i’m over half, and expecting yet another rent increase soon.
deleted by creator
same. I remember being told 1/3 was the ideal, and thinking “you aren’t spending twice that?”
Yup, and every time you get a raise it’s offset by rent. Fun times
I’m wondering if the people in this thread who are saying they pay less than 30% of their income on rent as if it’s some sort of trick or achievement actually understand percentages since they don’t seem to understand that the “nearly half” part of the headline puts them in the majority…
Same people that refuse a pay raise because they don’t understand the core concept of tax tables.
they make your walls so thin so you can hear your landlord masturbating to this
I don’t know anyone spending less than half of their income on housing.
i spent roughly 40% on average last year. this year my insurance has spiked more than 60% so thats history
You live in Florida?
no. texas
I actually thought 30% housing was the norm for the past 10 years?
The goal but never the reality.
Ideally rent should be 1/4th or less of your budget
LOL
We should build and fund more public housing.
Unfortunately, a large chunk of the country doesn’t believe the government can or should do anything, so I guess that’s a difficult pitch to make.
This is the solution. Unfortunately in the United States when most people think of government housing you think of run down slums.
We need to follow the examples of Austria’s social housing. https://youtu.be/41VJudBdYXY
I really liked this, especially since quality, quality of life including ample green space is incorporated. Thank you for sharing.
I really wish we’d get that here but… it’s the US. Profit over people.
Yes; I’m wondering if political/natural disaster might accidentally converge to increase the odds?
deleted by creator
My rent doubled in five years.
The place I used to rent is also doubled.
Everything doubled.
Except for wages.
I wish. I’m at a little below half lately.
Us too.
And that is only going to go up. In my area at least, the price of rent has gone up ~15% per year for the last 5 years. In 5 more years the apartment I was renting will cost more per year than my house payment.
nothing but greed drives it.
Your daily reminder that basic housing should be absolutely zero fucking dollars because housing should be a human right, and anything above 0% should be criminal.
Being a right =/= costing $0 for everyone.
Anything we humans need for fundamental existence in today’s society should be free to the individual, and be a cost we all pay as a society to respect the existence of other human beings. Anything above that is up to the individual to either provide for themselves, or receive as a result of the value they contribute to society through labor.
That’s my broader belief system, and thus, housing falls under that for me. The better we meet individual’s needs, the easier it becomes for them to contribute back to society, and experience upward class mobility.
I believe that if we are to make housing a right, we can’t even just say it’s a right “unless you have no job,” or “unless you’re unable to fork over $500 a month,” because employment is ultimately up to the discretion of employers, who, even today, don’t even consider most unhoused people for jobs, because they don’t have stable housing, but to get stable housing, those people need jobs. (this even applies to many shelters, which will require unhoused people to either be employed, or be constantly seeking employment)
We know that adding hoops to jump through to get welfare assistance only harms those who need to depend on it the most, without providing any significant socioeconomic benefit, so why should we apply that same logic to housing, if we determine that it should be a right of all human beings?
I’m not saying the housing has to be great. It doesn’t need to be spacious, have all the amenities, or even have things like good quality lighting or good soundproofing from adjacent housing units, but at a bare minimum, everyone deserves somewhere to live.
I believe that if we are to make housing a right, we can’t even just say it’s a right “unless you have no job,” or “unless you’re unable to fork over $500 a month,”
States run by Democrats do it the opposite way. If you can’t afford housing, we try to provide it for you, on the State’s dime. If you can afford it, pay for it. I can’t really agree that it’s fair to offer free housing to those of us who can actually afford it.
The problem is that welfare systems, such as those that provide housing, that distinguish who is eligible by how much they can afford it, to a certain degree, inevitably depress higher levels of economic activity, and good saving behavior, through the very nature by which they’re operated.
If we say that someone is no longer eligible for free housing if they earn, say, $2,000+ a month, and housing would otherwise cost $500 a month, then if they’re currently earning $1,500 a month (the same they’d effectively have if they had to pay $500 a month for housing on a $2,000 a month salary) they have a direct incentive to not make over $2,000, unless they can guarantee they’ll make at least that much plus $500 more to compensate for the difference. If they earned $1,800 a month, they’d be making $300 more than someone making $2,000, but paying $500 a month for housing after hitting the cutoff.
This isn’t just a hypothetical either. While this 2021 study does mention some benefits of means testing, such as more targeted expenditure, it ultimately shows that…
“An asset means-test incentivizes low-income households to hold few financial assets making them vulnerable to predictable and unpredictable income changes.”
…and sees that, in the end, while it can marginally increase the cost of these social programs to the taxpayer, it ultimately does more to benefit the individuals receiving the assistance.
Or how about this research done by the Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve that states:
“the elimination of testing limits, such as in policies similar to a UBI, could present a welfare-improving alternative to the current system, though not without large economic trade-offs.” (They effectively mean worse targeting of funds, but better overall results)
Means-testing directly reduces the incentives that lead to higher overall household wealth, and quality of life.
Not having means-testing increases total income, which also means increased tax revenue. That same tax revenue can then go to funding the housing system as a whole, but it won’t directly, substantively punish people for an increase in income past an arbitrary threshold.
Not to mention the increased administrative cost of performing means testing, as opposed to doing unconditional support, which could reduce the amount of money actually going to funding housing, in favor of funding jobs for people that audit income levels of housing applicants.
I know that rent has gone up, but you definitely can hack it. I never spent more than 30% of my take home pay on rent. I managed that by looking at places that fit my budget or living with roommates. Pretty much you won’t have very good luck if you’re a single person trying to rent your own place though. In terms of finding places within budget, I always avoided any type of new buildings built in the last five to ten years or so. The cost of those is usually highest. They’ll promise flashy amenities, but it’s usually not worth it. Also, avoid corporate landlords. If you can, find a mom and pop landlord that’s been in business for awhile. They usually have better deals and don’t go up on rent every year provided you’re a good tenant that pays on time and doesn’t cause any stresses for them. You’ll have the best luck with this if you stick to places where people list their own properties like Craigslist, Facebook marketplace, etc. Avoid spots that corporate landlords use like apartments.com.
Edit: Or, don’t. Ignore this advice and pay through the nose. You’ll be renting forever.
