No, that's not the case. I'd have to pay the extra rent regardless. Rats! I'm going to miss that one--I'm going to be in Anaheim for the NAMM show--part of the self-employment gig. Indeed. And that's exactly what I'm doing when this lease is up. The rental market is finally flattening slightly, and given the nature of my apartment, there's absolutely no way my rent should have been raised--the property's falling apart. If I'd had adequate income last year, I would've moved out then. No, the increase would have been there regardless, and it's just as illegitimate, one way or the other. What I was attempting to do was put the tax cut within scale. I make the national median--50% of folks make more money than I do, 50% less. I'm as average as you can get. The tax cut gave me LESS money than a $50 raise in my rent. My landlord obviously got a significant amount more than I did. Under the "trickle down" theory, some benefit should come to me from the tax cut. In fact, it's not a "trickle down", it's a "torrent up". More of my money goes to my landlord, who in turn gets more benefit out of my money, and then does nothing in return. THAT's the way it works in real life. Folks with more money hold onto more of it, folks with less money get more taken. Just don't portray it as some kind of benefit, rather than outright thievery. That's all I'm asking.
Dante, do me a favor and delete this thread, please. I changed my e-mail address, and that seems to have made things really screwy for the short term.