LogFAQs > #936394624

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	A lot of landlords are about to learn their power is very conditional upon
Esrac 03/28/20 7:56:35 PM #136:	LinkPizza posted... Probably. Though, I still see those as different. I do believe tenants should have at least a month of extra income to support themselves in case of an emergency. But if a landlord cant pay their rent for one month just because a tenant moves out and it ruins them, then they had no business being a landlord in the first place... Especially because that also means they probably had no money to fix any issue the tenant might have had. So, it's different because the person renting is just renting a house. They should have extra money, but don't need to. The landlord on the other should definitely have extra money. And if they don't, then they probably have no business being a landlord... They aren't likely to be ruined by a couple tenants failing to pay rent on time. Or failing to make a month. But we aren't necessarily looking at one month of missed payment from one or two broke tenants. The land lords have bills to pay too and they get the money to pay those bills by leasing the homes they own to people, if those people stop paying for an extended period of time, that will eventually become a serious issue. They aren't likely inclined to provide accommodations to people who can't or won't pay them. In the same way that you aren't likely to want to sell your labor to an employer who can't or won't pay you for it. It's not reasonable to expect a land lord to house people who can't pay rent for a prolonged period of time. <cite>Esrac posted [p:936394624] in A lot of l... [t:78512808]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Probably. Though, I still see those as different. I do believe tenants should have at least a month of extra income to support themselves in case of an emergency. But if a landlord cant pay their rent for one month just because a tenant moves out and it ruins them, then they had no business being a landlord in the first place... Especially because that also means they probably had no money to fix any issue the tenant might have had. So, it's different because the person renting is just renting a house. They should have extra money, but don't need to. The landlord on the other should definitely have extra money. And if they don't, then they probably have no business being a landlord...</quote> They aren't likely to be ruined by a couple tenants failing to pay rent on time. Or failing to make a month. But we aren't necessarily looking at one month of missed payment from one or two broke tenants. The land lords have bills to pay too and they get the money to pay those bills by leasing the homes they own to people, if those people stop paying for an extended period of time, that will eventually become a serious issue. They aren't likely inclined to provide accommodations to people who can't or won't pay them. In the same way that you aren't likely to want to sell your labor to an employer who can't or won't pay you for it. It's not reasonable to expect a land lord to house people who can't pay rent for a prolonged period of time. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1