either and many people don't understand that
Max Power
Footballguy
at a minimum that 10%. I'd think most LL would go higher since even service calls will now be 10% more. Parts and labor +10%. Lawn care or HOA fees up as well. 15-20% might be more realistic.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
If you have a credit score of 580, you only need 3.5% down payment for an FHA loan.
So for a $250,000 house you'd only need, $8,750.
Then what you do is get a first-time home buyer grant. In my city they have grants up to $10,000.
If a renter has to come up with a 1st month + last month + security deposit, I think they would be able to purchase a starter home rather easily without that much money out of pocket.
If you can get a VA loan, you don't need a down payment.
dkp993
Footballguy
It also matters about what state/county you are speaking about. Many and rules about how much rent can be raised for existing residents. In parts of Cali it’s 9% if I remember correctly.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
my son just rented a room in Sacramento - $1100 a month
the 3 bedroom house is $3000 a month rent
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I guess. Honestly it’s not so much I look at that and say I have to have it. The reality is the market makes it that way because the values of the homes and construction costs have risen. That drives up the risk to the insurance company so they raise prices. The markets for rent are driven up due to homes and construction costing more. So it’s pretty much hand in hand even though I’m just moving with the market, not so much making a line by line analysis of what I should charge. You have to price at the market or you’ll either rent for much too less or if you’re too high you sit vacant.
But those who think landlords are doing this out of greed don’t understand or don’t care to understand the ongoing costs and how inflation hits that too. Most times when rents rise, the same factors that cause that also cause the costs of owning and maintaining that property to also rise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
Yeah, there are obviously a lot of renter protections in place all over and I'm not very familiar with the laws. I'm more trying to wrap my head around what a landlord needs to bump up his rate for it to continue to make sense being a LL. If everything is up 10%, I'd think the landlord needs to bump more than 10% just to keep up.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
From an IRR perspective this is true in order to maintain that percentage. It does lead to more raw dollars but if you assume inflation is also equal across all sectors the purchasing power of your return only is the same as before even with those extra dollars. If you have a fixed rate on your loan in an inflationary environment then you could see some increased return from that aspect.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
I usually don't disagree with you on economic/financial matters, but I'm not quite so sure here.
I agree with you that renters are getting squeezed out. Before the pandemic hit, I bought my godson a condo in Dallas. I found a pretty solid place and a good situation at University Park. I considered putting him a sink or swim situation as an objective lesson, but the cost of housing is too brutal. Within his generation, I don't think it's doable for most. Within his peer group and his social circle and his college circle, etc, etc, nearly all of them just can't do it, not the way I did in decades past. Of course, as a parent, I have to consider the safety issue. What he could afford on his own, what kind of neighborhood would that be?
I had several rental properties long long ago, and I just phased them out. Some people are built to be landlords, others are not. That's part of the dynamic lots of people don't see upfront. There is money in owning property, but it creates all kinds of trade offs and obligations that you might be OK with and your situation is viable, and for others, not so much. Same thing with restaurants, I had a half stake in one for two years and I can tell you I am no Bourdain nor a new Gordon Ramsey waiting to happen.
If I wasn't a total safety net for my godson, he'd have no choice but to use the FI/RE strategy with implied minimalism.
For young people, I'd say join the military, do 20 years, don't own, keep moving. Stay long enough in one place to get experience in an industry and then try to telecommute full time. Move to a dirt cheap cost of living area/state. I have empty properties but my situation is unique, I understand that. I have places that are mine but I won't rent out. I'll let friends or associates stay there but I have no desire to be a landlord ever again. If I'm going to be fair about it, I abhor obligation. I don't like any kind of shackles. I always want the ability to walk away from anyone or anything. I channel Neil McCauley all the time.
I would consider it situational but in most cases, I think young people are better off not owning, if that's even an option for most of them now. What I think is more critical is that young people learn a trade/skill that they can take anywhere. That creates opportunity and options. I own in some pretty nice places in the country and I just see more obligation. But I recognize that's easy for me to say, for an average family with kids starting out, home ownership is a dream.
The next consideration is as it appears the economy is going to crater, some will argue property is much safer than putting your money elsewhere. My answer is the safest place right now is learning self reliance and enabling that pathway. That's a worthy investment. I didn't think late state capitalism would accelerate this quickly, but this is the end, my friend. Our future is war with China and likely civil war within our own borders. I'm not saying people should be nihilists or hedonists or be that bizarre anti-work BS, but I am saying Japan is a test case for cultural rot for our youth. Young men there have no desire to be "salaryman" slaves to the systems that wants to churn them out like cannon fodder.
People have figured out that they are nothing more than cattle to the corporate donor overlords. Now it's just going to be inevitable blood shed. Consider here we are likely talking three generational timelines. I'm likely far older than you. When I bought into lots of places, that was more viable to do with some margin of error. When you did it, the landscape was likely different. But as of today, would you and I see things the same way and have the same things if we just got out of college this year?
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I think it depends and really it depended 25 or so years ago for me as well. I was better off renting my first couple years until I got established. Sure housing in raw dollars is much higher, but also starting salaries for my field are up roughly that same proportion. While interest rates are skyrocketing compared to 12-24 months ago, they are still not out of line with those long term rates from that time period. In today's market I personally believe we are going to see a pullback so I couldn't advocate for starting on a path of rental ownership today, and I'd wait on primary residences unless I found just the right place or a certain location that just hardly ever comes on the market.
I do agree though if you need a trade or skill you need to invest in yourself first to secure your own future before you consider buying anything. If you factor in extreme political risk, I'm not sure it really matters a whole lot whether you buy or don't, your dollars will be worth almost nothing in those doomsday type scenarios.
matttyl
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I'm all for extreme savings, and lived that to a degree. The lack of real property ownership though is a huge risk for those people. Most people who can afford to do FIRE are doing pretty well to save a large percentage of their income to begin with. If they retire early but don't own property, they are at grave risk for environments like we are seeing today. Their savings will start being diminished at rates greater than they anticipated to merely keep a roof over their heads.
One of the biggest financial mistakes of my lifetime was turning down an offer to buy my college apartment/condo I was renting after my second year of school. I stayed there 4 years and figured I'd already paid 2 years worth of rent, just pay 2 more and move. I vastly overestimated how hard it would be to keep it rented for the payments, which were hardly more than what I was paying in rent at the time. That was now almost 30 years ago and those places still practically rent themselves. I've just missed out on all the income streams from it over the years and today would own it free and clear and just be taking in monthly EFTs for sitting at home on my butt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redwes25
Footballguy
That part of the show was dumb. Evicting delinquent renters does not increase homelessness. If anything, it reduces homelessness.
The number of homeless people is equal to the number of people minus the number of housed people. (Math!)
Evictions don't directly change either number, so they don't directly change the rate of homelessness. (You might think evictions reduce the number of housed people, but landlords don't evict people in order to keep their units vacant. They evict people so that they can move other renters in.) Indirectly, to the extent that evicting non-paying tenants makes being a landlord more profitable, it stimulates demand for building new rental units ... which increases the number of housed people and thus reduces homelessness.
Getting evicted sucks. And it can obviously render a particular family homeless. But evictions do not contribute to homelessness in general.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrod
Footballguy
I watched the whole thing and it did tug on the heartstrings (that St. Louis lawyer needs a punch in the face).
But for many reasons, landlords don't shoulder all the blame and are not villains in a vacuum. Some landlords are horrible people, but so are some renters. As with any business relationship, there can be bad actors on either side of the agreement that make it a tenuous relationship at times. The law doesn't give landlords carte blanche to screw people over despite what the video tried to portray.
One specific thing I take issue with is his critique of the home mortgage interest deductions and implying that it could be taken away to fund affordable housing mandates. The volatility that would create in the housing market would generate some significant unintended consequences and the amount of money "generated" (their graphic showed $584B over 10 years, so $58B/year) would not be adequate to manage something like that on a national scale. I also wouldn't be surprised if the math wasn't done completely to account for people who would end up taking the standard deduction and thus not gaining the full benefit of the removal of the deduction.
But for many reasons, landlords don't shoulder all the blame and are not villains in a vacuum. Some landlords are horrible people, but so are some renters. As with any business relationship, there can be bad actors on either side of the agreement that make it a tenuous relationship at times. The law doesn't give landlords carte blanche to screw people over despite what the video tried to portray.
One specific thing I take issue with is his critique of the home mortgage interest deductions and implying that it could be taken away to fund affordable housing mandates. The volatility that would create in the housing market would generate some significant unintended consequences and the amount of money "generated" (their graphic showed $584B over 10 years, so $58B/year) would not be adequate to manage something like that on a national scale. I also wouldn't be surprised if the math wasn't done completely to account for people who would end up taking the standard deduction and thus not gaining the full benefit of the removal of the deduction.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
That part.Maurile Tremblay said:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
On the deduction part - I think his point (or how I took it) is we have the appetite to fund that but not low cost housing. No clue if that’s accurate but that’s how I took it and not “let’s take that away and use those funds for low cost housing”.Jayrod said:
glvsav37
Footballguy
But isn't that deduction incentive for people to actually buy homes?
you can make the case that offestting a mortgage <> building housing developments people can afford.
But we already have houses, many of them, that people are always looking to sell. We don't really need MORE houses or condos, esp ones that are designated "Affordable" b/c I'm sorry to say, but labeling a community that usually means less than desirable conditions.
Again, I go back to saying renting shouldn't be meant as a permanent lifestyle for 98% of Americans. We should be encouraging people to buy homes, set down roots and invest in their community.
Redwes25
Footballguy
Actually we need a lot more homes. That is the basic problem, we don't have enough homes so they are unaffordable for many people. This is especially true in the NE and California.
https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/housing-statistics/housing-shortage-tracker
glvsav37
Footballguy
Interesting data...thx for sharing.
I'll admit I'm not a RE exert, but it just seems like we have plenty of homes on the market. The last year was an odd time where houses were getting snapped up instantly, but any other time beside that, houses locally could sit for a while w/o a buyer
Houses sit for a while without a buyer because they're freaking expensive. (If you want to see a house get sold quickly, reduce the asking price by half.)
Houses are freaking expensive because there are too few of them.
Redwes25
Footballguy
There is actually not much debate out there that we have a huge deficit of housing in this country. This is a year old but wouldn't suprised if numbers are actually worse with supply change issues.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/14/america-is-short-more-than-5-million-homes-study-says.html
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think there are more than enough GG and pinkham threads on the first page to keep you interested.You would think, but every thread is about 1/6 mania, I hate Trump mania or a combination of both.
-fish-
Footballguy
Ever thought about not posting in them? We've all heard your opinion on 1/6. Do you really need to repeat it every day? It sort of makes you look unhinged and uninformed. Maybe take a break.You would think, but every thread is about 1/6 mania, I hate Trump mania or a combination of both.
Similar threads
