1612
Rent requirements in the US are nuts
(i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
1612 points (97.6% liked)
Unethical Life Pro Tips
4745 readers
1 users here now
An Unethical Life Pro Tip (or ULPT) is a tip that improves your life in a meaningful way, perhaps at the expense of others and/or with questionable legality. Share your best tips you've picked up throughout your life, and learn from others!
ULPT Rules:
- Tips must be unethical, tips that are ethical will be removed.
- Tips must provide some benefit to you.
- Post titles must begin with "ULPT" or "ULPT Request", and should be descriptive. The title should explain the gist of the ULPT without needing a description. Post that are walls of text will be deleted at the mods discretion.
- No tips about rape, murder, suicide, or any tips that violate Geneva Convention laws.
- No tip lists, each individual post should be about a single tip. This includes links to articles that list tips.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well the whole thing is contingent on the fact that you can actually pay rent. The stress test is the landlord's way of trying to verify that, and if you are assuming you can do that above all else then sure, everything will be just peachy.
I'm not absolutely not convinced that everyone who claims they can pay rent actually could, however.
Please, show me one instance of someone in the US being arrested for fraud because they lied about their income. Show me a real world example of this "stress test" you mentioned.
The same could be said of people who meet the income requirements for any given residence. Just because someone can pay rent on paper doesn't mean they can actually pay rent. Doubly so for credit checks. Someone with a low score isn't necessarily in an unmanageable amount of debt and someone with a high score isn't necessarily someone that has a manageable amount of debt.
If you're going to commit fraud in order to secure a rental then you need to go in with the understanding that it's important to know what you can actually afford. The same goes when you're doing it through "legitimate" means. If you can't pay the bills, then you lose your house. Its the same conclusion whether or not you lied about your income.
You're not going to go to jail, they're not going to check. And given the situation a lot of people are finding themselves in right now, it's pretty shitty to not empathize with people who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, appealing to "the legality" of what their doing. As if the laws and people who wrote them aren't responsible for the fact that people have to resort to fraud in the first place.
The fact that you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding this shows how little you think of people who are struggling to make ends meet. Your constant resistance to the idea of people doing what they need to do to acquire shelter results in you essentially saying "if you have to lie to get a roof over your head, then you just shouldn't have a place to live". Which is a pretty fucked up stance to take.
When did I say anything about anyone going to jail? The only point I made about getting a rental through fraudulent means is that it could potentially backfire on the tenant if the tenancy law allows landlords to break the lease because of it (which largely depends on regional tenancy laws).
So what do you suggest as a way for landlords to make sure people can actually pay rent? Because this is a legitimate issue that landlords have (corporate or not) before entering into a contractual agreement.
Get off your soapbox and take your strawman with you. These are entirely your words, not mine, none of what I wrote has anything to do with your virtue signaling and pretend grievances. The only "fucked up stance" I see here is you debating an imaginary opponent on points you made up yourself.