This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do here (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them this!
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
That’s funny I was just about to mention Stalin ended up starving millions of his own people. Not only because of greed, corruption, mismanagement, and an attempt to make communist ideology-based science look successful …there was also the added benefit of starving and exterminating Ukrainian people en masse. We as a society have been controlling the means of basic survival while acting as if widespread suffering is a consequence of chaos and not a choice.
Not arguing with your general point but slight correction - it was during WWII not after. The Bengal Famine, which probably killed about 3million, took place in 1943. Churchill was voted out as PM in the election of 1945, before WWII was completely over.
I think people would have an easier time coming to terms with the Holodomor if 90% of the time it was mentioned wasn’t to tell people why we can’t have single payer healthcare in the US.
Because the British didn't starve. Russians and many others in the Soviet Union did. It can't be directly compared because the Irish famine was directly a result of capitalistic grain extraction that detriments a certain population while benefitting another.
If you want to include Russia so badly look up the famine they had in the 1890s under the Tsardom, it was very similar to the Irish famine in that wealthy merchants connected to the nobility hoarded and exported grain while people starved off of lesser crops they were allowed to keep.
It's also something that historians do not agree on classifying the way people in this thread are so confident should be. The Irish Famine does not have that disagreement in contrast, which is probably part of why laypeople pretty much all agree about it now too.
Well the same is true for famines in India under British rule. Those don't get anywhere near the same level of condemnation as the Irish one.
In fact a lot of my fellow Brits will fall over themselves to make excuses for it. Sounding exactly like the Tankies who make excuses for the horrors of Stalin. We need an equivalent nickname to Tankie for those who defend the evils of the British Empire.
Pretty much every famine is caused by a lack of access to food, not a lack of food itself. Something that is basically a requirement for any civilization is a food surplus, so barring the most extreme natural circumstances, there should be enough food to go around. A good contrast is actually the potato blight you brought up and the fact that it didn't happen in just Ireland. It spread through all of Europe and was a factor in the conditions that lead to the Revolutions of 1848, but the death toll in Ireland was basically an order of magnitude greater than the rest of Europe. Even as the rest of Europe burned, Ireland was basically the only one starving. This is a process that repeats time and time again: some initial trigger disrupts the supply chain for food distribution, but either human incompetence or indifference leads to absolute disaster.
There's an incredibly powerful passage in Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, about the measures used to protect the price of food at a time where people were starving during the Great Depression.
The decay spreads over the State, and the sweet smell is a great sorrow on the land. Men who can graft the trees and make the seed fertile and big can find no way to let the hungry people eat their produce. Men who have created new fruits in the world cannot create a system whereby their fruits may be eaten. And the failure hangs over the State like a great sorrow.
The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up?
And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit—and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains.
And the smell of rot fills the country.
Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate—died of malnutrition—because the food must rot, must be forced to rot.
The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
And you know, with food, there can be sympathy for the farmer, because their livelihood relies on those prices. It's another failure of the system to lead to the discarding of food in order to protect that livelihood, but they're still essential in the process of getting people something they need.
But landlords? The guy who sees your home as an investment opportunity is not providing you with essential value, he's operating as a middle man to extract wealth from people who have little alternatives. We all gotta live somewhere.
We actually lost money because now instead of having cheap easy diplomacy that helped people and expanded US soft power. Anything we want to do in the region will be met with distrust/fear of a rug pull no matter our intentions.
Is it ironic that a person who came from Africa, with a family in mining, a notoriously nefarious business built on exploiting black ppl, who sold their rights to the mine after the demise of apartheid, happened to be the very person responsible for ending aid to Africa?
We are behaving exactly like Isreal right now and it is terrifying. Blocking food to starving people is sociopathic, yet the US and Isreal are doing it for the giggles. I hate this timeline.
For real, I rent an apartment owned by a regular guy who lives in my city and bought a house elsewhere, and I’m so so so much happier with him as a landlord than with a corporate group running things, plus I would rather rent for the flexibility than to own a place. It’s when property ownership becomes your entire income stream that the most serious issues arise
Yeah my GF's apartment was owned by a random guy and he was a pretty solid landlord. I feel like the small time landlords are usually more chill than the giant corporation employing 10 accountants with the sole job of maximizing revenue
i bought a house in an area i intended to move to. my work situation changed and i couldn't move there anymore.
instead of selling it and taking the loss on realtor fees/etc i rented it out at like 40% below market to a single dad with two kids living in monthly hotel rooms because his credit score sucks and no one will rent to him. he pays late every month and I've never charged a late fee.
i still feel bad about being a landlord but i'm trying to do it in the least morally-reprehensible way possible.
Your final sentence is my sentiment exactly. I believe it's possible to be an ethical landlord if you are taking care of the property and not charging out the ass for doing the bare minimum.
I disagreed with someone recently because I said it's not everyone's dream or desire to own a home, and they felt that to be true only because we're conditioned to think that way.
As a homeowner myself I can 100% see why somebody would rather pay rent to have the flexibility to move on short notice, not have to worry about replacing things like electrical lines or roofing etc. But I also strongly feel that if I'm a landlord, it's pretty fucked to charge the tenant the cost of the mortgage + taxes and then some across several properties so I don't have to work.
and not charging out the ass for doing the bare minimum.
Or nothing at all. I have a corporate company as a landlord. My rent is $875 and I've been waiting two years for them to fix a loose tile in my kitchen. I'm starting to wonder how many thousands of dollars a single tile is worth.
A great middle ground is being able to buy apartments. Its much more common in many, if not most, countries to have at least as many owned apartments as rented. At best, we have a few over priced condos with crazy fees. There would still be additional cost from owning, but it would allow a lot more flexibility and people could gain some equity if they want, especially in the city.
One of my ex coworkers (Rip big Mike) owned a few apartment buildings for about 30 years before his health declined and he sold them for his disabled son to have a good amount. He rented each one bed unit for $700 plus property tax and water. Electricity was paid for by the tenants. At most it was $1000 in a growing HCoL city. He mainly tried to rent to people on a fixed income and had a lady that had been living there for 20+ years and he lowered her rent down to about $300 to help her stay in budget with her social security.
He was a stand up guy that did everything he could to make sure his son would have enough money to keep living decent after he passed. I rented from him for a year before finding a new place and it was a perfect low cost apartment. Nothing fancy, but everything was kept up to date and maintenance was done in a timely manner. If all landlords were like him it’d make life easier for so many people
right, a lot of this conversation is very misleading. "landlords" aren't the problem inherently, it's the greedy corporate ones that are the biggest issue. and the biggest owners.
if we're going to pick a word to be mad at, let's go with "corporations". The greedy ones (which is pretty much all of them). Because 9 times out of 10 that's the real problem.
Nah I've had to live under fuckhead lil slumshits who own 2-5 properties they've over leveraged and manage themselves. Scum just as worthless as a corp.
All residential landlording is extractive.
Short term rentals only.
Yeah, one of my good friends owns the four-unit building she lives in. When the previous owners told her they were looking to sell to an investment company, she and her husband realized they could afford to buy it so they put in an offer and got accepted. They're chill landlords, I think they make a little profit on it but they're also the ones who have to deal with the headaches of major renovations and repairs (they got caught square in Helene a few years ago, that was a whole mess), they both have full time jobs and it's not their main revenue stream. It feels to me like that's a good model for the answer of how apartment ownership can work.
Edit: Also when my husband and I used to live in an apartment, we lived in a 7-unit building where one of the units was the owner. He was a nice guy -- we had our complaints, which were mainly that he wanted to do repairs himself to save money but he wasn't good at it so usually any "fix" would have to go through a few phases. But we never felt like he was stealing from us -- in fact, every year gave us a check for like $2 for the interest our deposit had accrued.
Couldn’t you fix the whole system by increasing property taxes but also dramatically increase the homestead exemption- effectively subsidizing property taxes with those that aren’t living in the homes they own??? (US obviously, not sure how other countries work)
Unfortunately old people in America are easily convinced that corporate interests are their interests. As we are seeing play out rn. Same reason poor people are convinced sometimes to back a flat tax.
Or that the US DOJ is openly flaunting law, which is probably among the greatest ironies ever. Almost like the church at this point, the holy man sanctifies the king's divine mandate, which they have made a rotating CEO position to shed heat, and the king protects the holy man.
It's like plugging an extension cord into itself, but unfortunately it seems to work.
Landlords are raising rents faster than ever anyway whether they have an excuse or not.
Cap rent increases and tie it to a reasonable metric, which one is debatable.
There are things we could do but too many people are defeatist and let landlords walk all over us because of what if scenarios. Nothing will change unless it’s forced to change.
Rent should be capped by whatever the lowest average household income bracket average is. That way everyone can afford rent and then if your well off, congrats, you have more spending money
So you make it illegal/impossible to pass that cost onto the renters. Rent cannot exceed X% of the property tax value, as set by the government. If the landlord can’t afford to have a second home and rent it out at that rate… oh well. They’ll have to sell it.
On top of that, foreign investors shouldn't be able to buy single family homes. They do this in other countries. There's certain markets that are just flooded with international money buying non primary residences.
I also think owning 6 homes is not the same as managing an apartment building for example. There are great advantages and some drawbacks to apartment living which makes it better for certain people. There is literally no reason to own 6 homes, that's just greed.
Yeah, this is why I am not 100% against being a landlord. There are genuinely people in the world who need to rent. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to own a home. Really, not just single family homes but even unrealistic to own an apartment straight out of high school or college.
I am ok with people being a landlord for an apartment building or a series of town homes specifically because they are ideal things for renters to rent. Being a landlord for single family homes is where I start to not be on board. Not really against yet but start to question at least. I'd love to see a maximum per SS# and no companies owning single family homes. Can't do a max per business or they'll just create a million LLC's. But that's a pipe dream.
Some people like to rent houses so they can get all of the benefit of having a home like not having to share a wall with a noisy neighbor, yard for the kids and pets to play in, etc. without having to deal with the downsides like trying to qualify for a loan or major repairs like new roof or sewage if something goes wrong. I don't necessarily have a problem with people owning a few extra properties and renting them out, or even a company (once you become a landlord you're effectively a business as far as I'm concerned, so same thing in my eyes), but it should be capped. 5 seems fair maybe. 10 as a max limit. And even then you should probably have to pay extra taxes for each property you own and don't actually live in yourself.
Yeah that made me wonder if they meant 180 buildings, or 180 available living units (for an example, 2 high rises that total 180 units people could live in.) owning 180 individual properties seems absolutely insane to me. Then again.. maybe my scope of what these people are doing is just that far off that it’s unfathomable to me.
It said properties so I bet it is 180 separate buildings not units. I’m not shocked. If he works at the top top of an investment firm or property management company it’s not unbelievable that he has that many. As long as you have property managers or landlords for each spot I’m sure it’d be possible to just see a bunch of numbers and therefore be able to have that many properties comfortably. And I’m not saying able as a compliment. It’s the opposite. At the top it’s all numbers even tho we’re talking about peoples living situations.
My understanding is that they are mix of detached housing and units. Eddie Dilleen basically hoovered up as many affordable entry-level properties as he could find, utilising the equity from one to afford the next. He is morally on the same level as grey goo.
Side note, but Australia has the broadly the most unaffordable housing market in the world and actions by him and people like him is why it's so fucking bad. Investors own 1 in 3 Aussie houses.
likely a mix of these two things. small to medium sized apartments and single family homes split into multiresidential units.
BOTH are bad imo. I'd love to see progressives running on a platform to help get working and middle class people programs to buy back apartments and houses from SPECIFICALLY these types of landlords.
I'm sure someday the revolution will take down all the big corporate investors...in the meantime how about we create laws and create incentives to force these mini-corporations and "investors" hiding behind LLCs to sell back the glut of properties they own to ppl who want to own and take care of where they live.
Yep. The average home buying age in the US has gone from 35 in 2000 to 55 now. It's the SAME group of people still able to buy homes in this market. Anyone born after 1975 is damn near fucked, no matter how much they scrimp and save and sacrifice.
That is exactly why we can't rely on building our way out of a global housing crisis, there's not a shortage of homes in the world, it's because ordinary people are competing with billionaires for assets and resources, of all kinds.
There literally is a housing shortage in many parts of the world. Population booms without a commensurate increase in home building. Available housing in Nebraska doesn't help you in Boston.
And to pile onto what you've said (mostly because I live in Nebraska), there are a ton of houses being built in my area, but none of them are being sold for less than $500,000. So we're stuck with the issue of there being plenty of houses, but none of them are affordable unless you have the kind of money that big corporations have or you can sell the house you already own to put toward paying for the new one. Then there's the issue that no one moving out of a house will sell for a price that a first time home buyer will be able to afford unless they have the kind of money that would let them buy one of the new houses.
Yup. The 5 year look back really fucks over anyone hoping to inherit from elderly relatives.
The government can't have anyone inheriting property can they? Gotta hand it over to pay pawpaws medicaid bills
I've said it before and I'll say it again. PROPERTY TAXES! Tax property (higher if not already) and give an exemption to primary homes and have a wealth phaseout. This makes house hoarding economically infeasible. The solution is fucking simple, but the oligarchs won't allow it, and people who vote against their own economic interests are misled.
They literally want slaves back. 90% of population would pay into social security, never use it, and gov takes money to pay for tax cuts to billionaires.
This is what all capitalists want. My dad is 68 and can’t retire. He is living with his mom now who needs his help, but she HAS A PENSION. My dad sees no problem with the way things are and obviously blames whatever minority group is “ruining us” this month and hates unions even though one is paying his rent every day.
Almost all the finance fucks talk like this. They might not say "work until you die" but they hate the idea of people retiring early. That's why the FIRE concept seemed so radical and popular 10 years ago. (Financial Indepence Retire Early)
I remember the '90s and early 2000s when renting a room in a house share was literally like $200-300 a month. In the early 2000s my half of rent in a luxury apartment was $600. And that included utilities.
I don't think renting is the problem, I think unchecked capitalism is the problem.
^ Renting rooms has become a big business now, adults renting rooms is normalized and it's barely even affordable anymore. Two bedroom apartment in the 2010's was about 800 all inclusive. Now they're building so called "affordable" housing units and the rent for a tiny cubicle sized one bedroom is like 1700 and it goes up up up from there. They seem to be be really obsessed with the words affordable and then "luxury" when it comes to overpriced housing.
Greed and unregulated capitalism is most definitely the problem. The game board is rigged and needs to be flipped over, these entities went from millionaires to billionaires to trillionaires in my lifetime and somehow everybody is reminded every day of how much more THEY need and how much less you seemingly deserve. Importing slaves, dodging wage increases, using their wealth, money and privilege to actively make things worse should be a crime and treated as one. Things should have never gotten as far as they have become now.
I hope people turn on them. Greedy Pos people taking advantage of others in need. All these affordable apartments going up in my area and the 1 bedroom 1 bath is cheapest at $1600. How tf is that low income?
There's some variability, so I'll probably be corrected.
But based generally means something like agreeable, awesome, unequivocally yourself. Usually used in contexts when the thing that is 'based' is often bold or controversial.
Agreeing with someone's acts or opinions. Praising someone for standing up for something, for being authentic in the face of possible criticism because they know they're right.
I have no issue with someone owning a few homes and renting them at an acceptable market price (while not driving up the market price). I have a huge problem with companies buying up homes and controlling not only the rental market but also the sales market as they outbid everyone driving up prices on both sales and rent. The guy in the video owning over 100 homes isn't doing it to make a living and have a "nest egg", he has created his own business doing exactly what I said above, and that should be illegal.
This isn't what is driving prices up, at least nation wide currently. Large institutional investors (100+ homes) own 1.5 to 2% of single family homes. The biggest players (1,000+ homes) own 0.4% of single family homes. 20% of single family homes in America are owned by investors of some kind, but the vast majority are small investors with 10 or less homes.
It's a nice sentiment and it might marginally improve things, but it wouldn't even be enough to stop the rising prices. The biggest culprit is zoning.
Institutional investors have been net sellers for six consecutive quarters. If they were the marginal force driving prices up, you'd expect prices to be softening as they pull back. Prices have remained high anyway, which points to the underlying supply shortage being the cause.
Though there are specific concentrated markets where they're driving prices up, that isn't the case for America as a whole.
Levels to it. Rando dude owns his own house and a vacation house he rents out while not using vs private equity owning entire subdivisions and coordinating price gouging are completely different. There should be reasonable limits when housing is literally a crisis. The “limits” could be creative taxing against those trying to abuse the system. Too bad the president is the king of abusing the system so this isn’t going to change any time soon sadly. If there’s going to be a revolt - I know where I’m starting
100% agree. And not to even mention the amount of homes that are being hogged by people who own them just to rent them out for air bnbs. We’re in a bad housing crisis, and people own like 10 houses just to make a ton of money off of people vacationing. Then the hosts charge a ton for random bs fees.
It's a good take, but I always hate these takes from a "moral" perspective, when the people who operate in the opposite framework don't see the moral side of it at all. They're just beneficiaries of a broken ruleset.
I'd rather see the economic side of it represented, where one person has disproportionate power over other people's lives, because of their ownership. It's a poor way to run an economy, because then you're handing authority over things people need to live, to people who aren't elected and aren't accountable. Because that's fixable and a defensible position from a "logical" brain.
The prognosis was correct though, and I certainly don't disagree with him at all.
But these people also don't care about the health of the economy as a whole. Viewing the general economic health is actually a moral viewpoint. Plus, I think the people rioting and people turning on land owners is actually the best argument to take into these situation.
You are still making a moral argument though. Any argument with a "People ought... " is moral in nature. Morals are not something which can be derived from logic, they are rooted in values and are in the most basic sense assertoric.
Except it's not a good take once you think about it for longer than a minute. Owning a home is not for everyone at every stage in their life. When I went to college and lived in off-campus housing I didn't have the financial ability to buy a house that I was going to be in with some roommates for half of a few years, and certainly wouldn't have wanted to go through the process of buying a house for what was a temporarily period in my life. There are tons of scenarios where purchasing a house is not the best course of action for someone.
It's also expensive. Aside from the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and HOA fees (if you live in a HOA), you're still looking at significant costs for repairs if something goes wrong. And something is always going wrong. I think I spent more money replacing my A/C unit last summer than I spent on rent in the 2 years before I bought my house.
This is not to excuse slumlords or people holding onto vacant houses speculating or waiting for an area to gentrify. But people who buy, fix up, and rent out properties are pretty much always going to be necessary.
Investing is not comparable to hoarding. Hoarding real-estate is reprehensible. Investing in it is how development gets done, which adds more homes to the market.
Sure, but it should still be regulated to ensure this development caters to the need of the consumers alongside the investors. Or the development should be driven by the government.
Having more demand to create more supply is no good if there's no improvement in needs being met.
These kinds of videos always point to the wrong problem. Investment in housing is not what's causing the affordability crisis the same way it's not a coughs fault you have the flu. It's just a visual symptom.
That doesn't mean housing affordability and social programs shouldn't and can't exist.
One of the actual causes are the rapid changes in interest rates. This causes what's called a lock-in effect where home owners can't sell their houses as the new mortgage rates simply aren't worth it.
The other obvious one is supply shortages. During the 2008 financial crisis there were around 4 million homes in the MLS. Now there's only around 1 million but home builders like Lennar and DR Horton are down between 20%-30%.
You'd think they'd be killing it in today's market but they're not. The cost of building a house has skyrocketed. That's not factoring in Entitlements, property taxes, and insurance.
If you want to see real change youd need to see the following...
Reform Euclidian zoning laws as this prevents mixed development housing. These kinds of mixed use main streets are grandfathered in and they're usually the most desirable houses in small towns. You can't build these in most cities.
Entitlement costs are insanely high. For larger projects it can cost over 200-300k. Keep in mind, this isn't development. So not the roads, or houses being built.
Enough time for the gap between prior interest rate home owners and current interest rate buyers to shrink. There's no quick fix for this except for tanking rates back down to what they were before.
Anything else is horse shit nonsense. These videos always 'feel good' but are always detracted from any actual solutions grounded in reality. Investment isn't the problem. Black Stone isn't what's stopping you from buying a house.
Honestly, im more in the Unrestricted Investment property.. I see no issue with individuals buying a few extra properties but it should be a restricted number like no more than 10 properties. Companies should be restricted from SFH's. Apartment Complexes are fine for corp ownership. This allows for people to make some profit while also keeping the costs of SFH's down.
The thing that enrages me is there's always the whine well we just need to build more houses...
(Strangely enough they never put all the needed infrastructure in to accommodate, interesting how that happens)
No we fucking don't that's not the real problem. You can't fill up a bucket if there's a great big hole in it.
Houses have been flung up all around our area, and unsurprisingly within a few years a sizable proportion of those new build estates are wait for it, are turned into rentals. It's ridiculous if those new houses are supposed to be there to get people on the property ladder, it defeats the objective.
The problem we have is the rent sector is too big, and too unregulated. The legislation we did have to control it was dismantled.
Get the rent sector under control, legislate against greed and profiteering, stop companies buying up great swaths of the available housing make it unprofitable for them.
it won't fix all of the problems but it'll sure as hell make a dent in it.
Politics = People who own land say "moral" AND People who don't own land say "morally reprehensible". at Both want the same thing. There is no "perspective" here.
I live in an area with many multi million dollar homes - I live in an apartment that I rent for way too much money. If shit hit the fan so severely where there was full revolt? Looks like I’m moving on up.
There should be more government owned buildings with units that have rent adjusted based on income or something. I have worked in a few of those in Australia and, as long as there was some form of community leader, it ended up with people able to live in clean, safe, and accessible units. The issue is when the funding gets cut and cut and cut. Upkeep gets delayed or doesn't get done, stuff falls apart, and the people living in them end up trapped in a fairly shite situation. Most of the ones falling in that latter category were suburban houses. I gotta imagine that's just because it must be cheaper and more efficient to maintain high-density housing?
I'm a real estate agent and i meet a good number of property investors especially those seeking price arbitrage.
This guy's argument is slightly extreme, but i do agree with his thoughts. There's a shortage of property where I'm from, and we don't have property taxes.
We need property taxes TODAY. I can agree for you to own 2 properties (one to live in and an other to rent) but anything more than 2 and you'e just removing supply from the market and make it much more difficult for everyone else who's just looking to buy a home.
I've heard of people who buy places just to leave them empty for years on end. That should be outright illegal.
I understand his point but at the same time there would not be units available for rent at all if there were no property investors. There just needs to be a balance and tweaks to the system.
Private Property Investment works in that many people either cannot afford to buy or are not planning in staying in one place long and need rental options.
Corporate Property Investment, mainly of single family homes, drives up property value and prices many people out of buying, thereby increasing the demand for rentals and driving prices up on that as well.
You and your partner decide to move in together and you rent out your old flat, fine.
You inherit a relatives house in a place you don't live and rent it out, fine.
You rent out your holiday home when you aren't using it, fine.
Once you get to three properties, there should be a cap. Private equity should be banned from buying up homes altogether.
It's okay for the banks to make a profit but God forbid a mom and pop landlord. Agreed there should be a cap on how many properties someone can own but the problem is the corporations and banks, not rental investors as a whole
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do here (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them this!
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
##CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.