CDZ Affordable Housing and what to do about it

[JakeStarkey]

This is a CDZ thread, and the posters will abide by the rules, I hope. (The Clean Debate Zone is to be used for the clean debating of Government Policies, Candidates, Current News and Events. No personal attacks, name calling, flaming etc is allowed in this section.)

Proposed increases by HUD to "the amount low-income households" should pay in the future will come out on Wednesday.

To rent a two-bedroom home, on average, you would need to earn $21.21 per hour as a full-time worker in the United States. Certain states like Colorado, Alaska, New York, and California are higher, much higher in the latter two cases. D.C. is over $33 per hour per worker.

"A new report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition shows what an hourly worker needs to make to afford a two-bedroom rental home — without paying more than 30% of their income — in each state, plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. Depending on the location, the hourly wages required for housing range from $9.68 (in Puerto Rico) to $35.20 (in Hawaii) for people working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year"

. . . . "The move — which will require Congressional approval — would affect more than 4.5 million families relying on federal housing assistance. If passed, the legislation would likely make it even harder for low-income households to make rent."

I believe that people should pay their own way as much as possible, but also that We the People should take care of our own as well.

The report does not say how much the increases will be. I will withhold my own response until I can find those figures, and If any of you should respond.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why 30%?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Where is the obligation, moral or otherwise, for a business owner to pay a single person sufficiently to rent a two-bedroom home? Most rational people with low wages pool their wages with another to have things that are out of reach of their income.

The fact that someone can't rent a home alone does not create an obligation for the business owner to pay him enough to do so.

Work is only worth what the business owner is willing to pay. If you do not have the skills to attain a higher income, develop them. The onus is on you.

Anything outside of that is charity, which is not a mandated role of the federal government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That I don't know yet, Todd. I am still researching the subject.

I understand Billy's argument. We are not talking about mansions but two-bedroom housing.

 

[Moonglow]

The mega-corporations that have spent the last thirty years running small business out and higher prices in have inflated materials so they too can become a billionaire corporation on the way to becoming a trillionaire corporation. The funds must come from somewhere to attain such a wealthy stature and it comes from lower pay for workers.

 

[Penelope]

That I don't know yet, Todd. I am still researching the subject.

I understand Billy's argument. We are not talking about mansions but two-bedroom housing.

I had heard about this, or read about it. They want to raise Hud self pays greater than 30% and also take away deductions , and also senior subsidized housing my $50 a month. One really needs to be dirt poor in the US to get help of any sort.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is a CDZ thread, and the posters will abide by the rules, I hope. (The Clean Debate Zone is to be used for the clean debating of Government Policies, Candidates, Current News and Events. No personal attacks, name calling, flaming etc is allowed in this section.)

Proposed increases by HUD to "the amount low-income households" should pay in the future will come out on Wednesday.

To rent a two-bedroom home, on average, you would need to earn $21.21 per hour as a full-time worker in the United States. Certain states like Colorado, Alaska, New York, and California are higher, much higher in the latter two cases. D.C. is over $33 per hour per worker.

"A new report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition shows what an hourly worker needs to make to afford a two-bedroom rental home — without paying more than 30% of their income — in each state, plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. Depending on the location, the hourly wages required for housing range from $9.68 (in Puerto Rico) to $35.20 (in Hawaii) for people working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year"

. . . . "The move — which will require Congressional approval — would affect more than 4.5 million families relying on federal housing assistance. If passed, the legislation would likely make it even harder for low-income households to make rent."

I believe that people should pay their own way as much as possible, but also that We the People should take care of our own as well.

The report does not say how much the increases will be. I will withhold my own response until I can find those figures, and If any of you should respond.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Rent a house or an apartment?

When you say rent a home I think house

 

[Moonglow]

That I don't know yet, Todd. I am still researching the subject.

I understand Billy's argument. We are not talking about mansions but two-bedroom housing.

I had heard about this, or read about it. They want to raise Hud self pays greater than 30% and also take away deductions , and also senior subsidized housing my $50 a month. One really needs to be dirt poor in the US to get help of any sort.

I can do that..

 

[Pellinore]

I think they estimated DC's a bit low.

What I think is fascinating about charts like this are the steep contrasts in some places. Check out the cliffs between Florida and Alabama, and Washington and Idaho. The line between Illinois and Iowa falls right at the Davenport/Rock Island area, and the super-cheap West Virginia Eastern Panhandle is driving and train distance from the face-punchingly expensive DC area. I would think a civil engineer would find it enlightening to see how these areas develop over time.

 

[Penelope]

HUD wants low-income families on housing assistance to pay more rent

its for their own good, to give them dignity. In my life it was standard to have housing be 1/4 of ones income , then it was up to 30% of ones income. Then they gave fake loans out

See the rich are getting richer, and Trump wants the working poor to foot the bill for everything, talk about redistribution of wealth, going from the poor to the rich.

If you are ill , and don't have money , you can die,
If you are homeless you can live on the streets.

 

[Penelope]

You have people making millions in the US and the median income is what 55 a year. There are many poor pockets in the US.
50 counties where the American dream is dead

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Why 30%?

When renting in the Ft Meade area those renting some of these properties require you make 3 times the rent of the property.

Some also insist you provide renters insurance of upwards to $300,000.

Why are renters insuring what appears to be property insurance for the homeowner?

Edit.

It appears that background checks are also required and those with records are being excluded from renting these homes mainly affecting low income families.

The required background checks are paid for at the time of the application submission.

 

[Picaro]

One problem with the numbers is they are too low for real life. They don't appear to be based on actual take home pay, for one, nor property taxes, whether utilities are high or low, etc. and all the other basic expenses. They certainly aren't talking about any urban areas in those states, either.

When doing any household budgeting, anything more than 15% of take home and disposable income allowed for housing is risky, 25% probably the max. When I first got married, we allowed 10%. Not comfortable, but paid off handsomely after very few years. Of course then you could get small garage apts. for $30-$40 a month easily, too, so not possible any more.

 

[Toronado3800]

Where is the obligation, moral or otherwise, for a business owner to pay a single person sufficiently to rent a two-bedroom home? Most rational people with low wages pool their wages with another to have things that are out of reach of their income.

The fact that someone can't rent a home alone does not create an obligation for the business owner to pay him enough to do so.

Work is only worth what the business owner is willing to pay. If you do not have the skills to attain a higher income, develop them. The onus is on you.

Anything outside of that is charity, which is not a mandated role of the federal government.

If that business owner wants the populace to continue to support big government accepting the business's articles of incorporation the business should care about its employees not living in squalid enough condition that socialism looks better.

That whole New Testament thing, then again the mega church liberal religionettes have a new take on the New Testament also. Wonder if St Peter has gotten more liberal with his camels and needles and the gates of heaven rules.

_____________________________________________

On the issue, I am split. There are decent $50,000 1,100 sq ft houses on an acre of beautiful grass in not THAT terrible of neighborhoods in St Louis. Come get one! I don't want to subsidize white folks moving into $200,000 houses ANYPLACE in the country. Can't afford life in California? I'd like to live on the ocean also ya know. Come be equal to me and buy a house here.

People still need a reasonable chance to earn enough in a 60 hour work week (between 2 jobs?) to pay for a $200 a month car, some health insurance and a $50,000 roof over their head though so I love minimum wages or higher corporate taxes or whatever is needed.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What the left simply cannot understand.......

Wages overwhelmingly depend on the companies profits.
Profits overwhelmingly depend on price vs. cost of production/service.
A products/service Price overwhelmingly depends on consumers willingness to spend.

In other words, the price of a product is set by a market.
Companies cannot simply raise their prices because they feel like it. Unless of course you are Apple.
And if you are in a business where the market only allows teensy profits - you can't exactly start paying your employees whatever they want you to pay them.

 

[oldsoul]

This is a CDZ thread, and the posters will abide by the rules, I hope. (The Clean Debate Zone is to be used for the clean debating of Government Policies, Candidates, Current News and Events. No personal attacks, name calling, flaming etc is allowed in this section.)

Proposed increases by HUD to "the amount low-income households" should pay in the future will come out on Wednesday.

To rent a two-bedroom home, on average, you would need to earn $21.21 per hour as a full-time worker in the United States. Certain states like Colorado, Alaska, New York, and California are higher, much higher in the latter two cases. D.C. is over $33 per hour per worker.

"A new report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition shows what an hourly worker needs to make to afford a two-bedroom rental home — without paying more than 30% of their income — in each state, plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. Depending on the location, the hourly wages required for housing range from $9.68 (in Puerto Rico) to $35.20 (in Hawaii) for people working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year"

. . . . "The move — which will require Congressional approval — would affect more than 4.5 million families relying on federal housing assistance. If passed, the legislation would likely make it even harder for low-income households to make rent."

I believe that people should pay their own way as much as possible, but also that We the People should take care of our own as well.

The report does not say how much the increases will be. I will withhold my own response until I can find those figures, and If any of you should respond.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It would seem that everyone is really missing the point here. Why is it that housing is so expensive? Heck, why is it that land is so expensive? Answer:Because people are willing to pay that much. Also, because the American Taxpayer is (and has been) subsidising much of this through "low-income" assistance, tax breaks to attract business, subsidies for business, tax/building/environmental/regulatory laws and red tape that make it easier/cheaper to build on "virgin" land (rather than renovating/re-building), etc.

We can talk until "the cows come home" all on their own about how to "fix" this. Until we define and build a consensus about what the underlying problem(s) is/are, we are wasting our time and effort. I am not looking to place blame, point fingers, or deride any person, group or ideology. I am simply saying: "We have got to define what the underly problem is, if we are to have any hope of fixing it."

To look at it another way: Most of us have a car/truck that we "own" and are responsible to maintain. Say you have a tire that keeps wearing out faster than the others. Do you a)just keep going to the same shop that sells you a new tire, or b) go somewhere else that will define and correct the underlying cause of the rapid wear? Of course you would choose (b), anyone would. So, why do we keep putting new tires on and not figuring out why they are wearing out so fast when it comes to issues like this? What will it take for people to understand that the same old, "well if we just implement MY idea it'll be all okay" thinking just isn't working. We need new leadership (on ALL levels) that are willing to explore the issues to find the underlying cause, regardless of what that is. Then, and only then, will we be able to find the solutions that will be effective.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This is a CDZ thread, and the posters will abide by the rules, I hope. (The Clean Debate Zone is to be used for the clean debating of Government Policies, Candidates, Current News and Events. No personal attacks, name calling, flaming etc is allowed in this section.)

Proposed increases by HUD to "the amount low-income households" should pay in the future will come out on Wednesday.

To rent a two-bedroom home, on average, you would need to earn $21.21 per hour as a full-time worker in the United States. Certain states like Colorado, Alaska, New York, and California are higher, much higher in the latter two cases. D.C. is over $33 per hour per worker.

"A new report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition shows what an hourly worker needs to make to afford a two-bedroom rental home — without paying more than 30% of their income — in each state, plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. Depending on the location, the hourly wages required for housing range from $9.68 (in Puerto Rico) to $35.20 (in Hawaii) for people working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year"

. . . . "The move — which will require Congressional approval — would affect more than 4.5 million families relying on federal housing assistance. If passed, the legislation would likely make it even harder for low-income households to make rent."

I believe that people should pay their own way as much as possible, but also that We the People should take care of our own as well.

The report does not say how much the increases will be. I will withhold my own response until I can find those figures, and If any of you should respond.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It would seem that everyone is really missing the point here. Why is it that housing is so expensive? Heck, why is it that land is so expensive? Answer:Because people are willing to pay that much. Also, because the American Taxpayer is (and has been) subsidising much of this through "low-income" assistance, tax breaks to attract business, subsidies for business, tax/building/environmental/regulatory laws and red tape that make it easier/cheaper to build on "virgin" land (rather than renovating/re-building), etc.

We can talk until "the cows come home" all on their own about how to "fix" this. Until we define and build a consensus about what the underlying problem(s) is/are, we are wasting our time and effort. I am not looking to place blame, point fingers, or deride any person, group or ideology. I am simply saying: "We have got to define what the underly problem is, if we are to have any hope of fixing it."

To look at it another way: Most of us have a car/truck that we "own" and are responsible to maintain. Say you have a tire that keeps wearing out faster than the others. Do you a)just keep going to the same shop that sells you a new tire, or b) go somewhere else that will define and correct the underlying cause of the rapid wear? Of course you would choose (b), anyone would. So, why do we keep putting new tires on and not figuring out why they are wearing out so fast when it comes to issues like this? What will it take for people to understand that the same old, "well if we just implement MY idea it'll be all okay" thinking just isn't working. We need new leadership (on ALL levels) that are willing to explore the issues to find the underlying cause, regardless of what that is. Then, and only then, will we be able to find the solutions that will be effective.

Well, I agree with most of what you are saying....but the causation of most of economic woes for the masses is Modern Corporatism.
Corporatism/Globalism is THE driver for the increasing wealth gap/concentration. It is also responsible for the vast majority of modern slave labor that replaced jobs that previously paid good wages. It is responsible for the now complete corruption of the Federal government, which has turned our country into a Corporate Plutocracy. Anyone who still thinks America is a Democratic Republic is just not paying attention.

 

[oldsoul]

This is a CDZ thread, and the posters will abide by the rules, I hope. (The Clean Debate Zone is to be used for the clean debating of Government Policies, Candidates, Current News and Events. No personal attacks, name calling, flaming etc is allowed in this section.)

Proposed increases by HUD to "the amount low-income households" should pay in the future will come out on Wednesday.

To rent a two-bedroom home, on average, you would need to earn $21.21 per hour as a full-time worker in the United States. Certain states like Colorado, Alaska, New York, and California are higher, much higher in the latter two cases. D.C. is over $33 per hour per worker.

"A new report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition shows what an hourly worker needs to make to afford a two-bedroom rental home — without paying more than 30% of their income — in each state, plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. Depending on the location, the hourly wages required for housing range from $9.68 (in Puerto Rico) to $35.20 (in Hawaii) for people working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year"

. . . . "The move — which will require Congressional approval — would affect more than 4.5 million families relying on federal housing assistance. If passed, the legislation would likely make it even harder for low-income households to make rent."

I believe that people should pay their own way as much as possible, but also that We the People should take care of our own as well.

The report does not say how much the increases will be. I will withhold my own response until I can find those figures, and If any of you should respond.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It would seem that everyone is really missing the point here. Why is it that housing is so expensive? Heck, why is it that land is so expensive? Answer:Because people are willing to pay that much. Also, because the American Taxpayer is (and has been) subsidising much of this through "low-income" assistance, tax breaks to attract business, subsidies for business, tax/building/environmental/regulatory laws and red tape that make it easier/cheaper to build on "virgin" land (rather than renovating/re-building), etc.

We can talk until "the cows come home" all on their own about how to "fix" this. Until we define and build a consensus about what the underlying problem(s) is/are, we are wasting our time and effort. I am not looking to place blame, point fingers, or deride any person, group or ideology. I am simply saying: "We have got to define what the underly problem is, if we are to have any hope of fixing it."

To look at it another way: Most of us have a car/truck that we "own" and are responsible to maintain. Say you have a tire that keeps wearing out faster than the others. Do you a)just keep going to the same shop that sells you a new tire, or b) go somewhere else that will define and correct the underlying cause of the rapid wear? Of course you would choose (b), anyone would. So, why do we keep putting new tires on and not figuring out why they are wearing out so fast when it comes to issues like this? What will it take for people to understand that the same old, "well if we just implement MY idea it'll be all okay" thinking just isn't working. We need new leadership (on ALL levels) that are willing to explore the issues to find the underlying cause, regardless of what that is. Then, and only then, will we be able to find the solutions that will be effective.

Well, I agree with most of what you are saying....but the causation of most of economic woes for the masses is Modern Corporatism.
Corporatism/Globalism is THE driver for the increasing wealth gap/concentration. It is also responsible for the vast majority of modern slave labor that replaced jobs that previously paid good wages. It is responsible for the now complete corruption of the Federal government, which has turned our country into a Corporate Plutocracy. Anyone who still thinks America is a Democratic Republic is just not paying attention.

I don't think it's that simple. While Corporatism and Globalism are contributing factors, it would seem that there is more to the story than that. An example:

So that begs the questions of "why?", and "what else contributes?" How about education?

As even the casual observer (I am one) can see, there are multiple contributing factors one must look at to get a full view of the issue.

 

[Flash]

It is hard for Americans to buy needed family things like housing when the cost of government is so high in this country. The combined cost of Federal, State and Local government is about 40% of the GDP. In most working family households the cost of government is the largest single expense. Larger than housing, food, transportation or anything else.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is hard for Americans to buy needed family things like housing when the cost of government is so high in this country. The combined cost of Federal, State and Local government is about 40% of the GDP. In most working family households the cost of government is the largest single expense. Larger than housing, food, transportation or anything else.

Not actually.
The bottom 45% pay no Federal Income Taxes....or actually have a negative tax burden, they get more back than they paid in.