Proposed Rent Increase Limit of 5%/Yr Nationally?! Seriously?
Most Popular Reply
Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes
2y@Jeff G.
We are in an election year - it’s talking points at right now. Not something I would worry about.
7e investments53 Reviews
39 Replies
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes2y
@Jeff G.
We are in an election year - it’s talking points at right now. Not something I would worry about.
7e investments53 Reviews We've been living with this albatross around our business' necks for 5 years here in NY. Go ahead and ask the resident tenant base if that's increased or decreased the availability of affordable housing in the last several years.
- 2yTheresa HarrisPro MemberMember since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
I guess it is relative to where you are. In BC, we have caps on rent increases and they are usually well below 5%. Only time you can increase the rent more than that is normally during a turnover. But I agree with the others-it is an election year in the US, so the candidates will say whatever they want to try and get elected.
- 2yAlecia LovelessPro MemberMember since 2019 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
@Jeff G. Not in favor. I’m hoping to scale beyond 50 units and want to be able to make the right decision for my own property based on market conditions. I’ve bought several properties where I’ve raised rents by 50% and still not been at market rent and don’t want big brother to tell me I can’t. Otherwise I start looking for another way to make money instead of through rental properties.
And I’m fairly driven right now to provide affordable housing for my market, but still have needed to increase by 50% at times.
- Member since 2024 · 222 posts · 161 votes2y
Here Washington State we have no limit perse, but there are strict notice. 120 days notice for an 3% increase in rent which cannot take effect before the end of the lease. 180 day notice is required if over 10% again before the end of the lease.
- Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes2y
It's an attempt to buy votes during an election year. Free this, free that, vote for me and it will all be free!
It won't stand, just like Biden's student loan forgiveness.
The DIY Landlord Book4.7247 Reviews - Investor · Broken Arrow, OK · Member since 2016 · 210 posts · 314 votes2y
History shows us the actual opposite of what he and others claim will
happen will actually take place. Instead, there will be unintended
consequences that will negatively impact the very people they claim to
be for. Like others have said, this is an attempt to get votes..
I wouldn't be too worried about it at this time. Giveaway Joe is a dead man walking and he knows it. He's throwing everything at the wall hoping something sticks.
This would likely have 0% change of getting through the Republican controlled House. It'd also have very little chance of making it through the Senate as there are going to be a few Senators that will understand this will be bad for the housing market and/or those in swing states.
Local level is where you need to worry, not federal level.
It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless.
Quote from @Andrew B.:
It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless.
Nope, I don't have 50 units. I expect to grow to that size eventually, but that day is not today. I'm with you on the tax incentive argument: I'm very much a flat tax guy.
It's not that rent control is "against the free market" that bothers me. That happens to be true, but the real problem is that it introduces artificial inefficiencies in the market that end up severely harming the people that it's allegedly supposed to help.
Wherever there is rent control there is severe market dysfunction. I have yet to see a counterexample.
Quote from @Jeff G.:
Quote from @Andrew B.:
It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless.
Nope, I don't have 50 units. I expect to grow to that size eventually, but that day is not today. I'm with you on the tax incentive argument: I'm very much a flat tax guy.
It's not that rent control is "against the free market" that bothers me. That happens to be true, but the real problem is that it introduces artificial inefficiencies in the market that end up severely harming the people that it's allegedly supposed to help.
Wherever there is rent control there is severe market dysfunction. I have yet to see a counterexample.
You keep using the phrase "rent control" but that is not what this is. This is phasing out of a tax benefit. We have plenty of tax benefits that phase out as your income goes up. If you have a need to increase your rent more than 5% you go ahead and do so with the knowledge that you will lose a tax benefit.
- Investor · Broken Arrow, OK · Member since 2016 · 210 posts · 314 votes2y
Quote from @Jeff G.:
Quote from @Andrew B.:
It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless.
Nope, I don't have 50 units. I expect to grow to that size eventually, but that day is not today. I'm with you on the tax incentive argument: I'm very much a flat tax guy.
It's not that rent control is "against the free market" that bothers me. That happens to be true, but the real problem is that it introduces artificial inefficiencies in the market that end up severely harming the people that it's allegedly supposed to help.
Wherever there is rent control there is severe market dysfunction. I have yet to see a counterexample.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-rent-control-plan-onl...
What continues to amaze me is how dense people are when they are not willing to look at historical examples of what happens when bureaucrats and politicians intervene and therefore artificially change market dynamics. How in the heck can anyone say "I do believe this is a good thing for Americans"? This is similar thing that happened when the eviction moratorium was implemented and we had landlords claiming it was a "good thing". Well, it ended up being a bad thing and ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
- In no way is this similar. That's such a wild comparison, I struggle to believe you think it is correct either.
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Jeff G.:
Quote from @Andrew B.:
It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless.
Nope, I don't have 50 units. I expect to grow to that size eventually, but that day is not today. I'm with you on the tax incentive argument: I'm very much a flat tax guy.
It's not that rent control is "against the free market" that bothers me. That happens to be true, but the real problem is that it introduces artificial inefficiencies in the market that end up severely harming the people that it's allegedly supposed to help.
Wherever there is rent control there is severe market dysfunction. I have yet to see a counterexample.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-rent-control-plan-onl...
What continues to amaze me is how dense people are when they are not willing to look at historical examples of what happens when bureaucrats and politicians intervene and therefore artificially change market dynamics. How in the heck can anyone say "I do believe this is a good thing for Americans"? This is similar thing that happened when the eviction moratorium was implemented and we had landlords claiming it was a "good thing". Well, it ended up being a bad thing and ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
The government is the one providing the tax benefits, so therefore the government is allowed to set the terms of it. - Investor · Broken Arrow, OK · Member since 2016 · 210 posts · 314 votes2yI will send you a private connection request. Let's take this off the public side. I think you have totally misunderstood the ideas behind my comments. This is not a wild comparison unless you ignore history. More than willing to have a civil private conversation where I think I can explain exactly why rent control (which is really only used for political rhetoric) is a bad idea as is almost all government attempts to "control" what landlords do (including the eviction moratorium)..
Quote from @Andrew B.:
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Jeff G.:
Quote from @Andrew B.:
You keep using the phrase "rent control" but that is not what this is. This is phasing out of a tax benefit. We have plenty of tax benefits that phase out as your income goes up. If you have a need to increase your rent more than 5% you go ahead and do so with the knowledge that you will lose a tax benefit.
I'm not sure if you're being willfully ignorant or you really don't understand this. All incentives and penalties by the government are an attempt to tweak the market. There are many forms of rent control. Penalizing a landlord for raising rent is 100% a form of rent control.
Quote from @John Kunick:
I will send you a private connection request. Let's take this off the public side. I think you have totally misunderstood the ideas behind my comments. This is not a wild comparison unless you ignore history. More than willing to have a civil private conversation where I think I can explain exactly why rent control (which is really only used for political rhetoric) is a bad idea as is almost all government attempts to "control" what landlords do (including the eviction moratorium)..Quote from @Andrew B.:
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Jeff G.:
You're more than welcome to explain your thoughts here. Its a public forum, so discussing it in public makes the most sense since the topic of this post is the same as what you're discussing.
Quote from @Greg M.:
Quote from @Andrew B.:
You keep using the phrase "rent control" but that is not what this is. This is phasing out of a tax benefit. We have plenty of tax benefits that phase out as your income goes up. If you have a need to increase your rent more than 5% you go ahead and do so with the knowledge that you will lose a tax benefit.
I'm not sure if you're being willfully ignorant or you really don't understand this. All incentives and penalties by the government are an attempt to tweak the market. There are many forms of rent control. Penalizing a landlord for raising rent is 100% a form of rent control.
"rent control" is typically associated with the government setting rental rate limits. You're welcome to claim other things fall under that umbrella, but then we're just arguing about terminology which is not productive.
This is not the government telling you what you must charge for rent, and that is the important part. This is the government phasing out a tax benefit.
If you are 100% against any form of "rent control" (which by your logic includes both positives and negatives) then why is it ok to have tax benefits at all? If it is ok for the government to give the tax benefits, then shouldn't they also have the power to take them away?
I acknowledge that the government uses tax benefits to incentivize the market to function a certain way. If we agree the government has that power, then you must concede that they also have the power to take away the benefit to reverse the activity.
This is a long held power, as many monopolies/oligopolies have been broken up over history. We can point to the recent acquisition of Fox by Disney, where they were forced to sell certain assets in order to complete the merger. Why should the housing industry be completely immune to government intervention?
To be clear, it is ok to say "this would hurt my pocket and I dislike it because I am self serving." There is nothing wrong with being self serving and having an opinion.
- 2yRyan MoyerBusiness MemberProperty Manager · Orlando Kissimmee Davenport Salt Lake City, Park City · Member since 2019 · 993 posts · 1k+ votes
Quote from @Jeff G.:
Second, I don't see links to draft legislation. Is there draft legislation for this that I just happened to miss?
How seriously should we as landlords take this push? How likely is something like this to pass?
Discuss.
I don't think there is any legislation. They're "asking" congress to make the legislation, which congress isn't going to do. Just grandstanding to show people the executive branch allegedly cares about something that the executive branch doesn't have any power to do anything about.
Even if it were actually on the table, which I don't think it is, it's not as bad as I first thought when I read the headline. Just eliminating some perks for the folks that don't play ball. Not like it'd be illegal to raise rent more than 5%. Our perks are already supremely outsized to the good side (for us as real estate investors) and those are always tenuous and could disappear at any time. But that part of the discussion is a non-issue anyway since this doesn't seem to be anything more than a quick soapbox moment by the white house.
Cosmic Vacations4.9172 Reviews - 2yRyan MoyerBusiness MemberProperty Manager · Orlando Kissimmee Davenport Salt Lake City, Park City · Member since 2019 · 993 posts · 1k+ votes
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Jeff G.:
Quote from @Andrew B.:
It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless.
Nope, I don't have 50 units. I expect to grow to that size eventually, but that day is not today. I'm with you on the tax incentive argument: I'm very much a flat tax guy.
It's not that rent control is "against the free market" that bothers me. That happens to be true, but the real problem is that it introduces artificial inefficiencies in the market that end up severely harming the people that it's allegedly supposed to help.
Wherever there is rent control there is severe market dysfunction. I have yet to see a counterexample.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-rent-control-plan-onl...
What continues to amaze me is how dense people are when they are not willing to look at historical examples of what happens when bureaucrats and politicians intervene and therefore artificially change market dynamics. How in the heck can anyone say "I do believe this is a good thing for Americans"? This is similar thing that happened when the eviction moratorium was implemented and we had landlords claiming it was a "good thing". Well, it ended up being a bad thing and ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
But the tax breaks that would go away here were already bureaucrats and politicians intervening and artificially changing market dynamics. If you're not in favor of politicians interfering with market dynamics, you should already want those tax breaks gone anyway.
Cosmic Vacations4.9172 Reviews - Investor · Greenville, SC · Member since 2016 · 5k+ posts · 13k+ votes2y
Ironic. The government has no cap and increases the money supply by 40% but feels it's appropriate to cap something that was created by their actions/decisions.
- Investor · Broken Arrow, OK · Member since 2016 · 210 posts · 314 votes2y
Quote from @Andrew B.:
Quote from @John Kunick:
I will send you a private connection request. Let's take this off the public side. I think you have totally misunderstood the ideas behind my comments. This is not a wild comparison unless you ignore history. More than willing to have a civil private conversation where I think I can explain exactly why rent control (which is really only used for political rhetoric) is a bad idea as is almost all government attempts to "control" what landlords do (including the eviction moratorium)..Quote from @Andrew B.:
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Jeff G.:
You're more than welcome to explain your thoughts here. Its a public forum, so discussing it in public makes the most sense since the topic of this post is the same as what you're discussing.
Ok, I'm going to try to make this simple and respond directly to your first comment. I could care less about the "tax break" angle as that is your distraction. I simply take issue with you saying "..I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded."
First, why do you think rent control is good for Americans and how do you think it will address the issue of exploding housing costs? Second, we have many historical examples of politicians (at federal, state and local levels) trying to implement rent controls. Are you aware of these? If so, can you please tell us if they've ever actually helped the people they claimed to help? Or, are they just political pandering and actually hurt those people? How do the "sheep" of these politicians simply enable this cycle and therefore continue to create false hope that anything other than the market will actually help solve the issues?
Despite your claims that the eviction moratorium is a wild comparison and you struggling to believe I think it is correct, I implore you that I do think it is correct - and I never once mentioned anything about the tax benefits. You are the one that brought that distraction into play.
When the EM was implemented, I saw many, perhaps like you, that thought it was a great idea and was going to help the poor and downtrodden. I was amazed that people could come to that conclusion as history tells us the exact opposite would happen. I find these people to be ignorant as in the root word "ignore" as they ignore historical examples. I also stated back then that I thought the EM would be found to be a violation of property rights and contract law and perhaps be found to be unconstitutional. Ironically, the bleeding hearts attacked me as cruel and mean when what I was saying is it will be cruel and mean ultimately to these very people.. But, bleeding hearts don't seem concerned about actual results only on patting themselves on the back for their good intentions - despite the devastation they ultimately cause.
Andrew, I don't know how old you are.. I'm in my 60's and have been in the rental market a long time. I've seen these ideas come and go and have historical perspective of how these ideas only make matters worse. But, you don't have to be my age to study the negative effects of rent control, eviction moratoriums, forced section 8, etc.. You only have to be moderately curious and be willing to study where these policies have led in the past. - Investor · Broken Arrow, OK · Member since 2016 · 210 posts · 314 votes2y
Quote from @Ryan Moyer:
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Jeff G.:
Quote from @Andrew B.:
It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless.
Nope, I don't have 50 units. I expect to grow to that size eventually, but that day is not today. I'm with you on the tax incentive argument: I'm very much a flat tax guy.
It's not that rent control is "against the free market" that bothers me. That happens to be true, but the real problem is that it introduces artificial inefficiencies in the market that end up severely harming the people that it's allegedly supposed to help.
Wherever there is rent control there is severe market dysfunction. I have yet to see a counterexample.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-rent-control-plan-onl...
What continues to amaze me is how dense people are when they are not willing to look at historical examples of what happens when bureaucrats and politicians intervene and therefore artificially change market dynamics. How in the heck can anyone say "I do believe this is a good thing for Americans"? This is similar thing that happened when the eviction moratorium was implemented and we had landlords claiming it was a "good thing". Well, it ended up being a bad thing and ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
But the tax breaks that would go away here were already bureaucrats and politicians intervening and artificially changing market dynamics. If you're not in favor of politicians interfering with market dynamics, you should already want those tax breaks gone anyway.
Ryan, where in my post did I mention tax breaks? Nowhere.. So, why is your response wrongly focused on that topic? Did you read the article I linked? If you did you would have gotten a much better perspective on this whole topic.. I really don't care to be distracted by your tax break straw dog - although I could debate how bad our tax policies are generally as I favor a flat tax and therefore eliminating all tax breaks. I would however appreciate hearing about how you think rent controls, and other political stunts that politicians use to pander to the lower class, actually help or hurt those very people. - 2yRyan MoyerBusiness MemberProperty Manager · Orlando Kissimmee Davenport Salt Lake City, Park City · Member since 2019 · 993 posts · 1k+ votes
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Ryan Moyer:
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Jeff G.:
Quote from @Andrew B.:
It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless.
Nope, I don't have 50 units. I expect to grow to that size eventually, but that day is not today. I'm with you on the tax incentive argument: I'm very much a flat tax guy.
It's not that rent control is "against the free market" that bothers me. That happens to be true, but the real problem is that it introduces artificial inefficiencies in the market that end up severely harming the people that it's allegedly supposed to help.
Wherever there is rent control there is severe market dysfunction. I have yet to see a counterexample.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-rent-control-plan-onl...
What continues to amaze me is how dense people are when they are not willing to look at historical examples of what happens when bureaucrats and politicians intervene and therefore artificially change market dynamics. How in the heck can anyone say "I do believe this is a good thing for Americans"? This is similar thing that happened when the eviction moratorium was implemented and we had landlords claiming it was a "good thing". Well, it ended up being a bad thing and ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
But the tax breaks that would go away here were already bureaucrats and politicians intervening and artificially changing market dynamics. If you're not in favor of politicians interfering with market dynamics, you should already want those tax breaks gone anyway.
Ryan, where in my post did I mention tax breaks? Nowhere.. So, why is your response wrongly focused on that topic? Did you read the article I linked? If you did you would have gotten a much better perspective on this whole topic.. I really don't care to be distracted by your tax break straw dog - although I could debate how bad our tax policies are generally as I favor a flat tax and therefore eliminating all tax breaks. I would however appreciate hearing about how you think rent controls, and other political stunts that politicians use to pander to the lower class, actually help or hurt those very people.Huh? This whole thread is about tax breaks. That's what the proposed 5% cap is tied to.
The white house is asking congress to remove tax breaks that were perks for real estate investors if they use those tax breaks to raise rent too aggressively. Those tax breaks existing in the first place are examples of politicians intervening to artificially change market dynamics, by stimulating investors to buy those properties more aggressively than they would in a free market. So if your stance is that politicians should not intervene to artificially change market dynamics, then by that definition you should be in favor of them removing or (in this case) limiting the tax breaks that artificially changed market dynamics.
The proposal is not to make it illegal to raise rent by more than 5%. The proposal is to reduce tax breaks when rent is raised by more than 5%. If you don't think the government should be meddling in the housing/real estate market in the first place, then you should be against those tax breaks existing in the first place, and rolling them back in any capacity would be a step in the right direction.
Cosmic Vacations4.9172 Reviews - 2yRick BassettBusiness MemberProperty Manager · Greater New Haven, CT · Member since 2010 · 377 posts · 434 votes
Much to do about nothing as President Biden is now a lame duck, and nothing new is going to happen for the rest of his term.
Bassett Property Management5108 Reviews - Investor · Broken Arrow, OK · Member since 2016 · 210 posts · 314 votes2y
Quote from @Ryan Moyer:
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Ryan Moyer:
Quote from @John Kunick:
Quote from @Jeff G.:
Quote from @Andrew B.:
It only applies to those who own more than 50 units, so if thats you I get why you're not happy, but I do believe this is a good thing for Americans. The cost of housing has exploded.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say "that's going against capitalism and the free market," but I'll remind you tax benefits are not part of the free market. The whole intention behind a tax benefit is to encourage you to do something. If the rental market is extremely profitable, you dont need more incentives to buy rentals, you were going to do it regardless.
Nope, I don't have 50 units. I expect to grow to that size eventually, but that day is not today. I'm with you on the tax incentive argument: I'm very much a flat tax guy.
It's not that rent control is "against the free market" that bothers me. That happens to be true, but the real problem is that it introduces artificial inefficiencies in the market that end up severely harming the people that it's allegedly supposed to help.
Wherever there is rent control there is severe market dysfunction. I have yet to see a counterexample.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-rent-control-plan-onl...
What continues to amaze me is how dense people are when they are not willing to look at historical examples of what happens when bureaucrats and politicians intervene and therefore artificially change market dynamics. How in the heck can anyone say "I do believe this is a good thing for Americans"? This is similar thing that happened when the eviction moratorium was implemented and we had landlords claiming it was a "good thing". Well, it ended up being a bad thing and ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
But the tax breaks that would go away here were already bureaucrats and politicians intervening and artificially changing market dynamics. If you're not in favor of politicians interfering with market dynamics, you should already want those tax breaks gone anyway.
Ryan, where in my post did I mention tax breaks? Nowhere.. So, why is your response wrongly focused on that topic? Did you read the article I linked? If you did you would have gotten a much better perspective on this whole topic.. I really don't care to be distracted by your tax break straw dog - although I could debate how bad our tax policies are generally as I favor a flat tax and therefore eliminating all tax breaks. I would however appreciate hearing about how you think rent controls, and other political stunts that politicians use to pander to the lower class, actually help or hurt those very people.Huh? This whole thread is about tax breaks. I'm starting to think maybe you didn't actually read the white house statement that this thread is about.
The white house is asking congress to remove tax breaks that were perks for real estate investors that raise rent too aggressively. Those tax breaks existing in the first place are examples of politicians intervening to artificially change market dynamics, by stimulating investors to buy those properties more aggressively than they would in a free market. So if your stance is that politicians should not intervene to artificially change market dynamics, then by that definition you should be in favor of them removing or (in this case) limiting the tax breaks that artificially changed market dynamics.
This thread and white house statement isn't about making anything illegal. It's about taking away or reducing artificial perks (tax breaks) that were created to intervene and artificially change market dynamics in the first place.
Ryan, no, this thread has been specifically about rent control and whether or not it helps create affordable housing or hurts the very people that the politicians claim it will help. You and Andrew have tried to turn it into something it was not - whether that was your intention or not. I ask you to go to the top and read the first several posts and specifically my first couple of responses.. In mine there was not one single mention of tax breaks. Yet, you specifically responded directly to my post (which had nothing in it about tax breaks) and then answered about tax breaks. This is the title of this thread: Proposed Rent Increase Limit of 5%/Yr Nationally?!
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.