Biden Proposing 5% Cap on Housing Rents

[dblack]

commie card was beaten down a week ago. You're on the side of ONE type of business, I'm on the said of all the thousands of others.

You're a freeloading commie, straight up. Karl loves you!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're a freeloading commie, straight up. Karl loves you!

If the government doesn't steal from landlords, 80% of businesses will fail!

He's such a ****.

No wonder he's broke, he was an economics teacher who doesn't know shit about economics.

 

[protectionist]

There will never be federally mandated rent control.

You HOPE.

 

[protectionist]

You're a freeloading commie, straight up. Karl loves you!

To keep using as already refuted/beaten rhetoric, only shows you have exhausted all your potential arguments. Victory for me.

So keep it up, business-hater.

 

[protectionist]

Give it time. Free shit!!!!!

That doesn't even make any sense.You've run out of ideas. Poor soul.

 

[protectionist]

Sure man. if you say so.

Not because I say so. It's because you support what is killing US businesses.
You're a business killer.

 

[Couchpotato]

You HOPE.

Since it would violate the 5th amendment which has been pointed out to you over and over I’m not worried.

 

[Couchpotato]

Not because I say so. It's because you support what is killing US businesses.
You're a business killer.

View attachment 984914

View attachment 984916

Rent didn’t kill those businesses. Things like Amazon did. It’s the same reason malls are dying. Brick and mortar stores cost more money (regardless of the rent) than online store fronts. Let me guess you think rent prices killed blockbuster too….

 

[SweetTea]

What millions of people living in non-rent controlled buildings with skyrocketed rents that they cannot pay ? What about tens of millions of businesss being killed by these same skyrocketed rents ?

It's called supply and demand and free market. If the rent is too high, no one will rent them. The landlord will make no money, therefore, would lower the rent. If rents are controlled, shouldn't all my expenses be controlled as well? Do you see where this is headed?

On another note, should I be forced to rent my vacation home if I don't use it x number of days per year? It is a commodity which is not being fully utilized for the good of the whole.

 

[protectionist]

Since it would violate the 5th amendment which has been pointed out to you over and over I’m not worried.

Start worrying.... nobody but landlord suck-ups think (or pretend) that it violates anything in the Constitution. Rent caps exist all ovr the country, and have for 100 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Start worrying.... nobody but landlord suck-ups think (or pretend) that it violates anything in the Constitution. Rent caps exist all ovr the country, and have for 100 years.

Moron.

 

[protectionist]

It's called supply and demand and free market. If the rent is too high, no one will rent them. The landlord will make no money, therefore, would lower the rent. If rents are controlled, shouldn't all my expenses be controlled as well? Do you see where this is headed?

FALSE! As I've already noted, ordinary supply/demand and free market concepts are not in play when it comes to housing rents. Ordinarily, (with non-necessities) consumers have the liberty to choose whether to buy items at various price levels.

A bell-shaped curve illustrates this relationship with price rising from the origin on the X horizontal axis, and business income rising from the origin on the vertical Y axis. At the top of the bell. is the MARKET PRICE which the firm sets the product at.

This is the highest price the firm can charge (and most income), without triggering enough sales reductions so as to have business income begin to fall below its maximum (top of the bell), and this shows up on the right side of the bell (price too high > sales reduction$$$)

Problem here is, with housing, all this standard price vs income, is put out the window, because it is dealing with a commodity that is an essential necessity. Consumers (renters) dont have the option to stop buying when the price is too high, because they NEED a place to live.

So the market price isn't what renters CHOOSE to pay, but rather what they are stuck with having to pay, if they can do it all. So, unscrupulous landlords, rather than setting a reasonable price, leaving renters with money for other things, hit them with exhorbitant rents, way above what fits their budgets.
Then, some renters can't pay the huge increase and move out, with wealthier renters moving in.

The result is a 2 tier society with housed and homeless + a severely impacted business sector, with sales demolished by the severe reduction in purchasing $$$ in the consumer sector.

Bottom line is these impacts are simply too disastrous to be allowed to run wild, and need constraint, just as other things whose impacts are too damaging to go uncontrolled (ex. asbestos, lead, Vioxx, Ford Pintos,
advertising claims, etc), are likewise constrained by law.

Lots of businesses are constrained in lots of ways, in the effort to PROTECT the public. The "free market" doesn't mean that businesses are always free to do anything they want.

 

[protectionist]

Rent didn’t kill those businesses. Things like Amazon did. It’s the same reason malls are dying. Brick and mortar stores cost more money (regardless of the rent) than online store fronts. Let me guess you think rent prices killed blockbuster too….

You aren't getting this. The businesses (including online ones) are getting killed because astronomical rents are taking away the purchasing power $$$$$$ of the consumers whom businesses (B & M and online both) depend upon.

Every dollar added to a landlord, is another dollar subtracted from all the other businesses (ALL other businesses). Get it ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

FALSE! As I've already noted, ordinary supply/demand and free market concepts are not in play when it comes to housing rents. Ordinarily, (with non-necessities) consumers have the liberty to choose whether to buy items at various price levels.

A bell-shaped curve illustrates this relationship with price rising from the origin on the X horizontal axis, and business income rising from the origin on the vertical Y axis. At the top of the bell. is the MARKET PRICE which the firm sets the product at.

View attachment 985245

This is the highest price the firm can charge (and most income), without triggering enough sales reductions so as to have business income begin to fall below its maximum (top of the bell), and this shows up on the right side of the bell (price too high > sales reduction$$$)

Problem here is, with housing, all this standard price vs income, is put out the window, because it is dealing with a commodity that is an essential necessity. Consumers (renters) dont have the option to stop buying when the price is too high, because they NEED a place to live.

So the market price isn't what renters CHOOSE to pay, but rather what they are stuck with having to pay, if they can do it all. So, unscrupulous landlords, rather than setting a reasonable price, leaving renters with money for other things, hit them with exhorbitant rents, way above what fits their budgets.
Then, some renters can't pay the huge increase and move out, with wealthier renters moving in.

The result is a 2 tier society with housed and homeless + a severely impacted business sector, with sales demolished by the severe reduction in purchasing $$$ in the consumer sector.

Bottom line is these impacts are simply too disastrous to be allowed to run wild, and need constraint, just as other things whose impacts are too damaging to go uncontrolled (ex. asbestos, lead, Vioxx, Ford Pintos,
advertising claims, etc), are likewise constrained by law.

Lots of businesses are constrained in lots of ways, in the effort to PROTECT the public. The "free market" doesn't mean that businesses are always free to do anything they want.

Ordinarily, (with non-necessities) consumers have the liberty to choose whether to buy items at various price levels.

Consumers are forced to live where rent is unaffordable, stupid ****.

 

[Couchpotato]

Start worrying.... nobody but landlord suck-ups think (or pretend) that it violates anything in the Constitution. Rent caps exist all ovr the country, and have for 100 years.

Not at the federal level dum dum.

 

[protectionist]

Not at the federal level dum dum.

If it violated the Constitution, it wouldn't exist at any level, dum dum.

 

[SweetTea]

FALSE! As I've already noted, ordinary supply/demand and free market concepts are not in play when it comes to housing rents. Ordinarily, (with non-necessities) consumers have the liberty to choose whether to buy items at various price levels.

A bell-shaped curve illustrates this relationship with price rising from the origin on the X horizontal axis, and business income rising from the origin on the vertical Y axis. At the top of the bell. is the MARKET PRICE which the firm sets the product at.

View attachment 985245

This is the highest price the firm can charge (and most income), without triggering enough sales reductions so as to have business income begin to fall below its maximum (top of the bell), and this shows up on the right side of the bell (price too high > sales reduction$$$)

Problem here is, with housing, all this standard price vs income, is put out the window, because it is dealing with a commodity that is an essential necessity. Consumers (renters) dont have the option to stop buying when the price is too high, because they NEED a place to live.

So the market price isn't what renters CHOOSE to pay, but rather what they are stuck with having to pay, if they can do it all. So, unscrupulous landlords, rather than setting a reasonable price, leaving renters with money for other things, hit them with exhorbitant rents, way above what fits their budgets.
Then, some renters can't pay the huge increase and move out, with wealthier renters moving in.

The result is a 2 tier society with housed and homeless + a severely impacted business sector, with sales demolished by the severe reduction in purchasing $$$ in the consumer sector.

Bottom line is these impacts are simply too disastrous to be allowed to run wild, and need constraint, just as other things whose impacts are too damaging to go uncontrolled (ex. asbestos, lead, Vioxx, Ford Pintos,
advertising claims, etc), are likewise constrained by law.

Lots of businesses are constrained in lots of ways, in the effort to PROTECT the public. The "free market" doesn't mean that businesses are always free to do anything they want.

I understand your concern, but simply don't agree with your solution. If I own a building/house that I choose to rent, the government has no say in how much I rent it for any more than they have control over how much I sell it for. If rent was capped at 5% on my properties, I would sell as quickly as possible before the real-estate market plummeted, which would also be likely to happen. Why would anyone want to invest them money in rental property? By the way, who sets the initial price and terms of the initial lease? Can a new lease be written with a new rent basis if the original tenant moves out? Knowing that I would only be getting a max of 5% increase, regardless of my expenses(taxes, insurance, etc.), I would set the initial price very high to offset potential losses. NYC has some rent controlled buildings, but not all. If they were all rent controlled, you would see a huge negative economic impact with large investors leaving the city in droves.

 

[protectionist]

I understand your concern, but simply don't agree with your solution. If I own a building/house that I choose to rent, the government has no say in how much I rent it for any more than they have control over how much I sell it for. If rent was capped at 5% on my properties, I would sell as quickly as possible before the real-estate market plummeted, which would also be likely to happen. Why would anyone want to invest them money in rental property? By the way, who sets the initial price and terms of the initial lease? Can a new lease be written with a new rent basis if the original tenant moves out? Knowing that I would only be getting a max of 5% increase, regardless of my expenses(taxes, insurance, etc.), I would set the initial price very high to offset potential losses. NYC has some rent controlled buildings, but not all. If they were all rent controlled, you would see a huge negative economic impact with large investors leaving the city in droves.

There's enough content in this one post to fill up 3 or 4 posts, and all of has already been addressed in this thread more than once, but I guess I'll go over it again (but I really think we all need to move on to other threads)

1. The government has whatever say in your rental rates that the American people (aka the "government") decide they need to have. If they decide there should be a 5%/year cap, that's what will be.

2. It is not likely that the real-estate market would plummet just because housing rent increases were to return to what was always the norm for many years prior to the beginning of the crazy, extreme rent increases (around 2019).

3. We have seen landlords "invest their money in rental property" for 100 years in New York City (including buildings I lived in for 31 years) all while under stricter rent control than 5%/year, and they did not sell their buildings , or fail to keep up the maintenance.

4. There was no "huge economic impact" with almost all buildings rent controlled when I lived there in the 1940s-70s, nor has there been any since then.

I'm really tired of saying the same things over and over again.

All a rent control law would do is RETURN us back to pre-2019 conditions, and everything was OK in 2000 - 2019, when rents were normal, the sky didnt fall, so why the big fuss now ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's enough content in this one post to fill up 3 or 4 posts, and all of has already been addressed in this thread more than once, but I guess I'll go over it again (but I really think we all need to move on to other threads)

1. The government has whatever say in your rental rates that the American people (aka the "government") decide they need to have. If they decide there should be a 5%/year cap, that's what will be.

2. It is not likely that the real-estate market would plummet just because housing rent increases were to return to what was always the norm for many years prior to the beginning of the crazy, extreme rent increases (around 2019).

3. We have seen landlords "invest their money in rental property" for 100 years in New York City (including buildings I lived in for 31 years) all while under stricter rent control than 5%/year, and they did not sell their buildings , or fail to keep up the maintenance.

4. There was no "huge economic impact" with almost all buildings rent controlled when I lived there in the 1940s-70s, nor has there been any since then.

I'm really tired of saying the same things over and over again.

All a rent control law would do is RETURN us back to pre-2019 conditions, and everything was OK in 2000 - 2019, when rents were normal, the sky didnt fall, so why the big fuss now ?

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-c...estVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=1&mod=WTRN#cxrecs_s

Stupid ****.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The right to forcefully protect what is yours has been around since ancient times as well. Make my day.

No Thanks!

When you get over your Rambo fantasies, you can ask your husband to make your day!

I'm sure he'll be happy to!