Biden Proposing 5% Cap on Housing Rents

[BasicHumanUnit]

This proposal is potent. There are 112 Million renters in America (34% of the total population).
There are also 32.2 Million businesses. Together these translate into a ton of votes.

If Trump does not reciprocate and propose a rent control law himself (of 5% or lower), he could be handing Biden the election. After the astronomical rent increases of the last few years, to renters and business owners, this is the most serious issue in America. Both have taken a huge hit economically, by the enormously higher rents.

Biden to call for 5% cap on annual rent increases, a critical issue for voters

Corporate landlords would lose the ability to write off depreciation values from their units if they increase tenants' rent more than 5%.

www.aol.com

The Number of Businesses in the USA and Statistics for 2024

The United States has 33.2 million of businesses in 2024. This article include various statistics on business statistics on sectors and more.

www.clearlypayments.com

Decade in review: Number of U.S. renters surpasses 100 million

A recent Rentcafé study shows renter rates have climbed across the country as more and more Americans are now choosing to rent instead of own.

www.housingwire.com

Yeah....but it would NEVER in a million years be on the dimocrats plate to place a cap like that on the banks that are charging 25, 30 and even 32% interest on their cards people are forced to live on because they can't afford to eat.

Nah...let's make sure private entrepreneurs are well controlled...the banks...not so much.
Shit...why not make the average struggling American PAY the banks back for ALL their losses? Oh wait!

(It absolutely amazes me how the average person allows the feral government to defecate on them and use them for toilet paper without any push back). I guess those with power see it as an implication that the average person approves. Or at the very least is unwilling to object. Could be fear?

 

[protectionist]

How many renters v landlords do you have in the USA

The landlord of a house are often a couple, husband and wife etc..

112 million renters
100+ business owners/stockholders
= 212 Million incurring damages from excessive rents
10 Million landlords
Ratio: 21:1

 

[protectionist]

Yeah....but it would NEVER in a million years be on the dimocrats plate to place a cap like that on the banks that are charging 25, 30 and even 32% interest on their cards people are forced to live on because they can't afford to eat.

Nah...let's make sure private entrepreneurs are well controlled...the banks...not so much.
Shit...why not make the average struggling American PAY the banks back for ALL their losses? Oh wait!

(It absolutely amazes me how the average person allows the feral government to defecate on them and use them for toilet paper without any push back). I guess those with power see it as an implication that the average person approves. Or at the very least is unwilling to object. Could be fear?

I have no idea what you're talking about. The players here are the federal government, renters, businesses, & landlords. I see nothing about banks.

 

[protectionist]

No one is going to invest in new rental property if there is a rent cap, you stupid ******* ****.

Looks like you are the "stupid ******* ****" who could have avoided that, just by reading the thread before plunging mindlessly into the thread.

In New York City (et al), thousands of new rental property investments have been occuring with rent control in full effect, for many decades. Buildings have been fully operational, in good condition, profitable, and they still are right now. See Post # 182. (like you should have before posting)

 

[protectionist]

He has claimed he taught college economics. He's a liar and a moron.

You're the moron who thinks > "No one is going to invest in new rental property if there is a rent cap." Disproven for 100 years in New York City.

And why do I put your words in BLUE ? Because in believing the landlord dupe talk, you, like the Democrats, put yourself at odds against the US business establishment.
That's another reason why you should READ THE THREAD.

Happy about Sam Ash ?

 

[protectionist]

Again, some idiot claimed rents are increasing at a rate of $1,000.00 a month.

IncreasED. English grammar is important.

 

[CowboyTed]

Corporate landlords own less than half the rentals in this country. So this wouldnt affect everyone.
Can he even do this? I dont remember this being a federal power in the constitution..
You leftists sure do love your statism and hate federal restraint. Yall disgust me.

Can you remember it being banned in the Constitution?

Let the Trump appointed SC judges throw it out... Pro Coporate judges ruining the votes lives...
That is a mess which Trump left... A SC which is not in touch with the people.

 

[TNHarley]

Can you remember it being banned in the Constitution?

Irrelevant.

A SC which is not in touch with the people

Its about the constitution. If people want it changed, they made a process for that.
And what people? Your kind of people? IE statist pieces of shit?

 

[protectionist]

It will also see more potential rental properties left vacant and go to rot.

The standard landlord BS line. Disproven for 100 years in New York City. Thousands of buildings have coexisted with rent control in full effect, for many decades. Miles upon miles of them have been fully operational, in good condition, profitable, and they still are right now.

 

[protectionist]

It will also see more potential rental properties left vacant and go to rot.

propaganda.

 

[protectionist]

I would like the Federal Government to not violate the Constitution. Crazy I know.

That wasn't the question.

 

[SweetTea]

This proposal is potent. There are 112 Million renters in America (34% of the total population).
There are also 32.2 Million businesses. Together these translate into a ton of votes.

If Trump does not reciprocate and propose a rent control law himself (of 5% or lower), he could be handing Biden the election. After the astronomical rent increases of the last few years, to renters and business owners, this is the most serious issue in America. Both have taken a huge hit economically, by the enormously higher rents.

Biden to call for 5% cap on annual rent increases, a critical issue for voters

Corporate landlords would lose the ability to write off depreciation values from their units if they increase tenants' rent more than 5%.

www.aol.com

The Number of Businesses in the USA and Statistics for 2024

The United States has 33.2 million of businesses in 2024. This article include various statistics on business statistics on sectors and more.

www.clearlypayments.com

Decade in review: Number of U.S. renters surpasses 100 million

A recent Rentcafé study shows renter rates have climbed across the country as more and more Americans are now choosing to rent instead of own.

www.housingwire.com

Are landlords are supposed to lose money when inflation runs higher than 5%? I am a landlord and can tell you that after taxes, insurance and maintenance there isn't much left over and I live in a low property tax state. The entire idea is really quite ridiculous and short-sighted. Suppose a tenant signs a 1 year lease agreement for $3000/mth. During that year, the area really started booming with new apartments all around and a new factory right down the road. The new apartments are renting for $5000/mth and are even smaller. The landlord could only raise his rent to $3150 for the next 1 year lease?

 

[TNHarley]

That wasn't the question.

It never is with you people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

112 million renters
100+ business owners/stockholders
= 212 Million incurring damages from excessive rents
10 Million landlords
Ratio: 21:1

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looks like you are the "stupid ******* ****" who could have avoided that, just by reading the thread before plunging mindlessly into the thread.

In New York City (et al), thousands of new rental property investments have been occuring with rent control in full effect, for many decades. Buildings have been fully operational, in good condition, profitable, and they still are right now. See Post # 182. (like you should have before posting)

How much new housing, subject to rent control, has been built in New York City, since WWII?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're the moron who thinks > "No one is going to invest in new rental property if there is a rent cap." Disproven for 100 years in New York City.

And why do I put your words in BLUE ? Because in believing the landlord dupe talk, you, like the Democrats, put yourself at odds against the US business establishment.
That's another reason why you should READ THE THREAD.

Happy about Sam Ash ?

And why do I put your words in BLUE ?

Because you're a stupid ******* ****.

Because in believing the landlord dupe talk, you, like the Democrats, put yourself at odds against the US business establishment.

You're on the side of the Democrats, they love rent control.

Happy about Sam Ash ?

Couldn't give less of a **** about Sam Ash.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looks like you are the "stupid ******* ****" who could have avoided that, just by reading the thread before plunging mindlessly into the thread.

In New York City (et al), thousands of new rental property investments have been occuring with rent control in full effect, for many decades. Buildings have been fully operational, in good condition, profitable, and they still are right now. See Post # 182. (like you should have before posting)

Rent Control Backfires Again in St. Paul​

Voters put on a 3% cap. You’ll never guess what developers did next.​

File this under lessons never learned: Voters in St. Paul, Minn., last week approved a ballot initiative, 53% to 47%, to impose strict rent control. The cap on increases will be 3% a year, “regardless of change of occupancy,” and with no exceptions for new construction or mom-and-pop landlords.
What happened next should be no mystery. One developer has “already pulled applications for three buildings,” a representative told the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Another “lost a major investor” in “an apartment building he’s trying to get off the ground.” Who could have foreseen it, other than basically every economist with a pulse?

If a city’s housing supply can’t grow to meet demand, the natural result is that prices go up. Artificial caps then produce shortages and other distortions, such as dilapidated properties that landlords don’t have an incentive to renovate. The St. Paul initiative says the city will create an appeals process to let developers break the 3% cap if it’s necessary to provide “a fair return on investment.” Got it? File forms in triplicate, and maybe you’ll be allowed a “fair” profit, however that’s defined.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rent-control-backfires-again-in-st-paul-ballot-initiative-11636584789?cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=1&mod=WTRN#cxrecs_s

 

[protectionist]

It never is with you people.

Which "people" ?

So maybe you would like to answer the question >> "
Would you rather see millions of people evicted from their rental homes & millions of business going out of business ?

 

[protectionist]

Are landlords are supposed to lose money when inflation runs higher than 5%? I am a landlord and can tell you that after taxes, insurance and maintenance there isn't much left over and I live in a low property tax state. The entire idea is really quite ridiculous and short-sighted. Suppose a tenant signs a 1 year lease agreement for $3000/month. During that year, the area really started booming with new apartments all around and a new factory right down the road. The new apartments are renting for $5000/month and are even smaller. The landlord could only raise his rent to $3150 for the next 1 year lease?

1. Interesting how landlords are only 1/33 (3%) of the population, yet they (or their lawyers & aides) are about 70% of the population of this thread.
The silent majority needs to stop being so silent.

2. The idea of any apartment being $3,000/month is insane.

3. The idea that a landlord needs a rent increase of $1000/month or even $200/month is ludicrous.

4. State what inflated items must a landlord buy, that will cost him $1,000/month X let's say 100 apartments ($100,000), ie. $1.2 Million/year

5. Who says that customers (of any commodity) should have to have the increased costs of a business dumped on them ? What gives the landlord the right to have his renters pay for his increased costs, while he gets off scot free from them ? It is only because he is selling a top NECESSITY that he is able to get away with this. For Non-necessities, the consumers just stop buying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. Interesting how landlords are only 1/33 (3%) of the population, yet they (or their lawyers & aides) are about 70% of the population of this thread.
The silent majority needs to stop being so silent.

2. The idea of any apartment being $3,000/month is insane.

3. The idea that a landlord needs a rent increase of $1000/month or even $200/month is ludicrous.

4. State what inflated items must a landlord buy, that will cost him $1,000/month X let's say 100 apartments ($100,000), ie. $1.2 Million/year

5. Who says that customers (of any commodity) should have to have the increased costs of a business dumped on them ? What gives the landlord the right to have his renters pay for his increased costs, while he gets off scot free from them ? It is only because he is selling a top NECESSITY that he is able to get away with this. For Non-necessities, the consumers just stop buying.

Your feelings are very convincing.
It's like you've refuted all of economics.


DURR