« First « Previous Comments 48 - 81 of 81 Search these comments
Not sure why you and the poster had to mix it up like you did.
Tenpoundbass says
so you want to rent your backyard shed to meth heads, and you want to know if that would be cool?
Then you go on to say those meth heads could sublet to all of their street buddies.
How could you possibly lose?
So now you are going from a shed wired up for 'remote access' wtf that means to this shit. Nice.
No. Because nobody will actually be living there, except maybe one sublet tenant at a time. Just like with AirBnB'd units.
Why? Why would the IRS give a flying shit? Local zoning and residency limits enforcement is not their beef. They only care that they get what is taxable from all that and that it isn't money laundering.
TOk, tell me how this doesn't work.
RWSGFY says
Aren't there laws regulating how many people can legally live in a unit of a certain size?
Sure, slumlords violate them all the time, but if we are talking "strictly above the board" model this would be one of the obstacles.
How so? Not enforced proactively. Only if neighbors complain/report. Which they won't because at most would be one person/couple showing up at a time, much like if it were AirBnB'd.
Even the authorities in SF don't care when units are converted to de facto dorms.
And in this case, all that exists on paper at the landlord end is the lease between him and the out of state LLC/Corp that is subletting out.
I can see rent control becoming a real thing all over if the only alternative is massive homelessness.
As the property owner would be in on the scam, they could be liable for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and since most paychecks are electronic, conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Since the number of charges brought against the property owner would depend on the number of renters, it could be a lengthy prison sentence as well as restitution to the aggrieved employers.
RWSGFY says
Aren't there laws regulating how many people can legally live in a unit of a certain size?
In Prince William County, VA (DC suburb) a judge struck down such a law when it was applied to 14 non-related folks renting a 3-bedroom townhouse. Law was racist against illegals, you know.
I used a mailstop just outside of Boston & I paid the owner, to get my mail forwarded to various hotels around the continent.
Misc saysThe only difficulty I see is if the employer found out about the scam.
That's right. Nor would it be fraud. And even if so, the landlord would not be on the hook.
Misc says
As the property owner would be in on the scam, they could be liable for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and since most paychecks are electronic, conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Since the number of charges brought against the property owner would depend on the number of renters, it could be a lengthy prison sentence as well as restitution to the aggrieved employers.
So wouldn't all those mailstop businesses, like Mailboxes etc, the UPS store, etc, also be a part of scam where a person has a residence but it's really just a mail stop with a suite no?
I mean when I was a globe trekker, I used a mailstop just outside of Boston & I paid the owner, to get my mail forwarded to various hotels around the continent. Otherwise, I'd have an overflowing mailbox at home which would pretty much tip off any burglar, that the resident was 'on the road' and not at home.
You were not lying to someone for financial gain.
I'm curious how that worked out with junk mail. Do you even get that crap at a mailstop and if so did they forward it?
The idea of having a ghost address is a service that already exists, though I don't know there are a lot ghost address vendors. But you could use one of those instead, and as they're started specifically to offer privacy, I think they'd be better equipped to protect your info than someone renting an ADU. Then just add a VPN and you're all set.
The cost for ghost address service is quite a bit cheaper than $300 a month, maybe a hundred a year.
Just cut the bullshit. Want me to quote your 'remote access in a shed' crap?
As long as you don't advertise the purpose it to commit fraud?
WineHorror1 saysAs long as you don't advertise the purpose it to commit fraud?
Important piece to understand when having this kind of discussion. Giving out a fake home address is legal as long as the intent is not to defraud anyone. There multiple court cases that support this.
Giving out a fake home address is legal as long as the intent is not to defraud anyone.
The question is whether or not a sublet to a time sharer is not a legal address?
You need to change your drivers license. If you don't, you're defrauding the government (whatever) and there are consequences for that.
People who have stalkers, and LEO's don't have their home address on their ID's.
... failing to update a license or registration is actually a crime in most states. Generally, the crime is a misdemeanor (punishable by less than a year in jail) and/or fines. Of course, the harshest of these penalties are rarely imposed absent blatant and knowing disregard of the law, but best not to chance fate.
Further, how can someone prove it's not your address? It can be done, but will take some effort. So again, if you're not defrauding anyone, unlikely it will ever come up.
WookieMan saysYou need to change your drivers license. If you don't, you're defrauding the government (whatever) and there are consequences for that.
Not true. People who have stalkers, and LEO's don't have their home address on their ID's. Again, if the purpose is privacy, there are several court cases supporting our rights.
« First « Previous Comments 48 - 81 of 81 Search these comments
Note: That means you have to actually fucking read through this and familiarize yourself with the details. Don't post critiques that only prove that you didn't do so. I will rip you a new asshole if you do.
But otherwise...rip away:
Can't wait until someone figures out a way to get people to rent their ADUs out to a firm that then sublets it to 50+ remote workers. That way, they can all say they work in Palo Alto, etc, pay CA income taxes...the works. They have official residence status and get paid Cali wages. But the ADU won't be physically used except on a first-come-first-served basis for when any of those subletters have to actually show up for one of the times they have to be in town. And it is not like the neighbors will notice this and complain to authorities, like they occasionally do when they notice apartments have 8 people living in them. There will only be one or maybe two people staying at the ADU at any given time, as is legal to do.
I would pay $300/month for that. Esp if I moved to a no-income tax state.
$300/month for 50 subletters = $15,000/month for the ADU. I am surprised homeowners haven't set up an LLC to do just that with their ADUs.
Again, before some of you pick holes in nothing because you didn't pay attention to the above details (which are everything):
ADU owner 'rents out' his unit to an LLC/Corp entity. Esp an out-of-state one, preferably. That firm then sublets the flying fuck out of it to 50+ remote workers. Think of this as sort of like a remote worker AirBnB. It's like a timeshare, where if the subletters want to actually use it, then they have to reserve it and pay a cleaning fee, etc to use it for a short period of time. All reserved up so other subletters can't use it when they want to? Easy, they go to Motel 6 while in town. Early bird gets the fucking worm, assholes!
This way the unit is legally rented out to one tenant as far as what the homeowner is on the hook to report or care about, technically. Even if the homeowner owns the tenant legal entity.
I suppose that the State would figure out that 50+ people 'live' there because of what they report on their tax forms and driver licenses, etc. But apartments with 10+ people also show up in those records (migrants...both legal and illegal) and they don't give a fuck about that.
Any other holes in this?