Biden to call for 5% cap on annual rent increases, as he tries to show plans to tame inflation
Biden to call for 5% cap on annual rent increases, as he tries to show plans to tame inflation
Cool, my rent is still 70% of what I make in a month. It's almost like it's already too late, but I'm too poor and uneducated to be an expert. Got any other ideas?
5% is crazy talk when workers wages are going up 2.5% per year. Landlords need at least 20% more every year.
But if it pass, then it is first win. I fear that landlord are not going to let it happen without a fight
You gotta get something that will pass
This is what happened in California. The statewide rent control is 5% plus inflation per year, capped at 10% per year. There's a bunch of exclusions too, like the property has to be at least 15 years old, and single-family homes that aren't owned by a corporation are excluded too. I think the builders and landlords had quite a bit of a say in it, hence the limit being so high above inflation (assuming inflation of <=5%).
Still a lot better than it used to be. It applies to month-to-month rentals too, so you can get the flexibility of a month-to-month rental while still having a limit on the rent increase per year. Evictions also need to have just cause and there's a notice period of 60 days if the tenant has lived there for longer than a year.
Is 5% really that crazy when the current rate is 20% as you describe?
Man this entire thread is just a perfect encapsulation of the perfect being the enemy of the good. What a bunch of useless chuds.
I'm not sure I've ever heard that phrase. Do you mind explaining what you mean? (Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be combative. I just have no idea how to read that)
In simple terms, the failure to do something absolutely perfectly shouldn't stop you from doing something that will still be better than the status quo.
"Don't make perfect the enemy of good" essentially says that it's better to do what you can in the short term to reduce harm or make positive change than to wait for the perfect solution and do nothing in the meantime. The idea is that the good is still going to help some people while we wait for the perfect solution to the problem- which, crucially, may never come, or come too late for a whole bunch of people.
One example would be letting a parent having their kid eat fast food instead of a perfectly healthy diet because their parents live in a food desert; not ideal, but it'll keep the kid fed and alive.
We want actual change.
Not this half-assed thing of "oh shit Biden isn't polling well. Quick, do something popular!".
Seeing this honestly frustrates me more because we all know they could do better than this.
This guy really larps these this trust me bro jaja
What BS. This is like arguing that "trickle down economics" is good because money eventually trickles down to us plebs. We're in a sinking boat filled with holes and you're trying to argue that we should be happy that 1 of 1000 holes got patched up even though there isn't time to patch the other 999 holes before the ship sinks because the crew would rather sit on their ass and drink martinis.
we have several lifetimes worth of policies to change to fix the mess we are in. this is exactly what Biden should be doing, passing policy after policy in the next few months that have obvious positive results for the common voter. he's not gonna run out of stuff to do if he's re-elected, so he needs to stop holding onto this shit like it's his last wild card of all time.
But that might upset his owners, I mean campaign contributors.
"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen."
— some guy
He's not a dictator. Most of those would never pass in the Senate.
It's not about that. It's about building momentum for the idea. If it passes great, if not then it's out there. People know it's possible and it will never stop haunting the elites who the government actually serves.
If only someone had given him the power to be a dictator!
Guess he just fuckin loses and the next guy does it anyways.
Woah, an actual campaign promise? Maybe the Dems do want to look like they're trying after all.
If Democrats kept their promises we'd have codified Roe, have free healthcare for all, and literally no one would carry student debt but those that haven't yet had time to graduate.
Where I live we've had a 4% cap for a long time. It just means tenants get evicted to increase the price. It's illegal, but the procedure to after landlords cheating the system is so grueling and adversarial, it puts justice beyond the reach of many victims. I can only imagine this being even worse in the US.
If this caps rent even if the tenant changes it'd be something. I don't see how this passes an R house or gets through the "moderate" Dems in the senate.
It's certainly an essential piece of the puzzle, but without the other puzzle pieces it is only going to have a minimal effect and is easy to abuse. Better than nothing nothing though, it won't be a wasted effort if it passes, it just won't fix anything or curb rent prices on the whole. But it will help people out here and there.
I don't see how a national rent cap survives even the most liberal courts either.
We have rent stabilization in nyc (for some buildings). It caps the increases, and landlords are obligated to renew your lease if you want to unless you violated it in some serious way. In returnfor haveing a building stabalized, the landlord gets tax incentives.
That’s great!!!
Need to stop corporations buying houses next, and tamper foreigners buying up houses too (almost every country I’ve traveled to won’t let me buy so why not do the same?)
I feel like banning corporations from owning housing isn’t the panacea people expect it to be. It’s pretty impractical when you start talking about larger buildings and mixed use housing, and I’m not convinced it’s really a big driver of the problem.
I think a steep land value tax is a more workable solution. It incentivizes anyone who holds non-productive property (vacant homes in this case) to either make better use of the land or sell it. This also has the benefit of impacting individuals who own second homes or have mostly empty airbnbs.
Property taxes are insufficient for this purpose because they are generally based on the value of the home rather than just the land, so not only are they easier to game, but it disincentivizes improving the property.
Crazy idea.
How about instead of corporations owning the unit, maybe the person who lives in the unit gets to own part of it.
I know crazy.
The biggest issue with corporations owning low income multifamily housing is that they act like slumlords. When you have nowhere else to go and the landlord won't fix major issues then it takes a toll on you. When a kid sees this growing up, then it leads to antisocial behavior. Investors think that "passive investment" means no input at all when it requires a great deal of active management if contracts are being followed. They just know that the residents have no reasonable way to enforce the contract.
I agree about taxes. Tax the ever loving bejesus out of vacant rentals or speculative residential real estate. That will keep them from buying in the first place or deeply incentivize them to keep them rented out.
I disagree. No need to force development to destroy natural landscapes just to avoid a tax. Simply tax multiple residential properties somewhat exponemtially.
100%, 133%, 200%, 350%, 500% or something
Some countries have a large yearly tax if you leave a house vacant for longer than 6 months or a year without a valid reason. More countries need to do this.
Not sure about the USA, but it's a big problem in Australia. Foreign investors (that don't live in Australia nor have any intent of moving to Australia) buy properties then just hold them as speculative assets. They don't want tenants, because they don't want to go through all that effort. All they want to do is hold them and watch the value go up, in the same way you'd hold stock or Bitcoin.
Strong disagree. Can you imagine what red states will do with the power to demand proof of citizenship to own property? Or all the hell couples where one is a Permanent Resident the other a Citizen will go through?
You should be terrified of someone like Jeff Session or Kris Kobach able to just veto any random person from owning land. You can see it now in your head
If you are interested the experiment has been run already. Go read up what Kris Kobach did when he got a town to pass a law requiring citizenship tests to rent. He not only near bankrupted the town due to lawsuits he personally sent threatening letters to Latinos who lived there.
ve traveled to won’t let me buy so why not do the same?
The standard is good behavior, not other people.
It should be reciprocal IMO for each country. The ones I’ve looked at buying in I couldn’t because I’m not a citizen
All those cases are clear. Is a person (not a corporation) buying a residence to live in, that is be physically present in for a minimum of 70% of the year? If so, they can buy. If not, they can't buy. I'd rather a million unauthorized immigrants buying houses they live in than one overseas corporate entity buying a house to rent out.
As if it would ever last the captured supreme court.
Would be good if he coupled it with a promise to stack the Supreme Court
3 years of absurd rent prices and we are just now seeing legislation, wonder why......
Usually just need to see what Reps have blocked to find out.
A sensible, too-little-too-late rule, probably full of carveouts and exceptions, that I nonetheless feel really relieved to see. Delayed and watery regulation is better than none, I suppose.
Let's build a million new homes and sell them to people that don't currently own any homes.
Let’s
buildseize a million new homes and sell them to people that don’t currently own any homes.
FTFY
Fuck these ogres hoarding real estate.
There's no shortage of homes in the US. They're just being hoarded for their increasing value.
I don't believe that is the case. There is no value in letting a property sit empty accumulating value, when it could be doing exactly that while pulling in a hefty monthly rent.
It may well be the case that there's enough homes empty to house everyone, but only if they're happy to move somewhere they don't want to be, and where there's no jobs to pay for them.
Doesn't help if there is housing available but it's 3 hours from where my work is :/
I suppose he has to do something to signal to voters that he's going to try to fix the housing affordability crisis, but this is pretty meaningless. But, what can he say? The truth? That the housing crisis is an extremely complex problem that will take decades to fix? Probably not going to go over very well.
Not allowing landlords to drive people into homeless on speculation and greed is a good first step to solving the very complex problem that will take decades.
That the housing crisis is an extremely complex problem that will take decades to fix?
No? There’s currently no cap on single housing investments, and at the very least private equity needs to be banned from buying housing in any form.
In my province the cap for increase was usually around 1.5 - 2% for existing tenants/renewing lease.
The conservative gov went ahead and fucked everything up and said this doesn't apply to anything built after 2005, or new builds - that means any new anything in an existing building.
New basement rooms? No cap. (No cap) But, if the basement had rooms 35 years ago, and you 'build' "new" rooms, it isn't new and falls under the older more tenant friendly laws.
However, between tenants, a landlord can do whatever the fuck they want to prices.
Shitty rooms went from 375 to 700 I'm 5 years.
Hello fellow Ontarians. I feel your pain. It may be little solace but know I bought a house with a basement tenant 3 years ago. Their rent was $1100 a month for a 1 bedroom 3 years ago and it's 1100$ a month now. I don't need the money. Fuck landholding pariahs taking advantage of renters.
Rentoid propoganda! /s
Hasn't rent control been shown to be ineffective at making everyone play nice? I feel like it's much more effective to put your finger on the supply/demand balance by subsidizing the supply side.
And not by just giving handouts to corporate landlords, either.
Hasn’t rent control been shown to be ineffective at making everyone play nice?
It's proven effective at causing landlords to scream and cry and publish 10,000 word Op-Eds about how they're going to do a capital strike if the rules aren't changed.
But, when paired with new investment in public housing, its incredibly effective at keeping rental costs stable long term.
Just like with unions, you know it's good for the common people, because the business and property owners speak out against it so strongly. If it's pointless, they could just let it happen. But instead, they rally against it. So you know they're lying when they say it won't matter.
It will matter.
Yeah. It has but stuff like this plays well in the echo chamber. Like most attempts at price controls it has a lot of unintended consequences such as fewer apartments built and rented out, landlords charging obscene amounts to a new renter knowing they cannot raise the prices as needed later on, landlords raising prices whether they need to or not because they can't hike them quickly when needed, worse maintenance.
No one is proposing rent control in a vaccum. Arguing against that idea is disingenuous and is how you end up with the status quo of "rent control is actually bad for renters" that gets parroted in economics circles. State intervention is necessary for markets to exist in the first place and they have overwhelming power in shaping them.
Building large scale affordable public housing, incentive structures that promote the building of affordable high density private housing, banning corporate ownership of single family homes and short term rentals like AirBnB, limiting corporate ownership within apartment complexes, reworking zoning laws to better suit current needs, more robust mechanisms for tenant disputes and transparency for historical rental prices to prevent abuse.
All of that is possible if the political will was there.
Okay then let's just drop an anchor into the market. Have the federal government commit to buying and managing 50,000 units in every major city. They're available on the open market at cost plus 100 dollars a month. The 100 dollars goes into a fund and the city with the highest rents gets more federally owned apartments.
We just keep dropping anchors until developers provide reasonable housing at reasonable prices or housing is no longer a private market.
Government has a really big damn stick. If people's needs don't start getting met then those developers are going to feel it, right in their profits.
I think the problem is that once the government subsidizes anything it becomes all hands on deck peak business interest to exploit and steal said subsidies.
Some sort of enforced regulation might work, but the government doesn't really like to do that.
Not giving handouts to corporate lawyers? Impossible. Next you'll tell me that we should ease zoning restrictions and ignore NIMBYs that are afraid of black people moving in?
That last sentence is all that ever happens in supply side economics. It's the entire handbook.
They've had enough carrot. It's time for the stick.
I'm sure this comes with a guaranteed 5% increase to minimum wages at the same time right? ... right? Any amount of minimum wage increase from the last increase 15 years ago?
Prices are already jacked up to an insane level compared to wages, the horse is already out of the barn: This is not going to fix the problem renters face.
A soft cap works as a ratchet. Downturns in the rental market are sticky while up turns are slow and marginalized.
It's effectively the opposite of the way things are now, with cartelized units staying artificially high through downturns and prices skyrocketing during every shortfall.
Timely.
That’s still way higher than anyone’s raises each year…
Raises have nothing to do with inflation or cost of living. Companies that pin raises to those things are severely underpaying employees and hoping they don’t seek greener pastures.
Market rates set compensation. The best way to know your market rate is to find a new job.
what the fuck? you get less than 5% raise in a year in the US?
edit: in light of responses, I'd like to reiterate, what the fuck... this is the most obscenely wealthy country in the world.
Yep, company loyalty is dead here. The only way to get a significant raise is to switch jobs.
People are lucky to get a raise at all. Much less 5%, usually it's 1 or 2. For at least a decade the only way to significantly increase your pay has been to move jobs.
Acording to this report: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/eci.pdf
The average Wages and salaries increased 1.1 percent and benefit costs increased 1.1 percent from December 2023.
Oh and then people that did get raises averaged 4.4% last year. So its really raises for some and poverty for most.
Most people are lucky to get 2%.. my company set the max at 2.5 last year and you only got that if you were IT Jesus
That translates into rents doubling in less than 15 years
Well mine went up 28% in a year so I’ll take 5%
Good thing wages are going up!
Cool, but also cap property tax increases as well. Mine have increased over 10% for the last 3 years.
They did this in California and Oregon, then the schools went to shit.
Also, property taxes are a good way to encourage density, which is necessary to fight climate change
Can they even cap that? That's a state tax, I feel like that's one that you would need to deal directly with your state to resolve. As someone who lives in one of the highest property tax states, I also wish this could happen...
Be careful what you wish for. California capped property tax increase since 1978 with prop 13 and most experts say this is a major factor in their insanely expensive housing market. Most people are heavily incentivized to never move to keep their low property tax rate, but this in turn prevents most new development and upzoning while simultaneously leading to the worst sprawl in the nation.
It also starves the state of tax revenue requiring them to levy the tax further for new buyers and seek other income streams like heightened income and sales tax. Policies like this somewhat unintuitively only benefit those who are already well off. Renters and younger people gain no benefit and ultimately pay higher property taxes than those who already are financially established enough to own a property.
A healthy property tax disincentivizes housing as a speculative investment, improving the overall market for people who actually live there. There should certainly be breaks for poverty and financial distress but capping or cutting rates broadly encourages speculation. For a basic human need such high degree of speculation benefits nobody.
Is the property tax rate that's increasing or your home's appraised value? My home has doubled in appraised value since we bought it in 2016, so our taxes have doubled as well.
No, property tax is basically the only direct motivation in place for home owners to vote for politicians and policies that will keep housing affordable for future generations and people who don't already own a home. Otherwise why wouldn't home owners want to see housing prices skyrocket in value if there's no financial downside for them (and a giant payout when they do sell)? As mentioned in other comments, some states have tried property tax caps, and the result is creating a system of haves and have nots based entirely around who was lucky enough to buy into the market before it shot to the moon.
I agree that’s the problem. Property taxes go up, rent has to go up to cover it. If property taxes go up by X amount but you can’t raise rent the appropriate amount then there’s a problem.
We need to cap both.
You could just make slightly less money. It is allowed. It isn't like chemical reaction balance thing. It isn't even that they are losing money, they are just making less than they want.
These two things are not linked. Rent already is as high as the market will bear, property taxes will come out of landlord profits.
And then roll it back to 2016 +5%
Cute... The beauty of profit is that it is never undo even if it was a crime.
That's a feature, not a bug btw
I'm curious what the federal government can actually do in this situation. Most private leases are contracts under state law, not federal law.
I would think tax law could make it completely untenable to own residential properties as rentals and give federal tax breaks to developers that build affordable housing? I’m sure there could also be federal grants to cities for easing zoning restrictions. Not sure how much of this is possible.
You can always put new limits in that private contacts have to abide by. The only limit is the Constitution.
Oh neat, now if you can't afford rent (the issue) next year it will only be 5% more out of reach.
"politician expected to say that something we would want to should be a thing"
why is this news?
5% raise cap is lame! way lower than wage increases! a 1000$ rent after 5 years is 1300$, which after 5 years becomes a 30 % increase
Him and his filthy rich Democratic politicians are so disconnected from reality that this seems to them like a revolutionary policy
Here’s the thing, it provides at least some sort of predictability for tenant.
Nothing worse than settling into a place and getting booted because rent goes up 20% or 30%.
This will largely guarantee that rent goes up by 5% every year, but it will limit crazy jumps.
A year or so ago they surveyed the homeless in San Diego. Everyone assumed that the homeless population is largely from out of state, coming to SD to be warm while homeless. What they found was the complete opposite.
Most of the homeless do not have a drug problem or only started taking drugs after becoming homeless. Most homeless people were employed full time for the 12 months before they became homeless. Most homeless people in San Diego were born there and watched as the relentless march of 5-10% increases (California state maximums) slowly pushed them into homelessness.
Banal evil, is still evil.
Healthy markets also create predictability by constraining prices.
We’d have a healthy housing market if we stopped actively suppressing new housing construction.
We make some projects impossible and every project harder than it needs to be when it comes to constructing new housing. The government’s thumb is constantly pressing, pressing, pressing on the scale to keep supply lower than natural.
Unless that also comes with a 5% raise every year, then it's not as good
At least it prevents people getting a 20-30% increase one year
This shit never works out as simply as you expect it to. With any public policy change there are layers and nuance. If you restrict rent increases then every year you're gonna see the majority of landlords including the ones who do not increase rent yearly suddenly change course to always up the rent 5% per year, every year. Otherwise as a member of the ownership class who doesn't increase rent your are losing out on equity compared to those who do. Compound interest never catches up.
If you want to make renting profitable and homeownership obtainable for nearly everyone you need to setup a system where renters gain a share of ownership proportional to the money they put in. Make it so ALL renters eventually own the place they rent if they stay long enough. Ownership increases for every dollar spent towards rent. Evaporate the double dip appreciation for landlords and punish the income so that you gain money but at a slower rate than an index fund.
You also need subsidized lending for individuals who own no home. Possibly make it so 100% of rental income tax goes into a fund that provides mortgages to someone purchasing a primary residence when they do not own any current properties or are selling their primary residence to purchase another one (e.g. moving, not hoarding housing.) Make the application process for these mortgages prioritize families without any owned homes in their direct lineage (e.g. those with parents and children which do not own homes get a higher priority than the kids of wealthy homeowners.)
Something like this can bring homeownership to the masses and bring prices down as investment income from housing is no longer as valuable as other investments. Prices may still stay high, but subsidized mortgages would keep monthly payments affordable for those who qualify while minimizing profitability for hoarders.
Finally if you are still in love with rent control, then do it concurrently with a program like the above. Balance the scales.
Why would someone buy a house so someone else could slowly buy it from them? They would essentially be acting like a bank.
Who keeps up with the house maintenance?
Landlords are unneeded middlemen. A good system doesn't use them.
Your idea is "rent to own".
You can rent to own a Playstation that's 300 dollars for a small monthly price but at the end of the loan you're going to pay 600 dollars total for the Playstation.
Why am I going to go to Best Buy, buy a Playstation for 300, then let Jimmy down the street play with it while he slowly pays me back my 300?
Why am going to buy a house for 100,000 and let Jimmy rent to own it?
600 a month for 15 years. He'd pay for it.
If I put 100k in the S&P500 for 15 years, I'd have 415k.
Would I rather:
A. Help Jimmy get a house
B. Make ~300k for just sitting
If you think landlords are bad you should see how much the bank makes.
My 500k 7.5% mortgage if I only paid the mandatory payment would end up costing me something like 1.6 million dollars. My PITI is something like 4k/mo and only like $500 is principal.
Edit:
Why would someone buy a house so someone else could slowly buy it from them?
Imagine if you can't make your mortgage payment on a home that you will not be living in due to whatever personal reasons you have, so you want to pause payments. Instead of selling the home you choose to rent it out.... barely losing equity thanks to the kind renters who take on the interest and tax payments for you so you don't have to pay.
The renters are not getting a worse deal than buying and they get the benefit of having a home they are gaining equity in. The landlord is not losing the home they otherwise could not afford to keep given whatever factor is going on. (Parents need short term care? traveling? going to college for a year or two? just don't want to work?) Bottom line, it's far more equitable for everybody.
Anything that just rips away equity from those who currently have it is going to be wildly unpopular. In gaming terms, nobody likes nerfs, you need to buff the curve for people who do not have equity. If you are perceived as taking something away it is so hard to convince anybody that the change is for the better or needed.
If you want to make renting profitable
Why the fuck would anyone other than the leeches that feed off of the rest of society by putting a human right behind a pay wall want that?
You need to free your mind of the worm that is capitalism, an entirely artificial construct designed to keep you down, you'd be able to see a significantly brighter future then..
I like the idea of rent to own condos from the federal government. That removes the profit incentive and allows tenants to immediately form a council for their building to manage maintenance and such rather than having a landlord (or 10 who own single units in multiple buildings) run the building council.
It's easy as pie too, federal government buys or builds, (doesn't matter), then divides the cost by the number of units. That number is the magic number at which you own the condo free and clear. Divide the magic number by 30 and you have base rent that must be paid monthly. You can pay more if you want or you can just do the base plus fees set by the building council. If you need to move before 30 years then someone can buy you out of your unit by paying the amount you've already paid or more. Otherwise the government will buy you out and start the process over with the next tenant.
Build enough of these and we can drop an anchor into the housing market that naturally prevents things from going too high. After all why would I mortgage 800k when I can pay half that over 30 years with no interest?
God this is embarrassingly lame.
Not better to cap it at 5% of the property value?
I thought it was $55?
So if we can elect like, any old fuck now, can't we just go even older and elect the corpse of mao or something? cause that's kinda the only way I see rent, and rent specifically, becoming a non-issue in the near future. This is like one of the main issues which is directly symptomatic of capitalism, and which keeps capitalism as a system directly propped up. I don't really see any long term solution to it that doesn't involve a lot of no longer having capitalism. Other capitalist countries still have this problem. It's only like, china and the former soviet union and apparently barcelona with superblocks which are still gonna be subject to market demands and rates, it's only those countries which are going to be constructing such an excess of housing that a good amount of it can remain empty, which is also the case here as well but with the caveat that we still have massive amounts of homelessness and the empty housing is basically just to increase demand on top of straight up not having enough housing even were we to construct mass housing projects.
I dunno, this is a pretty good encapsulation of why we are specifically incredibly fucked and how this incrementalism isn't going to work at all to address our current issues. We're cooked, lads. Get the titanic band to start playing the song or whatever.
We had public housing projects in the 60's but we poison pilled them. So we don't need to go all the way to Mao. It is possible to have the government build housing and do a rent to own program that rolls it's funding to keep making more housing. (As you pay your monthly rent it goes back into the building fund.)
Singapore has a good social housing system as far as I know but the government has to be pretty authoritarian in order to pull it off
but the government has to be pretty authoritarian in order to pull it off
I dunno if that's a super necessary element, really. I think they could probably get off better, actually, if they had a more lenient prison system, and, say, didn't execute people for minor weed possession or like, being gay. But then I also think their economy relies on a large portion of oppressed migrant labor, if I remember right? I dunno, somebody fact check me on that
Yes in a marginalist framework (the supply and demand people) the solution is to increase the housing supply to a permanent slight excess. Preferably in a way that is least damaging to the economy.
However the old commie block approach created a consecrated symbol for the forces of capital to attack, and ultimately dynamite.
The problem is the rentier class has the most resources to throw against this and they still can find other ways to rescarcify housing unless forced building programs are big enough to over power them.
The problem is the rentier class has the most resources to throw against this and they still can find other ways to rescarcify housing unless forced building programs are big enough to over power them.
Yeah, we probably just need to get rid of the rentier class. I don't like them very much, I think they might be bad.
It is set at 2.5% where I live.
Realistically that's about what it should be. 3% tops. Average worker wages haven't gone up that much yearly in forever.
Weird, I just bought a house and to be on the safe side I consulted with a real estate lawyer before signing the purchase agreement. I plan to rent it out for a couple of years before moving into it myself, and the lawyer offered me a copy of his standard rental lease agreement. The lease called for an automatic annual renewal with a 5% increase in rent, and I was shocked because in 30 years of renting I've never been hit with an increase anywhere near that (almost every renewal I've ever agreed to was at the same rent). It's weird to think of increases even larger than that, such that a 5% cap would be beneficial.
Biden should eliminate density restrictions in zoning if he wants to help with the housing crisis. Making housing less profitable is going to help for about 6 months then make things worse.
"Here old man, rattle off this list! It'll save you! Get 'em, Joey!"
And then he screwed it up and read the teleprompter wrong as "capping rent at $55 dollars." No joke.
Prices decreased last month. Not inflation decreased...prices. Deflation happened last month.
Inflation has been tamed.
Groceries are still more than double the price than they were 5 years ago. A slight back tick isn't "tamed".
You know what would get more votes? That student loan forgiveness thing! Maybe the kids who never graduated or used their expensive education should get their loans forgiven???
Remember that? Yeah?
Cuz 5% is not gonna do much if you got a 15% loan.
Seems kind of weird to blame the guy who is trying to do the thing you want and not the people who keep blocking it from happening.
trying to do the thing you want
Except he isn't, at this point all he's doing is claiming to want to give the poor some crumbs, so that those who haven't yet, don't turn on him.
A 5% increase limit is still an increase, he's not doing you any fucking favours by continuing to allow landlords to gouge you, only a little more conservatively.
I'm just reminding him since I got a certain loved one that I inherited a certain amount of this debt from. Like WTF. It's like buying a slave....how much is that slave over there? Oh that one? Yeah that'll be 5000 Dollars in student loans please!.
the supreme court literally rewrote a law to prevent loan forgiveness.
Such buttholes! Gurr. The supremes and the president electoral college. I tell you, we got no say at all.
He literally forgave my loan and the supreme court said no. fuckin pissed
Basically, if he loses, I gotta pay someone's loan. WTF!
Treating the symptom.
Okay I guess. I'll get excited when I see a plan to treat the disease.
There’s no reason to get excited at all. Biden can call for it, but Congress has to write and pass the legislation. Republican House majority won’t let that happen.
Vote in November.
Not even. Can't charge more for rent when it's already max out against income. It's a placebo that'll have zero effect. Don't get too excited about a "plan". This is the plan.
What world are you living in when they can't raise rates too high for your income level? Not the one the rest of us are living in.