It’s pretty sinister that home owners can get a tax deduction but renters cannot deduct rent.
some states (like Mass) do allow a renters deduction on your state taxes
A record number of Americans can't afford rent
91–100 of 136 posts
Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent
#92Looking to learn more on the subject, but why isn't it in the interest of any city these days to NOT build more housing? They are almost perfectly incentivized to attract working young people and families to help increase their tax base (property tax, income tax, sales tax) and housing would help them do that. Given most large cities are facing huge financial deficits, wouldn't this make sense? (Yes, I'm aware of reg…
For California specifically, there's proposition 13 which caps the rate of increase of property taxes for housing to a rate that's below inflation. For areas like the Bay area where the cost of living is high (making city employees expensive), zoning for residential instead of commercial means that they're limiting their future tax base while having to provide services to these houses, so cities avoid building housin…
Prop 13 restricts reassessments for commercial properties, too. Ultimately, the fundamental calculus is similar in that commercial development is deemed to be better for city finances, but the difference is much smaller than if commercial properties weren't part of Prop 13.[1] And perhaps the difference disappears or inverts in urban contexts. Suburban services aren't financially viable long-term even for commercial zones, but that's not true in dense, urban areas where inviting people to live can definitely have a positive RoI long-term.
The reason urban areas, especially coastal cities, don't permit more housing has more to do with NIMBYism and, more recently, leftist politics that sees all private and even much public development as evil--because so-called gentrification, because money changes hands, etc.
[1] Note that the way schools are organized and funded in California means there's less local disincentive stemming from the need to fund schools than might exist elsewhere. I'm not familiar with the numbers, but if you're a municipality looking to keep tax money flowing through your area as opposed to being redistributed elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprised if public schools are a net win.
Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
A graph from Statista [1] indicates the opposite: the fraction of US housing units occupied by the owner in 2022 was almost double what it was in 1975. Another pertinent question would be the overall supply of housing: one obvious factor that could help explain the graph I just described is that the overall supply of US housing has gone down, meaning that fewer owners are in a position to rent out property at all. He…
If I'm not mistaken, the graph you have referred to shows the total number of owner occupied homes - not the proportion. Edit: I'm also not sure that their definition of owner occupied excludes second homes. From the linked page: > Owner occupied housing is where the person who owns a property – either outright or through a mortgage – also resides in the property. Excluded are therefore rental properties, employer-pr…
> the graph you have referred to shows the total number of owner occupied homes - not the proportion
Hm, yes, you're right, I was misreading the y axis.
> I'm also not sure that their definition of owner occupied excludes second homes.
"Resides" generally means principal residence, which excludes second homes. However, it would be nice if the site would clarify that.
Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent
#94This is basically the late stage of us continually not building enough housing for years and years. I'm not sure how anyone thought this would turn out differently. As long as housing is an "investment", which in turn means that people lock up big portions of their net worth into housing, and then vote against policies that would make housing cheaper (it's the rational thing to do) then this will be the outcome. Just…
So maybe instead of (just) building, make real estate a poor investment? High taxes for more than one home, more difficult eviction procedure and on the other side affordable mortgages for first homes. This way you make them unattractive for investors and more affordable to actual users. Of course, this could also result in just rents going up, so maybe also put a cap on that?
how would that help if there's no supply?
Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent
#95So are landlords making money hand-over-fist or what?
Sadly a lot of landlords have learned that they make a lot more money by doing exclusively short-term rentals on AirBnB. That reduces the supply of long-term rentals and drives prices up even higher.
Exactly - a apartment I know of had 7 units with long-term low to moderate income tenants - one by one each unit was evicted (or non renewed), a quick sprucing up and now 6 of the 7 are only available on AirBNB - and the landlord gets as much per week as he was getting per month before - the tenant in that 7th unit is getting pretty nervous that she is next.
Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent
#96Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
So one out of the five costs only applies to some properties? How does that make me wrong? You also failed to say, “nothing needs to be fixed at MY property! Why did my rent go up!?” Because it takes several years to save up to replace an HVAC system or a rotten deck or plumbing failure and I have to charge based on the projected cost.
Sewer, trash are negligible compared to the cost of rent. If they double you’re looking at rent going up by around 3% and that’s if the landlord isn’t making the renter pay those fees directly. Maintenance costs and taxes are the only ones that could be a factor out of your original 5 - your point is drowned out by the poor supporting facts. And taxes aren’t even going up, just the valuation of the properties - which…
I am not making a political argument about the economics here. At the end of an inflationary cycle (if we are at the end) the markets, including the housing market, have to find equilibrium. Costs and vacancy are rising for landlords.
Suppose you are a homeowner. You definitely know then that utilities, insurance, possibly the mortgage, definitely maintenance costs have gone up. You pay those as your "rent" because you are the owner. So the rent went up, even though you are the landlord.
Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's something very gross about owning a home you don't live it.
OK, I’ll bite: why should you care about what other people own?
If a house in a popular area sits dormant, that's one less unit available to house the general public.
Reductio ad absurdum... if rich Chinese businesspeople buy every home in Vancouver (strictly to park money, not live or rent), nobody who works in Vancouver can live there and everybody has to commute from the suburbs.
Edit - at an indivual level, you're right, who cares. At a policy level, ensuring reasonable housing for the general public is a good thing.
Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent
#99This is basically the late stage of us continually not building enough housing for years and years. I'm not sure how anyone thought this would turn out differently. As long as housing is an "investment", which in turn means that people lock up big portions of their net worth into housing, and then vote against policies that would make housing cheaper (it's the rational thing to do) then this will be the outcome. Just…
And what happens when we run out of places to build? Or when we build so much it will take an hour or more to go to the grocery shop to buy milk? Simply “build” is not the answer. “Building smart” would be a better answer. Build “vertically” instead of “horizontally”. Build 10+ stories residential buildings. And build shopping malls vertically too. Build walkable cities so that people don’t have to rely on cars. Etc.
> Or when we build so much it will take an hour or more to go to the grocery shop to buy milk? Simply “build” is not the answer. “Building smart” would be a better answer.
If you have residences that are an hour away from groceries, even with no empty lots nearby, I think people would find it obviously profitable to buy a residence and convert it into a grocery shop. Capitalism alone takes care of the need to be this smart.
Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent
#100It’s pretty sinister that home owners can get a tax deduction but renters cannot deduct rent.
In a functioning/competitive market, wouldn't that tax break get passed along to the tenant through lower monthly rents?
IE, the problem isn't the tax break, it's the constraint on housing supply.