• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Eviction Moratorium - What is the ratio of valid protection vs exploitation?

Climber said:
However, the landlord doesn't have to pay that whole $750k at once, which is the whole point. As long as the renter is paying the landlord more than the landlord has to pay out on the property, it's all good for the landlord. The landlord gains equity while the renter gains nothing but a place to live for that month. In the Bay Area, the equity gains have been enormous for many, so it's not like it's a low margin business deal, which is why so many go into it.
Click to expand...

Ahh, good, so you agree it is a trash metaphor. :thumbup

Climber said:
There are shitty landlords out there, just as there are shitty tenants.

Probably equal numbers of both.
Click to expand...

No, I assure you there are a great many more shitty tenants. The point of entry is much more accessible for one than the other.
 
Last edited:
Climber said:
I meant all expenses when I put 'the landlord has to pay out on the property', I guess it wasn't a somewhat ambiguous way of saying it.

Yeah, I've heard of really bad tenants, my wife has a good friend who lost 2 houses in Pittsburg that he owned, he made the mistake of getting section 8 tenants and they turned out to be absolute nightmare's for him. They tore the house up, then demanded that he fix the damage, when he didn't at first, they notified the section 8 who made him fix it by not paying him until they were fixed with none paid while the home was damaged. When he finally got them evicted after a long time, they utterly destroyed the entire interior of the house.
Click to expand...

That really sucks. I have a few houses here and 2 are with Section 8. I know the lady that runs the section 8 program and she is awesome. She tells me about the tenants and lets me know which ones are good and which ones are risky. We do before and after walk throughs with her and we take pictures so she knows how it looked before they moved in and how they left it. I did have an issue with one tenant but the deposit covered it but after talking to the section 8 lady she won't get benefits again if she moves back here. my houses are in nicer quiet neighborhoods so she really works with me to keep them rented to people that need them.

LA is a little better as far as landlord rights. If i have a tenant that doesn't pay I can get them out in about 1.5 months from first non-payment depending on court dates. Also if they mess with me on the payments then section 8 cuts them off and most of the smart ones don't want to get cut off.

I find that monthly inspections also cut down on the amount of destruction that can be caused before I am aware of it and I also do random drive-bys to make sure stuff outside is taken care of as well.

I don't charge market max but with insurance rates going way up lately I may have to do an increase soon to cover the additional costs I am incurring.

My parents had condos in Cali and we had some shit tenants that really destroyed the places and in Cali it can take forever to get rid of a bad tenant especially if they know how to work the system...
 
Sharxfan said:
That really sucks. I have a few houses here and 2 are with Section 8. I know the lady that runs the section 8 program and she is awesome. She tells me about the tenants and lets me know which ones are good and which ones are risky. We do before and after walk throughs with her and we take pictures so she knows how it looked before they moved in and how they left it. I did have an issue with one tenant but the deposit covered it but after talking to the section 8 lady she won't get benefits again if she moves back here. my houses are in nicer quiet neighborhoods so she really works with me to keep them rented to people that need them.

LA is a little better as far as landlord rights. If i have a tenant that doesn't pay I can get them out in about 1.5 months from first non-payment depending on court dates. Also if they mess with me on the payments then section 8 cuts them off and most of the smart ones don't want to get cut off.

I find that monthly inspections also cut down on the amount of destruction that can be caused before I am aware of it and I also do random drive-bys to make sure stuff outside is taken care of as well.

I don't charge market max but with insurance rates going way up lately I may have to do an increase soon to cover the additional costs I am incurring.

My parents had condos in Cali and we had some shit tenants that really destroyed the places and in Cali it can take forever to get rid of a bad tenant especially if they know how to work the system...
Click to expand...
Have a friend who recently paid a woman $30k to leave. It was his only viable option.
 
dravnx said:
Of course. Over regulation and increasingly burdensome laws (how many homes can we own or what we charge for rent) cause private businesses (landlords) to abandon their businessess as a strike against the looters (those who want to restrict how many homes we can own or what we charge).
Click to expand...

You read Atlas Shrugged, and didn't come away from it wondering how the fuck a political movement was based on it?

Amazing.

Do you think that land owners are justified to engage in terrorism if the state decides that people besides them should be guaranteed some rights, as the book argues? Do you believe that we should revel in the deaths of the so-called 'looters' and 'parasites', which basically amounts to anyone who is not a completely selfish, self interested sociopath, as the book does?

Atlas Shrugged is basically a book about a quasi-fascist terrorist movement forming an ethno-state, told as though the terrorists are the good guys.
 
littlebeast said:
am curious why you think employer supplied housing should not be a taxable compensation benefit (as compared to all other forms of compensation). why carve out that particular one? even taxed, it’s still a net gain, albeit not at it’s gross value (is subject to the rate paid by the payor). particularly don’t get the ‘but no, we don’t allow that’ bit WRT the asset. the compensation tax burden is born by the recipient of the compensation, not the provider of it. all other aspects and benefits of owning the asset remain the same, no? what am i missing?
Click to expand...

You're missing payroll taxes. employee loaded cost (to the corp). I believe corps acquiring or building employee housing and supplying it is in keeping with government built and supplied employee housing. We do this for our military. Counties and cities do this for employees at vastly discounted rates. Private entities are not permitted to treat housing as anything but compensation. Lots and lots of reasons beyond those above...

The reason it's not provided is simple enough: the Fed and State governments want their cut of the employees time worked. That's what taxes are at their core: the amount of time we work for the Lords in order to keep our share.
 
Holeshot said:
You're missing payroll taxes. employee loaded cost (to the corp). I believe corps acquiring or building employee housing and supplying it is in keeping with government built and supplied employee housing. We do this for our military. Counties and cities do this for employees at vastly discounted rates. Private entities are not permitted to treat housing as anything but compensation. Lots and lots of reasons beyond those above...

The reason it's not provided is simple enough: the Fed and State governments want their cut of the employees time worked. That's what taxes are at their core: the amount of time we work for the Lords in order to keep our share.
Click to expand...

payroll taxes to the employer are combined <10% (minimal issue). not sure where you’re going with the rest of it. mentioning the military is kind of a stretch (apples and oranges - e.g. BAH and BAS are also included in the military pay structure). not sure why anyone would expect the government to essentially ‘fund’ benefits that only benefit commercial enterprises (to which the government is not entitled to the resulting profit).

WRT the military, from a government perspective the military is a cost center. commercial enterprises are a profit center. big difference.
 
Last edited:
You're incorrect on a few things, but the largest is the comment on the government not being entitled to the resulting profit (resulting of what?); they are entitled to the value gain on asset when liquidated.

A benefit of employer contributed housing benefits the employee the greatest. Check out IRS publication 15-B on fringe benefits. Good info there.
 
There is a need for affordable rental housing in the US despite the "everyone wants to own a home" advocates.

A full 1/3 of all folks looking for a home this link suggests.

According to Freddie Mac’s 2019 housing survey, nearly 40 percent of renters report that they will likely never own a home — up from 23 percent two years ago — and 80 percent say renting is a better fit for their current lifestyle.

A spectrum of age groups from Gen Zers just entering the workforce to baby boomers edging closer to retirement — even high-income earners who can afford to own a house — are choosing to rent.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...eople-are-choosing-rent-rather-than-buy-home/
 
Abacinator said:
Dutch municipalities to block property investors from buying homes to give low and middle income people a fighting chance

https://nltimes.nl/2021/09/02/dutch-cities-want-ban-property-investors-neighborhoods
Click to expand...
Not a bad solution when you have those big conglomerates who bought up all of those homes for a song right after the financial crisis when the funds came mostly from the assholes who created the financial crisis in the first place. They double dipped, committed white collar crime then profited from the situation they created. Fuck that!
 
Holeshot said:
You're incorrect on a few things, but the largest is the comment on the government not being entitled to the resulting profit (resulting of what?); they are entitled to the value gain on asset when liquidated.

A benefit of employer contributed housing benefits the employee the greatest. Check out IRS publication 15-B on fringe benefits. Good info there.
Click to expand...

am totally confused. your post i initially responded to complained about employers providing access to housing qualifying as compensation. 15-B (your reference) clearly states where and how it would not. what argument are you making?

WRT my comment about the government not being entitled to profits - it was regarding your reference to the military (thought i made that clear). ‘resulting of what’? is commercial sales (revenue generation), which the military does not engage in.

and yeah, am very familiar with the IRS regs. quit five days ago, but for the 17 years prior, was responsible for (among other things) my very large multi national employers contracts related to short and long term relocation assistance, including subsidized housing.
 
GAJ said:
There is a need for affordable rental housing in the US despite the "everyone wants to own a home" advocates.

A full 1/3 of all folks looking for a home this link suggests.
Click to expand...

wazzuFreddo said:
There is a certain freedom to renting. If you get sick of a place after a year you give your 30 day notice and then leave. :dunno
Click to expand...

That these things are true doesnt speak to whether its a good decision or not. Generational wealth happens mostly thru property ownership, or to say it another way - leaving your kids a house is a great way to help them. Lots of people cant figure out why they cant get ahead, but anyone who has inherited a house in the bay area knows whats up. (I have not)

Now, i supose that if you're not going to have kids it may matter less, but theres still a great advantage to home ownership. The trend seems to be heading away from it, and i wonder if its really been thought thru.
 
Last edited:
SM610 said:
That these things are true doesnt speak to whether its a good decision or not. Generational wealth happens mostly thru property ownership, or to say it another way - leaving your kids a house is a great way to help them. Lots of people cant figure out why they cant get ahead, but anyone who has inherited a house in the bay area knows whats up. (I have not)

Now, i supose that if you're not going to have kids it may matter less, but theres still a great advantage to home ownership. The trend seems to be heading away from it, and i wonder if its really been thought thru.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless we all rented at one time or another for very obvious reasons.

Should we not have that opportunity?

The "everyone should own a home" mantra in part led to the lending frenzy that resulted in the housing crash that started in 2008.

I benefited from that mistake as did my tenants.

Some say we are on the cusp of another housing collapse though I don't agree.
 
I don't see how homes maintain their extremely high levels when (not if) the interest rates go back up. That is, if the Billionaires don't swoop in and buy up more property.
 
Interesting, so occasionally I slip and end up paying my rent MINUTES late past midnight and get charged 10%. If other folks are not paying for months on end and not getting evicted, then why should I get penalized for hundreds when I actually have been paying every single month through it all??????
 
KooLaid said:
Interesting, so occasionally I slip and end up paying my rent MINUTES late past midnight and get charged 10%. If other folks are not paying for months on end and not getting evicted, then why should I get penalized for hundreds when I actually have been paying every single month through it all??????
Click to expand...

Oh man, that sucks.

As a landlord we don't watch minutes but then again we don't have "algorithms" like corporate landlords do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top