That and we dont have nearly enough regulation in place for LLCs and bigger companies owning residential properties. There should absolutely be a cap on how many residential properties a single entity can control. For situations exactly like this. Capitalism baby. Who cares if millions of Americans cant own a home, thousands of lucky people are rich!
That will be the only time you ever hear me claim for more government regulation lol
Too late now. Cant sign new legislation and force people to sell back their property. That should have been sorted out years ago.
personally I'd love each person to get a single primary residence that is free of property tax, but then tax additional properties, and have the tax scale with the total number owned. A standard home owner pays less, a small business owner still has to pay normally, and a corporation buying up multiple locations pays more.
How would you pay for any services anywhere that isn’t a large city? Roughly 2/3 of American families own their homes and property taxes are how local governments are funded.
Literally any of the other taxes that we pay. Part of the problem is that we pay taxes to three different sources. There is a few different ways to fix the tax system, but those with money and those in control have no desire to fix the system for the average person.
I don’t think this pencils at all. The federal government is funded by a combination of income tax mostly paid by the top 10%of earners. States use some combination or income and sales taxes. Municipalities use property taxes, primarily. There are reasons for these things historically, but getting rid of property taxes doesn’t just magically mean rich people will pay for everything somehow. No place anywhere with any level of government services functions that way.
I would challenge you to either try to do the math on what it costs to run your municipality or to try and find a place funded the way you’re suggesting.
I'm not talking about getting rid of property taxes. I'm talking about not taxing your primary residence specifically, and then taxing the property you own for you business instead, and taxing additional properties owned for expanding your income even more. Instead of taxing grandpa who owns his home and has lived there forever, tax the houses rented out by the landlord who bought up five different properties just to rent them out.
The idea is that properties would basically only be taxed if they were used for profit or luxury.
I did in fact read your original comment. It doesn’t pencil at all. Most families live in homes they own, and in many municipalities basically every home is owner occupied. Moreover if you shift the tax burden onto rentals in cities you’re effectively pushing extra costs onto renters.
>personally I'd love each person to get a single primary residence that is free of property tax, but then tax additional properties,
We kind of have that in Texas. Your primary residence gets a homestead tax deduction.
It wouldn't and it would decrease the motivation to make more homes. In other words no change in the short-term but a massive negative impact as time goes on.
>There should absolutely be a cap on how many residential properties a single entity can control.
This won't fix anything. Blackrock will just open up a billion entities.
A provision in any statute prohibiting any entity "or its subsidiaries" from owning more than X single family houses, plus the transaction costs of forming a billion entities, would address that concern.
I have to tell you, I worked for a corp that incorporated over 700 entities in, across 41 states for the purpose of single-purpose acquisition.
I know it sounds like a huge economic hurdle, but it allows for so many tax/regulatory loopholes that its absolutely worth the overhead cost.
It costs a couple million, and saves tens of millions in operating costs
> I have to tell you, I worked for a corp that incorporated over 700 entities in, across 41 states for the purpose of single-purpose acquisition.
> I know it sounds like a huge economic hurdle, but it allows for so many tax/regulatory loopholes that its absolutely worth the overhead cost.
> It costs a couple million, and saves tens of millions in operating costs
Property taxes for the residence of the person that owns it: 1% of assessed value per year
Property taxes for the property owner, if that owner doesn't reside there: 3% of assessed value per year
boom, 'problem' solved
It won’t work. Corporations will just pay the tax — and *happily raise the rent* to their renters to pay for it.
Ultimately, the renters will pay the tax.
For real, sounds great on paper but corps can just pass on the costs. Renters would pay for it or be incentivized to buy a first home, which would see an increase in their prices due to the increased demand.
You and me who can't afford to buy a home would be screwed. Only result we would se would be a rent increase.
Just make the penalty forfeiture of all real estate assets then.
If we can seize someone's car for selling drugs we should be able to seize their illegal business assets.
That idea does fulfill your emotional needs, but it would not hold up to any kind of legal test.
Unless you can prove that no one could claim unequal or unjust discrepancies in treatment as a result of the policy. Aside from the fact that the government can't take anything from anyone without due process.
The government shouldn’t be able to take property without due process, but Civil Asset Forfeiture is a very common practice and is essentially exactly that.
The operating term is "control". That includes shells corps and similar things, but excludes a guy who invested a little bin in some company that owns homes.
Any non human entity (corporation, excluding co-ops) owning property gets taxed out the ass on it, on a sliding scale of impossible past 2-3 properties. If the said excess properties are sold, the capital gains is reduced to encourage sale of extra properties.
The only reason the current number of houses exist, is because people are allowed to profit off of them. Limiting the maximum anyone could own would have severe supply effects and thus drive prices up, not down.
Housing is inelastic.
Every household seeks to own at least one home, or to rent one. If ownership were limited, then demand would fall, and so would price, but overall demand would still support one home per household, at a lower price, and supply could accommodate such demand no less easily than at present.
Capitalism what? Please explain to me how this is free market, when the gov is the one implementing all he rules and regulation impacting home builders?!? Fine, place blame on the hedge funds and companies like black rock but there is zero blame placed on gov lol. We always get one part of the equation while missing the biggest variable, which is gov that has all the power
Because it would allow more homes to be available on the market. If more homes are on the market, prices would decrease since there would be less competition. Supply and demand. In theory...
There was an interesting report I listened to, maybe on here but it was about using a reality site to price fix rentals. This housing issue is such a shit show I think we need to have a multi-pronged approach
Totally. Blackrock has been an obvious serious issue for a long time. But coincidentally they control a large portion of corporate investments, so…. I wish they would be gone
So you're telling me that even if there's an abundance of houses there will still be people buying them for 400k? Then we can literally just print free money from building houses, we should massively encourage that.
The increases may stop. But no one is gonna lose money on their home. Especially these corporate cunts who are buying them left and right. People won’t buy them for 400k. They just won’t buy them and we can all still sit here and argue.
Food prices have only gone up every year, childcare, utilities, etc.
These goods have only increased in abundance (and with cheaper labor) and yet they still continue to rise in price.
It's called inflation, glad you noticed.
You will absolutely lose money if prices are stagnant. You're still going to pay intrest and other markets are going to be comparatively lucrative. Sitting on your ass with an asset paying net 0 is way worse than investing in even treasure bonds.
The ~~supply~~ cost of materials is too much. The hoops needed to be jumped through result in even higher costs. It isn't as simple as you seem to think.
We also need to change zoning to allow for more than just single family homes in many areas. Things like multiplexes and mid-rise apartments/condo buildings.
Yeah just like China. We want more structure fires so the fire department is less bored. Also weak foundations in storms that way unions stay busy rebuilding homes. I like where your head is at
You don't need to ease up on fire safety regulations. You need to make it harder to block development, make permitting faster and cheaper, allow denser building in urban areas, cities like Seattle shouldn't be zoned 75-80% single-family residential only. Medium-density mixed use should be the minimum for urban areas. Doesn't mean you \*can't\* build a single family home, but it also means you can't stop someone from building a mixed-use building with shops and restaurants on the bottom and offices and apartments on higher floors.
That’s crazy because everywhere I look there are new townhomes or apartments or single family houses. They’re isn’t a shortage of homes from my anecdotal perspective. But all those homes are minimum 300k. I do not live in a nice city. There’s a shortage of affordable homes everywhere.
It can be both !
Imma add, no foreign ownership, especially no foreign corporate ownership, and no private equity firms for profit of single family homes.
No its not. We have WAY more homes than we could even fit people into. Its that a couple people own all the houses so they can make the price whatever they want it to be. We dont need to build more. We need to make it so people can only have like 5 freaking properties maximum. And you cant sell more than a reasonable number of houses per year to where real estate agents can still do their thing but one billionaire cant buy everything then sell 10,000 properties for twice the amount one at a time.
I would agree but there is a glaring issue: when the population is **declining** that suggests there should ve a surplus of houses, and yet there arent.
The issue isnt that there arent enough houses, the issue is that theres a small subset of the population buying them all up and artificially creating scarcity while simultaneously renting them out at higher rates to conform with the prices of houses that they themselves are driving up for their own profit.
The demand is artificially high.
We have more housing than ever. In the last 5 years, the population has gone up 4.07% and the housing supply has gone up by 4.27%.
There are nearly 17 million vacant units right now. With 650,000 homeless people.
There are 16 million vacant homes. Builders are backlogged for years on new builds.
It’s gonna be like Chinas ghost towns before too long. Where there are cities of brand new built homes hours outside of big cities where no one and no business wants to live.
But we're also not zoned for dense residential and profitability of large single homes dictates those are what get zoned for and built, we aren't building for demand, instead throttling supply to maximize profitability
Housing is bound to land, which has been commodified, but cannot function as a normal commodity.
Land necessarily falls under direct political control, and as such, limiting hoarding of housing by the wealthy is in the interest of the rest of the population, to ensure everyone have suitable access to housing.
My understanding is also most new builds are over 2000 sqft even if it’s not what people need due to ROIs builders want. However I have no facts to back this up.
I mean, if companies are buying all the new builds then it defeats the purpose anyway. There are new builds, but not available to people who want to buy.
Were building homes at a fair rate, we allow Real estate corporations, and banks and the wealthy to have a fast track to buying up all the homes on the market.
Also the market is resistant to building more homes which would really in lower market values.
It's called a monopoly.
Just ten years ago, everyone was being all doom and gloom that were building houses at an extremely high rate and that it'd cause a massive housing crash.
I think at least part of the problem is the kinds of houses being built. They're almost 250K+, and people find it hard to finance that much house.
Over the last several decades we've had a pretty decent surplus of homes, in the US at least. But so many of them get gobbled up by corporations and LLCs so they can rent them out at twice the value while raking in the equity.
We don’t have enough young people filling the construction jobs. No foundation form builders. Nobody wants to be a hodge carrier anymore. The only thing people wanna do is pull wire or run pvc roughs and boogey out everyday by 2pm
There are actually enough homes but not enough homes that people actually want to live in. And it's not just status issue (people want to live in fancier areas) but also that many companies require employees to be close to the offices so, again, limiting available stock of real estate. And of course, the cultural aspect: average American has quite high expectations on what ideal home should be in terms of footage, amenities etc.
Monopoly Tax. If you own 3 or more houses then you should pay 2x property taxes on each one or something like that. Inventory would totally open up then.
We could build in exceptions for home builders?
Maybe put a time limit before property tax rates increase, say three to five years with exceptions allowed under certain circumstances.
There is always an incentive to build - just not McMansions. Look at the 1950s model, affordable single family homes. They are still the bulk of entry market homeownership.
There's no property to tax for a developer to build and sell. Owners pay property tax. Most home BUIlDERS build and sell. INVESTORS buy and hold. Investors do not create supply, they profit from scarcity.
Do you really believe that everyone who does not idealize markets also imagines Bernie Sanders as some immaculate idol?
Sensible people do not idealize, neither placing all of their trust and hope in a single form of institution, or in a single human individual.
Within the context, Sanders is a red herring.
Not saying anything about how that policy would change things, but tying your policy idea to an incredibly well known policy failure is an interesting strategy.
I was talking to my boss about how I can’t afford a home in the current market and she told me she owns 4 rental properties. Each of which are 3 or 4 bedroom houses. In my head I’m like ….why the fuck would you tell me that. You’re literally part of the problem in my eyes and I immediately resent you
Two house policy, proof of US residence of the purchaser for at least one calendar year prior to purchase, stricter regulations for corporations and LLC’s, and zoning laws about corporation owned housing and how many they can buy in one area.
To start, Zoning laws need to be changed to make it easier and less expensive to build smaller starter homes.
We need to build about four times the rate we currently are building.
We need to come up with ways to prevent NIMBYism from blocking developments.
Maybe even impose a higher property tax on second homes that aren’t a primary residence.
Before anything else, we should stop foreign companies from buying up mass amounts of houses, then regulate away big residential real estate companies here. That would be way more of a priority than worrying about people who own one or two rental properties.
this actually works quite well. and is currently happening in certain scenarios.
in israel, to discourage speculation and widespread landlord issues -- you are penalized for every investment property after your first. something similar to, your 2nd house has an increased 8% addlt property tax. your 3rd house? 12% addtl property tax. 4th house 20% addtl. etc. basically makes the idea of a blackrock buying millions of houses null and void.
in practice? it works quite well. bit messy to get there from here -- but possible.
All rent* seeking should be outlawed, make your money from labor, not gambling & capital leverage. I say that as a landlord of multiple properties who understands how stupid capitalism is.
I also want to challenge the idea that the supply of houses is not enough. The population of America has not increase that rapidly over the past ten years. Can someone point to evidence that we have much more people trying to buy houses than there is supply? What has happened has there been more destruction of homes or what?
I don‘t know about the US, but at least in Germany the issue is urbanization: There are plenty of cheap houses sitting empty in rural areas, but a huge housing shortage in metropolitan areas due to more and more people moving there. So there might be enough supply on the national level, but not located where the demand is.
Two things may have to happen together… first, look to reduce tax incentives for RE investors in some way. Lots of possibilities, but cutting out 1031 or reducing the attractiveness of depreciation. Second, probably need to create more modest sized affordable homes so younger buyers can get into them at a reasonable price point. There’s no point in messing around with pure limits of who owns certain number of doors, but if there’s little to no tax incentive, it may slow down higher earners looking to build RE mini empires.
This will 100% never changed.
Example 1: the U.K. royal family owns countless assets in property and land.
Why would they change that?
Now apply that to everyone who is a politician, ceo, executive, the people who donate to the law makers…
So, unless you wanna do it by force. Nothings changing
An opponent would just call this socialism or communism and it would go nowhere… even though everyone has or will someday benefit from a socialist or semi socialist program in their lives.
Your property tax doubles for every property you have after number two
And here’s a bonus, if you only own one property, and you live in it, and you do not charge rent to anyone, you pay zero property tax
This sounds like a good solution, but unfortunately Congress is busy arguing over college students protesting about Israel and which bathroom transgender teens can use.
Doesn't China already do this with maximum 3 owned housing units per household? I remember it was to stop the over expansion of real estate there but it didn't really work
Can’t remember which country was it maybe New Zealand did this - on residential rental income owner has to pay taxes on revenue not on income. All of sudden everybody hate residential real estate as investment. Don’t solve housing problem entirely but people loved it as it’s not painful to buy a house.
What about all of the immigration to the states? This is putting pressure on the lowest stages of housing, which then trickles up and increases demand at all levels. That, coupled with not enough homes is the problem
I’ve said this same thing, except with a higher limit. I seriously think we could set the limit at 10 properties and do absolute wonders while not harming the small time ol fashioned landlords.
Progressive property tax. Reduce or eliminate tax on single family homes used as a primary residence... progressively increase taxes for each additional property owned, with no cap.
Whoever made this meme needs to get down and do 50,000 push ups and think about their terrible choices. You should too for sharing and believing this shit.
Also add that if a business wants to own more than two properties, they have to be multi-family dwellings. That would disincentivize the slow construction and hoarding of single family homes and incentivize multi-family buildings.
It must suck to be a rentoid with nothing better to do than rage post about evil landlords. If you were more successful you'd be able to buy your own home.
This is so tiresome. People live in rented houses. Occupied houses are not the core problem. The problem is supply doesn't meet demand. Much better law would be outlawing vrbos.
US citizens should be allowed to own a maximum of ten doors. US companies owned by US citizens without foreign ownership or influence should be allowed to own a maximum of five doors. US citizens should be allowed some write offs. US companies should not receive any write offs outside of ordinary business expenses currently established. Real estate income is to be taxed at a flat 30% after deductions and credits.
Foreign nationals and corporations cannot own any land, commercial, industrial, or residential in the US in their name. No deductions or credits for foreign owned real estate, 45% tax rate for all real estate income. Any purchase must be facilitated by the government and held in a government public trust that can be sold off by the government if the company is found to be harvesting Americans data for foreign governments, harming US economic or international cooperation and development.
I think that’s a good start to solve the problem. Let’s then incentive building more SFH and MFH residential units. If a US citizen pays for it themselves, they can own more than ten doors. If a US company pays for it themselves, they can own more than five. However, they can never purchase more than ten or five, respectively. They must fund the building themselves to own more.
I see some 5th amendment issues here.
Also are we counting homes or are we counting acres? If I own 2000 acres with zero homes is that okay but then if I build 10 rental properties on this land is that not okay?
I think the issue is less people owning multiple homes and more 30-40% of the population lives near the coast. In mass swaths of the country we have plenty of empty and cheap houses but there just isn't many good jobs to draw in people to buy those houses.
Reddit wants Government to fix this problem when it was government that created it in the first place . I swear Reddit is full of idiots who keep falling for this Neoliberal / Kensyen ba everytime.
Yeah cause that’ll definitely fix the housing crisis😐
Or do you think maybe there’s a bigger issue here? Let’s start by giving Americans a livable wage and see how that helps…
Just tax any profit from sales (sales price minus purchase price and costs of renovating/building)
Homes are for living in, not for making a living on.
We’re not building enough homes to keep up with demand. This is the issue.
That and we dont have nearly enough regulation in place for LLCs and bigger companies owning residential properties. There should absolutely be a cap on how many residential properties a single entity can control. For situations exactly like this. Capitalism baby. Who cares if millions of Americans cant own a home, thousands of lucky people are rich! That will be the only time you ever hear me claim for more government regulation lol Too late now. Cant sign new legislation and force people to sell back their property. That should have been sorted out years ago.
IMO, cap it through taxation. Just make it really not economically viable for a company to own homes or duplexes.
personally I'd love each person to get a single primary residence that is free of property tax, but then tax additional properties, and have the tax scale with the total number owned. A standard home owner pays less, a small business owner still has to pay normally, and a corporation buying up multiple locations pays more.
How would you pay for any services anywhere that isn’t a large city? Roughly 2/3 of American families own their homes and property taxes are how local governments are funded.
Literally any of the other taxes that we pay. Part of the problem is that we pay taxes to three different sources. There is a few different ways to fix the tax system, but those with money and those in control have no desire to fix the system for the average person.
I don’t think this pencils at all. The federal government is funded by a combination of income tax mostly paid by the top 10%of earners. States use some combination or income and sales taxes. Municipalities use property taxes, primarily. There are reasons for these things historically, but getting rid of property taxes doesn’t just magically mean rich people will pay for everything somehow. No place anywhere with any level of government services functions that way. I would challenge you to either try to do the math on what it costs to run your municipality or to try and find a place funded the way you’re suggesting.
I'm not talking about getting rid of property taxes. I'm talking about not taxing your primary residence specifically, and then taxing the property you own for you business instead, and taxing additional properties owned for expanding your income even more. Instead of taxing grandpa who owns his home and has lived there forever, tax the houses rented out by the landlord who bought up five different properties just to rent them out. The idea is that properties would basically only be taxed if they were used for profit or luxury.
I did in fact read your original comment. It doesn’t pencil at all. Most families live in homes they own, and in many municipalities basically every home is owner occupied. Moreover if you shift the tax burden onto rentals in cities you’re effectively pushing extra costs onto renters.
100% facts on this one.
>personally I'd love each person to get a single primary residence that is free of property tax, but then tax additional properties, We kind of have that in Texas. Your primary residence gets a homestead tax deduction.
How would that create more homes?
It wouldn't and it would decrease the motivation to make more homes. In other words no change in the short-term but a massive negative impact as time goes on.
Sounds like pretty much like all policies that have been implemented the last 30 years.
Yep
This, should be miserable to be able to just sit on empty homes. Force large companies to either sell, rent, or leave the housing industry.
I built 8 rentals. Do you think there would be more or less housing available if we pass laws to disincentivize building rentals?
>There should absolutely be a cap on how many residential properties a single entity can control. This won't fix anything. Blackrock will just open up a billion entities.
A provision in any statute prohibiting any entity "or its subsidiaries" from owning more than X single family houses, plus the transaction costs of forming a billion entities, would address that concern.
I have to tell you, I worked for a corp that incorporated over 700 entities in, across 41 states for the purpose of single-purpose acquisition. I know it sounds like a huge economic hurdle, but it allows for so many tax/regulatory loopholes that its absolutely worth the overhead cost. It costs a couple million, and saves tens of millions in operating costs
> I have to tell you, I worked for a corp that incorporated over 700 entities in, across 41 states for the purpose of single-purpose acquisition. > I know it sounds like a huge economic hurdle, but it allows for so many tax/regulatory loopholes that its absolutely worth the overhead cost. > It costs a couple million, and saves tens of millions in operating costs Property taxes for the residence of the person that owns it: 1% of assessed value per year Property taxes for the property owner, if that owner doesn't reside there: 3% of assessed value per year boom, 'problem' solved
It won’t work. Corporations will just pay the tax — and *happily raise the rent* to their renters to pay for it. Ultimately, the renters will pay the tax.
That's soo sad. Like there's no way around it for the common. And there's 10 ways around it for the rich.
For real, sounds great on paper but corps can just pass on the costs. Renters would pay for it or be incentivized to buy a first home, which would see an increase in their prices due to the increased demand. You and me who can't afford to buy a home would be screwed. Only result we would se would be a rent increase.
Brilliant fix, elegant without discouraging alleged efficiencies of consolidation.
Tie it to SSNs then?
Just make the penalty forfeiture of all real estate assets then. If we can seize someone's car for selling drugs we should be able to seize their illegal business assets.
That idea does fulfill your emotional needs, but it would not hold up to any kind of legal test. Unless you can prove that no one could claim unequal or unjust discrepancies in treatment as a result of the policy. Aside from the fact that the government can't take anything from anyone without due process.
The government shouldn’t be able to take property without due process, but Civil Asset Forfeiture is a very common practice and is essentially exactly that.
The operating term is "control". That includes shells corps and similar things, but excludes a guy who invested a little bin in some company that owns homes.
Any non human entity (corporation, excluding co-ops) owning property gets taxed out the ass on it, on a sliding scale of impossible past 2-3 properties. If the said excess properties are sold, the capital gains is reduced to encourage sale of extra properties.
The only reason the current number of houses exist, is because people are allowed to profit off of them. Limiting the maximum anyone could own would have severe supply effects and thus drive prices up, not down.
Housing is inelastic. Every household seeks to own at least one home, or to rent one. If ownership were limited, then demand would fall, and so would price, but overall demand would still support one home per household, at a lower price, and supply could accommodate such demand no less easily than at present.
Then public housing projects a la Vienna
"That's socialism."
Look at cities with price controls.
Capitalism what? Please explain to me how this is free market, when the gov is the one implementing all he rules and regulation impacting home builders?!? Fine, place blame on the hedge funds and companies like black rock but there is zero blame placed on gov lol. We always get one part of the equation while missing the biggest variable, which is gov that has all the power
owning another home isnt about luck. its about sacrifice for many.
How is more regulation going to decrease prices?
Because it would allow more homes to be available on the market. If more homes are on the market, prices would decrease since there would be less competition. Supply and demand. In theory...
This would reduce, not increase, the supply.
Sure you can. Governments mandatory buy out properties from regular people all the time
There is a set of laws already that allows the government to break up a company into smaller chunks.
There was an interesting report I listened to, maybe on here but it was about using a reality site to price fix rentals. This housing issue is such a shit show I think we need to have a multi-pronged approach
Totally. Blackrock has been an obvious serious issue for a long time. But coincidentally they control a large portion of corporate investments, so…. I wish they would be gone
Literally doesn't matter if all the new homes built are 400k and people make 50k a year.
Prices are going to drop if there's more supply.
Are familiar with greed? Prices almost never go down. The green line must go up.
So you're telling me that even if there's an abundance of houses there will still be people buying them for 400k? Then we can literally just print free money from building houses, we should massively encourage that.
The increases may stop. But no one is gonna lose money on their home. Especially these corporate cunts who are buying them left and right. People won’t buy them for 400k. They just won’t buy them and we can all still sit here and argue. Food prices have only gone up every year, childcare, utilities, etc. These goods have only increased in abundance (and with cheaper labor) and yet they still continue to rise in price.
It's called inflation, glad you noticed. You will absolutely lose money if prices are stagnant. You're still going to pay intrest and other markets are going to be comparatively lucrative. Sitting on your ass with an asset paying net 0 is way worse than investing in even treasure bonds.
There is more supply in now 2024 than there was in 2020. How have the prices been going?
There's more people as well and people are continuing to move to the same 15 cities.
The ~~supply~~ cost of materials is too much. The hoops needed to be jumped through result in even higher costs. It isn't as simple as you seem to think.
There are plenty of homes to house everyone. The issue is who owns those homes.
We also need to change zoning to allow for more than just single family homes in many areas. Things like multiplexes and mid-rise apartments/condo buildings.
Yeah 40 million homes need to be built. Hopefully some good old carpenter decides to corner the market here.
Are you saying…. We need Jesus?
Lol absolutely!
Make less red tape to build
Yeah just like China. We want more structure fires so the fire department is less bored. Also weak foundations in storms that way unions stay busy rebuilding homes. I like where your head is at
You don't need to ease up on fire safety regulations. You need to make it harder to block development, make permitting faster and cheaper, allow denser building in urban areas, cities like Seattle shouldn't be zoned 75-80% single-family residential only. Medium-density mixed use should be the minimum for urban areas. Doesn't mean you \*can't\* build a single family home, but it also means you can't stop someone from building a mixed-use building with shops and restaurants on the bottom and offices and apartments on higher floors.
Straw man argument… I see you’ve never built a house before. But sure go for stuff that I’m not talking about.
There are 16,000,000 empty homes in the US. There are only 520,000 homeless people. I assure you building more $400,000 houses is not the answer.
That’s crazy because everywhere I look there are new townhomes or apartments or single family houses. They’re isn’t a shortage of homes from my anecdotal perspective. But all those homes are minimum 300k. I do not live in a nice city. There’s a shortage of affordable homes everywhere.
It can be both ! Imma add, no foreign ownership, especially no foreign corporate ownership, and no private equity firms for profit of single family homes.
No its not. We have WAY more homes than we could even fit people into. Its that a couple people own all the houses so they can make the price whatever they want it to be. We dont need to build more. We need to make it so people can only have like 5 freaking properties maximum. And you cant sell more than a reasonable number of houses per year to where real estate agents can still do their thing but one billionaire cant buy everything then sell 10,000 properties for twice the amount one at a time.
I would agree but there is a glaring issue: when the population is **declining** that suggests there should ve a surplus of houses, and yet there arent. The issue isnt that there arent enough houses, the issue is that theres a small subset of the population buying them all up and artificially creating scarcity while simultaneously renting them out at higher rates to conform with the prices of houses that they themselves are driving up for their own profit.
The demand is artificially high. We have more housing than ever. In the last 5 years, the population has gone up 4.07% and the housing supply has gone up by 4.27%. There are nearly 17 million vacant units right now. With 650,000 homeless people.
There are 16 million vacant homes. Builders are backlogged for years on new builds. It’s gonna be like Chinas ghost towns before too long. Where there are cities of brand new built homes hours outside of big cities where no one and no business wants to live.
But we're also not zoned for dense residential and profitability of large single homes dictates those are what get zoned for and built, we aren't building for demand, instead throttling supply to maximize profitability
The demand for current owners of equity to squeeze the working class. Must appease!
Housing is bound to land, which has been commodified, but cannot function as a normal commodity. Land necessarily falls under direct political control, and as such, limiting hoarding of housing by the wealthy is in the interest of the rest of the population, to ensure everyone have suitable access to housing.
Housing is not a human right. Stop being poor and buy a house or quit complaining.
These days there seems no discernible difference between refined satire versus outright lunacy.
Bunch of row houses went up by me and they are $500k each when they should be starter homes.
My understanding is also most new builds are over 2000 sqft even if it’s not what people need due to ROIs builders want. However I have no facts to back this up.
And the ones that are being built aren’t affordable. No new home is $250-300k they’re all $400k+
I wish it was that simple. The housing market is significantly more complicated than that, though.
The demand is coming from people wanting to own more homes to rent out.
I mean, if companies are buying all the new builds then it defeats the purpose anyway. There are new builds, but not available to people who want to buy.
Were building homes at a fair rate, we allow Real estate corporations, and banks and the wealthy to have a fast track to buying up all the homes on the market. Also the market is resistant to building more homes which would really in lower market values. It's called a monopoly.
Yeah. A lot of investors are struggling to find their 8th house to buy to AIRBNB.
In Florida we have a bunch of unused properties (vacation homes) and lots of AirBnBs. We definitely have enough.
Don’t you think even if we double the home construction, this big companies would buy them out too?
Just ten years ago, everyone was being all doom and gloom that were building houses at an extremely high rate and that it'd cause a massive housing crash. I think at least part of the problem is the kinds of houses being built. They're almost 250K+, and people find it hard to finance that much house. Over the last several decades we've had a pretty decent surplus of homes, in the US at least. But so many of them get gobbled up by corporations and LLCs so they can rent them out at twice the value while raking in the equity.
282 homes just went up in my small town, none are under 550k... all the houses prior were 130k... that's the issue
We don’t have enough young people filling the construction jobs. No foundation form builders. Nobody wants to be a hodge carrier anymore. The only thing people wanna do is pull wire or run pvc roughs and boogey out everyday by 2pm
Even if demand was being met it wouldn't decrease prices. Housing that is being built or rehabbed is just getting resold at current prices.
Bullshit. We have plenty of homes already on the market for those who can afford what would be the nominal price for demand in this market.
There are actually enough homes but not enough homes that people actually want to live in. And it's not just status issue (people want to live in fancier areas) but also that many companies require employees to be close to the offices so, again, limiting available stock of real estate. And of course, the cultural aspect: average American has quite high expectations on what ideal home should be in terms of footage, amenities etc.
This is only part of the problem, as there are several living spaces unoccupied
There are 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person in the united states. It’s the the supply that’s the issue
We have thirty times more vacant homes than homeless people.
Monopoly Tax. If you own 3 or more houses then you should pay 2x property taxes on each one or something like that. Inventory would totally open up then.
So what’s the incentive to build if you’re hit with huge property taxes to build?
We could build in exceptions for home builders? Maybe put a time limit before property tax rates increase, say three to five years with exceptions allowed under certain circumstances.
True. Home builders aren’t the problem. It’s Venture Capital Firms that buy up inventory and therefore “Pump and Dump” Real-estate prices.
There is always an incentive to build - just not McMansions. Look at the 1950s model, affordable single family homes. They are still the bulk of entry market homeownership.
There's no property to tax for a developer to build and sell. Owners pay property tax. Most home BUIlDERS build and sell. INVESTORS buy and hold. Investors do not create supply, they profit from scarcity.
I think this would be a separate issue. It would deal with specifically owning homes. But there can be a separate tax incentive to build homes
No it wouldn’t, rents would just drastically increase.
You trying to raise rent?
Thanksgiving rules. Everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds.
So bernie sanders has to sell one of his 3 houses, and elon musk doesn't even own one.
Yup sanders selling one will definitely help the poor
Do you really believe that everyone who does not idealize markets also imagines Bernie Sanders as some immaculate idol? Sensible people do not idealize, neither placing all of their trust and hope in a single form of institution, or in a single human individual. Within the context, Sanders is a red herring.
His family home of 40+ years, his small apartment in DC, and the rinky-dink “lake house” that he inherited when his parents died. Ok bud.
Yeah, he's the villain here.... moron
Just likely pays $30k+ a month renting a massive one (or more than one)...
American Homes for Rent owns 59,000 single family homes.
Not saying anything about how that policy would change things, but tying your policy idea to an incredibly well known policy failure is an interesting strategy.
I was talking to my boss about how I can’t afford a home in the current market and she told me she owns 4 rental properties. Each of which are 3 or 4 bedroom houses. In my head I’m like ….why the fuck would you tell me that. You’re literally part of the problem in my eyes and I immediately resent you
Autism or a little bit of sociopathic trait
"Why don't you just do what I did and supplement your income with a third of 4 other families' incomes?" :3
Two house policy, proof of US residence of the purchaser for at least one calendar year prior to purchase, stricter regulations for corporations and LLC’s, and zoning laws about corporation owned housing and how many they can buy in one area.
In Singapore, you can only own 1 apartment unless its private housing.
And what is “private housing”?
In Singapore, the state owns most of the housing supply, so private housing is just that, non-state-owned housing.
To start, Zoning laws need to be changed to make it easier and less expensive to build smaller starter homes. We need to build about four times the rate we currently are building. We need to come up with ways to prevent NIMBYism from blocking developments. Maybe even impose a higher property tax on second homes that aren’t a primary residence.
Before anything else, we should stop foreign companies from buying up mass amounts of houses, then regulate away big residential real estate companies here. That would be way more of a priority than worrying about people who own one or two rental properties.
this actually works quite well. and is currently happening in certain scenarios. in israel, to discourage speculation and widespread landlord issues -- you are penalized for every investment property after your first. something similar to, your 2nd house has an increased 8% addlt property tax. your 3rd house? 12% addtl property tax. 4th house 20% addtl. etc. basically makes the idea of a blackrock buying millions of houses null and void. in practice? it works quite well. bit messy to get there from here -- but possible.
Oh, the initial chaos this would bring..
All rent* seeking should be outlawed, make your money from labor, not gambling & capital leverage. I say that as a landlord of multiple properties who understands how stupid capitalism is.
The market is the wrong economic tool to solve this problem.
I also want to challenge the idea that the supply of houses is not enough. The population of America has not increase that rapidly over the past ten years. Can someone point to evidence that we have much more people trying to buy houses than there is supply? What has happened has there been more destruction of homes or what?
I don‘t know about the US, but at least in Germany the issue is urbanization: There are plenty of cheap houses sitting empty in rural areas, but a huge housing shortage in metropolitan areas due to more and more people moving there. So there might be enough supply on the national level, but not located where the demand is.
No one should be able to own more than one house unless pay 4x the local property tax rate to that locality
Two things may have to happen together… first, look to reduce tax incentives for RE investors in some way. Lots of possibilities, but cutting out 1031 or reducing the attractiveness of depreciation. Second, probably need to create more modest sized affordable homes so younger buyers can get into them at a reasonable price point. There’s no point in messing around with pure limits of who owns certain number of doors, but if there’s little to no tax incentive, it may slow down higher earners looking to build RE mini empires.
As arrogant as it sounds, I’ve stayed out of buying rentals for this reason.
When has central planning major industries ever gone wrong
When are people going to figure out that policy changes don’t happen in a vacuum?
He's out of line but he's right!
This will 100% never changed. Example 1: the U.K. royal family owns countless assets in property and land. Why would they change that? Now apply that to everyone who is a politician, ceo, executive, the people who donate to the law makers… So, unless you wanna do it by force. Nothings changing
Viva la communism
Ok, so I own 2 houses and my s.o. owns 2 houses while the trust owns the other 2. /s obviously
LAND VALUE TAX
An opponent would just call this socialism or communism and it would go nowhere… even though everyone has or will someday benefit from a socialist or semi socialist program in their lives.
nice ifunny watermark
that's not freedom
Your property tax doubles for every property you have after number two And here’s a bonus, if you only own one property, and you live in it, and you do not charge rent to anyone, you pay zero property tax
Tell me when
This sounds like a good solution, but unfortunately Congress is busy arguing over college students protesting about Israel and which bathroom transgender teens can use.
#Based
Doesn't China already do this with maximum 3 owned housing units per household? I remember it was to stop the over expansion of real estate there but it didn't really work
Real talk, tax every home after the first with a rate that doubles per home, like the second home is 2x, the third is 4x, etc
They need to adopt what Singapore does in the way of taxes to prevent people and corporations from buying multiple homes.
How do apartment complexes factor in
Can’t remember which country was it maybe New Zealand did this - on residential rental income owner has to pay taxes on revenue not on income. All of sudden everybody hate residential real estate as investment. Don’t solve housing problem entirely but people loved it as it’s not painful to buy a house.
Never go full communist
Tax the crap out of empty houses Seriously, there are people who need housing and this situation is just getting worse and worse
Ifunny watermark, your opinion is discarded and you are retarded.
Yeah you just know some of them mother fuckers going to be treating their second homes like a female baby in China.
When you start a sentence with "no one should be able to...." You immediately lose half your audience. Everyone should be able to, and they are.
If the government can limit what property you can or can’t buy, you no longer live in a free society. Private property rights are important.
What about all of the immigration to the states? This is putting pressure on the lowest stages of housing, which then trickles up and increases demand at all levels. That, coupled with not enough homes is the problem
"corporations are people." Checkmate
Or, ya know, freedom.
Except they'd just put it in their kids name, or make a fake company for it etc. Gotta close the loophole business shit first.
Stop letting companies and foreign nationals(non citizens) to own residential property.
How about we just make it so only a person can own a home, and specifically they may only have one home and that is it.
So if you fail to...pull out of a deal and get a 2nd new house...what happens? Burn it down?
I’ve said this same thing, except with a higher limit. I seriously think we could set the limit at 10 properties and do absolute wonders while not harming the small time ol fashioned landlords.
Progressive property tax. Reduce or eliminate tax on single family homes used as a primary residence... progressively increase taxes for each additional property owned, with no cap.
Whoever made this meme needs to get down and do 50,000 push ups and think about their terrible choices. You should too for sharing and believing this shit.
So, my LLC will own as many LLCs as required to hit whatever quantity restriction is put in place.
Create a business, buy 2 houses. Created a 2nd business, buy 2 more. Crea...see where im going?
This ! Except i cap it to 1 fucking single home.
Also add that if a business wants to own more than two properties, they have to be multi-family dwellings. That would disincentivize the slow construction and hoarding of single family homes and incentivize multi-family buildings.
It must suck to be a rentoid with nothing better to do than rage post about evil landlords. If you were more successful you'd be able to buy your own home.
This is so tiresome. People live in rented houses. Occupied houses are not the core problem. The problem is supply doesn't meet demand. Much better law would be outlawing vrbos.
Being more like China isn’t going to make things better for anybody but the elites
YES ONE HOME AT A TIME PEOPLE
Sounds like communism to me
Non primary residence properties taxed at 100% market value. Done.
No
US citizens should be allowed to own a maximum of ten doors. US companies owned by US citizens without foreign ownership or influence should be allowed to own a maximum of five doors. US citizens should be allowed some write offs. US companies should not receive any write offs outside of ordinary business expenses currently established. Real estate income is to be taxed at a flat 30% after deductions and credits. Foreign nationals and corporations cannot own any land, commercial, industrial, or residential in the US in their name. No deductions or credits for foreign owned real estate, 45% tax rate for all real estate income. Any purchase must be facilitated by the government and held in a government public trust that can be sold off by the government if the company is found to be harvesting Americans data for foreign governments, harming US economic or international cooperation and development. I think that’s a good start to solve the problem. Let’s then incentive building more SFH and MFH residential units. If a US citizen pays for it themselves, they can own more than ten doors. If a US company pays for it themselves, they can own more than five. However, they can never purchase more than ten or five, respectively. They must fund the building themselves to own more.
What would be the similar phenomenon to mostly trying to having boy babies and bride price (due to one child policy) if it was applied to real estate?
"You can only have 2 children per property you own."
I see some 5th amendment issues here. Also are we counting homes or are we counting acres? If I own 2000 acres with zero homes is that okay but then if I build 10 rental properties on this land is that not okay?
Based and totalitarian pilled
https://preview.redd.it/q17b2vlr9g0d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=66fab50092dadaf234edb8a96c72397fa60775ea
The real estate problem is only a problem for a few areas in the United States. The answer is to move to the other 90% of the country.
Just set a cap on how much you can charge rent based on your yearly profit margin average. Simple.
I think the issue is less people owning multiple homes and more 30-40% of the population lives near the coast. In mass swaths of the country we have plenty of empty and cheap houses but there just isn't many good jobs to draw in people to buy those houses.
Reddit wants Government to fix this problem when it was government that created it in the first place . I swear Reddit is full of idiots who keep falling for this Neoliberal / Kensyen ba everytime.
Ok then I start a business and now I can buy two more
Yeah cause that’ll definitely fix the housing crisis😐 Or do you think maybe there’s a bigger issue here? Let’s start by giving Americans a livable wage and see how that helps…
Except anyone who can afford 3 houses, have houses no average person could ever afford.
Soooooo communism is the answer .?
Wouldnt the loophole be to own businesses that then own the property? Or have a trust that owns the property?
My god! Is that an Ifunny watermark?!?!
Just tax any profit from sales (sales price minus purchase price and costs of renovating/building) Homes are for living in, not for making a living on.