[新聞] 房租15K嫌太誇張? 台北恐怕不是你的家消失
1.媒體來源:HiNet新聞網
2.完整新聞標題:房租15K嫌太誇張? 台北恐怕不是你的家
3.完整新聞內文:
房子太貴買不起,不少無殼蝸牛選擇租屋過日子,不過租金到底多少錢才是民眾能接受的
合理價?有網友在PTT發表看法,認為房租到15K就「太誇張了」,根本不可能存到錢,還
反問「真的有人寄人籬下還租房這麼奢侈的嗎?」
房租一萬五嫌太奢侈? 網友:台北沒20K只能租爛房子。
網友mean在PTT發文,「台灣有很多無殼蝸牛,但房租租到15K太誇張了吧,扣掉生活費,
每個月最好存的到錢,這樣不就永遠不能買自己的房,人生還有啥意義?」話才講,立刻
遭到一票網友抨擊,「15K也在問,還是乖乖在家被爸媽庇蔭就好。」
根據內政部實價登錄,在台北出租家庭式住家,以松山區來說,30坪建物至少就要3萬元
上下, 有網友就說,「每個月3萬元是正常,2萬3是雙薪家庭的基本開銷」,還有人狠酸
「豪宅一個月管理費就要3萬了」、「台北沒20K就只能租破爛。」
不過還是有網友挺原PO,認為這真的是會讓低薪魯蛇族崩潰,「賺的錢都拿去養房東,台
灣青年以後也是要拿錢養老房東」,「 住在台北市不要太意外。」
4.完整新聞連結 (或短網址):
http://times.hinet.net/news/20189765
5.備註:
台北貧民窟的人真可憐...
反觀高雄3千能住透天別墅
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 218.173.158.114
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Gossiping/M.1494774044.A.FCD.html
→
05/14 23:00, , 1F
05/14 23:00, 1F
→
05/14 23:01, , 2F
05/14 23:01, 2F
→
05/14 23:01, , 3F
05/14 23:01, 3F
推
05/14 23:01, , 4F
05/14 23:01, 4F
推
05/14 23:01, , 5F
05/14 23:01, 5F
推
05/14 23:01, , 6F
05/14 23:01, 6F
推
05/14 23:01, , 7F
05/14 23:01, 7F
推
05/14 23:02, , 8F
05/14 23:02, 8F
推
05/14 23:02, , 9F
05/14 23:02, 9F
推
05/14 23:02, , 10F
05/14 23:02, 10F
→
05/14 23:02, , 11F
05/14 23:02, 11F
推
05/14 23:02, , 12F
05/14 23:02, 12F
噓
05/14 23:02, , 13F
05/14 23:02, 13F
推
05/14 23:02, , 14F
05/14 23:02, 14F
→
05/14 23:02, , 15F
05/14 23:02, 15F
→
05/14 23:02, , 16F
05/14 23:02, 16F
→
05/14 23:02, , 17F
05/14 23:02, 17F
→
05/14 23:03, , 18F
05/14 23:03, 18F
→
05/14 23:04, , 19F
05/14 23:04, 19F
推
05/14 23:04, , 20F
05/14 23:04, 20F
推
05/14 23:04, , 21F
05/14 23:04, 21F
噓
05/14 23:04, , 22F
05/14 23:04, 22F
推
05/14 23:06, , 23F
05/14 23:06, 23F
推
05/14 23:06, , 24F
05/14 23:06, 24F
推
05/14 23:08, , 25F
05/14 23:08, 25F
→
05/14 23:11, , 26F
05/14 23:11, 26F
推
05/14 23:12, , 27F
05/14 23:12, 27F
→
05/14 23:13, , 28F
05/14 23:13, 28F
噓
05/14 23:16, , 29F
05/14 23:16, 29F
→
05/14 23:18, , 30F
05/14 23:18, 30F
→
05/14 23:19, , 31F
05/14 23:19, 31F
→
05/14 23:19, , 32F
05/14 23:19, 32F
→
05/14 23:20, , 33F
05/14 23:20, 33F
→
05/14 23:21, , 34F
05/14 23:21, 34F
→
05/14 23:22, , 35F
05/14 23:22, 35F
推
05/14 23:23, , 36F
05/14 23:23, 36F
推
05/14 23:31, , 37F
05/14 23:31, 37F
推
05/14 23:33, , 38F
05/14 23:33, 38F
推
05/14 23:35, , 39F
05/14 23:35, 39F
推
05/14 23:38, , 40F
05/14 23:38, 40F
→
05/14 23:49, , 41F
05/14 23:49, 41F
推
05/14 23:58, , 42F
05/14 23:58, 42F
推
05/15 00:00, , 43F
05/15 00:00, 43F
推
05/15 00:01, , 44F
05/15 00:01, 44F
推
05/15 00:03, , 45F
05/15 00:03, 45F
推
05/15 00:15, , 46F
05/15 00:15, 46F
推
05/15 00:19, , 47F
05/15 00:19, 47F
噓
05/15 00:22, , 48F
05/15 00:22, 48F
噓
05/15 00:23, , 49F
05/15 00:23, 49F
推
05/15 00:39, , 50F
05/15 00:39, 50F
→
05/15 00:44, , 51F
05/15 00:44, 51F
噓
05/15 00:52, , 52F
05/15 00:52, 52F
推
05/15 00:59, , 53F
05/15 00:59, 53F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文 (最舊先):
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 3 篇):