3 ms·
Bob was laid off. He couldn't pay his rent, but knew that he had to pay this eventually. So he scoured craiglist for part time jobs to put together as much rent
by Manuel_D 5y ago
Bob was laid off. He couldn't pay his rent, but knew that he had to pay this eventually. So he scoured craiglist for part time jobs to put together as much rent as he could. He did his best to minimize the amount of back-rent he owes.
Joe was also laid off. But he didn't look for extra work, and just let back-rent accumulate.
Jack was in the same boat. He took part time jobs, but pocketed all his money and lived rent free even though he could have paid as much of his rent as Bob.
Now all of them are having their owed rent absolved. That rewards Joe and Jack over Bob. It's better to either not work, or continue working but cease paying rent.
- frumper 5y agoJosh kept working the whole time and stopped paying rent and is better off than Joe and Jack.
- yumraj 5y agoNot just that, Tom reduced his expenses, consumed only essentials in order to pay his rent, when if he known this was going to happen, he didn't need to had he known. This is effectively giving Joe and Jack extra income, while giving little extra income to Bob and none to Tom. This is the same issue with forgiving student loans... At the very least, CA should consider the forgiven rent as income paid to the renters whose rent was forgiven.