Thread

1. matchbok3 · 1790012406 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. gonzalohm · 1790013640 · focus · HN ↗

      Shouldn't there be a kid fee then? Kids are likely to cause damage and everyone is subsidizing it.

      It should just be common sense. You have a kid or you have a pet. They damaged the property, you pay it.

      1. loeg · 1790014177 · focus · HN ↗

         Kids do less damage and there's a stronger argument for subsidizing them than dogs.

         Pet rent isn't about directly covering damage; it's more like buying an insurance policy that occasionally covers large pet-necessitated repairs.

         1. edgyquant · 1790014833 · focus · HN ↗

            Nobody is subsidizing anything. If damage occurs the tenant pays for it

            1. benoau · 1790016363 · focus · HN ↗

               If you buy like carpet you could reasonably expect to replace it in 10-15 years, and if you allow pets you are more likely to need to. However getting 15-20 years out of it instead without pets is probably more like double-dipping than a subsidy as replacing it on the correct schedule should already be factored into the rent.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.