Biden to Limit Rent Increases to $55 Annually
- Thread starter fatpiggy
- Start date
“Calling on Congress to pass legislation giving corporate landlords a choice to either cap rent increases on existing units at 5% or risk losing current valuable federal tax break.”
www.whitehouse.gov
The tweet is misleading, to say the least. Biden asks Congress to pass a law that would end a subsidy for landlords with 50 or more units if they raise rent too much, and it’s portrayed as socialist Darth Biden waving his magic wand to crack down on every rent increase everywhere
I’m shocked.
Longer term, we need more housing. It’s fair to want that and criticize Joe for not getting it done without inventing stuff
FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Major New Actions to Lower Housing Costs by Limiting Rent Increases and Building More Homes | The White House
President Biden calls on corporate landlords to cap rent increases at 5% and takes action to make more public land available for housing President Biden is taking action to make renting more affordable for millions of Americans. Today, President Biden is announcing new actions to lower housing...
The tweet is misleading, to say the least. Biden asks Congress to pass a law that would end a subsidy for landlords with 50 or more units if they raise rent too much, and it’s portrayed as socialist Darth Biden waving his magic wand to crack down on every rent increase everywhere
I’m shocked.
Longer term, we need more housing. It’s fair to want that and criticize Joe for not getting it done without inventing stuff
Last edited:
Since I did a bunch of flips and converted to rental to sell
I can share what I found
Rental markets in Columbia and Charleston have some ceilings for the middle class folk
Fort Jackson helps keep the rental rate around the per diem just as in charleston or near any military facility
Yearly property taxes at the higher 6 instead of 4 percent apportionment bits along with insurance just recently busting ass
Add in a property management fee and that drives the monthly rent to like a $1000 a month
Then throw in some holdback for repairs or call it deletion and it starts moving up costs swiftly
Rental did not make the money
We killed it on capital gains after holding 2 to 3 years and walking away
But be careful as rising house prices and low interest rates saved us for a while along with low inventory
Don ‘t count on all that to continue
Houses are flying up everywhere
out of that now as my age is killing working hard
I can share what I found
Rental markets in Columbia and Charleston have some ceilings for the middle class folk
Fort Jackson helps keep the rental rate around the per diem just as in charleston or near any military facility
Yearly property taxes at the higher 6 instead of 4 percent apportionment bits along with insurance just recently busting ass
Add in a property management fee and that drives the monthly rent to like a $1000 a month
Then throw in some holdback for repairs or call it deletion and it starts moving up costs swiftly
Rental did not make the money
We killed it on capital gains after holding 2 to 3 years and walking away
But be careful as rising house prices and low interest rates saved us for a while along with low inventory
Don ‘t count on all that to continue
Houses are flying up everywhere
out of that now as my age is killing working hard
1) it’s a horrible policy“Calling on Congress to pass legislation giving corporate landlords a choice to either cap rent increases on existing units at 5% or risk losing current valuable federal tax break.”
FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Major New Actions to Lower Housing Costs by Limiting Rent Increases and Building More Homes | The White House
President Biden calls on corporate landlords to cap rent increases at 5% and takes action to make more public land available for housing President Biden is taking action to make renting more affordable for millions of Americans. Today, President Biden is announcing new actions to lower housing...
The tweet is misleading, to say the least. Biden asks Congress to pass a law that would end a subsidy for landlords with 50 or more units if they raise rent too much, and it’s portrayed as socialist Darth Biden waving his magic wand to crack down on every rent increase everywhere
I’m shocked.
Longer term, we need more housing. It’s fair to want that and criticize Joe for not getting it done without inventing stuff
2) he totally said the wrong thing. He meant 5% but, thought about it, stared at the camera, and said the wrong thing.
Last edited:
1) Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. If I'm not a large real estate investor, why should I want a large real investor to get a government subsidy (that I pay for) while it raises rent? It's 100% a criticism that cost just gets passed on. That should be the Travis tweet. Not invented criticism.
2) He did indeed, and he mumbled. It remains the case that he's not going to ban anything. He's asking Congress to end a subsidy that doesn't affect small time landlords.
Last edited:
I am by no means a real-estate person but if subsidies are cut out wouldn't that hurt low income people. My understanding subsidies help pay for the total price of rent per month. Renter pays a lower amount out of pocket.
If rent is 1k per month renter may pay 600 out of pocket subsidies from the government pays 400 without subsidies renter pays 1k.
IMO more people will be homeless.
If rent is 1k per month renter may pay 600 out of pocket subsidies from the government pays 400 without subsidies renter pays 1k.
IMO more people will be homeless.
Right, but I think the argument is they are both charging 1000 and getting the 400 subsidy.
Well at least it's only those with >50 units. My PM was slack the last few years and didn't keep our rents at market, so we're having to play catch up over the next couple of cycles. Certainly >5% / yr.
1) it’s simple economics. If you artificially cap rent prices it WILL, unquestionably, have negative unintended side effects. Do you really think someone who is getting 10% a year increases is just going to be ok losing 5% and not make any adjustments? That is irrational, of course they will adjust
2) Biden should try a better solution instead of pandering and mandating. He should incentivize supply, and make a competition with reward to increase supply.
Why would you not just do airbnb? That way there is no way to limit the increase ? So more Airbnb’s, which decrease the supply and increases rent?
Just doesn’t pass the economic smell test. Pretty much the opposite of what he should be doing.
And then the fact that he paused, blankly stared at the camera, and blurted out the wrong policy ….. just a total embarrassment.
Got you, my understanding was it wouldn’t have affected you regardless then. Thought it was basically no further subsidy if 50+ and >5% increase in rent.
So an entire housing project that receives a subsidy is instead doing airbnb?
Do you think smart people who own 50+ units will just give away X% a year and not make any adjustments? They are ok just all of the sudden losing X% on their investment and do nothing? Is that the thought process?
Of course they won’t all do airbnb, but the science of economics says they will do something and not nothing.
I’m just following the science.
The only feasible option I could see would be to redevelop. Tear it down and put higher priced units.
If you’re making 1000/mo right now but rent is 600, but would like to move to 1100 with rent of 700, you’d lose the subsidy, and your renters likely couldn’t afford to pay 1100. Now you have an empty unit. My guess is most subsidies are given in less desirable parts of town so renting for the full amount would be hard. So it may make more sense to just raise rent 5% year after year, which would lessen the strain on the renter and not practically force them out.
But Airbnb example just didn’t make sense given the parameters of 50+ and subsidied.
Airbnb will make sense. He only needs to rent out 15-20 units a night under airbnb to make the same amount as he would renting out 50. Less supply as a result
maybe they convert those apartments to condos? Maybe they convert the building to office space? Maybe they change it to retail?
The biggest mistake is you think they will do nothing when the government tries to take their money. And that is just not the case and it’s been proven over and over again.
1. Reduced Housing Supply People make apartments available to rent so they can make money on them. Limit how much money you can make, and you’ll see fewer new units built, less maintenance of existing units, and buildings being built for commercial and retail use cases rather than residential. Less supply will drive prices up.
2. Landlords will have to charge more off the bat, knowing they won’t be able to raise the rent in the future
3. People in a good rent control deal end up never leaving. They pass that apartment down among family even as long as they can or illegally sublet to preserve the below market rent. This means fewer vacancies and less supply, which again pushes the natural market price up.
4. If Landlords can’t charge higher prices, they will stop making improvements to the building. Purpose of investing in improvements is to get better rent.
5. Because rent control is not means based, the subsidies can often go to wealthier people who don’t need it while the poor are stuck without a place to live
6. People get stuck — because you only have rent controlled at your current apartment, it can become insanely expensive to move closer to your new school or job, making you stuck where you are There are lots of other negatives as well. To lower rents, you must increase housing supply. There’s a ton the federal government can do to simplify new construction.
Yea, that’s why I was relieved. When I first read a 5% cap, beyond thinking it was a completely ridiculous and stupid idea, I was mildly worried about ole scotch’s portfolio.
I do?
My main issue continues to be that you seem fully capable of applying nuanced policy discussion and both sides of an argument when discussing Trump’s policies, but when something like this, it’s arguing like there is no other side, it’s just straight idiocy or they hate America or whatever else (this is an overall thought, not necessarily this one discussion).
In this case, agreed that it could have some ramifications or unintended consequences in some areas. But I also think it would likely help others stay in their home. I’d have to research further and talk to people that dealing with housing to know whether it’s a positive on the whole.
And Biden is embarrassing every time he speaks. No argument from me.
All of this. Nationwide rent control is fvcking stupid. But this is a classic dem approach.
Yep totally get it. And that’s what the author of the tweet likely wanted you to think.
But seems this is targeted at people both taking the government aka our money but then also trying to take it from the renters. Not sure if the consequences would be the opposite in the end, but I at least understand the rationale.
I was saying I understood why he would read that tweet and get personally nervous despite it not being targeted at people like him. He doesn't fit any of the criteria, but the tweet made it read like a blanket ban on increasing rent period. Which is isn't. But that's how hyperbole and fearmongering works (and both parties absolutely do it). I could take scotch's post and say "see, this ban is required because landlords just want to kick people out of their homes". Wouldn't be whats happening in his situation and would be to rile the masses. Feels like what the tweet is doing.
Then I was clarifying that the proposed policy is not targeting people like him. It is targeting people who are accepting the government subsidy, but then also raising rent on their renters greater than the 5% (and have greater than 50 units I believe, which again, isn't likely many private investors).
Lastly, I was saying, I'm still not sure if I agree with the policy overall because of potential unintended consequences (like we've discussed in other posts), but that I at least understand why you wouldn't want to give a subsidy to landlords or corps or whatever that on the surface appear to be having their cake and eat it too.
Depreciation of an asset is not a government subsidy. The federal government very rarely gets involved with tax incentives for real estate development. They are usually local, ie property tax based.
You should really do some homework before typing your dumbass opinion.
Who is both ? The property owner is the only one charging 1k. (Not sure what you mean by both) If the renter is receiving 400 subsidy amount it should be handled one of two ways. (1) renter pays 1k monthly amount then government reimburse renter 400. Or (2) Renter pays 600 of the 1k amount then government pays owner 400 to equal the 1k amount.
Sorry, I assume it is option 2.
And I meant that the landlord is raising rent to the renter to 1000 but still getting the 400 subsidy (these are made up numbers to be clear). So is now getting 1400.
That's not how it works if you are talking about housing assistance subsidies for the renter. You don't just add the subsidy amount to whatever you were going to charge in rent. Doesn't work that way. My PM handles the details, but we do have renters that receive subsidies.
I understand the numbers are made up just for example ... But I believe what you are saying (in your example) is against the law plus why would a renter pay more than approved by The Housing Authority .
Fair Market Rents and Section 8 Landlords
In most cases, the local housing authority, funded by HUD, will pay about 70% of a tenant's rent, while the tenant will pay the other 30%. Fair Market Rents generally determine the maximum rent that a Section 8 landlord will be allowed to charge its residents.Sep 26, 2023
You’re a fvcking retard. I work for a company that provides data for the housing start number for the US. Please oh please tell me you know more than me. What a fvckwit.
Got you. Never looked in to the specifics so wasn’t meaning to present myself as an expert. And it being a percentage rather than a set subsidy does change things from my example. But sounds like they could potentially raise rent a good bit but it wouldn’t be felt that much by their renters since the govt would carry the brunt?
If the maximum is set, does that mean a lot of landlords are renting below fair market rent? Because otherwise they wouldn’t even be able to raise rent over 5%. But maybe it’s a wide range?
Any more evil from left?
I work for the largest private home builder in the US and have 6 new communities going up currently with two more new ones being bought all around Atlanta.
We can’t build them as fast as they’re selling.
GFY dumbass.
I would find another company then because you work for a company that doesn’t know shit or maybe it’s just you which I would probably guess is the truth.
I work for the largest private home builder in the US and have 6 new communities going up currently with two more new ones being bought all around Atlanta.
We can’t build them as fast as they’re selling.
GFY dumbass.
This is actually more complicated than people will make it on either side. I am not for rent control. However, the number of companies that own huge swaths of real estate has become a massive issue. I am for taxing these entities until they are forced to sell the homes they own. I understand this is not very conservative of me, but homes are meant for homeowners. They are not investment tools for companies to use to drive up rents and values as part of an investment plan. It's become a massive issue that everyone is paying for.
So while Biden is wrong to cap rents in my opinion, his DOJ is pursuing this major issue, and that is the right thing to do. What's been allowed to happen is just horrible and I really hope that Trump will join on to this effort because it's important. Single family homes are for families, not for corporations to own on a massive level.
So while Biden is wrong to cap rents in my opinion, his DOJ is pursuing this major issue, and that is the right thing to do. What's been allowed to happen is just horrible and I really hope that Trump will join on to this effort because it's important. Single family homes are for families, not for corporations to own on a massive level.
Last edited:
Retard barely begins to explain your level
That hurts coming from a village idiot like you. 😂😂
Did you read the entire article dipshit? North East of course is a shit hole and decreased but the south increased. Geez get a clue tard.
so your little part of the country increased and you think that means everywhere increased?
