[EconProf]

There are pros and cons to having Section 8 tenants. On the plus side, they tend to stay longer, are financially motivated to keep up the unit and not break the rules, and you get the guaranteed check on time. Sometimes, they pay above market rent if you have a crappy unit or neighborhood that would not command decent market rents.
OTOH, the tenants are, after all, needy with all that that implies. This may not go over well with your other tenants. You get government inspectors to make you fix stupid & silly things, while ignoring more obvious or aesthetic shortcomings that you would readily cure for a private sector tenant. Example: they will make you replace a window with a one inch crack in a corner that is going nowhere, but ignore a worn out & dirty 5 year old carpet that a private sector renter would rightly ask you to replace.
Finally, it is extremely hard to get rid of a Section 8 tenant unless your reason for doing so fits the government’s rules. Many landlords swear to never again take a Section 8 tenant after having trouble getting rid of one. The bureaucrats are a real pain to work with.
I suspect it boils down to whether your building and neighborhood is not attractive enough to pull in the more desirable tenants. There is an undeniable stigma to having Section 8 tenants.

[EconProf]

There are pros and cons to having Section 8 tenants. On the plus side, they tend to stay longer, are financially motivated to keep up the unit and not break the rules, and you get the guaranteed check on time. Sometimes, they pay above market rent if you have a crappy unit or neighborhood that would not command decent market rents.
OTOH, the tenants are, after all, needy with all that that implies. This may not go over well with your other tenants. You get government inspectors to make you fix stupid & silly things, while ignoring more obvious or aesthetic shortcomings that you would readily cure for a private sector tenant. Example: they will make you replace a window with a one inch crack in a corner that is going nowhere, but ignore a worn out & dirty 5 year old carpet that a private sector renter would rightly ask you to replace.
Finally, it is extremely hard to get rid of a Section 8 tenant unless your reason for doing so fits the government’s rules. Many landlords swear to never again take a Section 8 tenant after having trouble getting rid of one. The bureaucrats are a real pain to work with.
I suspect it boils down to whether your building and neighborhood is not attractive enough to pull in the more desirable tenants. There is an undeniable stigma to having Section 8 tenants.

[EconProf]

There are pros and cons to having Section 8 tenants. On the plus side, they tend to stay longer, are financially motivated to keep up the unit and not break the rules, and you get the guaranteed check on time. Sometimes, they pay above market rent if you have a crappy unit or neighborhood that would not command decent market rents.
OTOH, the tenants are, after all, needy with all that that implies. This may not go over well with your other tenants. You get government inspectors to make you fix stupid & silly things, while ignoring more obvious or aesthetic shortcomings that you would readily cure for a private sector tenant. Example: they will make you replace a window with a one inch crack in a corner that is going nowhere, but ignore a worn out & dirty 5 year old carpet that a private sector renter would rightly ask you to replace.
Finally, it is extremely hard to get rid of a Section 8 tenant unless your reason for doing so fits the government’s rules. Many landlords swear to never again take a Section 8 tenant after having trouble getting rid of one. The bureaucrats are a real pain to work with.
I suspect it boils down to whether your building and neighborhood is not attractive enough to pull in the more desirable tenants. There is an undeniable stigma to having Section 8 tenants.

[EconProf]

There are pros and cons to having Section 8 tenants. On the plus side, they tend to stay longer, are financially motivated to keep up the unit and not break the rules, and you get the guaranteed check on time. Sometimes, they pay above market rent if you have a crappy unit or neighborhood that would not command decent market rents.
OTOH, the tenants are, after all, needy with all that that implies. This may not go over well with your other tenants. You get government inspectors to make you fix stupid & silly things, while ignoring more obvious or aesthetic shortcomings that you would readily cure for a private sector tenant. Example: they will make you replace a window with a one inch crack in a corner that is going nowhere, but ignore a worn out & dirty 5 year old carpet that a private sector renter would rightly ask you to replace.
Finally, it is extremely hard to get rid of a Section 8 tenant unless your reason for doing so fits the government’s rules. Many landlords swear to never again take a Section 8 tenant after having trouble getting rid of one. The bureaucrats are a real pain to work with.
I suspect it boils down to whether your building and neighborhood is not attractive enough to pull in the more desirable tenants. There is an undeniable stigma to having Section 8 tenants.

[EconProf]

There are pros and cons to having Section 8 tenants. On the plus side, they tend to stay longer, are financially motivated to keep up the unit and not break the rules, and you get the guaranteed check on time. Sometimes, they pay above market rent if you have a crappy unit or neighborhood that would not command decent market rents.
OTOH, the tenants are, after all, needy with all that that implies. This may not go over well with your other tenants. You get government inspectors to make you fix stupid & silly things, while ignoring more obvious or aesthetic shortcomings that you would readily cure for a private sector tenant. Example: they will make you replace a window with a one inch crack in a corner that is going nowhere, but ignore a worn out & dirty 5 year old carpet that a private sector renter would rightly ask you to replace.
Finally, it is extremely hard to get rid of a Section 8 tenant unless your reason for doing so fits the government’s rules. Many landlords swear to never again take a Section 8 tenant after having trouble getting rid of one. The bureaucrats are a real pain to work with.
I suspect it boils down to whether your building and neighborhood is not attractive enough to pull in the more desirable tenants. There is an undeniable stigma to having Section 8 tenants.

[EconProf]

Nostradamus: You were wise to walk the neighborhood and talk to residents.
This is the single most important and most overlooked way for buyers to learn quickly about the huge decision they are considering. You will invariably pick up usefull information no broker will tell you–about rents, physical defects, demographics (ahem), crime incidents, trends of all sorts. Plus, you may be pleasantly surprised (or not) to meet the next door neighbor in advance.

[EconProf]

Nostradamus: You were wise to walk the neighborhood and talk to residents.
This is the single most important and most overlooked way for buyers to learn quickly about the huge decision they are considering. You will invariably pick up usefull information no broker will tell you–about rents, physical defects, demographics (ahem), crime incidents, trends of all sorts. Plus, you may be pleasantly surprised (or not) to meet the next door neighbor in advance.

[EconProf]

Nostradamus: You were wise to walk the neighborhood and talk to residents.
This is the single most important and most overlooked way for buyers to learn quickly about the huge decision they are considering. You will invariably pick up usefull information no broker will tell you–about rents, physical defects, demographics (ahem), crime incidents, trends of all sorts. Plus, you may be pleasantly surprised (or not) to meet the next door neighbor in advance.

[EconProf]

Nostradamus: You were wise to walk the neighborhood and talk to residents.
This is the single most important and most overlooked way for buyers to learn quickly about the huge decision they are considering. You will invariably pick up usefull information no broker will tell you–about rents, physical defects, demographics (ahem), crime incidents, trends of all sorts. Plus, you may be pleasantly surprised (or not) to meet the next door neighbor in advance.

[EconProf]

Nostradamus: You were wise to walk the neighborhood and talk to residents.
This is the single most important and most overlooked way for buyers to learn quickly about the huge decision they are considering. You will invariably pick up usefull information no broker will tell you–about rents, physical defects, demographics (ahem), crime incidents, trends of all sorts. Plus, you may be pleasantly surprised (or not) to meet the next door neighbor in advance.

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[EconProf]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

[Author]

Posts