Landlords upset ...

[Revoltingest]

Fyi...


Rental Properties That Are Businesses

As you’ve probably gathered from what you’ve read above, when you own a property, it will qualify as a business if you earn profit and regularly work at the property.

Let’s say you own four apartment complexes. These complexes have several tenants and you can often be found working at the units. This can include office work such as finding new tenants, posting advertisements of empty units, or physical work such as putting in new furnishings, cleaning empty units, and looking at maintenance requests from renters.

You’ll probably like to hear that you don’t necessarily have to do all the work yourself for your property to be considered a business by the IRS. You can hire people like a property manager or maintenance employees to help you.

If you don’t have the time to manage the four apartment complexes as you have, by all means, you can hire a real estate agent or property manager to help you out. If you have someone working for you, even if you’re not at the property that often, the property can still be considered a business.

Thankfully, there isn’t a specific number of properties you have to own in order to qualify as a business. Whether you rent out one single-family home, 10 apartment complexes that are used for student housing, or you own a strip of business spaces that a store rents, you may be considered a business by the IRS.

Is A Rental Property Considered A Business? What You Need To Know - RentPrep

And there are income tax complexities, with the tax rate
varying with the kind, risk assumed, & extent of personal
involvement. My self storage property has 2 different
tax classifications, ie, Schedule C for self-storage &
vehicle rentals...Schedule E for office & apartment rentals.
And loans....tax treatment can get more complex with those
things...in ways I never imagined, but came to experience.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you gamble, then you accept the possibility that your gamble might lose.

But we don't bargain for the federal government stepping
in with a policy designed to directly create a loss.
You might believe that if one takes a risk, then any offense
done to one is righteous. I don't. The risk that government
would force one to provide free housing wasn't anticipated.

Why oppose government paying rent for those unable?

 

[Trailblazer]

If you gamble, then you accept the possibility that your gamble might lose.

And if my tenant gambles that he is not going to get his *** kicked in court when I sue him for the money he owes me, and then get evicted as soon as the moratorium ends, he might lose.
The bottom line is that it is MY house and he only has the right to live in it of he pays the rent. That's the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I DO expect the government to bail me out, even though that tenant does not deserve to be bailed out because he was always behind on rent even before Covid, and I never even threatened to evict him. He really has no excuse, he is just taking advantage of me, but his days doing that are numbered. Nobody can believe how much money he owes me, it's ridiculous.

One thing I learned the hard way is that it's best to evict
at the first sign of trouble. I still try to work with some,
but that's not the most profitable approach.

 

[Trailblazer]

Edit: and as I touched on earlier, every landlord has an asset they can sell if things get really bad.

Why should we have to do that? Renting a property is a two-way street so tenants and landlords each have their individual responsibilities. That is why there are leases and rental agreements with stipulations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But we don't bargain for the federal government stepping
in with a policy designed to directly create a loss.

No, it's a policy designed to prevent homelessness.

You might believe that if one takes a risk, then any offense
done to one is righteous. I don't. The risk that government
would force one to provide free housing wasn't anticipated.

There have lots of unanticipated risks over the past year and a half.

A bartender who got laid off last year and hasn't been able earn an income since then probably didn't anticipate that risk either.

Why do you oppose government paying rent for those who can't?

I don't. Why do you think I do?

I think the US should have had a program like CERB in Canada. Pay people who are out of work due to COVID a reasonable amount, which would enable them to pay for - among other things - their rent.

I also have no problem with Canada's program for commercial landlords: for businesses that had to close or scale back due to COVID-19, their landlords can get 75% (IIRC) of the normal lease amount on condition that they don't try to recover the rest and don't evict the tenant.

What I object to is this idea that landlords are somehow entitled to their full pre-pandemic revenues and should be protected against ever having a month of negative net profit.

 

[Trailblazer]

One thing I learned the hard way is that it's best to evict
at the first sign of trouble. I still try to work with some,
but that's not the most profitable approach.

Unfortunately that horse has already bolted from the barn with this particular tenant.
In my other rental I plan to follow that protocol, but luckily I have not had any problems with tenants there lately. They always pay on time or ahead of time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why should we have to do that? Renting a property is a two-way street so tenants and landlords each have their individual responsibilities. That is why there are leases and rental agreements with stipulations.

What a remedy, eh....if government destroys your business,
you can sell it. Why would anyone want to buy it though?

Some liberals....so much empathy for the poor,
but so little for the providers in society.

 

[Trailblazer]

What I object to is this idea that landlords are somehow entitled to their full pre-pandemic revenues and should be protected against ever having a month of negative net profit.

What I object to is tenants who are not even willing to pay the money back on installments.
Why should tenants be entitled to live for free at the landlord's expense?
A month of negative net profit? What about a year of no profit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am fairly sure that this policy will be found to be unconstitutional. It amounts to an illegal taking. The government may be on the hook for billions of dollars. The question is will they be able to undo the harm that they have done?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I object to is tenants who are not even willing to pay the money back on installments.
Why should tenants be entitled to live for free at the landlord's expense?
A month of negative net profit? What about a year of no profit?

Forget "no profit". For countless landlords it has been a year of loss.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it's a policy designed to prevent homelessness.

Temporarily. Once the moratorium is lifted,
those who don't pay will be out on their ear.
So it's a poor solution.
Why not have government pay their rent?

There have lots of unanticipated risks over the past year and a half.

That is true.
However it does not justify intentional harm to some
for the benefit of others. This is particularly so when
government could simply cover rent for the needy.

A bartender who got laid off last year and hasn't been able earn an income since then probably didn't anticipate that risk either.

But government doesn't force him to continue
providing drinks for free.

I don't. Why do you think I do?

You've shown no interest in the alternative.
You've supported current government policy.

I think the US should have had a program like CERB in Canada. Pay people who are out of work due to COVID a reasonable amount, which would enable them to pay for - among other things - their rent.

I also have no problem with Canada's program for commercial landlords: for businesses that had to close or scale back due to COVID-19, their landlords can get 75% (IIRC) of the normal lease amount on condition that they don't try to recover the rest and don't evict the tenant.

That's more reasonable.

What I object to is this idea that landlords are somehow entitled to their full pre-pandemic revenues and should be protected against ever having a month of negative net profit.

I smell straw.
Who has claimed this?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am fairly sure that this policy will be found to be unconstitutional. It amounts to an illegal taking. The government may be on the hook for billions of dollars. The question is will they be able to undo the harm that they have done?

Indeed, the fed has no such authority under the Constituiton.
But Trump, Biden, & others know that the law grinds on slowly,
so they can do unconstitutional things with impunity for a while.
Government will reap the political benefits of an unjust taking,
but suffer no consequences whatsoever.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unfortunately that horse has already bolted from the barn with this particular tenant.
In my other rental I plan to follow that protocol, but luckily I have not had any problems with tenants there lately. They always pay on time or ahead of time.

One thing many liberals don't understand is that the bad
tenants (ones doing damage, & not paying) impose costs
that are passed on to the good tenants. We try to keep
the good ones.
It's analogous to ransomwaring, shoplifting, etc, ie, such
costs of doing business are passed on to buyers.

 

[Trailblazer]

Forget "no profit". For countless landlords it has been a year of loss.

And possibly the loss of their house... Are the banks offering a moratorium on mortgage payments?

 

[Trailblazer]

One thing many liberals don't understand is that the bad
tenants (ones doing damage, & not paying) impose costs
that are passed on to the good tenants. We try to keep
the good ones.
It's analogous to ransomwaring, shoplifting, etc, ie, such
costs of doing business are passed on to buyers.

One thing many liberals don't understand is that renting a property out is a two-way street so BOTH tenants and landlords have their responsibilities.

 

[Revoltingest]

One thing many liberals don't understand is that renting a property out is a two-way street so BOTH tenants and landlords have their responsibilities.

But tenants are victims & are good.
Landlords are evil & greedy.
This view drives their public policy advocacy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why should we have to do that?

You were just complaining about how much landlords need money. Well, that's a way for them to get money (and to permanently stop the ongoing costs that you're also complaining about).

Renting a property is a two-way street so tenants and landlords each have their individual responsibilities. That is why there are leases and rental agreements with stipulations.

You can't get blood from a stone. If someone doesn't have the money to pay rent, then they won't be paying rent.

Bad debts are an unfortunate but unavoidable expense for legitimate businesses. Basing one's business model on the assumption that every customer will pay their bill in full every time would be... unwise.

 

[Trailblazer]

But tenants are victims & are good.
Landlords are evil & greedy.
This view drives their public policy advocacy.

And this is unjust...

 

[Trailblazer]

You were just complaining about how much landlords need money.

Was I complaining? I do not need money, but that is not the point. The POINT is that it is unjust for anyone to expect a free ride at someone else's expense. That us unjust and that is one reason we have courts of law.

Well, that's a way for them to get money (and to permanently stop the ongoing costs that you're also complaining about).

Why should we? It is OUR house and we paid for it.

You can't get blood from a stone. If someone doesn't have the money to pay rent, then they won't be paying rent.

And what if they do have it and just refuse to pay? How can anyone know?
But that is besides the point... People cannot live for free, and it is not as if there are no jobs to be had.

Bad debts are an unfortunate but unavoidable expense for legitimate businesses.

And evictions are unfortunate but unavoidable consequence for non-paying tenants..

Basing one's business model on the assumption that every customer will pay their bill in full every time would be... unwise.

I am not talking about paying in full every time... I am talking about never paying anything at all.