Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would government cover for her lifestyle choices.

The government covers a lot of different peoples poor lifestyle choices. She at least is hard-working. She will be working full-time during the day and then going to school in the evenings. It’s only a one bedroom. I’ve considered trading it up for a two bedroom in the same neighborhood, but I think it will take me a while to get that going.

She can have a roommate if she can’t afford it (one person takes the living room.). That’s what I did when I had a low paying but prestigious job out of college. There’s no govt credit that is going to subsidize you as a landlord for her decisions (the progressive nature of our tax code should help her some.)

I've said this over and over again on DCUM, but there is no such thing as a low-paying, prestigious job. Hill staffer? Nope. Entry-level journalist for some left-wing rag? Sorry. Postdoc job at NIH? Sorry again. I know you like to think you've had a prestigious life and look down at the finance bro making $700K, but unfortunately, his job *is* prestigious.

I disagree. Monica Lewinsky started as a unpaid White House intern yet later landed a well paying endorsement explaining how swallowing only 3 ounces a day opened many doors for her.

Wow, what a gross old boomer white guy comment.

Rent prices are insane these days.

Anonymous wrote:I’d love to rent my relative my rental condo. However it rents for $2000, all of which I need in order to cover my expenses. She could only afford to pay $1400. She has a good job but it’s low pay like 50k think entry-level NGO type. Are there any programs that would be available to her to help close the gap? Trying to brainstorm as best I can, she wouldn’t need the parking space so I could try to rent that out separately, but I doubt it would rent very well due to its location. TIA!

Yes, there is a great program at Bank of America, Wells Fargo or any similar minded government sponsored institutions that she can apply for. The program is called a loan. Your relative can get all the money up front to pay you and then she can, with all of her hard work and all, pay it off later. Voila!

Anonymous wrote:OP, your relative isn't asking for a subsidy - I'm sure she can find a place for $1400. *You* want a subsidy (of 30% of the rent you usually charge), so you can provide your relative with a sweetheart deal, so you can rent to a family member.

This isn't the case of a tenant being on the dole, it's a greedy landlord trying to get a slice of the government pie for absolutely no reason at all.

This.

If you want a tenant to pay off your property for you then you need to take the risks of a crappy tenant, just like all the other landlords need to do.

I’m not going to help pay off your property for you. Sell it if you can’t find a good tenant.

OP, your relative isn't asking for a subsidy - I'm sure she can find a place for $1400. *You* want a subsidy (of 30% of the rent you usually charge), so you can provide your relative with a sweetheart deal, so you can rent to a family member.

This isn't the case of a tenant being on the dole, it's a greedy landlord trying to get a slice of the government pie for absolutely no reason at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would government cover for her lifestyle choices.

Ya’ll don’t take the mortgage tax deduction?

Mortgage interest deduction only applies to first and second homes. It does not apply to any investment property. The topic of this thread is specifically a rental property that does not earn this deduction.

This is wild. When I had an entry level job I rented a studio because it was what I could afford. I was in a helping profession too. I would have loved a nicer place but I couldn’t afford it.

She needs to find a roommate to take the living room (or vice versa) and they can each pay $1000 and then she even saves some money. I lived with roommates my entire 20’s because I chose a lower paying career path I was passionate about. That’s just the sacrifice you make.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/us/politics/20-somethings-washington.html

The relative youth of critical players wielding sway in the government is not a new phenomenon. They prefer to get paid with sense of purpose, prestige and connections, not money. Its not any different than a NASA employee who can make serious money in private sector.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would government cover for her lifestyle choices.

The government covers a lot of different peoples poor lifestyle choices. She at least is hard-working. She will be working full-time during the day and then going to school in the evenings. It’s only a one bedroom. I’ve considered trading it up for a two bedroom in the same neighborhood, but I think it will take me a while to get that going.

She can have a roommate if she can’t afford it (one person takes the living room.). That’s what I did when I had a low paying but prestigious job out of college. There’s no govt credit that is going to subsidize you as a landlord for her decisions (the progressive nature of our tax code should help her some.)

I've said this over and over again on DCUM, but there is no such thing as a low-paying, prestigious job. Hill staffer? Nope. Entry-level journalist for some left-wing rag? Sorry. Postdoc job at NIH? Sorry again. I know you like to think you've had a prestigious life and look down at the finance bro making $700K, but unfortunately, his job *is* prestigious.

I don't entirely disagree with you that people label certain jobs as prestigious which are actually just entry level positions to jobs that will be low paying for life. But there are exceptions: for example, lawyers who do a Supreme Court clerkship (which requires a preceding circuit-level clerkship) will set themselves up for very lucrative careers, even though they'll be paid poorly for two years. Other lawyers who don't do the clerkships can also have lucrative careers, but the Supreme Court clerkship will give that person a leg up in basically every job they could ever want.

Either rent it to her for 1400 and take the loss or don't rent it to her at all. If you try to figure out how she can provide more money, you will be constantly frustrated if she doesn't make the choices you want her to make. Do you want to end up nagging her over every financial decision she makes?

Finance bros don't start at $700k and Hill staffer doesn't end at $50k. Only difference is lower or higher start and sense of purpose.

Anonymous wrote:My aunt bartered her guest suit with a nephew for tutoring and coaching her kids. I don't see why government would have a say in it.

Barter income is income. Why would it be accurate or fair for that to be tax-free but not if your aunt charged rent and your nephew charged for tutoring?

Now is anyone going to come after them for that arrangement? No.