Quote:
Originally posted by CamB
This is pretty complex stuff. For instance, my initial reaction to your question about subsidised rents is that the landlords would suffer! However, I had to modify that in my mind, because I think it would create slums. If a significant proportion of the population can only afford $300/month in rent, then the value of the housing drops. If the rents won't drop, then more people have to squeeze into the same space (to afford, say, $600/m).
|
Landlords won't suffer. They just won't get as rich. For "Section 8" housing, the game is buying a junker house. Fix it up so it's liveable. Rent the house "Section 8" for more than it's worth on the free market.
I don't rent Section 8. I buy a house for say $65k, and rent is $825/month. Another investor buys a junker in the city for $30k and adds $5k in repairs. That landlord can get $800-850/month renting via Section 8. However, I do enjoy a better property in a better neighborhood that appreciates over time. The other landlord owns a big cash cow.
Let me reiterate. Section 8 is not a subsidy for landlords. That's not saying some landlords haven't gotten filthy, stinking, obscenely rich catering to Section 8.
Back on topic, it's unfair for one person to stay in shape and eat well, while another person can eat like a d@mn slob and both pay the same insurance premiums. You can't get a big a$$ and expect my wallet to pay for your health problems. Then again, I've never been famous for being a team player. When I used to work for a living, I despised lazy co-workers. Now, I'm self-employed, so if the job isn't done, look in the mirror.
Jürgen