Is the government really paying all of it, or just some of it

Question

Something isn't adding up in what I've read. Every article says the government pays the rent and that's why Section 8 is safe income. Then I read a comment saying the tenant pays 30 percent and if they don't pay it you can evict them like anyone else, which means part of my rent isn't guaranteed at all.

So on a unit renting for 1,200, am I getting 1,200 from the housing authority, or am I getting maybe 850 from them and chasing 350 from the tenant every month? And if it's the second one, how is that meaningfully safer than a regular rental where I'd be chasing all 1,200 from one person?

Rena Guide · Accepted Answer

It's the second one. On a 1,200 unit you might get 850 from the housing authority and 350 from the tenant, and those numbers move depending on the household's income.

How the split gets set: the authority calculates what the household can contribute, generally around 30 percent of their adjusted income, and pays the difference between that and the contract rent. That means the split isn't fixed for the life of the tenancy. If the household's income drops, their share drops and the authority's share rises. If their income rises, the reverse. Some households have very low income and their share is small or zero, which is why you see people describe the whole rent as government paid.

Why that's still steadier than a market rental. The larger piece of the rent arrives from an institution on a schedule, and it keeps arriving when the tenant loses a job, which is exactly the moment a market-rate tenant stops paying. The piece you're chasing is 350 rather than 1,200, so a bad month costs you a third of what it would otherwise.

The thing that trips up new landlords: you cannot charge the tenant more than their calculated share, even if the market would bear more than the contract rent. Side payments are a program violation. And on collecting the tenant share, you generally can pursue nonpayment through your normal state eviction process, but the tenancy addendum limits your grounds for termination and your state's process controls the steps, so read the addendum and check your local rules before you rely on that.

gregpowell66 · Answer

On the buildings I've worked on, the tenant share can be under 100 dollars in a lot of cases. So the practical answer is often close to the whole rent coming from the authority, just not by rule.

aaron_fitz10 · Answer

The part I'd add is the recertification. Their income gets re-examined periodically and the split moves, but your total contract rent doesn't move with it. So @juniper you aren't exposed to income changes at all in total, only in who sends which slice. That was the piece that made me stop worrying about the tenant portion.

joe_delgado5 · Answer

350 a month uncollected for four months is 1,400 plus filing costs, and you still hold the unit. It's smaller than a full-rent default but it isn't nothing, and thin deals feel it.

Rena Expert · Answer

@flint is right that the tenant share isn't free money and @kestrel is right that your total doesn't move. Both matter and they answer different questions.

Where this bites in practice is at recertification when a household's income rises enough that their share jumps. A tenant paying 120 who gets moved to 480 is now handling a bill four times larger, and that transition is where arrears show up. Some authorities will tell you the new share and effective date, some send you a notice and expect you to notice. Ask yours which they do and put the answer in your file, because if you keep billing the old amount you build a balance the tenant didn't know about.

On underwriting, treat the tenant share like market-rate rent for collection risk and the HAP portion as materially more reliable. If the tenant share is 30 percent of contract rent, you're carrying 30 percent of a normal rental's collection exposure, plus the administrative work of the whole thing. That trade is the strategy. It doesn't get better than that and anyone describing it as fully guaranteed income is describing the low-income end of the distribution as if it were the rule.

karen_whitfield · Answer

Fifteen years of holding things has taught me that the schedule matters more than the size. A payment that arrives on the same day every month lets you plan repairs. The tenant portion I treat as variable.

paulgrant17 · Answer

So screening still matters, just for a smaller amount. I'd been half assuming the voucher did the screening for me, which I now see isn't what it does at all, it establishes eligibility for the program and nothing about whether the person pays their 350.

Is the government really paying all of it, or just some of it

7 replies