s/o housing cost %

[UMaineTeach]

I had this question a week or so ago and the post below reminded me.
It was on the news that ground was broken for a new senior housing complex and that through a partnership with HUD the rent would be limited to 30% max of the senior's income and the rest would be subsidized.

I though that the 30% still sounded like it would be high and the early results of the poll below show that many of you are paying much less than 30%.

Is 30% for housing reasonable, especially for people who are on a fixed income that is not likely to grow?

www.wabi.tv/news/32242/brewer-breaks-ground-on-new-senior-housing-center

[rosiedozie]

Ditto the PP - I think 30% is the "standard" rule given for housing expenses, but MM is pretty financially conservative so I'm not surprised that so many people are below that.

[h]

Depends on the income and other fixed costs. 30% is totally reasonable for someone with a relatively high income and relatively few other expenses. I doubt the people living in a HUD senior housing complex are high income, though, so 30% on rent probably doesn't leave them with a lot of money for food, healthcare, etc.

[lanyac]

I pay 35% of my income in housing. It used to be higher when we rented.

[Susie]

Aug 7, 2012 11:27:12 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

Is 30% for housing reasonable, especially for people who are on a fixed income that is not likely to grow?

I'm not bothered by it. PITI + SLs is more than 50% of our income. We haven't had raises in a number of years, and don't foresee any coming. Being on a fixed income with 30% to PITI doesn't sound like that big of a stretch.

There are situations where 30% might be too high, because of other debt that's outside the average for a senior (including, e.g. a child's SLs that they cosigned), but on its face 30% seems ok to me.

[LoveTrains]

30% sounds reasonable because they aren't paying for children or putting away 15-20% of their income to retirement.

[jewel]

30% is standard for most subsidized housing (low income, senior, disabled, treatment, etc).

It's not a cushy lifestyle, but it is definitely doable.

In my area, if someone on disability is paying 30% of their income, they will pay approximately $270 per month in rent. That's easily only 25% of the going rate. It doesn't leave them a lot of money to spend, but is a hell of a good deal, compared to market rate.

[mrssavy42112]

Aug 7, 2012 12:51:26 GMT -5 LoveTrains said:

30% sounds reasonable because they aren't paying for children or putting away 15-20% of their income to retirement.

Yep, this makes sense. My grandfather lives in a senior building with a similar % rule. His only expenses are a few low co-pays, rent and food. He pockets everything else.

[ESF]

Aug 7, 2012 12:51:26 GMT -5 LoveTrains said:

30% sounds reasonable because they aren't paying for children or putting away 15-20% of their income to retirement.

Exactly.

I mean, what other expenses to they have? Many of them probably don't even drive, and the ones that do aren't commuting long distances to work. By and large, they don't have similar needs for reliable transportation that younger people do. They don't need to maintain a professional wardrobe. It sounds like many home maintenance expenses are covered in the cost of this rent. While being on a fixed income means no raises or windfalls, it also means that you won't lose your job or lose income during an illness. And they are eligible for subsidized health insurance through Medicare.

When you consider all that, 30% actually seems low to me.

[statlerwaldorf]

I don't know that there is a reasonable % when you talk about the super poor. My MIL lives on less than $700/mo. She pays 30% of her income to her subsidized housing complex. Even if she was paying 0%, it is really really hard to live off of that much per month.