As if a single mother of 4 could ever get close to affording a house
Yes, that’s what the meme is about.
Maybe she won the lottery or sold the 5th one she never liked anyway? 🤷
You can afford a house in most states on about $100k. She’s just a single mom, don’t assume she doesn’t have a solid education.
Sexists in here, smh.
$100k is almost double the average income of single mothers (of ANY education level) though, and, again on average, more than a third of their income go towards childcare.
Add the fact that someone with 4 children would pay MORE than average in childcare and other expenses including ridiculously high rent and there REALLY isn’t enough left over to ever afford a house anywhere but the least desirable parts of the least desirable states.
I’m not being sexist, you’re downplaying the ongoing national emergency of deep systemic poverty.
You’re feeding a troll or an idiot, either way it’s not worth it
True.
Man, I make $100k and I can’t afford a $350k home. It’s too much with student loans and property taxes; not that begrudge taxes but it’s a factor.
$100k is almost double the average income of single mothers (of ANY education level) though, and, again on average, more than a third of their income go towards childcare.
Implying people buy houses in cash does not make you seem knowledgeable about the housing market.
Not owning a house does not mean you’re in poverty.
Implying people buy houses in cash
I did no such thing. Your income and credit score determine whether you’ll get approved for a mortgage though and if you don’t have enough of the former to keep the latter good, you ain’t getting it.
Not owning a house does not mean you’re in poverty.
Never implied that either. The reverse tends to be true though: being in poverty usually means not being able to afford a house.
I did no such thing. Your income and credit score determine whether you’ll get approved for a mortgage though and if you don’t have enough of the former to keep the latter good, you ain’t getting it.
Yes and this hypothetical person has the income to secure a mortgage. I know because I made less than $100k when I bought my house for about the same as in this example.
Even in the invented example you have, this all still works, so I’m not seeing the issue
Most people shouldn’t be homeowners, and making it tougher to secure funding is a good thing and prevents housing crashes.
I know because I made less than $100k when I bought my house for about the same as in this example.
Good for you, but most single mothers couldn’t afford to do that and your “evidence” is purely anecdotal. I’m guessing you live somewhere with very low property prices and/or susidized childcare if you’re indeed a single mom.
Most people shouldn’t be homeowners
Says who? What gives you the right to determine whether people should be allowed to own their home rather than be rent gouged for their entire adult lives?
making it tougher to secure funding is a good thing
It sure as hell isn’t! See the aforementioned rent gouging. In the roughly 20 years since moving from my parents’ homes, I’ve paid several times more in rent than a decent house or condo plus taxes would have cost.
Because I never had and probably never WILL have that much at the same time, either up front or through a loan, though, I’m going to pay more for modest apartments over my lifetime without ever owning one than rich people pay for a very nice house. It’s called a poor tax and it’s not a fair or otherwise good thing.
prevents housing crashes.
No it doesn’t. Housing crashes are caused by real estate speculation going wrong, not poor people owning their homes.
The sunprime mortgage crisis wasn’t about poor people getting loans. It was about banks and other financial institutions gambling with the ownership of that debt and other overvalued assets until the jenga tower inevitably toppled.
Ok sexist who thinks this hypothetical mother is too stupid to properly budget her bid on a house.
Nobody’s saying that anyone’s stupid (though you’re certainly being very obtuse right now and probably deliberately so), but you can’t budget yourself out of basic barebones living expenses.
That’s not stupidity or anything to do with gender, that’s a greed-based system stacked against single mothers and other marginalized groups.
Someday I hope you have the ability to understand the difference between a data point about large groups and individual circumstance.
And I likewise hope that some day you’ll learn that the statistically likely happens more often than individual exceptions and as such should be treated as the default basis of any serious discussion about a topic at large.
Person 1: “She couldn’t get this much money”
Person 2: “Here are ways she actually could”
Person 3: “SEXIST!”
This is so ridiculous conversation
I do love when the people disagreeing with me prove they don’t have the slightest idea what’s going on.
So WHAT is it, then?
If someone said “single FATHER of 4”, then would this conversation not be sexist?
Because I honestly don’t get it.
Assuming incompetence or financial difficulties based on gender, race, or age is a form of prejudice.
As is assuming she could only have achieved it through luck.
The single mother in question was outbid by an investment firm busy commodifying housing. Any other assumptions about her financial situation are just soft bigotry, but Viking can’t admit that barely a flaw to himself because then he wouldn’t be a morally perfect internet champion of the downtrodden.
It’s really not that hard to understand.
I’m sorry, but it IS hard to understand. No one in this chain said she was poor BECAUSE she is a woman. Just that she is poor, just like a single father would be…
…and the argument has been “well they could budget” vs “you can’t budget yourself out of this shit, it’s reality for these people”. And by “these people” they don’t mean “women”, but “people who have to take care of multiple children with one income”
Honestly, this whole thread is YOU ranting about genders, everyone else is talking socio-economic status. THAT’S why is hard to understand.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Empty rental properties should be taxed at their rental rates, regardless of if there is a tenant in them or not. Wanna rent out slums for 1700 a month, well, you aren’t going to pay taxes on that property like the 90k shithole that it is.
To go a little further, if you’re listing a house, you should pay taxes on it monthly based on the list price. Seen way too many shithole with a fresh coat of paint hiked 150k above their actual value.
I personally believe taxes should be a mechanism of negating bad behavior or preventing harm to communities/the people.
I don’t personally think taxes should be used for punishment, but I think the rules of a system should be setup to achieve the desired outcome. The rules right now are setup to benefit a few entities owning most of the real estate, and we need to build a system that makes it more expensive to own homes if you already own a home, and it should scale based on how many you already have. Also, there should be penalties for gouging people. All the pharma bros who have been hiking the price of medications through the roof have revealed that most of the people in the USA are vulnerable to captive markets.
The rules right now are setup to benefit a few entities owning most of the real estate,
Strange then, that this has not occurred.
They currently own 4.7mm out of ~75mm homes. It’s just more in Cali, which is probably where the person you heard this from lives.
Here’s an article warning against the practice with data
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/magazine/wall-street-landlords.html
The rules right now are setup to benefit a few entities owning most of the real estate
Rules like what?
we need to build a system that makes it more expensive to own homes if you already own a home,
I don’t know how most places work, but my state does this by assessing property at whatever rate, for everyone, but you get an exemption on part of the assessed value for your primary residence. My house is taxed as though it were worth $60k less because it’s where I live, not an investment or business . This seems like a good idea that would do exactly as you suggest (although that exemption should arguably be higher and should increase once in a while)
deleted by creator
They aren’t taxed?
Taxed at whatever the adjustor lists as the price. So big corps can by up all the houses/apartments in the area really cheap, and then hike the price up in an inelastic market while pay taxes at a much lower rate.
Thanks to prop 13, in California it’s not just corpos. It’s also Boomers who decided to buy a 3 bedroom house on a whim for $18 back in 1978.
This is state by state. In some states you pay according to regular reappraisals and in some states (generally those with worse housing markets) you do not.
I was also going to say this - assessors for my city increase the assessed value for taxing purposes independently of whether there is a recent sale
Do you guys have council rates? Good metric to use.
You had me until the selling of the house. Plenty of normal people’s only path to any kind of wealth is selling their property. Hurting them more is not the way to go.
Multi home owners, apartment rental owners, sure tax the shit out of them.
Is it more important that a tiny percentage of “normal people” get a chance to be millionaires just before they die, or that they all get to have a place to live without spending their entire lives scraping by?
Normal people selling their normal house at a normal price would not be affected. Only people trying to sell/rent trash for a premium would suffer, as they should, since they are gouging people and artificially inflating the market.
You’re including as people who should be punished:
– people who have lived in the same place a long time
– people who can no longer afford to live in gentrifying neighborhoods
– elderly who need to downsize or move to a place with more accessibility or assistance
While I understand the urge to punish with taxes people getting excessive profits from real estate, you need to be careful of potentially cruel side effects
people who have lived in the same place a long time
Only a problem if they try to sell their house for much much more than it is worth.
people who can no longer afford to live in gentrifying neighborhoods
Only a problem if they try to sell their house for much much more than it is worth.
elderly who need to downsize or move to a place with more accessibility or assistance
Only a problem if they try to sell their house for much much more than it is worth.
Noticing a trend here?
Yes, a lack of empathy? In all these cases and more, people may be selling for a large gain based simply on time, and yet it may not be a windfall but sorely needed to afford a place to live.
You may gpfeel that it’s difficult for a young person to save up enough to buy a house, but do you really think its any different for someone a fixed income or whose income doesn’t keep up with neighborhood costs to not be able to afford to own, and to fall farther and farther behind? Lack of affordable housing hits in many stages of life and it’s not reasonable to help one group while making life harder for others
Hey, if the house is with what you are asking, you aren’t paying any additional tax. If you want to try and wait a little bit longer to get like 10, or 20k above market value, hey, thats a conversation you could have with the Realtor, but as someone who is actively house shopping with a very limited budget, I’ve come across many houses marked 30-40% above market value. Someone desperate to get out of the rent cycle is going to buy those and they are going to get fucked. The houses are marked up so high that the break point for holding that real estate and only getting half of the markup is 7-8 years down the line. So yeah, I’m the one missing empathy when I suggest that the people and corporations pricie gouging other people out of necessary housing, should probably get fucking fucked just a little bit.
If it’s trash it won’t sell. Dictating how much people can ask for their own belongings is some authoritarian shit I want no part of.
Property taxes are based on the value of the property right? I’m just saying we should update based on what the seller is asking for it. If it’s worth what you are asking, then this makes no difference. It only matters if you ask for more, and even then it would only matter if you were asking for a lot more.
Homes should not appreciate in value, and we need, as a society, to stop viewing home ownership as “nest eggs” and wealth-building tools.
If housing value constantly goes up, housing prices are constantly going up. Homes cannot be a method of building wealth and also be affordable to people.
Raising taxes on landlords raises the rent.
Maybe she should close her legs
- Every Republican male.
And when people opt for abortion or refuse to procreate, those republicans will go ape.
Maybe she should open her legs
- The other Republican half
its not my fault she got pregnant after we had sex—but if she refuses to birth my child, she should go to prison.
Maybe republican male should stop browsing CP or Qanon or whatever they do these days.
But now she can rent it and pay their mortgage!
She can make BlackRock back to pay their own mortgage, by calling on a BlackRock fund with all her money, and pay here mortgage with its returns!
As if that hypothetical person ever had a chance post 2008.
This is just restating the joke.
Wife and I both bought houses in 2009. Feds were literally giving out tax credits to encourage people to buy. Homes were dirt cheap then.
Going off your comment it sounds like you are too young to remember this.
I bought a house in 2016, so yes.
Back when we were house hunting, we experienced several sales where the house was sold for cash at 10-30k over the asking price before offers were even open. If we do sell, I’m sure as hell only selling to a family (not that I’d advertise as much, I’m sure they would and have made fake families to purchase houses.)
My sister just inherited a house and sold it for $20k below market to a young family for exactly the reasons you state. I respect her for that.
If a house sells before bidding opens, it’s not necessarily the corporations, but yes it’s an unfair advantage to someone. Back when we were looking and the market was even hotter, we actually did get in on that side of the process a couple times.
However that early access was never exclusive and never successful for us. I actually wondered whether it was just a scammy tool for realtors to get feedback on the asking price
And “cash” does not necessarily mean cash. I believe it just means no contingencies on whether or not the buyer can get a mortgage and when. The buyer is already approved for the necessary amount and desperate enough to gamble that nothing will go wrong
Well done, my minions. The mortals’ courage begins to wane! Now, let’s see how they contend with the true Lord of Blackrock Spire!
This is very strange seeing Zach Wilson in this context
Not surprising, but apparently only dozens of us on Lemmy know who Zach Wilson is
fuckin knew it. Generic white guy sure but god damn it is definitely him ain’t it
is that Zach Wilson
I have to raise rent on the single mother of 2 again…
Inflation hits us all honey.Of course, it would be terrible if you could no longer afford the lifestyle you are accustomed by profiting off of others labor
Exactly.
It must be weird to know that just dropping dead would actually make the world a tiny bit better than not. I wonder if that’s how an intestinal parasite feels?
I think it would make the day of my employees harder for a few months.
I think it would make the rest of all of my wifes days really really bad.
I think the only people who would be happy that i just died would be people on the internet with superiority complexes.deleted by creator
What? Are you high?
deleted by creator
Apparently. What’s that supposed to mean?
Are you saying i will struggle to pay rent when I’m old?deleted by creator
You should buy a better life insurance policy. What kind of person doesn’t plan for the possibility of their spouse needing to be on their own?
Wait, we already know EXACTLY that kind of person, don’t we?
I have one. I didn’t even mention anything financial. Funny that this is all you guys think about.
You ever had a loved one die? Seems like you don’t know how horrible that is.
Case closed.deleted by creator
I don’t see or care about “karma” and a lemmy comment section isn’t anything close to a reflection of society.
Post karma is meaningless because most people in this thread are dumb lol
Oh God, your argument rests on who gets more Lemmy karma.
Sweetie, downvotes on Lemmy are typically a sign the poster is right . . .
Do you have to? or are you driving a fancy car, taking vacations, buying name brand clothing, spending money on over priced drinks… i don’t think you have to, i think you care about spending money on something that doesn’t matter more than that mother and her children.
“Nice” cars, taking a Vacation, and name brand clothing isn’t the demographic of rich we should all be fighting against. The actual rich wouldn’t define anything they do or buy that way. They don’t buy nice or fancy cars, they buy luxury cars. They don’t buy name brand clothes, they buy designer clothes. They don’t go on vacation, they just travel to their 10th summer home on their 3rs yacht and take a couple conference calls on the way.
I hate seeing the definition of middle class and the lower class fighting against each other. That’s literally what the ultra rich want, they love it, it’s their other favorite hobby.
Just because someone might barely make it out of the lower class and be able to afford a higher trim level on their Honda, and actually take a vacation doesn’t mean that’s a bad thing, what should fighting together for that be a thing for everyone in the lower class.
The whole reason a middle class was ever allowed was to keep the poors from eating the rich.
deleted by creator
Yes i have to. Every unit has to be a net positive to itself or at least stay a small net negative so other units can catch a non-scheduled repair. I’m pretty sure the tenant wouldn’t be happy to have to look for a new place just because a pipe broke.
Yes, i drive a Taycan and my wife has an ID.5.
Yes, i sit in my garden and enjoy whatever the weather allows me to.
Yes, i exclusively buy clothes made from good quality natural materials. A sweater of the brand of clothes i buy costs about 160€ and lasts about 8 Years. I have not had to replace one yet and i own about 40 pieces of clothing in total. Not counting suits.
What is an overpriced drink? I drink filtered tapwater, sometimes carbonated and at the rare occasion that i eat in a more fancier setting i drink Sprite.
Seeing everyone taking the bait in the replies is hilarious
People act strange when they think they have a moral high ground.
Seems like they’re all new to the Internet…
Are you raising it proportionally to the costs you’d expect to see the next year for that unit and factoring in any expected equity were you to sell? I’m always curious how these rent hikes are calculated. Have you ever reduced rent?
Market rate
I cannot tell you how conglomerates do it, but i can speak for myself.
I own 10 Units that i rent out. I raise rent depending on what i think next year is gonna happen. But i also have 2 companies that generate income that i take into account a tiny bit.
It’s been fucky since the Corona™️ though so i kept raises to the same level they were in 2019. About 4% a year.
I raise my rent to market value whenever i have a change in tenant.
I have never reduced rent. My costs have never gone down. If anything i didnt raise rent one year.
I cannot keep rent the same forever because inflation and other cost increases would just eat at the foundation and if something breaks i will have to just sell the entire unit.When last did any of your tenants have a 4% annual income increase?
Don’t know. Don’t care. I raise wages to a percent above inflation. Not my problem other employers don’t.
Maybe you could fall in an open grave and just never come back out? What if you did that instead?
You really wanna know how little will change? Or was that just flamebait
What part of your expenses went up. Your own or the cost of owning the home?
All of them. Food, gas, petrol, property tax, car payments, electricity, water, my employees… you name it, it got more expensive.
Exactly the problem. You rely on other people to pay you more than a thing is worth so that you can remain in a lifestyle that is no longer sustainable. Fuck you.
Nice assumption. Wrong.
deleted by creator
I manage 10 employees, i drive to customers and do electrical or system administration if any of my employees are ever sick, i do many repairs on the units i rent out myself, and if I can’t because i cannot meet best practices in that specific field i work on getting someone to fix it.
deleted by creator
Guess what… aside from property tax and employees (which are your cost of doing business), your tenants also have to shoulder all those extra costs. And now they get slugged by your rent increases as well.
While I agree to a point, apart from property tax and employees there’s more costs that i face so the tenant doesnt have to.
Insurance (both from natural causes and unnatural damages), the aforementioned property tax, waste and fresh water, appliances that have to be replaced, corrosion damage, trash disposal, street cleaning etc.
I get the slight feeling that you only ever rented? This is all part of the rent. You are paying a part of all this with your rent. I get an average of 400 before tax a month on each unit.
You think the eingle mother of 2 could afford a mortgage of more than the rent (US centric, in Europe it’d be a loan) and all the running costs?While I agree to a point, apart from property tax and employees there’s more costs that i face so the tenant doesnt have to. Insurance (both from natural causes and unnatural damages), the aforementioned property tax, waste and fresh water, appliances that have to be replaced, corrosion damage, trash disposal, street cleaning etc.
Wherever I have rented, I paid for my electricity and water usage. So unless you’re talking about your own electricity and water usage, I’m not sure what you mean by “facing costs so the tenant doesn’t have to”. Structural insurance is not a cost the tenant would bear themselves if you didn’t, since they can’t take out insurance on a structure they don’t own. So if you weren’t bearing that cost, your property would simply be uninsured. The rest are pretty much your business costs.
I get the slight feeling that you only ever rented?
You’d be mistaken. I have been in the fortunate position of not having to rent for the past ten years - I’ve dealt with too many shitty landlords and middlemen to ever want to do it again. And the same way you don’t care if a tenant’s salary is going up enough to be able to afford your rent increases, I don’t care what you make on renting out a unit. You could be breaking even for all I care. Your business model is predicated on people being able to afford your rent, and if purchasing (or, if you will) renting power is reducing across the board due to ever increasing cost of living, well, then you don’t have a viable business. Nobody forced you to be a landlord, nobody ever said your investment was going to be risk-free.
You think the eingle mother of 2 could afford a mortgage of more than the rent (US centric, in Europe it’d be a loan) and all the running costs?
In many markets, private landlords set their rent so that the renter is pretty much paying the mortgage on the rented property, plus the running costs. The Australian market in particular is so inflated right now that many renters would actually be better off paying a mortgage on the same place they’re renting.
Wherever I have rented, I paid for my electricity and water usage.
Ok, cool. My Tenants don’t.
The Australian market in particular is so inflated right now that many…
Cool, not Australian.
sees downvotes and replies
Satire is apparently dead
deleted by creator
Oh shit, didn’t see their ‘about’ section, I just saw what appeared to be a couple of vaguely anti-right comments
I am. Satire is still dead.
Ya’ll act like satire hasn’t been dead for a good 15 years.
Inflation is fake.
You don’t believe changes in the supply of a good influence its value?
You can dream bobby, but your dreams are not reality.
