When is that 30% determined? Sounds like this would be an inescapable situation. If they finally start making more, they’re suddenly overpaying for this shit and can’t save up anything to move somewhere better
And places like this should have income caps, after which you need to move out. A good practice is a system where income has to be under one cap to move in and have to leave after making a different, higher cap. It lets people get a foothold and establish some savings to prepare to support themselves.
Affordable is awesome. If it helps people who can only afford affordable, awesome. But this could be organized more decentrally to help everyone that wants affordable. It would be a disadvantage in “buying” a home, if your efforts to improve your income backfire/kick you out of your home.
You tend to need a deposit to move into a new place. Which requires savings. It’s hard to save when the biggest expense you have keeps going up in direct proportion with the money you make…
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Yes, apparently there’s a cap, but if there hasn’t been, it sounds like one of those surface level nice things that is actually exploitative
Currently a little over 50% of my income goes to rent+utilities, then there’s still food+transport to deal with. I’d gladly take 30% as it would actually give me some room to save instead of living paycheque to paycheque.
If my income were to improve where 30% is unreasonable, I’d just move back to flat-rate renting as I am now.
When is that 30% determined? Sounds like this would be an inescapable situation. If they finally start making more, they’re suddenly overpaying for this shit and can’t save up anything to move somewhere better
There’s a cap of $200.
And places like this should have income caps, after which you need to move out. A good practice is a system where income has to be under one cap to move in and have to leave after making a different, higher cap. It lets people get a foothold and establish some savings to prepare to support themselves.
Affordable is awesome. If it helps people who can only afford affordable, awesome. But this could be organized more decentrally to help everyone that wants affordable. It would be a disadvantage in “buying” a home, if your efforts to improve your income backfire/kick you out of your home.
You’d need to make $2000/month for a cheap apartment (~$600/month) to be cheaper than this. And if you are, just move there.
Anyways, this is irrelevant; Marcel implemented a rent cap much before that.
they could move somewhere else where they wont be overpaying and let someone with less income move in. why inescapable?
You tend to need a deposit to move into a new place. Which requires savings. It’s hard to save when the biggest expense you have keeps going up in direct proportion with the money you make…
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Yes, apparently there’s a cap, but if there hasn’t been, it sounds like one of those surface level nice things that is actually exploitative
Currently a little over 50% of my income goes to rent+utilities, then there’s still food+transport to deal with. I’d gladly take 30% as it would actually give me some room to save instead of living paycheque to paycheque.
If my income were to improve where 30% is unreasonable, I’d just move back to flat-rate renting as I am now.
When you earn so much that these 30 % are more than usual rent, you are far from being homeless very quickly. Not to mention the 300 $ cap.
There’s max at $200. I guess it’s enough to keep it running and maintained.