• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Housing's hidden crisis: Rural Americans struggle to pay rent

Checkerboard Strangler said:
We just need an increase in very small "tiny houses" and affordable efficiency apartments (100 - 250 sq ft) that rent for something like $350-450 a month.
Click to expand...

Or, instead of having people scrap by in tiny houses that are far too small to raise families in, just lower the cost of housing in general.
 
Where I live homes assessed for under $100,000 rent for $650-$1250 a month.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Ummmmmmm yeahNO...
We just need an increase in very small "tiny houses" and affordable efficiency apartments (100 - 250 sq ft) that rent for something like $350-450 a month.

I picked that figure because the bulk of all the new jobs being created pay about $1200-1300 a month take home after taxes, and that way rent would possibly go back to being approximately one week's earnings, like it used to be in most parts of the country for almost eighty to a hundred years prior to the beginning of the 1990's. Right now, 40 per cent of working Americans don't have enough cash on hand to deal with a four hundred dollar emergency.

Rent still IS about a week's earnings if you're in the middle class or upper middle class, but I am referring to the minimum wage class, the people who are attempting to keep their head above water while trying to better themselves. That middle class and upper middle class is shrinking.
In the case of the regular middle class, we're talking about the endangered list.

So, there is a large GAP between the upper middle class and what lies beneath.
And besides, the upper middle class is mostly paying mortgages, not rents.
Rent controls don't work well, they never have. Rent controls ultimately create monster scarcities.

Reduce "the despair quotient" and a lot of our problems will gradually begin to fade.
They won't "go away" but they will lessen in severity.
Click to expand...

Great comments.
 
AmNat said:
Limit the maximum legal sale price of real estate to the previous sale price increased by 2% per year (money spent improving a property would be added in dollar-for-dollar in the year the improvements were made). Limit maximum monthly rent to .5% of the maximum legal price. Exempt the first $250,000/occupant in a residential property from property tax, where an occupant is a person who uses it as a primary residence. Impose a 10% annual property tax on real estate which has not been used as a residence or place of business within the last year. The tax would be figured based on the maximum legal price of the property, not accounting for improvements made by the current owner. Repeal the antidiscrimination laws which render price increases the only legal form of tenant quality control (having the perverse effect that an increase in price automatically increases the market value of an apartment, since it excludes undesirable neighbors). Impose a 20% annual property tax on any real property owned by for-profit corporations or non-resident aliens which do not employ US workers.
Click to expand...

Some very good points.

(Except for the anti-FHA stuff, though I understand what you're saying.)
 
tres borrachos said:
The OP has to be fake news. This is the best economy ever, in the history of the world. Trump's tax cuts ensured that all Americans had lots of money in their pockets to spend on things like rent. Impossible!
Click to expand...

What? Me worry??? My house is right here, and Orange Lord tRump will keep it there.

As DJT says, ******s...
 
AmNat said:
Limit the maximum legal sale price of real estate to the previous sale price increased by 2% per year (money spent improving a property would be added in dollar-for-dollar in the year the improvements were made). Limit maximum monthly rent to .5% of the maximum legal price. Exempt the first $250,000/occupant in a residential property from property tax, where an occupant is a person who uses it as a primary residence. Impose a 10% annual property tax on real estate which has not been used as a residence or place of business within the last year. The tax would be figured based on the maximum legal price of the property, not accounting for improvements made by the current owner. Repeal the antidiscrimination laws which render price increases the only legal form of tenant quality control (having the perverse effect that an increase in price automatically increases the market value of an apartment, since it excludes undesirable neighbors). Impose a 20% annual property tax on any real property owned by for-profit corporations or non-resident aliens which do not employ US workers.
Click to expand...

That is quite load. Why 2% rather than annual CPI inflation or DOW increase as the 'benchmark' for real estate price appreciation? Depriving state/local governments of property tax revenue on any residence priced under $1M is ridiculous.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why 2% rather than annual CPI inflation or DOW increase as the 'benchmark' for real estate price appreciation?
Click to expand...

I set the number slightly below inflation because housing is already too expensive, so it would be good for it to (slowly) decline in real value over time. Though indexing it to general inflation would also be fine.

ttwtt78640 said:
Depriving state/local governments of property tax revenue on any residence priced under $1M is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I'm not a fan of residential property tax in the first place, though I get that it's a necessity in practice. The exemption could perhaps be made lower.
 
AmNat said:
That's why the price of housing in general should be limited as well.
Click to expand...

If you can afford to finance a mortgage to purchase a home, you're not experiencing the same crisis, you're just inconvenienced by having to pay rent. See, this is why your "other favorite argument", the one that equates liberalism with communism, is an abject failure because here I am, a card carrying liberal, arguing in favor of the market and saying that the market will not respond well to marxist style policies like hard line "price controls", while here YOU ARE, arguing that the best solution is to let the government set prices on market goods, like HOUSES.

You are overflowing with failure like a toilet in the boy's gym on the night of the big basketball tournament.
 
AmNat said:
I set the number slightly below inflation because housing is already too expensive, so it would be good for it to (slowly) decline in real value over time. Though indexing it to general inflation would also be fine.



Admittedly, I'm not a fan of residential property tax in the first place, though I get that it's a necessity in practice. The exemption could perhaps be made lower.
Click to expand...

One very special trait of land is that it is a finite resource. That alone makes it increase in value as the population increases as well as for general inflation. The only way to get any land is to buy it from its present owner and often to secure permission from the government to change its use. Where I live, that means farms/ranches are being subdivided and re-zoned for residential, industrial and/or retail use. That process invovles the addition of public infrastructure like roads, utility services and schools - all of which require additional tax revenue to provide. Most of that comes from property taxes, especially in Texas where there is no state income tax.

For the owner of a farm/ranch to sell that usually means that they must get enough profit from the sale of their land to last them the rest of their lives since that land was the means for them to earn a living.
 
Last edited:
AmNat said:
Or, instead of having people scrap by in tiny houses that are far too small to raise families in, just lower the cost of housing in general.
Click to expand...

People scraped by in tiny houses that were far too small for decades, because it beat living on the street.
And they went to night school and bettered themselves in countless other ways, so that they could find better paying employment, which is when they left those tiny houses behind.

Which is why I keep saying that anything that reduces the despair quotient is a salve for all of society in general.
Price controls are government intervention in the market, and even as a liberal I know that it's a recipe for failure, whereas creating a new market, namely TINY HOUSES, offers a way out and a way UP. Poverty isn't supposed to feel like luxury, it's supposed to feel like poverty, but it should not be a dead end sentence to permanent despair.

By itself, poverty which is livable, is survivable, and when survivable, it trends to being TEMPORARY, because working poor are naturally well motivated when they can see their upward mobility in real time.

Are you a MARXIST nationalist, by chance? You sure don't talk like a right wing nationalist except when it comes to race, creed and culture. What is it you really want, a communist utopia for white people only?

Christ on a crutch, I'm just an ordinary working blue collar liberal, a union guy, who wants to work and get a square deal for my forty hours of sweat equity and see my brothers from other mothers of all colors get the same square deal so our kids can all play together and learn to love each other.

I'm "Bruce Springsteen" but you sound like a communist version of Ted Nugent.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
One very special trait of land is that it is a finite resource. That alone makes it increase in value as the population increases as well as for general inflation. The only way to get any land is to buy it from its present owner and often to secure permission from the government to change its use. Where I live, that means farms/ranches are being subdivided and re-zoned for residential, industrial and/or retail use. That process invovles the addition of public infrastructure like roads, utility services and schools - all of which require additional tax revenue to provide. Most of that comes from property taxes, especially in Texas where there is no state income tax.

For the owner of a farm/ranch to sell that usually means that they must get enough profit from the sale of their land to last them the rest of their lives since that land was the means for them to earn a living.
Click to expand...

I'm all for limiting immigration (and thus population growth). I'd be fine with allowing exemptions for undeveloped land being sold for the purpose of becoming residential. But since most of the supply of housing is inelastic (people who sell or rent out their home usually do so for reasons that won't be affected by a reduction in profit), it can be price capped without causing shortages.

I should also add that I'm not proposing that this be applied retroactively (destroying much of the existing equity in the housing market). If this were implemented today, current market value would be grandfathered in, with only future equity growth being limited.
 
AmNat said:
I'm all for limiting immigration (and thus population growth). I'd be fine with allowing exemptions for undeveloped land being sold for the purpose of becoming residential. But since most of the supply of housing is inelastic (people who sell or rent out their home usually do so for reasons that won't be affected by a reduction in profit), it can be price capped without causing shortages.

I should also add that I'm not proposing that this be applied retroactively (destroying much of the existing equity in the housing market). If this were implemented today, current market value would be grandfathered in, with only future equity growth being limited.
Click to expand...

Where did you get these "ideas" from? They are so anti-free market as to be laughable and you're supposedly a conservative.

1. if you limit population growth, you limit economic growth.
2. What do you mean by "the supply of housing is inelastic?" People who sell or rent are very much affected by a reduction in profit. Why would you think otherwise?
3. How in the world do you "grandfather in" equity? What do you think will happen to the home values of the early purchasers if the recent purchasers have a cap on their values? Answer: they will have to drop in order to be competitive.
 
reflechissez said:
Where did you get these "ideas" from? They are so anti-free market as to be laughable and you're supposedly a conservative.
Click to expand...

I'm a nationalist. My only concern about the economy is that it supports the family.

1. if you limit population growth, you limit economic growth.
Click to expand...

To the extent that GDP is meaningful at all, it's meaningful as a per capita measure. Bringing in more and more people from the third world absolutely does not increase per capita GDP.

2. What do you mean by "the supply of housing is inelastic?" People who sell or rent are very much affected by a reduction in profit. Why would you think otherwise?
Click to expand...

People who sell or rent have usually vacated their homes for reasons unrelated to the market value of their own house (e.g. moving for work, moving closer to family, moving to a better neighborhood). It would make no sense for a person who is not living in a house they own to refrain from selling or renting it simply because the profits to be gained are limited.

3. How in the world do you "grandfather in" equity? What do you think will happen to the home values of the early purchasers if the recent purchasers have a cap on their values? Answer: they will have to drop in order to be competitive.
Click to expand...

Under this proposal, whatever the market value (using assessed value might be more efficient, since it's already clearly defined) of a house currently is, would become its maximum legal sale price. This price would increase by 2% (compounded) every year. In the event a home were, in the future, sold at less than its then-current legal price, then that sale price would become the new legal price. "Grandfathering in" just means that existing home values will not suddenly drop (they'll just stop growing at current rates).

Alternatively, the first sale of a home after this were implemented, could simply be exempt entirely. In that case, home values would at first continue to grow at present rates, but slow down as a greater percentage of homes became subject to the law (thus capping the value of exempt homes through market forces).
 
AmNat said:
I'm a nationalist. My only concern about the economy is that it supports the family.



To the extent that GDP is meaningful at all, it's meaningful as a per capita measure. Bringing in more and more people from the third world absolutely does not increase per capita GDP.



People who sell or rent have usually vacated their homes for reasons unrelated to the market value of their own house (e.g. moving for work, moving closer to family, moving to a better neighborhood). It would make no sense for a person who is not living in a house they own to refrain from selling or renting it simply because the profits to be gained are limited.



Under this proposal, whatever the market value (using assessed value might be more efficient, since it's already clearly defined) of a house currently is, would become its maximum legal sale price. This price would increase by 2% (compounded) every year. In the event a home were, in the future, sold at less than its then-current legal price, then that sale price would become the new legal price. "Grandfathering in" just means that existing home values will not suddenly drop (they'll just stop growing at current rates).

Alternatively, the first sale of a home after this were implemented, could simply be exempt entirely. In that case, home values would at first continue to grow at present rates, but slow down as a greater percentage of homes became subject to the law (thus capping the value of exempt homes through market forces).
Click to expand...

This post is a hot mess. You want to regulate the market price of homes because it "supports the family." Do you know what happens in markets where there is rent control?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

Housing's hidden crisis: Rural Americans struggle to pay rent
​

Housing has been famously unaffordable in expensive cities such as San Francisco for a while. But now in tiny towns and counties across the country, an increasing share of rural residents are struggling to pay their rents and mortgages.

The housing affordability crisis is spreading to rural communities such as Aroostook County, Maine, and Malheur County, Oregon, where the share of residents who are severely burdened by housing costs has surged since the housing crash of 2006 to 2010, according to the County Health Rankings. Other researchers are also calling attention to the issue, with Pew's Stateline finding that one of four of the country's most rural counties have seen a rise in severely cost-burdened households -- those that spend more than half their income on housing.

Fifty years ago, the most urgent issue for rural communities was substandard housing, such as whether residents relied on outhouses rather than indoor plumbing, noted Lance George, director of research and information at the Housing Assistance Council, a nonprofit focusing on rural housing. But affordability now ranks as the top housing concern among rural residents, he said.

"You think it's often just with big cities," he said. "Housing costs are lower in rural areas, but incomes are pretty low too." Housing affordability is a "simple equation," George added. "It's incomes related to housing costs, and incomes in the lower quintile have not increased at all, and maybe even declined."

COMMENT:-

You know, if those people hadn't chosen to live where they can't afford to live, then they wouldn't be having any problems paying their rent - would they?

[The above officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are.]
​
Click to expand...

I have to agree with your comment. I we have no low cost housing because everyone want everything.

I could build the house my parents first moved into today for less than 10k. The lot was 25' x 50' and the house was 12' x 24' with a basement. Barely a single car garage.
 
reflechissez said:
This post is a hot mess. You want to regulate the market price of homes because it "supports the family." Do you know what happens in markets where there is rent control?
Click to expand...

The Chamber of Commerce gets pissed off.
 
AmNat said:
It's interesting how this thread immediately turned into a Trump-hate fest. I haven't seen a single post (aside from my own) discussing possible solutions.
Click to expand...

What i haven't seen is evidence that trump has anything to do with this.
I also fail to see any evidence of why the increase has happened.

tax changes etc...
there are lots of causes as to why rent prices go up.

there is nothing in the article not that i expect the OP to be actually honest in anything
that he posts to say why prices are going up.

he tends to leave major facts out of his articles.

as usual it has nothing to do with trump at all go figure that one.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

Housing's hidden crisis: Rural Americans struggle to pay rent
​

Housing has been famously unaffordable in expensive cities such as San Francisco for a while. But now in tiny towns and counties across the country, an increasing share of rural residents are struggling to pay their rents and mortgages.

The housing affordability crisis is spreading to rural communities such as Aroostook County, Maine, and Malheur County, Oregon, where the share of residents who are severely burdened by housing costs has surged since the housing crash of 2006 to 2010, according to the County Health Rankings. Other researchers are also calling attention to the issue, with Pew's Stateline finding that one of four of the country's most rural counties have seen a rise in severely cost-burdened households -- those that spend more than half their income on housing.

Fifty years ago, the most urgent issue for rural communities was substandard housing, such as whether residents relied on outhouses rather than indoor plumbing, noted Lance George, director of research and information at the Housing Assistance Council, a nonprofit focusing on rural housing. But affordability now ranks as the top housing concern among rural residents, he said.

"You think it's often just with big cities," he said. "Housing costs are lower in rural areas, but incomes are pretty low too." Housing affordability is a "simple equation," George added. "It's incomes related to housing costs, and incomes in the lower quintile have not increased at all, and maybe even declined."

COMMENT:-

You know, if those people hadn't chosen to live where they can't afford to live, then they wouldn't be having any problems paying their rent - would they?

[The above officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are.]
​
Click to expand...

Well, there you go again Canuk....You just can't help yourself trashing America can you...Problem is, you seem to be posting the exact problems with your own country....Wonder why you never post about that?

"There is currently a vicious crisis concerning affordable housing in Canada. While experts say we shouldn’t spend more than 30% of our income on housing, there are thousands of struggling Canadians spending more than half their income on rent. What makes this issue even worse is that its effect doesn’t end at housing. For those who live off minimum wage, it becomes almost impossible to maintain their budgets as so much of their income is going towards rent."

Affordable Housing Crisis In Canada | Loans Canada


So, maybe we should just apply your own insulting words back to your own country when you said:

'You know, if those people hadn't chosen to live where they can't afford to live, then they wouldn't be having any problems paying their rent - would they?'

Or, maybe we should just ignore your relentless attacks on America, dismissing them as just another rude Canuk who doesn't understand that maybe you should clean up your own glass house.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

Housing's hidden crisis: Rural Americans struggle to pay rent
​

Housing has been famously unaffordable in expensive cities such as San Francisco for a while. But now in tiny towns and counties across the country, an increasing share of rural residents are struggling to pay their rents and mortgages.

The housing affordability crisis is spreading to rural communities such as Aroostook County, Maine, and Malheur County, Oregon, where the share of residents who are severely burdened by housing costs has surged since the housing crash of 2006 to 2010, according to the County Health Rankings. Other researchers are also calling attention to the issue, with Pew's Stateline finding that one of four of the country's most rural counties have seen a rise in severely cost-burdened households -- those that spend more than half their income on housing.

Fifty years ago, the most urgent issue for rural communities was substandard housing, such as whether residents relied on outhouses rather than indoor plumbing, noted Lance George, director of research and information at the Housing Assistance Council, a nonprofit focusing on rural housing. But affordability now ranks as the top housing concern among rural residents, he said.

"You think it's often just with big cities," he said. "Housing costs are lower in rural areas, but incomes are pretty low too." Housing affordability is a "simple equation," George added. "It's incomes related to housing costs, and incomes in the lower quintile have not increased at all, and maybe even declined."

COMMENT:-

You know, if those people hadn't chosen to live where they can't afford to live, then they wouldn't be having any problems paying their rent - would they?

[The above officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are.]
​
Click to expand...

I didn't read the article, but remember reading somewhere that, because people are weary of buying, rent due to supply and demand, goes up. Not sure if that is a factor.
 
Where I live housing costs are sky high because I'm close to NYC.. So there's apartment complexes going up all around me. Everywhere. But here's another thing that I've notices, this is just my opinion, I have no stats to back it up. The younger people today seem like they rather rent than buy. Buying a house means a lot of maintenance, extra cost, and in today's mobile job market, it means being tied to a house.

I have 4 kids, all in their late 20's and 30's.. None own a home, 1 lives in Manhattan, and 1 lives in Boston, so they don't count. But the other 2 can easily own, but they rent.. They don't want to hassles of owning. And MANY of their friends in they age group feel exactly the same way.
 
AmNat said:
We need systematic controls on the price of housing.
Click to expand...

We need reasonable controls on the banking industry. We need Glass-Steagall brought back.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a good point, unlike a travel trailer (or RV) a "mobile" home is not something that can be (easily) moved without considerable expense.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Also, there's the distinct possibility the house cannot be moved at all because due to it settling. What I found really interesting about this issue is how mobile homes are not like traditional homes in that their value actually decreases as time passes; the lack of land ownership being the real issue for these home owners. I thought it was important to bring up because so often we think of housing issues only in the context of urban centers, but this is something affecting rural and suburban areas.

The investors purchasing these lots have no concern about housing affordability from a broader perspective which is why I think this will be one of those situations where the private sector makes a problem the public sector will have to fix. The challenge I see with this demographic is the lack of affordable housing anywhere near their current areas.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Exactly. Also, there's the distinct possibility the house cannot be moved at all because due to it settling. What I found really interesting about this issue is how mobile homes are not like traditional homes in that their value actually decreases as time passes; the lack of land ownership being the real issue for these home owners. I thought it was important to bring up because so often we think of housing issues only in the context of urban centers, but this is something affecting rural and suburban areas.

The investors purchasing these lots have no concern about housing affordability from a broader perspective which is why I think this will be one of those situations where the private sector makes a problem the public sector will have to fix. The challenge I see with this demographic is the lack of affordable housing anywhere near their current areas.
Click to expand...

We looked into mobile homes for a vacation home. We have an acre of land here and there, so it was worth considering. After seeing some of the mobile home bloopers at the lot, returns or just some with significant construction issues, we decided on a travel trailer. We had a truck at the time, so it really was the better choice. The only issue with that is room for washer/dryer unit. I don't do public laundry.
As we travel, we do see more travel trailer "communities",( may be it just seems that way. ) some by the side of the road, some on private land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom