Housing for deadbeats

[shecky]

For this woman that zero. Because she is a deadbeat single mother student with kids, she gets everything for free.

Section 8 has very strict rules for tenants. If they trash the place, then they are kicked off the dole. If the tenants are able to behave themseleves, they get dirt cheap rents forever.

For landlords, it can be a good situation if you get an experienced leech who knows how to behave themselves. If you get a first time deadbeat, they are likely to be destructive. I do not think the rents paid for Section 8 tenants are higher. At least, we do not charge higher rents. The landlords have more restrictions (e.g. lease type) and responsibilities. For ethical reasons, we generally avoid Section 8 people but we have to many vacancies right now to reject them.

I still don't get it. Where does she get the $1053 per mo. elegibility? Seems a lot, especially since it sounds like a housing surplus where you are.

 

[shecky]

The key, I think, is not having children unless you can afford them.

This is reasonable. One thing that get me is when politicians want to give tax credits for families/children. Usually the same ones who want to demonize poor women for having too may children, in the cause of "taking responsibility". Shouldn't a middle/upper class family accept responsibility, too, rather than get tax subsidy?

 

[Michael Redman]

You get unemployment if you lose your job.

For 6 months, you get less than half what you were making. Then, you get nothing.

You get alimony (or social security) if you lose a husband.

You get alimony only is some states (TX, for example, has no alimony), and only if you were married to a guy that made plenty of money while you were married. For most women, it's nothing, or possible as much as a couple hundred dollars a month. And that's if he pays, which few do regularly.

Social Security? Are you kidding? Do you know what SS death benefits are?


How does this supposed prospective tennent eat? Buy cloths? She must have some income, right? If it's welfare, it's temporary, and will require her get a job. It certainly isn't enough for her to buy housing on the open market.

You are acting like the Sec. 8 is a cash grant that she can spend on whatever she wants. This is not the case. And she doesn't get it all. If that number is real, it must be a maximum benefit. The amount is based on a percentage of the rent, as you know, so there's no way she could know the actual amount without knowing the amount of the rent she was going to be paying.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Shecky
I still don't get it. Where does she get the $1053 per mo. elegibility? Seems a lot, especially since it sounds like a housing surplus where you are.

Beats me. That's what she told my wife. It floored and enraged us.

One thing that get me is when politicians want to give tax credits for families/children. Usually the same ones who want to demonize poor women for having too may children, in the cause of "taking responsibility". Shouldn't a middle/upper class family accept responsibility, too, rather than get tax subsidy?

I agree 100%. Before having children, I used to say that I was extremely generous and was perfectly willing to pay my share of the education, parks, libraries, etc for other peoples' childrens but I thought the parents to pay their share as well. Since having children is expensive, I think there should be some kind of tax deferal. In other words, you can get a tax break for your kids now but once the kids are 18 you have to pay it back.

CBL

 

[TragicMonkey]

I agree 100%. Before having children, I used to say that I was extremely generous and was perfectly willing to pay my share of the education, parks, libraries, etc for other peoples' childrens but I thought the parents to pay their share as well. Since having children is expensive, I think there should be some kind of tax deferal. In other words, you can get a tax break for your kids now but once the kids are 18 you have to pay it back.

Well, I don't have children, but I don't mind the tax break for those who do so much. Because those people are creating future taxpayers who are going to (I hope) be paying taxes to pay for my own Social Security benefits (yeah, I'm holding my breath for those). I'm paying my own share of taxes, true, but I'm not doing a thing to secure the future tax revenues of the nation.

 

[Michael Redman]

You ask if it's fair that there's free money enough out there for a single mother to raise children, house, food, and cloth them and herself, and go to college, over a period of 6 years, without having to work. I would like to see some evidence that this is true.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

In other words, you can get a tax break for your kids now but once the kids are 18 you have to pay it back.

CBL

In a way there is. Once my kids are all adults and they move out, I will STILL be paying property taxes which goes to fund schools that my own children no longer use.

 

[CBL4]

You ask if it's fair that there's free money enough out there for a single mother to raise children, house, food, and cloth them and herself, and go to college, over a period of 6 years, without having to work. I would like to see some evidence that this is true.

I am sorry but all I can do is offer two anecdotal cases. There is this woman who gets too much in rent assistance while training to be a nurse (I have no idea if the nursing degree gets her extra assistance. There was another woman who was leeching her way to a Phd while popping out babies. She was into 7th year of leechhood and 3rd child when she moved out.

I am real estate investor in a gentrifying town that has been declared "blighted" by the federal government. As a landlord, I have seen some of the scummiest people known to man. The drug addicts destroy places. The savvy losers are permanently attached to the government teat. I feel hatred to the parents and sympathy for the children. We have a video of the most disgusting house you have ever seen - flies, maggots, cat excrement and baby toys.

CBL