Time for the feds to limit rental fees. It makes perfect sense.
Nearly half of American workers don’t earn enough to afford a one-bedroom rentalNearly half of American workers do not earn enough to rent a one-bedroom apartment, according to new data. Rents in the US continued to increase through the pandemic, and a worker now needs to earn about $20.40 an hour to afford a modest one-bedroom rental.
The median wage in the US is about $21 an hour The data, from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, shows that millions of Americans – from Amazon warehouse workers to cab drivers to public school teachers – are struggling to pay rent. For the poorest Americans, market-rate housing is out of reach in virtually all of the country.
About 14% of Americans fell behind on rent payments during the pandemic – roughly double the figure before the pandemic. A federal moratorium on evictions has kept renters from being kicked out of their homes, but the moratorium lapsed last month, only to be extended into early October for those in regions hardest hit by the pandemic.
And it’s not just big cities skewing the data. A two-bedroom rental – a reasonable size for a family – would stretch the budgets of renters in most US counties:
View attachment 13679
Minimum wage isn’t enough to afford a two-bedroom rental anywhere in the USFor those earning the lowest wages, the housing situation is even more dire.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, but some states, counties and cities have established higher minimum wages – the highest being $16.32 an hour in San Francisco. Still, there isn’t a single US county where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford a modest two-bedroom rental.
A higher minimum wage does make a difference for housing affordability.
In Missouri, Arkansas and Illinois, higher minimum wages make housing costs relatively manageable compared with neighboring states that have not raised the minimum wage above federal levels.
For example, in Sunflower county, Mississippi, the minimum is $7.25, which means a worker would need to spend about 54% of their income on a two-bedroom rental – about $684 a month. Just 125 miles away in Arkansas county, Arkansas, the minimum wage is $11, which means a worker would spend only about 36% of their income on a similar rental.
View attachment 13680
I'm not sure about the rest of the country but there is a serious movement going on here in southern NV. California investors have always been here buying affordable houses away from your typical first-time home buyers, paying cash for your typical $200-$250k entry level home. But talking to a couple of realtors I know, investors are REALLY ramping it up in the last 6-8 months. Apparently they want to turn this market into a renting market, with as many homes as they can consume being turned into rental homes.Time for the feds to limit rental fees. It makes perfect sense.
California investors have always been here buying affordable houses away from your typical first-time home buyers, paying cash for your typical $200-$250k entry level home. But talking to a couple of realtors I know, investors are REALLY ramping it up in the last 6-8 months. Apparently they want to turn this market into a renting market, with as many homes as they can consume being turned into rental homes.
Make up what?Surprising that you think about my wet dreams. Not surprising you just make sh!t up.
Really - I think they should get tax cuts? I think just a few should own everything?Make up what?
What I said in that post is the exact position or follows directly from the positions you espouse. Yes it is exactly what you advocate for. Sure the wet dream part was hyperbole but the rest stands.
What a load. Now you are telling me what my positions are. Sidekick 2.Every position you take supports that. Look at any of your responses on raising taxes on the wealthy.
The few owning everything is the natural result of the policies you support.
Taxes have been massively cut for the wealthy over the last 40 years. This is the result and you support it.What a load. Now you are telling me what my positions are. Sidekick 2.
I like people finding legal ways to make money instead of free loading. Self accountability. Good for them! I don’t give a rat’s ass if thousands own and rent apartments in So-NV, why would I care or prefer just a couple do? As for taxes, they should pay their taxes … their share - more BS that I would want them to get tax cuts. I see you are already backtracking that above by talking about raising taxes. Quite the difference. I don’t think that the more successful they are, the more we should sock it to them. Have never said we should tax them less if they make more. That’s your BS.
I think deep down Spoof feels partially responsible for Portland explaining his recent obsession with the city.Taxes have been massively cut for the wealthy over the last 40 years. This is the result and you support it.
And you wonder why cities got burned... ROTFLMAO
What is the result?Taxes have been massively cut for the wealthy over the last 40 years. This is the result and you support it.
Taxes have been cut over and over and over.What is the result?
You said “Spoof wants them to get tax cuts” and cited my responses to the idea of raising taxes and the fact that taxes have been cut in the past as some correlation. Oh, and that “this” is the result. All utter nonsense.
I don’t give a sh!t who buys and rents out houses….. as long as they follow the laws - including paying their taxes. That’s consistent with anything I have ever said. It is their right so I would not be in favor of the Gov’t stopping it and I wouldn’t be in favor of the “no one needs that much money” progressive tax ideas put on them if they were wildly successful. Your “spoof wants a few to own everything and get tax breaks” was just dishonest.
All those "big" tax breaks.They get big tax breaks already considering most of their income is capital gains or pass thru income.
Ridiculous straw man, Wally. No one is arguing at the moment to massively cut taxes on the high end. Smart people are asking where the end game is. Can you continue to offer freebies to the bottom 50% and in each situation claim (falsely) that the top 1% don't pay their fair share but would be able to pay for it? You have been shown that high income people pay double their share of the income already. 1% pay 40% of the burden (IIRC) and that isn't enough for you.Let them pay the same percentage in taxes and fees as someone making $150,000.
I don't give a shit about totals. Its a stupid rediculous argument.
Capital gains are taxed differently for good reason Wally. When it comes to income tax the rich pay a higher percentage and you trying to frame it as if they don't is dishonest, at best.No they don't.
Most of their income is capital gains and pass thru income which gets taxed lower. ALOT lower.