7 ms·

I most recently saw that with some criticisms of Section 8 housing. I'm paraphrasing but basically to be eligible for Section 8 housing you can't have too many

I most recently saw that with some criticisms of Section 8 housing. I'm paraphrasing but basically to be eligible for Section 8 housing you can't have too many assets. Good financial planning would say to scrimp and save so that you can get make a downpayment to get a mortgage but you'll be kicked out of the section 8 housing long before you've saved enough to get out yourself. Catch-22

stjohnswarts 4y ago
The only way is to put savings under your mattress and that is extremely likely to get stolen (usually by relatives or "friends"). It's an awful catch 22.
- 19870213 4y ago
  Or when you need to use that money by the police as part of Civil Asset Forfeiture during a random stop/search.
- bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
  Or NFTs ;)
- adrr 4y ago
  Get a safety deposit box for $80 a year and store your cash in it.
  - jdeibele 4y ago
    They're not easy to find. I got a notice last month from my credit union that I need to plan move my stuff out of my deposit box. The Credit Union "relies on a vendor for the software that is used to open, close, and maintain Safe Deposit Boxes. Over time, the vendor stopped consistently upgrading this software and we have now learned that it is being phased out altogether. Replacing this type of system would mean a significant cost to our membership." A few years ago they replaced the double key system (bank employee has a key, you have a key) with a handprint system to let one customer at a time into the vault. They removed the bank key. I always have to remember which set is where my box is: they have 3 or 4 boxes labeled 131 because they acquired them from other banks or credit unions who got out of the business. I had to settle my aunt's estate in Huntington Beach a few years ago. The Chase branch there limited people to one box per branch because they are relatively popular. But safe deposit boxes definitely skew towards grey hair. I opened an account with my credit union because they were one of the few options for safe deposit boxes but the branch with the boxes is miles away from my local branch so I don't use it often. I would have liked to store backups there but in the end I use BackBlaze.
alistairSH 4y ago
Eh. Why should the jump from Section 8 (subsidized rent) be straight to home ownership (and not renting with your own income)? Section 8 might have some inefficient cliffs. But not allowing savings for a mortgage doesn’t strike me as one of them.
- bsedlm 4y ago
  why should you be forced to rent for a place to sleep?
- praxulus 4y ago
  I agree that not allowing savings for a mortgage probably isn't a huge issue in practice, but discouraging saving in general is completely bonkers policy.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Oh, I agree. Savings of some form should be encouraged. Various cliffs are bad policy. I’d rather some form of UBI-like assistance. Single program, means tested but no cliffs(just a gradual phase out of some sort), and no limits on what the assistance is spent on.
- _jal 4y ago
  What's this business with "should"? A big reason why we have these perverse rules in the first place is that people are absurdly concerned with controlling people who accept (certain types of) public money. If someone can find a path to jump from dependency to ownership, why "should" aid programs be structured to prevent that? I, for one, would be a fan of imposing similar restrictions on other aid recipients, like mortgage-interest deduction-takers and enthanol producers. I suspect many folks would abruptly notice the absurdities with such rules.
  - PragmaticPulp 4y ago
    > If someone can find a path to jump from dependency to ownership, why "should" aid programs be structured to prevent that? Because the next step from subsidized housing is to renting. If we structured subsidizing housing programs such that they enabled people to save up for down payments, this creates a perverse incentive for normal renters to get into subsidized housing to accelerate their transition to home ownership. Any time you introduce a perverse incentive like this, you overwhelm the system as people who don’t need it start crowding out people who actually do need it. Going straight from subsidized rental housing to home ownership doesn’t make sense. Going from subsidized rentals to non-subsidized rentals is the obvious next step.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> I'm paraphrasing but basically to be eligible for Section 8 housing you can't have too many assets. Good financial planning would say to scrimp and save so that you can get make a downpayment to get a mortgage but you'll be kicked out of the section 8 housing long before you've saved enough to get out yourself. The progression would be Section 8 -> Renting -> Home Ownership The purpose of programs like Section 8 isn't to subsidize people while they save up to purchase expensive assets and leapfrog past non-subsidized renters. It's to backstop people who couldn't afford normal rents.
- gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
  How long should one rent for in this hypothetical situation? Could a section 8 resident buy a house, and pay for a 1 month short term rental in the interim and meet your criteria? 6 mo? A year?
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    How long are the people paying their own way renting?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    If the government is going to pay or subsidize rent for someone, I’m ok with there being a requirement that such support is needed by that recipient. If the recipient later happens to win the lottery, I’d expect them to move directly from Section 8 housing to a mansion, no waiting period needed nor desired.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    I don't think PragmaticPulp is saying anything about requiring people to rent before getting a house. Just that the purpose of section 8 housing is to help people who can't afford rents. If someone is saving for a house, I think that's a sign that that person can afford rents, and therefore isn't the target for section 8 housing.
  - PragmaticPulp 4y ago
    That’s not what I’m saying at all. Buying a house requires signrifajt savings for a down payment, moving costs, and so on. Subsidized housing isn’t meant to help people build up savings and accumulate possibly six figure savings to buy a house. Subsidized housing is meant to prevent people who can’t afford rent from becoming homeless. If a subsidized housing program is structured in such a way that it’s a net financial win to be on it than to be self-sufficient (e.g. renting on your own) then it becomes a “trap” as you penalize anyone trying to escape it and you incentivize people near the threshold to stay below it. If someone wins the lottery or gets a new job with a huge signing bonus or gets a huge inheritance then by all means go buy a house right away and skip the renting step. However, we need to revoke their place in the subsidized housing program as soon as they can afford to be off of it. I think people in this thread are forgetting that subsidized housing is a very limited resource and therefore we need to focus it on the people who need it most. Leaving people in the program who are accumulating six-figure house down payments from the savings would suggest that they don’t actually need the program but are taking the place of someone else who does need the help.
idunno246 4y ago
a quick search on google seems to say that theres no asset check for section 8, just income checks(including interest/etc from assets)
rgbrenner 4y ago
Are you sure it was section 8? There is no asset limitation for participation in HUD assisted-housing programs. However, the definition of annual income includes net income from family assets. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_35701.PDF https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_35701.PDF What you’re describing is true for many assistance programs, including snap, for example… but not section 8 as far as I understand.
- gwright 4y ago
  I may have remembered incorrectly but I believe it was in the context of the New York Housing Authority and I just made the perhaps incorrect assumption that it was Section 8. I tried to find the article itself but couldn't find it quickly.
  - what-the-grump 4y ago
    You pay a penalty on household income over x. But then get family of 4 making 500k a year and since the children don’t file or own other investments. You can see it in the parking lots, high end cars and high end finishes in apartments. There is very little incentive to move out in a well ran subsidized property in NYC. I’ve managed large developments 800+ units.
    - Farfignoggen 4y ago
      You folks managing Privately Run for Profit/Non Profit Section 8 housing units management firms are just derelict in your Duty as the US Government/FCC has billions of dollars of Funding Made available for High Speed Internet assistance for the poor but the Privately Run Section 8 housing entities(For Profit or Non Profit) are not even applying for the funds because they are too cheap to hire Grant Writers to apply for the funding. I'm currently living in a Section 8 unit that's changed ownership and is getting renovated, apartment by apartment, with residents moved to temporary units in the complex until their renovated units are ready. And the Management Company that's running things really is clueless and does not even care to even Apply for any federal programs that may be available to get proper broadband speeds to low income households. There needs to be some Federal Requirement for Section-8 housing Management companies to be forced to apply for any Federal Programs available to them in order for the low income Residents to receive the aid set aside in these programs to help poor and low income individuals/Families get better Internet Access. And this is in a time where the Government wants every service application done online, even in the time before the pandemic. There are Jobs where folks can work from Home via online jobs/services but that requires higher speed internet capabilities than is provided/accessible to low income individuals.
gwright 4y ago
Too late to edit, but I think this was actually in the context of New York City Housing Authority and not Section 8. I tried to track down the article but couldn't find it quickly. This isn't the article I had in mind but it is related and interesting: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2013/9/21/two-new-yorks-rich-and-poor-in-chelsea https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2013/9/21/two-new-y... and includes this: > The poor family is trapped in place. If they make the mistake of earning more observable cash, their rent will be increased by 30% of the increased earnings (that's how it works at NYCHA), and then they start taking away the other benefits as well.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

The only way is to put savings under your mattress and that is extremely likely to get stolen (usually by relatives or "friends"). It's an awful catch 22.

19870213 4y ago
Or when you need to use that money by the police as part of Civil Asset Forfeiture during a random stop/search.
bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
Or NFTs ;)
adrr 4y ago
Get a safety deposit box for $80 a year and store your cash in it.
- jdeibele 4y ago
  They're not easy to find. I got a notice last month from my credit union that I need to plan move my stuff out of my deposit box. The Credit Union "relies on a vendor for the software that is used to open, close, and maintain Safe Deposit Boxes. Over time, the vendor stopped consistently upgrading this software and we have now learned that it is being phased out altogether. Replacing this type of system would mean a significant cost to our membership." A few years ago they replaced the double key system (bank employee has a key, you have a key) with a handprint system to let one customer at a time into the vault. They removed the bank key. I always have to remember which set is where my box is: they have 3 or 4 boxes labeled 131 because they acquired them from other banks or credit unions who got out of the business. I had to settle my aunt's estate in Huntington Beach a few years ago. The Chase branch there limited people to one box per branch because they are relatively popular. But safe deposit boxes definitely skew towards grey hair. I opened an account with my credit union because they were one of the few options for safe deposit boxes but the branch with the boxes is miles away from my local branch so I don't use it often. I would have liked to store backups there but in the end I use BackBlaze.

alistairSH 4y ago

Eh. Why should the jump from Section 8 (subsidized rent) be straight to home ownership (and not renting with your own income)? Section 8 might have some inefficient cliffs. But not allowing savings for a mortgage doesn’t strike me as one of them.

bsedlm 4y ago
why should you be forced to rent for a place to sleep?
praxulus 4y ago
I agree that not allowing savings for a mortgage probably isn't a huge issue in practice, but discouraging saving in general is completely bonkers policy.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Oh, I agree. Savings of some form should be encouraged. Various cliffs are bad policy. I’d rather some form of UBI-like assistance. Single program, means tested but no cliffs(just a gradual phase out of some sort), and no limits on what the assistance is spent on.
_jal 4y ago
What's this business with "should"? A big reason why we have these perverse rules in the first place is that people are absurdly concerned with controlling people who accept (certain types of) public money. If someone can find a path to jump from dependency to ownership, why "should" aid programs be structured to prevent that? I, for one, would be a fan of imposing similar restrictions on other aid recipients, like mortgage-interest deduction-takers and enthanol producers. I suspect many folks would abruptly notice the absurdities with such rules.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > If someone can find a path to jump from dependency to ownership, why "should" aid programs be structured to prevent that? Because the next step from subsidized housing is to renting. If we structured subsidizing housing programs such that they enabled people to save up for down payments, this creates a perverse incentive for normal renters to get into subsidized housing to accelerate their transition to home ownership. Any time you introduce a perverse incentive like this, you overwhelm the system as people who don’t need it start crowding out people who actually do need it. Going straight from subsidized rental housing to home ownership doesn’t make sense. Going from subsidized rentals to non-subsidized rentals is the obvious next step.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> I'm paraphrasing but basically to be eligible for Section 8 housing you can't have too many assets. Good financial planning would say to scrimp and save so that you can get make a downpayment to get a mortgage but you'll be kicked out of the section 8 housing long before you've saved enough to get out yourself. The progression would be Section 8 -> Renting -> Home Ownership The purpose of programs like Section 8 isn't to subsidize people while they save up to purchase expensive assets and leapfrog past non-subsidized renters. It's to backstop people who couldn't afford normal rents.

gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
How long should one rent for in this hypothetical situation? Could a section 8 resident buy a house, and pay for a 1 month short term rental in the interim and meet your criteria? 6 mo? A year?
- willcipriano 4y ago
  How long are the people paying their own way renting?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  If the government is going to pay or subsidize rent for someone, I’m ok with there being a requirement that such support is needed by that recipient. If the recipient later happens to win the lottery, I’d expect them to move directly from Section 8 housing to a mansion, no waiting period needed nor desired.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  I don't think PragmaticPulp is saying anything about requiring people to rent before getting a house. Just that the purpose of section 8 housing is to help people who can't afford rents. If someone is saving for a house, I think that's a sign that that person can afford rents, and therefore isn't the target for section 8 housing.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  That’s not what I’m saying at all. Buying a house requires signrifajt savings for a down payment, moving costs, and so on. Subsidized housing isn’t meant to help people build up savings and accumulate possibly six figure savings to buy a house. Subsidized housing is meant to prevent people who can’t afford rent from becoming homeless. If a subsidized housing program is structured in such a way that it’s a net financial win to be on it than to be self-sufficient (e.g. renting on your own) then it becomes a “trap” as you penalize anyone trying to escape it and you incentivize people near the threshold to stay below it. If someone wins the lottery or gets a new job with a huge signing bonus or gets a huge inheritance then by all means go buy a house right away and skip the renting step. However, we need to revoke their place in the subsidized housing program as soon as they can afford to be off of it. I think people in this thread are forgetting that subsidized housing is a very limited resource and therefore we need to focus it on the people who need it most. Leaving people in the program who are accumulating six-figure house down payments from the savings would suggest that they don’t actually need the program but are taking the place of someone else who does need the help.

idunno246 4y ago

a quick search on google seems to say that theres no asset check for section 8, just income checks(including interest/etc from assets)

rgbrenner 4y ago

Are you sure it was section 8? There is no asset limitation for participation in HUD assisted-housing programs. However, the definition of annual income includes net income from family assets. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_35701.PDF https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_35701.PDF What you’re describing is true for many assistance programs, including snap, for example… but not section 8 as far as I understand.

gwright 4y ago
I may have remembered incorrectly but I believe it was in the context of the New York Housing Authority and I just made the perhaps incorrect assumption that it was Section 8. I tried to find the article itself but couldn't find it quickly.
- what-the-grump 4y ago
  You pay a penalty on household income over x. But then get family of 4 making 500k a year and since the children don’t file or own other investments. You can see it in the parking lots, high end cars and high end finishes in apartments. There is very little incentive to move out in a well ran subsidized property in NYC. I’ve managed large developments 800+ units.
  - Farfignoggen 4y ago
    You folks managing Privately Run for Profit/Non Profit Section 8 housing units management firms are just derelict in your Duty as the US Government/FCC has billions of dollars of Funding Made available for High Speed Internet assistance for the poor but the Privately Run Section 8 housing entities(For Profit or Non Profit) are not even applying for the funds because they are too cheap to hire Grant Writers to apply for the funding. I'm currently living in a Section 8 unit that's changed ownership and is getting renovated, apartment by apartment, with residents moved to temporary units in the complex until their renovated units are ready. And the Management Company that's running things really is clueless and does not even care to even Apply for any federal programs that may be available to get proper broadband speeds to low income households. There needs to be some Federal Requirement for Section-8 housing Management companies to be forced to apply for any Federal Programs available to them in order for the low income Residents to receive the aid set aside in these programs to help poor and low income individuals/Families get better Internet Access. And this is in a time where the Government wants every service application done online, even in the time before the pandemic. There are Jobs where folks can work from Home via online jobs/services but that requires higher speed internet capabilities than is provided/accessible to low income individuals.

gwright 4y ago

Too late to edit, but I think this was actually in the context of New York City Housing Authority and not Section 8. I tried to track down the article but couldn't find it quickly. This isn't the article I had in mind but it is related and interesting: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2013/9/21/two-new-yorks-rich-and-poor-in-chelsea https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2013/9/21/two-new-y... and includes this: > The poor family is trapped in place. If they make the mistake of earning more observable cash, their rent will be increased by 30% of the increased earnings (that's how it works at NYCHA), and then they start taking away the other benefits as well.