Why aren't Section 8 funds paid directly to the tenant?

General Landlording & Rental Properties
5yFollow

Why aren't Section 8 funds paid directly to the tenant?

Greg WeikBusiness Member
Property Manager · Denver, CO · Member since 2020 · 263 posts · 327 votes

I posted this on FB also, but I think it was a TL;DR situation, and/or no one really wanted to "go there."  :) 

If housing assistance, such as Section 8 is designed to help tenants, why not give them the funds directly? I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something, please set me straight if that's the case. 

The current law in Colorado is such that landlords or property management companies are required to accept Section 8 tenants if the applicants are otherwise approvable. What this actually means is a lot more than just simply "guaranteed rent" for the landlord, as some might think. 

We have to complete an 8-page document and jump through all sorts of hoops to "get the money." 

For example:

-We have to accept direct deposit directly from Section 8. We manage over 500 doors and having rogue deposits into our rental account is a nightmare from accounting, bookkeeping, and efficiency perspectives. 

-We have to tell Section 8 Big Brother if we post an "eviction notice." Again, more work for us, and not part of our standard process, which leaves room for human error and more expense.

-We have to tell Section 8 if the unit becomes vacant. Not part of our standard process, more opportunity for error/non-compliance, more expense.

-We have to include Section 8 language in my lease. Our people are trained on our standard lease clauses, more error potential and potential for contradictory clauses. More expense.

-We have to have Section 8 inspect the unit prior to rental (despite other existing laws protecting the public, such as the Warranty of Habitability) - again, more headache for us, as we have to send an agent to babysit the inspector. Recently, the inspector was over 20 minutes late, we had to pull our Team Member to a different property, and the government agent could not comprehend why we could not afford to have an agent camped at a property indefinitely. More expense.

If you want to take my tax dollars and re-distribute them to others, fine. But don't take my money via taxes to redistribute it and then double-dip by also requiring my private company to jump through all of the above hoops. 

If you've ever run a business or had to make payroll, you understand what I'm saying. If you don't have this background, you may not understand why this is such a big deal to me. 

Keep in mind that this kind of red-tape actually prevents me from adding more jobs, which would, ironically, lead to fewer people needing assistance in the first place. 

If you're trying to help people, then simply help THEM- give them the money directly for rental assistance. Don't make it my problem too. 

There's more to this rant if you can believe it. Some context to what is going on in Colorado in the rental housing world -

303-586-5560
Real Estate Solutions4.3379 Reviews
WebsiteView Page
4Reply
180 views

Most Popular Reply

Joe VilleneuvePro Member
Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
5y

Simple answer.  It guarantees the landlord gets paid, and they won't spend it on something else.

35Reply
See this reply in the discussion

48 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Brian Garlington
    Realtor · Oakland, CA and a Real Estate Investor with Multi-Family Units and a Self Storage Facility · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y

    This can't be a serious question :-)

    1Reply
  • Gary L Wallman
    Rental Property Investor · Beavercreek OH · Member since 2018 · 422 posts · 970 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Greg Weik:

    I posted this on FB also, but I think it was a TL;DR situation, and/or no one really wanted to "go there."  :) 

    If housing assistance, such as Section 8 is designed to help tenants, why not give them the funds directly? I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something, please set me straight if that's the case. 

    The current law in Colorado is such that landlords or property management companies are required to accept Section 8 tenants if the applicants are otherwise approvable. What this actually means is a lot more than just simply "guaranteed rent" for the landlord, as some might think. 

    We have to complete an 8-page document and jump through all sorts of hoops to "get the money." 

    For example:

    -We have to accept direct deposit directly from Section 8. We manage over 500 doors and having rogue deposits into our rental account is a nightmare from accounting, bookkeeping, and efficiency perspectives. 

    -We have to tell Section 8 Big Brother if we post an "eviction notice." Again, more work for us, and not part of our standard process, which leaves room for human error and more expense.

    -We have to tell Section 8 if the unit becomes vacant. Not part of our standard process, more opportunity for error/non-compliance, more expense.

    -We have to include Section 8 language in my lease. Our people are trained on our standard lease clauses, more error potential and potential for contradictory clauses. More expense.

    -We have to have Section 8 inspect the unit prior to rental (despite other existing laws protecting the public, such as the Warranty of Habitability) - again, more headache for us, as we have to send an agent to babysit the inspector. Recently, the inspector was over 20 minutes late, we had to pull our Team Member to a different property, and the government agent could not comprehend why we could not afford to have an agent camped at a property indefinitely. More expense.

    If you want to take my tax dollars and re-distribute them to others, fine. But don't take my money via taxes to redistribute it and then double-dip by also requiring my private company to jump through all of the above hoops. 

    If you've ever run a business or had to make payroll, you understand what I'm saying. If you don't have this background, you may not understand why this is such a big deal to me. 

    Keep in mind that this kind of red-tape actually prevents me from adding more jobs, which would, ironically, lead to fewer people needing assistance in the first place. 

    If you're trying to help people, then simply help THEM- give them the money directly for rental assistance. Don't make it my problem too. 

    There's more to this rant if you can believe it. Some context to what is going on in Colorado in the rental housing world -

     Greg,

    Exactly why I have all but eliminated section 8 tenants from my inherited properties.

    The bureaucrats have more rules for the landlords (providers) then they do for the tenants getting the free or subsidized rent.

    Yearly inspections where they seem inclined to find any violation, no matter how miniscule. No respect for our time. A million unanswered and unreturned calls. Then, when the tenant destroys your property, you have virtually no recourse.

    As to the concept of "guaranteed" rent I'm rolling on the floor. What good is a guaranteed rent if you need three years of it for repairs.

    While some section 8 folks are fine people with temporary issues, the minority make it a losing proposition for me.

    Respectfully,

    Gary

    1Reply
  • Michael Plante
    Deland, FL · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Greg Weik:

    I posted this on FB also, but I think it was a TL;DR situation, and/or no one really wanted to "go there."  :) 

    If housing assistance, such as Section 8 is designed to help tenants, why not give them the funds directly? I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something, please set me straight if that's the case. 

    The current law in Colorado is such that landlords or property management companies are required to accept Section 8 tenants if the applicants are otherwise approvable. What this actually means is a lot more than just simply "guaranteed rent" for the landlord, as some might think. 

    We have to complete an 8-page document and jump through all sorts of hoops to "get the money." 

    For example:

    -We have to accept direct deposit directly from Section 8. We manage over 500 doors and having rogue deposits into our rental account is a nightmare from accounting, bookkeeping, and efficiency perspectives. 

    -We have to tell Section 8 Big Brother if we post an "eviction notice." Again, more work for us, and not part of our standard process, which leaves room for human error and more expense.

    -We have to tell Section 8 if the unit becomes vacant. Not part of our standard process, more opportunity for error/non-compliance, more expense.

    -We have to include Section 8 language in my lease. Our people are trained on our standard lease clauses, more error potential and potential for contradictory clauses. More expense.

    -We have to have Section 8 inspect the unit prior to rental (despite other existing laws protecting the public, such as the Warranty of Habitability) - again, more headache for us, as we have to send an agent to babysit the inspector. Recently, the inspector was over 20 minutes late, we had to pull our Team Member to a different property, and the government agent could not comprehend why we could not afford to have an agent camped at a property indefinitely. More expense.

    If you want to take my tax dollars and re-distribute them to others, fine. But don't take my money via taxes to redistribute it and then double-dip by also requiring my private company to jump through all of the above hoops. 

    If you've ever run a business or had to make payroll, you understand what I'm saying. If you don't have this background, you may not understand why this is such a big deal to me. 

    Keep in mind that this kind of red-tape actually prevents me from adding more jobs, which would, ironically, lead to fewer people needing assistance in the first place. 

    If you're trying to help people, then simply help THEM- give them the money directly for rental assistance. Don't make it my problem too. 

    There's more to this rant if you can believe it. Some context to what is going on in Colorado in the rental housing world -

     I know nothing about section 8 


    are you required to accept section 8 tenants??

    0Reply
  • Steve Miklashevskiy
    Real Estate Agent · Hillsdale, NJ · Member since 2020 · 87 posts · 39 votes
    5y

    @Joe Villeneuve thank you for a simple answer 👏👏👏. It really is as simple as that

    1Reply
  • Alan Ouellette
    Member since 2021 · 44 posts · 27 votes
    5y

    @Greg Weik this may sound jaded, but I believe it's to make sure they don't use the money for other purposes. Yes, it is a mountain of work for the landlord but the program was set up to assist tenants who were born into the lower classes and also those that had opportunities but made such horrible decisions that they became lower class. For better or worse, the program operates like a nanny, trying to take better care of the tenant than they might take care of themselves. Being poor carries with it a lot of stigma and assumptions about being unable to handle regular life skills like running a budget. For some, it's true but absolutely not for all.

    0Reply
  • Bob S.
    Real Estate Consultant · Cleveland · Member since 2020 · 6k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    5y

    @Greg Weik I am expert in dealing with Sec 8 100s and 100s and 100s of move in outs, tenants etc. Of course they pay the PM co direct Can you imagine giving " these folks" the money directly, it would be gone,( NOT ALL of course )  and never make it to the owner . We get paid 100ks of thousands each month direct from sec 8 . We then deduct the PM fee and pay the owner , 

    All the best 

    0Reply
  • Carlos Florez
    Investor · Hollywood, FL · Member since 2013 · 38 posts · 20 votes
    5y

    @Greg Weik i prefer getting paid directly from uncle Sam, than chasing a tenant for rent money. This being said you can still screen the tenant like you normally do a market rent tenant, and you should. You are not forced to participate if you dont want to.

    0Reply
  • Andrew B.
    Rockaway, NJ · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

    0Reply
  • James Wise
    Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 30k+ posts · 20k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Greg Weik:

    I posted this on FB also, but I think it was a TL;DR situation, and/or no one really wanted to "go there."  :) 

    If housing assistance, such as Section 8 is designed to help tenants, why not give them the funds directly? I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something, please set me straight if that's the case. 

    The current law in Colorado is such that landlords or property management companies are required to accept Section 8 tenants if the applicants are otherwise approvable. What this actually means is a lot more than just simply "guaranteed rent" for the landlord, as some might think. 

    We have to complete an 8-page document and jump through all sorts of hoops to "get the money." 

    For example:

    -We have to accept direct deposit directly from Section 8. We manage over 500 doors and having rogue deposits into our rental account is a nightmare from accounting, bookkeeping, and efficiency perspectives. 

    -We have to tell Section 8 Big Brother if we post an "eviction notice." Again, more work for us, and not part of our standard process, which leaves room for human error and more expense.

    -We have to tell Section 8 if the unit becomes vacant. Not part of our standard process, more opportunity for error/non-compliance, more expense.

    -We have to include Section 8 language in my lease. Our people are trained on our standard lease clauses, more error potential and potential for contradictory clauses. More expense.

    -We have to have Section 8 inspect the unit prior to rental (despite other existing laws protecting the public, such as the Warranty of Habitability) - again, more headache for us, as we have to send an agent to babysit the inspector. Recently, the inspector was over 20 minutes late, we had to pull our Team Member to a different property, and the government agent could not comprehend why we could not afford to have an agent camped at a property indefinitely. More expense.

    If you want to take my tax dollars and re-distribute them to others, fine. But don't take my money via taxes to redistribute it and then double-dip by also requiring my private company to jump through all of the above hoops. 

    If you've ever run a business or had to make payroll, you understand what I'm saying. If you don't have this background, you may not understand why this is such a big deal to me. 

    Keep in mind that this kind of red-tape actually prevents me from adding more jobs, which would, ironically, lead to fewer people needing assistance in the first place. 

    If you're trying to help people, then simply help THEM- give them the money directly for rental assistance. Don't make it my problem too. 

    There's more to this rant if you can believe it. Some context to what is going on in Colorado in the rental housing world -

    If it's paid directly to the tenant, the likelihood it's used on rent instead of other things goes down.

     Paying it directly to the tenant defeats the purpose. If the tenant was responsible enough to pay for their own housing they wouldn't be on Section 8 in the first place.

    1Reply
  • James Wise
    Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 30k+ posts · 20k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

     By small minds do you mean those living in reality?

    4Reply
  • JD MartinBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

     I don't think they would spend all their money that way (though I get your point politically), but what *would* happen is the frequency of rent not being paid on time, or at all, would jump dramatically. Why? Because the poor operate on constant crisis moment. Whatever is in front of them today is what is being addressed. If today it's a broke-down car or having no food in the house, and Section 8 money just arrived, that's what it would be spent on. My entire life before I joined the military was spent in ridiculous poverty (I grew up in Orange which was a ghetto in the 70s) so I know exactly how that gig goes. The poor either don't make enough money to cover all expenses, or have horrible money management skills. They see a dollar in their pocket and think "What can I/do I/should I spend this dollar on?" 

    Money management is not a skill that's taught or honed in most educational institutions. It makes no sense to me, since it's one of the most important skills necessary for a decent existence in any capitalist society. 

    Podcast Guest on Show #243
    Skyline Properties
    View Page
    2Reply
  • Andrew B.
    Rockaway, NJ · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @James Wise:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

     By small minds do you mean those living in reality?

    By small minds, I mean people who can only paint with one color on their brush. The world is not black and white. There is lots of shades in-between them. 

    0Reply
  • Andrew B.
    Rockaway, NJ · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

     I don't think they would spend all their money that way (though I get your point politically), but what *would* happen is the frequency of rent not being paid on time, or at all, would jump dramatically. Why? Because the poor operate on constant crisis moment. Whatever is in front of them today is what is being addressed. If today it's a broke-down car or having no food in the house, and Section 8 money just arrived, that's what it would be spent on. My entire life before I joined the military was spent in ridiculous poverty (I grew up in Orange which was a ghetto in the 70s) so I know exactly how that gig goes. The poor either don't make enough money to cover all expenses, or have horrible money management skills. They see a dollar in their pocket and think "What can I/do I/should I spend this dollar on?" 

    Money management is not a skill that's taught or honed in most educational institutions. It makes no sense to me, since it's one of the most important skills necessary for a decent existence in any capitalist society. 

     For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree that the result would be "less money makes it to the landlords" and would reduce the effectiveness of the program. However, that would only happen because the current status quo is a legally mandated 100% compliance policy. Anything below 100% would be less. 

    0Reply
  • JD MartinBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

     I don't think they would spend all their money that way (though I get your point politically), but what *would* happen is the frequency of rent not being paid on time, or at all, would jump dramatically. Why? Because the poor operate on constant crisis moment. Whatever is in front of them today is what is being addressed. If today it's a broke-down car or having no food in the house, and Section 8 money just arrived, that's what it would be spent on. My entire life before I joined the military was spent in ridiculous poverty (I grew up in Orange which was a ghetto in the 70s) so I know exactly how that gig goes. The poor either don't make enough money to cover all expenses, or have horrible money management skills. They see a dollar in their pocket and think "What can I/do I/should I spend this dollar on?" 

    Money management is not a skill that's taught or honed in most educational institutions. It makes no sense to me, since it's one of the most important skills necessary for a decent existence in any capitalist society. 

     For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree that the result would be "less money makes it to the landlords" and would reduce the effectiveness of the program. However, that would only happen because the current status quo is a legally mandated 100% compliance policy. Anything below 100% would be less. 

     It would be substantially less. What percentage I have no idea but the government believes it would be substantial enough to not deliver direct payments, the same way that food stamps are delivered by cards that (theoretically) can only be used to buy food in a grocery store. I don't think it's because the poor are all drug addicts. The poor have horrible money management skills, which is an unfortunate paradox because the less money you have, the better you need to be at managing that money. Almost everyone I know is poor, and everyone I knew growing up was poor. The only one that had any money management skills were my grandparents, who were first generation Italian Americans and knew how to squeeze a penny till it bled.

    Perhaps there could be a better effort to improve the money management skills of the poor. All in all, however, Section 8 works pretty well, dampens the incidents and possibilities of fraud by direct payments, and accomplishes what it sets out to do - keep the overwhelming majority of poor off of the streets. 

    Podcast Guest on Show #243
    Skyline Properties
    View Page
    1Reply
  • Andrew B.
    Rockaway, NJ · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

     I don't think they would spend all their money that way (though I get your point politically), but what *would* happen is the frequency of rent not being paid on time, or at all, would jump dramatically. Why? Because the poor operate on constant crisis moment. Whatever is in front of them today is what is being addressed. If today it's a broke-down car or having no food in the house, and Section 8 money just arrived, that's what it would be spent on. My entire life before I joined the military was spent in ridiculous poverty (I grew up in Orange which was a ghetto in the 70s) so I know exactly how that gig goes. The poor either don't make enough money to cover all expenses, or have horrible money management skills. They see a dollar in their pocket and think "What can I/do I/should I spend this dollar on?" 

    Money management is not a skill that's taught or honed in most educational institutions. It makes no sense to me, since it's one of the most important skills necessary for a decent existence in any capitalist society. 

     For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree that the result would be "less money makes it to the landlords" and would reduce the effectiveness of the program. However, that would only happen because the current status quo is a legally mandated 100% compliance policy. Anything below 100% would be less. 

     It would be substantially less. What percentage I have no idea but the government believes it would be substantial enough to not deliver direct payments, the same way that food stamps are delivered by cards that (theoretically) can only be used to buy food in a grocery store. I don't think it's because the poor are all drug addicts. The poor have horrible money management skills, which is an unfortunate paradox because the less money you have, the better you need to be at managing that money. Almost everyone I know is poor, and everyone I knew growing up was poor. The only one that had any money management skills were my grandparents, who were first generation Italian Americans and knew how to squeeze a penny till it bled.

    Perhaps there could be a better effort to improve the money management skills of the poor. All in all, however, Section 8 works pretty well, dampens the incidents and possibilities of fraud by direct payments, and accomplishes what it sets out to do - keep the overwhelming majority of poor off of the streets. 

     Yes, the specific plight varies person to person, but I also believe education would be beneficial. 

    1Reply
  • Alan DeRossett
    Investor · Thousand Oaks, CA · Member since 2017 · 306 posts · 123 votes
    5y

    In California, it's given as a direct payment for rent to ensure Tenant does not Spend it and go homeless. I had a non Section 8 tenant mailing me 4 Money orders from a gas station every month since she had no bank accounts her husband worked and each week with He was paid she would cash his check at a gas station store. They took 10% of the total check exploiting her and her husband. Then she would Buy a Money order for 1/4 the Rent and pay $2.50 for the money Order. Once a month on time I would get 4 money orders from her for the total rent. I suggested to her she could just send 1 money order saving herself $7.50 per month and she said No! if she did not buy the Money Orders each week or put them in a Bank her Husband would spend it all in a bar! Hud and Section 8 has had many such problems so now pay landlords directly electronically via ach it's much cheaper for them and tenants. Ny Tenants Wife managed his money for him but it cost them much more than needed. Many people may not have bank accounts any longer and get exploited by Check cashing stores to buy Money orders if mailing the rents. I also have one Tenant who is elderly and now no longer has a bank account of her own, whose Cousin pays her rent directly since she no longer is bankable according to banks. During this Pandemic in California Governor Newsome has had California pay up to $10,000 of past rents for Tenants as a grant but also directly to landlords. in this scenario, the landlords had to agree not to evict the tenants who had Pandemic-related hardships. it's a win-win for both the Tenant and landlord when we work together with the State.

    0Reply
  • Tim Miller
    Rental Property Investor · Laurel, MD · Member since 2016 · 383 posts · 382 votes
    5y

    @Greg Weik I feel your pain, Maryland law is that you cannot discriminate against source of income. Meaning Section 8!

    Here are just a few items in the Housing Assistance Payments Contract that keeps us from accepting section 8

    1. The owner must give the PHA any information on rents charged by owner for other unit.

    2. PHA shall not be obligated to pay any late payment if HUD determines that late payment by PHA is beyond the PHA's control.

    3. HUD shall have full & free access to contract unit, premises, & all accounts & other records of the owner that are relevant to HAP Contract.

    4. The owner must grant such access to computerized or other electronic records & to any computers, facilities & must provide any information or assistance needed to access the records.

    5. PHA failure to pay the owner is not a violation of the lease. The owner may not terminate the tenancy for nonpayment.

    6. Must give 90 days notice to vacate

    As you can see there are a number of reason not to take section 8. We will not allow them full access to any of our computers, smart phones, office and so on.

    I suggest you use a service like MyRental to screen your tenants. They provide a "Tenant Score" and you could set the score high enough that Section 8 tenants would not achieve. Either way, you just need to put in place processes and procedures that will disqualify them.

    1Reply
  • Curtis Mears
    Property Manager · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2014 · 729 posts · 596 votes
    5y

    @Greg Weik

    I do not know ow thw answer, but I could see tenants using money for other things, not just rent. I do not accept section 8 as I do not partner with entities who do not have my best interest. They have no funds in the game, and many do not care if i succeed or not. If a tenant trashes a property, do they care? Will they help financially?

    1Reply
  • Tony Kim
    Rental Property Investor · Los Angeles · Member since 2018 · 844 posts · 1k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

     I don't think they would spend all their money that way (though I get your point politically), but what *would* happen is the frequency of rent not being paid on time, or at all, would jump dramatically. Why? Because the poor operate on constant crisis moment. Whatever is in front of them today is what is being addressed. If today it's a broke-down car or having no food in the house, and Section 8 money just arrived, that's what it would be spent on. My entire life before I joined the military was spent in ridiculous poverty (I grew up in Orange which was a ghetto in the 70s) so I know exactly how that gig goes. The poor either don't make enough money to cover all expenses, or have horrible money management skills. They see a dollar in their pocket and think "What can I/do I/should I spend this dollar on?" 

    Money management is not a skill that's taught or honed in most educational institutions. It makes no sense to me, since it's one of the most important skills necessary for a decent existence in any capitalist society. 

     For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree that the result would be "less money makes it to the landlords" and would reduce the effectiveness of the program. However, that would only happen because the current status quo is a legally mandated 100% compliance policy. Anything below 100% would be less. 

     It would be substantially less. What percentage I have no idea but the government believes it would be substantial enough to not deliver direct payments, the same way that food stamps are delivered by cards that (theoretically) can only be used to buy food in a grocery store. I don't think it's because the poor are all drug addicts. The poor have horrible money management skills, which is an unfortunate paradox because the less money you have, the better you need to be at managing that money. Almost everyone I know is poor, and everyone I knew growing up was poor. The only one that had any money management skills were my grandparents, who were first generation Italian Americans and knew how to squeeze a penny till it bled.

    Perhaps there could be a better effort to improve the money management skills of the poor. All in all, however, Section 8 works pretty well, dampens the incidents and possibilities of fraud by direct payments, and accomplishes what it sets out to do - keep the overwhelming majority of poor off of the streets. 

     Yes, the specific plight varies person to person, but I also believe education would be beneficial. 

    OMG, why didn't you say this sooner? I didn't know the solution was so simple!! And of course, I'm sure you've also already thought of a delivery mechanism for your innovative solution which no one else has already thought of?  Gosh, who would have thought that education would be beneficial?? Any other great solutions?  Fairy dust? Twinkle angels sitting on your shoulder giving advice?  How small minded of me.

    1Reply
  • Andrew B.
    Rockaway, NJ · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Tony Kim:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

     I don't think they would spend all their money that way (though I get your point politically), but what *would* happen is the frequency of rent not being paid on time, or at all, would jump dramatically. Why? Because the poor operate on constant crisis moment. Whatever is in front of them today is what is being addressed. If today it's a broke-down car or having no food in the house, and Section 8 money just arrived, that's what it would be spent on. My entire life before I joined the military was spent in ridiculous poverty (I grew up in Orange which was a ghetto in the 70s) so I know exactly how that gig goes. The poor either don't make enough money to cover all expenses, or have horrible money management skills. They see a dollar in their pocket and think "What can I/do I/should I spend this dollar on?" 

    Money management is not a skill that's taught or honed in most educational institutions. It makes no sense to me, since it's one of the most important skills necessary for a decent existence in any capitalist society. 

     For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree that the result would be "less money makes it to the landlords" and would reduce the effectiveness of the program. However, that would only happen because the current status quo is a legally mandated 100% compliance policy. Anything below 100% would be less. 

     It would be substantially less. What percentage I have no idea but the government believes it would be substantial enough to not deliver direct payments, the same way that food stamps are delivered by cards that (theoretically) can only be used to buy food in a grocery store. I don't think it's because the poor are all drug addicts. The poor have horrible money management skills, which is an unfortunate paradox because the less money you have, the better you need to be at managing that money. Almost everyone I know is poor, and everyone I knew growing up was poor. The only one that had any money management skills were my grandparents, who were first generation Italian Americans and knew how to squeeze a penny till it bled.

    Perhaps there could be a better effort to improve the money management skills of the poor. All in all, however, Section 8 works pretty well, dampens the incidents and possibilities of fraud by direct payments, and accomplishes what it sets out to do - keep the overwhelming majority of poor off of the streets. 

     Yes, the specific plight varies person to person, but I also believe education would be beneficial. 

    OMG, why didn't you say this sooner? I didn't know the solution was so simple!! And of course, I'm sure you've also already thought of a delivery mechanism for your innovative solution which no one else has already thought of?  Gosh, who would have thought that education would be beneficial?? Any other great solutions?  Fairy dust? Twinkle angels sitting on your shoulder giving advice?  How small minded of me.

     Please show me on the doll, where the comment hurt you. 

    2Reply
  • Mike A.
    Port Chester, NY · Member since 2016 · 210 posts · 157 votes
    4y
    Originally posted by @Jim K.:

    I am reminded of the "Mo' Money Seminar" on In Living Color.

    0Reply
  • Jim K.
    Handyman · Pittsburgh, PA · Member since 2018 · 5k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    4y
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @Andrew B.:

    Quite often the only way to pass these programs is to get over the ridiculous idea that these people would rather spend all their money on drugs and booze. Giving the money directly to the landlords appeases those with small minds. 

     I don't think they would spend all their money that way (though I get your point politically), but what *would* happen is the frequency of rent not being paid on time, or at all, would jump dramatically. Why? Because the poor operate on constant crisis moment. Whatever is in front of them today is what is being addressed. If today it's a broke-down car or having no food in the house, and Section 8 money just arrived, that's what it would be spent on. My entire life before I joined the military was spent in ridiculous poverty (I grew up in Orange which was a ghetto in the 70s) so I know exactly how that gig goes. The poor either don't make enough money to cover all expenses, or have horrible money management skills. They see a dollar in their pocket and think "What can I/do I/should I spend this dollar on?" 

    Money management is not a skill that's taught or honed in most educational institutions. It makes no sense to me, since it's one of the most important skills necessary for a decent existence in any capitalist society. 

     For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree that the result would be "less money makes it to the landlords" and would reduce the effectiveness of the program. However, that would only happen because the current status quo is a legally mandated 100% compliance policy. Anything below 100% would be less. 

     It would be substantially less. What percentage I have no idea but the government believes it would be substantial enough to not deliver direct payments, the same way that food stamps are delivered by cards that (theoretically) can only be used to buy food in a grocery store. I don't think it's because the poor are all drug addicts. The poor have horrible money management skills, which is an unfortunate paradox because the less money you have, the better you need to be at managing that money. Almost everyone I know is poor, and everyone I knew growing up was poor. The only one that had any money management skills were my grandparents, who were first generation Italian Americans and knew how to squeeze a penny till it bled.

    Perhaps there could be a better effort to improve the money management skills of the poor. All in all, however, Section 8 works pretty well, dampens the incidents and possibilities of fraud by direct payments, and accomplishes what it sets out to do - keep the overwhelming majority of poor off of the streets. 

    Why work to improve the money management skills of the poor when you can sell them lottery tickets instead?

    2Reply
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.
Log InJoin for Free