The Cost Of Rent Should Be Set By The Tenant, Not The Landlord

Rentals sit empty when the charges are higher than people are willing to pay. What gives someone a right to force the price down to whatever level they are able, or willing, to pay? Makes no sense at all. Could you do so with new cars, your groceries, your electricity and everything else you purchase?

There's 100% justification for landowners to set the price. They put up the money, took the risk that they could maintain it and pay the taxes on it, and it belongs to them. They owe you nothing. If you come into a binding contract via a lease, then you BOTH agreed on the price. If you don't like the price, don't pay the price and move somewhere else. Nobody forces you to rent, and nobody forces you to pay any particular price for rent. The fact that you don't earn enough or can't find something cheap enough suggests perhaps another job is needed or another location is needed to find work and costs of living more within a persons means. Manhattan properties are incredibly expensive and there is competition for square footage, which drives the prices higher. Why would you believe they owe you a place for $50 if it's value is $10,000 per month? The handout crowd never ceases to amaze me.

 

The price is whatever the two agree upon. The landlord charges what the market will bear. The tenant, of course, wants the cheapest price they can get. You forget that the landlord has expenses as well. Most have a minimum rate for that reason. If the tenants set rent, they will say, $10 a month or less..... It's a silly idea.

- - - Updated - - -

The Bundy they are talking about is the Texas rancher who is having a dispute with the feds over grazing rights on BLM land.

- - - Updated - - -

The tenants (as a whole) set the rates. If nobody is willing to rent a house at a certain rent, then the landlord will lower rates. It's just a matter of supply and demand.

 

I think I should pay 100$ a month...

 

This conservative isn't defending that loony.....

Neither is Glenn Beck

http://www.mediaite.com/online/beck-bundys-negro-comments-prove-how-unhinged-he-really-is/

 

What a lame idea. The market is what sets the price. If a landlord is gouging people then they would be stupid to stay. If noone rents at the high price the landlord will be forced to lower the price. Allowing the tennant to set the price would not work because they would not set the price fairly. I know if it was my choice at what rent should be I would logically set it at free. but what would the value of a home be if you had to rent for free? What incentive would there be to even own rental properties?

 

Great way to wind up with no rental property available so people go homeless.

Socialized housing didn't work out very well in the USSR, or Cuba, or NorK...

 

it will create a shortage of rental units....


Why buy a house for 300k and pay a 1000 mortgage when I can just rent for whatever price I determine.


once again, a socialists fails to grasp economics 101

#shocking

 

What is this? Dumb idea Friday?

 

By OP logic, taxpayers should decide how much tax they should pay? OK. Individual consumers should decide how much to pay for goods and services? OK.

Well I guess the maintenance on my fleet of $1000 Lamborghinis will be higher? Oh wait, I only pay $.50 for an oil change, $100 for an engine rebuild so there goes that.

There are millions of inexpensive living options in non urban areas. Of course tenants can't be troubled to move to where jobs/housing are. Like a nursery full of screaming babies, the left perpetually hollers for more more more without being willing to do anything more strenuous than walk to the mailbox and get a check.

 

I haven't reviewed this whole thread, so I apologize if my point has already been covered. But I doubt it has. Even if it became law that the tenant sets their own rent, the result would be an auctioning of rental properties, for the property owner isn't going to give the apartment to the guy who is only willing to pay $10 a month when somebody else is offering $100 a month and another $300 a month. So ultimately such a law would become immediately feckless. Even if such a law gave the tenant power to change their rent in the middle of a lease, which is the power to break a contract, then leases would cease to exist and rent would become a month to month interaction.

What I always laugh at is how the resilience of the market is able to find ways to cope with the idiotic laws the Left passes. Remember how McDonald's handled San Francisco's ban on toys sold with Happy Meals? Because Leftist politicians are, by definition, stupid cows, smart lawyers will always find ways around their shenanigans.

 

And if there was an infinite supply of rental properties, consumers could make a demand like that.

Unfortunately, real world supply and demand dictates prices.

 

The tenants already set the price. A landlord cannot demand rent in excess of what the tenants will pay, because his property will go un-rented. He must lower his rent until he can attract a renter who thinks the property is worth the asking price. Next problem?

 

It's cute how you call a cardboard box a "house."

 

I don't even know what to say to this, but I now feel dumber for having read it...Have you ever taken a macroeconomics class? There is no possible way that could ever work. It sounds good in theory, but would never work. Furthuremore, housing prices are already set on the basis of what someone would be willing to pay for them, it's called market value. Not to mention that if rent was that cheap, there would be no pride of ownership, and no incentive for the tenant to maintain the property. Everything would be one giant slum. I'm assuming you would have it so the government also maintains the appearance of these properties? Think about how much that would cost. Not feasible whatsoever.

 

There are sound issues though affordable housing is a problem in many areas, the government should do what it can to encourage small basic housing options for people with limited means. Say your on SSI standard numbers say a third should go to housing that would be a bit over $200 a month in my area as in many that is not even an option even if two people share a place the rent could be $700 for a two bedroom place.

 

One of the few tax credits not done away with in Reagan's 1986 IRC reform:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit

 

Rents are market driven, supply and demand. This rediculous collectivist Marxist ideation is falsely moralistic and wholly unworkable.

Unless you want everyone to be equal in their poverty and equal in mediocrity.

 

Me thinks there are people in this thread who have never owned or sold anything in their life and never learned the law of supply and demand. Did you guys guys skip 5th grade or whenever it was you were supposed to learn about it? Did your parents never teach you? Prices are set ONLY by what people are willing to pay, UNLESS there is a monopoly. That's where the govt is supposed to step in to prevent blatant gouging.

 

They don't, that is the lesson of economics, the market sets the price. That is why you find lower rent in (*)(*)(*)(*)tier neighborhoods.

 

In that case the landlord should be free to wait on a tenant who is willing to pay more.. oh wait, that's what we have today

It's called a rental agreement, which the two ends agree to and sign

 

In their responses to my OP the right-wingers have made clear their utter contempt for the idea that a tenant be able to set the price for the rent to be paid for the use of the landlord’s property.

The OP was to create an example of the Cliven Bundy situation in Nevada, without mentioning his name. This was demonstrated in my follow-up post #15 in this thread.

For those that defended or continue to defend Cliven Bundy, once again, your blatant right wing hypocrisy is showing.

 

“The Americans couldn’t destroy Hanoi” by bombing it during the war, he said, “but we have destroyed our city by very low rents.” As a Communist with no bias toward the free market, he had learned the hard way that artificially low rents encouraged demand while discouraging supply— a very simple principle, indeed, but one with major impacts on those who fail to heed it.

Sowell, Thomas (2010-12-2. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 4th Edition (p. 75). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

 

those who don't know history, are doomed to repeat it.... but as I have stated in another thread.... I, as a history teacher, have been charged with teaching crap like Jackie Robinson, because he was a black ball player, taking time away from, IDK, WWII.


State standards I have to teach, have me spending more time on Jesse Owens in 1932, because he was black, rather than causes of WWII


They simply want me to teach "Hitler bad, Owens showed him, America good, We win"


Reading the title to this thread, I'm flabarghasted that any adult would actually think "let the tennant decide what he pays" and think that it will work and not understand shortages......