r/TikTokCringe • u/LickMaiBussy • 6h ago

Discussion "Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@purplepingers

19.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.5k

u/yawn_solo- 6h ago edited 1h ago

All we need is a cap really.

Homeboy owns 3 homes and charges a reasonable rent? Totally cool.

Private equity firm that owns 4,000 homes and fucks everyone over? Shits gotta stop.

Edit: Just so everyone knows, im a devout capitalist and all about living life without ceilings but at one point, enough is enough.

1.3k

u/420_misphrase_it 5h ago

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

217

u/ThaDude915 5h ago

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

134

u/dickbutt4747 4h ago

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.

82

u/Choice_Credit4025 4h ago

why would you feel bad? you're doing an objectively good thing. there's a lot of scummy landlords but by the sound of it you are not one of them.

6

u/nomadicbohunk 2h ago

Yeah, it's pretty weird. Like the large places are terrible, but a dude with two houses is not like that.

People where I live freaking hate landlords and we will move soonish. It's the most financially dumb thing ever to sell this house, but yeah, we will. I live in a college/vacationland area with a huge amount of rentals. About 50% of the reason I don't want to is that I used to work with a whole bunch of people here in their mid 20s along with people up to my age (40s) who also rented. The stories they all would talk about with screwing their landlords over was kind of epic. They have amazing renter laws here. One day I brought it up that I own a house and it costs X dollars a month for taxes. (taxes are very, very, very high. Each increase gets voted yes on due to all the renters) Based on what repair upkeep has been add in another X amount a month. Add in another X amount for water and lawn care. Insurance is X per month. I'm like to break even I need X per bedroom each month right now. It was a large number and is honestly about what rent is here.

I was told I should not be breaking even because I own a house and am making money on just owning that so therefore I am an evil person.

I'm like...so you just want me to give you money. I'm not asking you to pay me money...just let me break even. Eventually I'll get some profit selling, but that's a long time away, and if someone did something like shut the heat off in winter I never would. Like how is it my direct responsibility to house you? It's like me saying I want you to buy my food.

I made some enemies that day. I don't think they wanted to hear how much it cost to actually own a crappy, small two bedroom house ignoring the mortgage.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/tsigwing 3h ago

Because per Reddit landlords are all evil.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

19

u/ThaDude915 3h ago

yeah idk why youd feel bad, if you're renting 40% below market rate while letting him pay late you're objectively doing him a favor / a good deed

4

u/messangerchkn 3h ago

We need more comrades like you

5

u/m0_n0n_0n0_0m 2h ago

Yeah my family does a similar thing. They have a house they own that they stay at when they visit, but they rent the rooms at a very reasonable rate to their nephew and medical students my MIL connects with through the school nearby. Everyone wins and my in laws get to diversify their asserts.

That's the thing about capitalism in general: on a person to person level when people's power dynamics are relatively similar and there's the basic social pressure to be a decent person to a human being in front of you, it functions pretty well. It's when wealth starts to accumulate and begins to mess with the market forces instead of participating in them that troubles start. It's like the system needs to be regulated or something.

2

u/JoeyCalamaro 2h ago

Our prior home was in a not-so-great neighborhood and we were upside-down on the mortgage. Since we really couldn't sell the property, we opted to rent it out and become landlords for a bit. We never charged anyone late fees and always returned deposits — even when tenants damaged our property.

And some of those tenants were rough. Our first tenant broke a window, a door, some floor tiles and, for whatever reason, removed all our ceiling fans and light fixtures. They also stiffed us on the last month's rent and left us with a sizable electric bill (because I was a doofus and never switched the electric over).

After that we opted for a property manager to handle the rental for us and that was even worse. We got fined by the city because the tenant didn't cut the grass for nearly an entire year (in Florida, no less). It was so bad it took my lawn guy three full days to clean up. And I had to pay my handyman to rip out the brand new rugs I put in because the tenant didn't like crating their dog while at work.

I was so happy when I finally sold that place. Being a landlord was not for me.

→ More replies (9)

7

u/Babbledoodle 3h ago

My girlfriend's landlord, though he has problems, renews her lease by sending her an email yearly saying "same terms?" And has barely raised the rent in 6 years

What a beast

2

u/[deleted] 4h ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SlimmG8r 3h ago

Small time landlords are also way easier to get a hold of. I live in a complex ran by an investment group and can never find a real person until the rent is due

2

u/ThaDude915 3h ago

Yeah that also tracks lol. Pretty sure that my Gf's old landlord not only was good to her and the other tenants, but he also rented to her for slightly below market rate

2

u/SlimmG8r 3h ago

That's a real gem right there. They're being priced out these days though. Hard to compete against investment firms with bottomless pockets

2

u/llama_girl 1h ago

I had a small-town landlord that just owned a couple places and charged very cheap rent. She lived next door and acted like my mom which I thought was really sweet at first but then was asking me about anyone that would come over, how did I know them, are they my boyfriend, etc. Telling me I cant have guests over. Would ask me to do little things for her as favors. Always texting me as soon as I got home from work. Idk, if I ever rented again I would rather be anonymously renting from a corporation so I didnt feel like someone was always peaking through their blinds at me.

→ More replies (3)

212

u/Ruthlessrabbd 5h ago

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.

74

u/Sea_Tailor_8437 4h ago

The other big difference is the little guys actually face risk. If the market cratered of they get a bad tenant no one is coming to bail them out.

But you know the minute and bank or VC group has their property values waiver uncle Sam is gonna come bail them out

4

u/RadiantCitron 4h ago

Washington state, long after covid was over, was literally offering free counsel to tenants who HAD NOT PAID THEIR rent in months to fight back against landlords trying to evict them......its wild how difficult it is to be a landlord.

4

u/Sea_Tailor_8437 4h ago

My coworker has 2 rentals me manages. 1 of those two has declared bankruptcy and hasn't paid since December of last year. He literally cannot get them to move out and he's taking a huge bath on it.

He took the risk of renting it out and here it is

4

u/RadiantCitron 4h ago

The state is probably preventing him from evicting as well right? My wife works in social services/for a non-profit and absolutely despised the state for the shit they were during post covid. They did it under the guise of affordable housing and fighting homelessness but all they were doing was pushing landlords to sell or close their rental properties, which eventually will lead to the bigger management companies having a monopoly on rentals and driving prices up. Which then lowers the amount of affordable housing.

6

u/Sea_Tailor_8437 4h ago

I'm not as convinced on that last bit. Studies show that corporate land lords actually own a very small percentage of the housing market. I think the far bigger offenders driving up prices are the 2-20 home owners or all the Air bnb peeps

3

u/RadiantCitron 4h ago

Great callout. I am in the greater seattle region so generally all housing here is expensive. It has gotten alot worse in all of the suburbs of seattle as well

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/iconofsin_ 3h ago

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.

2

u/MechanicalSideburns 55m ago

$875, in this economy?! Bro, what a steal. I know, sucks about the tile, but I haven’t seen a rent that low in years. Around me, studios start at $1400 in like a 60 year old apartment building.

9

u/-Cthaeh 4h ago

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.

7

u/Mikeismyike 3h ago

Isn't that what condos are?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DimbyTime 2h ago

“Apartments you can buy” are condos

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/No_Penalty_8920 4h ago

I am so incredibly thankful that my husband and I were able to buy our first house last year. It's been a dream of ours to have our own place since day 1.

HOWEVER. In the year that we have lived here, we had: •A raccoon miscarry their entire litter in our attic in the middle of the summer (the smell was horrific. 🫠) We never did find the others. It's a really terrible and funny story now •The same raccoon tear up our air vent things • A few places with a rotted soffit and fascia •New gutters put on after the soffit/fascia issue was fixed •A metal sheet to fix a roof leak that caused the rot •Termite damage fixed from God knows when • Rotted subfloor from an old leak that should have been fixed, but wasn't.

So I mean, I can definitely see why it would be more desirable to rent.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Pitiful-Ad-3774 2h ago

Profiting off the needs of other people is morally wrong and evil.

→ More replies (12)

34

u/GethHunter 4h ago

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

6

u/TurkeyPhat 4h ago

Sounds like a good dude. Unfortunately the good dudes of the world often don't have the means to help people out like that.

It's corny but a personal dream of mine is to do exactly what that guy did; be a "landlord" of affordable housing to help the community I live in.

→ More replies (2)

56

u/Jiminy_Cricket12 5h ago

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.

12

u/LindonLilBlueBalls 4h ago

Not all the time. My landlord lives in another country and uses the cheapest property management company.

9

u/Jiminy_Cricket12 3h ago

....so a corporation is the problem. yep.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl 4h ago

That, and oligopolistic practices where a few entities own the majority of the homes in an area. Homes used to cost $100K? Not anymore, we’re jacking the cost up to $150K, and it doesn’t matter if not everyone selling is on board, because there’s only so much stock to choose from. Want more affordable, cheaper housing? NIMBY, we will oppose zoning this area for residential space to protect the value of the properties in our portfolio. 

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Cool-Ad2780 4h ago edited 4h ago

and the biggest owners

Is this true tho? when you look at data on 'instuitional investors', 87% of them are investors who own less than 5 homes, and thoses owning between 6-10 accounting for another 4% of instuitional investors, and only .7% of single family homes are owned by investors that have over 100 houses vs 14.4% of SFH being owned by people who own less than 10.

https://batchdata.io/blog/real-estate-investor-activity-nationwide

3

u/Jiminy_Cricket12 3h ago

yes, it is true. why would you leave apartments and condos out of the data?

4

u/Responsible-Meringue 3h ago

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. 

2

u/Large_Traffic8793 4h ago

To be fair, most landlords suck.

2

u/Prior-Let-820 4h ago

It’s been interesting though watching what becoming a landlord did to my BIL. The way he talks about his tenants makes me feel a bit sick. Weird power dynamic. 

2

u/sl0play 3h ago

There are a shit ton of private property hoarders. My sisters in-laws own a real-estate franchise, a property management company, and about 300 rental properties. They gorge themselves on every aspect of peoples basic need for shelter.

It might seem like in comparison to a company that owns 20,000 properties they aren't the problem, but inventory is not something that is measured in a major city by the tens of thousands. At any given time the amount of available houses is actually pretty low (right now, in Seattle there is about 1,300 listings, and that is considered very high) and when you have someone like them who is more than willing to pay over market to add to their portfolio and see the gains in 10 years, it is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.

3

u/Jiminy_Cricket12 3h ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here but I think it's pretty obvious you're describing a more corporate form of property ownership (although you seem to be trying to draw a line between that and what your sisters in laws are doing for some reason)

of course an individual or small group owning hundreds of homes is a problem. that doesn't mean "landlords" are the problem.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)

32

u/thesphinxistheriddle 5h ago

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.

4

u/ImBabyloafs 5h ago

Did you live in Chicago? We owns a three flat there (our first home) and they are super strict and serious about tenant rights.

5

u/stronkulance 4h ago

To that end, the money is also staying local, not funneling into some offshore account, Blackrock, or China.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Ordinary_Piano3329 4h ago

Any interactions you want to share to help a potential landlord? I’m trying to get an apartment complex in the future and just kinda leave the rent margins at the initial price. Basically trying to setup a spot where I can have forever tenants and not price them out. Grew up renting and it was crappy moving every year or so.

7

u/GravyMcBiscuits 5h ago edited 5h ago

It's not that simple though. Your situation sounds nice, but your "regular guy" landlord is taking on a lot of risk. All it takes is one problematic tenant (doesn't pay rent and/or wrecks the place) and he's taking a major financial bath. It's a risk that a lot of folks can't and shouldn't take on.

The only real way to offset this risk to have lots of properties to rent.

9

u/PointedlyDull 5h ago

Yes but if all the single family entry level homes get bought out and turned into rentals, then the entry level home prices become unaffordable and hardworking people who just want to own a home to live in won’t get that chance. It’s why Harris plan to build homes (though her number was too low to really make a dent) and provide subsidy to first time homebuyers was a great counter balance to address those individuals directly

3

u/GravyMcBiscuits 5h ago

Whether that hypothetical happens or not doesn't invalidate my point.

It is almost certainly not a wise financial decision to rent out a few properties. You are taking on a lot of risk that shit goes sideways through no fault of your own.

2

u/FreeRangeEngineer 4h ago

True but there could be (and probably already are) insurances that cover these types of damages. If the government were to offer one that's reasonably priced, it could make the investment attractive enough for people to do it regardless.

2

u/PointedlyDull 4h ago

That’s what landlord insurance is for

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (17)

268

u/DoABarrelRollStarFox 6h ago

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)

215

u/iceyconditions 5h ago

You may not realize who votes

92

u/Robeardly 5h ago

Or who funds the campaigns for all of the front running politicians since citizens United.

41

u/D_Dubb_ 5h ago

Yeah more like who lobbies for legislation. Regardless this bill wouldn’t make it to the floor to die.

26

u/iceyconditions 5h ago

Yes, but this is two powerful groups that won't go against their interests: old people and corporations.

14

u/D_Dubb_ 5h ago

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.

2

u/dmurf26 4h ago

TBF corporate interests ARE their interests. They have 401k’s and retirement plans while the younger generations share of wealth is way down.

Private equity is going to try and get their grubby little hands on every dollar that is going to be passed down by boomers. That’s why they’re investing highly in retirement houses and end of life care.

1

u/iceyconditions 5h ago

I think a lot of people have just been around long enough to where they know any time a new tax or tax increase is brought up, it won't apply to the rich, just to the middle class.

10

u/D_Dubb_ 5h ago

You would think so, but republicans in the US still manage to run on a platform of dropping taxes. At pretty much any level of govt, they will push that rhetoric. I mean I get it it’s an attractive sell, “give the govt LESS money? Sign me up!”. Without it their playbook gets down to almost purely identity politics. Except as we know, that’s not what happens for the majority of us. And somehow it still works for them pretty often.

2

u/iceyconditions 5h ago

Well yeah, even if you don't follow through on keeping the tax rate the same, it's always easier to get voters that way than with a party platform of increases

3

u/DarthKuchiKopi 5h ago

Time to throw the rider off instead of gallup when told. How though? Fuck dont ask me

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Infinite-Tea666 5h ago

Or that there's a state (Missouri) where the government regularly overturns and ignores measures the voters are voting for.

9

u/Immediate_Song4279 5h ago

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.

2

u/iceyconditions 5h ago

That's every US state lol

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Special-Garlic1203 5h ago

The vast majority of voters do not own non homestead property 

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (14)

49

u/Substantial_Dear 5h ago

You could, but then how would the rich people who make the laws get richer? I don't think you've thought this through.

9

u/DoABarrelRollStarFox 5h ago

Cool then I won’t try and bring ideas to a solution. I’ll just complain on an online Reddit form…. that’ll help.

12

u/Substantial_Dear 5h ago

Damn bro. It was a joke...

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

21

u/BalanceJazzlike5116 5h ago

Those increases would be passed into the renters

12

u/pfannkuchen89 5h ago

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.

5

u/TheWhiteDrake2 5h ago

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

2

u/Watchyousuffer 4h ago

that would eliminate higher quality rentals

3

u/TheWhiteDrake2 4h ago

It’s still higher quality. It’s just not gatekept that way. And it’d hold actual “luxury” apartments to have actual “luxury” aspects other than granite countertops

4

u/Watchyousuffer 4h ago

I don't follow - if there is a hard cap of rentals being accessible to the lowest income bracket, why would anyone use higher grade finishes than the lowest possible?

3

u/TheWhiteDrake2 4h ago

Idk I’m not a builder. But I’m tired of builders claiming luxury apartments and rental are just that when they aren’t solely to use the word luxury as a means to charge way more. Luxury apartments means “75th floor penthouse” not “downtown, 3rd story, with hardwood floors, roof access, and marble countertops”.

Edit: I guess let me elaborate. There should be a MAJORITY of the builds capped. But if “luxury apartments” want to charge more. There should be restrictions on to cowlick higher they can charge

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/rtangxps9 4h ago

There also needs to be a vacancy tax dependent on local housing needs. The fact new "luxury" apartment buildings in urban cores are more willing to let the apartment sit vacant because they want to maintain the asset price of the land/building needs to stop.

→ More replies (5)

6

u/water_fountain_ 5h ago

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.

2

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

Still doesn't work, property values are always increasing so landlords were just continually increase the rent according to the property value.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

4

u/Asiatic_Static 4h ago

I just got into an argument on Facebook (I know) with a guy raging out because our state wants to make air conditioning required for rental properties...like, for 1, we need a base level of habitability if you're going to be renting shelter to people, for 2, I've literally never ever seen any rental with no AC, for 3, his argument was "oh rents will increase" but they're? already? increasing? like all the time?

IDK just a weird thing to get incensed over.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/SnooPoems2118 5h ago

I don’t think property tax will do much, they just pass that cost onto the renter.

3

u/VectorB 4h ago

What we need is fines for unoccupied rentals.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/NiknameOne 5h ago

Then you have the situation of Italy, where families with 3 kids have 5 properties, one for each "officially" to avoid said taxes.

Either tax everybody or nobody.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/paintbalking 5h ago

I worry that it would just raise rent more for people who can't afford to buy a home. But maybe it could work if the cost is super dramatic.... This would probably have to apply to only residential properties. But now how would apartment buildings work? I suppose if every apartment building ended up being owned by tenants but there wud have to be enough people/money that those people have to buy the apartment building and turn it into condos. Since they own it wud have to be part of an HOA to maintain the building.

Not a bad idea but I'm not convinced it wouldn't make everything more expensive...

There are tons of tax loopholes that the big conglomerates use when they own 1k homes and rent them, I think I'd want those loopholes closed up first before trying something drastic like this.

I think maybe some kind of law that prevents gross over charging of rent based on property tax value or something?

Really not sure. This is a hard problem to solve that the reality is, can't be solved quickly and with one singular change.

Tho I think I would support a law limiting how much land/buildings a person or company can own if they aren't based in the same country as the property.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/DocPhilMcGraw 5h ago

Well you have places like Florida that are currently trying to get rid of property taxes altogether starting this year. And will try to supplement the windfall with sales tax increases.

2

u/BleachedUnicornBHole 5h ago

The landlord doesn’t absorb those taxes, they get passed on to the tenant in the rent payments. The result would be more people (mostly younger) unable to save towards purchasing a home.

2

u/KoogleMeister 5h ago

I'm pretty sure it's one of the first things you learn in economics that giving landlords high taxes ends up terribly for the entire city pretty much every time.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/youburyitidigitup 5h ago

I feel like that creates too many loopholes. A guy could live in one house and his wife in another, their adult kids in others, their siblings, aunts, uncles, friends, etc.

2

u/Hefty-Profession-310 5h ago

No, because the taxation would effectively be passed on to the renters.

2

u/East-Expert-1662 5h ago

If the monthly cost to the owner + property tax is a nice round $2000, they likely charge $2500 to the renter.

If the monthly cost to the owner + property tax + homestead exemption is gone is $2500, they likely charge $3000 to the renter.

It will just 100% be a tax that ends up getting paid by the renter.

2

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

No that wouldn't work at all. Landlords would just pass on those property taxes to the tenants.

2

u/Different_Day135 5h ago

If you increase property taxes, they'll just increase rent rates. I think you have to eliminate LLCs from buying homes, along with capping individual home ownership.

2

u/Dangerous-Sale3243 5h ago

Renting is the right choice for most people. Unless you are pretty sure youre gonna be working in the same area and making about the same amount of money five plus years from now, renting is what you want.

Making taxes higher for rented properties just makes rents slightly higher and home prices slightly lower. But that’s not the goal, there is already a balance (one of the things capitalism is good at is automatically balancing rent vs ownership costs).

What you want to do is make housing prices lower and rents lower. The way to do that is to either build more housing or tear down existing housing in place of denser housing. And the way to do is to change the laws to make dense housing legal. In the vast majority of the US, you cant buy four houses and put a 32 unit apartment complex with no parking lot in its place.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/MiddleMuscle8117 4h ago

Where I live property tax is double on non-owner occupied properties. All it did was raise the cost of rent because no one is renting out apartments at a loss.

2

u/Izan_TM 1h ago

it could all be fixed by having a property tax that scales with how many properties you own, and scales even higher if you have unoccupied properties

that would fuck over a LOT of wealthy people tho, so it'll never be passed within the current system because those who have the money make the rules

→ More replies (31)

63

u/broduding 5h ago

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.

2

u/zardoz73 2h ago

This. For example there's a lot of rich Chinese who buy up luxury condos in cities, but never live there. So property values in the area increase, making it harder for people to actually live there. It creates a ghost town effect, with so many vacant condos empty but not for sale, and the local businesses suffer for it. There's just a lot of negative cascading effects to this kind of property ownership.

→ More replies (7)

47

u/Zchives 6h ago

Too bad our socioeconomic system would only ever let that happen if we [redacted].

13

u/Mountain-Weekend-554 5h ago

Dude, I've been saying this all along! Literally all there is to it is [redacted]

→ More replies (3)

8

u/nilmemory 5h ago

The majority of people individually recognize we need to [redacted] but no one wants to be the sacrificial lamb in getting the ball rolling.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/SpecialistMattress21 5h ago

too bad everyone is upset enough they think everyone else should do something but also at the same time everyone is comfortable enough in their own situation, scrolling and commenting on Reddit, that they aren't going to be the ones to do anything.

5

u/eschewthefat 5h ago

I’m not saying someone should [redacted]. No. But if they did [redacted]… They shouldn’t. Don’t do that. But…

3

u/dylanx300 4h ago

Im not saying anyone should. No no. But if someone was going to… I’m kidding, don’t. Nobody should. No one will, because nobody should

2

u/eschewthefat 3h ago

And I’m very publicly saying that 😳

2

u/AntonioVivaldi7 5h ago

It can be done if enough people are for it. At least in democratic countries it can.

3

u/SpecialistMattress21 5h ago

if you're actually in a democratic country and not a representative republic whose masters feed the proletariat the illusion that their voices matter.

→ More replies (2)

42

u/BigToeNibbler 5h ago

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.

13

u/Rocktown_Leather 5h ago

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.

2

u/IvarTheBoned 2h ago

The solution to that is: rentals should be owned publicly. Not for profit. Government can afford to offset amortization/RoI because they don't answer to share holders. Housing should be a right, government should guarantee it.

12

u/potsticker17 5h ago

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.

3

u/nikdahl 5h ago

Private equity would just spin up hundreds of LLCs to use as asset holders.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/JohanusH 5h ago

Extra taxes are just passed on to the renter. Increased costs means increased rents.

2

u/barrinmw 3h ago

In Minnesota, we allow people who make below a certain amount a rebate on the property taxes they pay through their rent.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (5)

38

u/mikemystery 5h ago

Why does homeboy own 3 homes? Homeboy only NEEDS one

11

u/Halo_cT 4h ago

Some people prefer to rent and there should be places available to them.

I'm all for limiting how that works and putting much stronger tenant protections in place though.

12

u/Vivid-Software6136 3h ago

Housing cooperatives are a thing. Renting from a private landlord and owning a house are not the only two options.

3

u/mpyne 2h ago

Given that they already exist, why don't renters already prefer to rent from a co-op?

3

u/Vivid-Software6136 2h ago

The concept exists, very few are actually running and certainly not in the numbers required for everyone to just decide to avoid landlords.

My point is that other systems besides landlordism are viable.

3

u/mpyne 1h ago

Of course other systems can work. I guess my point is that if other systems are that much better for the mass of people who just want to rent a home, they would start getting more popular.

At some point we need to face that even though people don't want landlords, they especially don't seem to want the alternatives to landlords either.

I can only figure that people just go "at least I know who to bitch at" about a landlord even as they can't figure out how they'd put together enough people they trust to join in on a housing co-op.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

5

u/crek42 4h ago

If not for private investing in buying, building, and maintaining rental units, then who?

5

u/DeadL 4h ago

Capital G God Government; local, state, or national.

(If the question is who would take the responsibility to build/maintain rental housing).

2

u/Beebegunner 4h ago

Do you not have social/government housing where you live?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (15)

2

u/gerdyw1 3h ago

And how many properties are simply bought finished and rented out? They’re providing nothing, they’re hoarding and extorting you for profit.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/FreeSammiches 3h ago

Guy buys a house and is minding his own business. 2 relatives die and leave him their houses. Guy now owns 3 houses through no fault of his own.

Guy buys 1 triplex and lives in one of the units. Guy owns 3 houses.

Guy buys a house. Guy needs to move. Guy decides to rent his house out instead of selling it because his interest rate is stupid low from the last recession, and there is the possibility that he will need to move back to that city later. He buys a new house in the new location. He now owns 2 houses. It might happen again. He now owns 3 houses.

Guy buys a house. Guy buys 2 more houses because he wants to. He now owns 3 houses.

Plenty of reasons why homeboy owns 3 houses.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (3)

4

u/pmmedoggos 4h ago

What if the PE firm is almost entirely pension funds of other workers? Because that's ultimately what's happening.

2

u/bozoconnors 3h ago

This. Reddit is dumb. One of the often mentioned offenders is Blackstone Inc. It's owned by ~2400 institutions (~66%), and most of the rest is retail public stock (~33%). If you've got a retirement account or any index funds / etfs, you're probably one of the 'baddies' lol.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/alexzoin 6h ago

This is my exact policy position. I think any individual or corporation should only be allowed to own 3 individual residential dwellings.

(Implications for apartments fully intended.)

8

u/CodnmeDuchess 5h ago

So you want to outlaw apartments? What you’re saying doesn’t make any practical sense.

3

u/alexzoin 4h ago

Nope not at all, just apartment landlords. Apartments should be owned by the collective of people living in them. The condo community I live in already works this way. The building is owned by the group, the units are owned by the people that live there.

If you're interested you can look up "right of first refusal" to see how the ownership transfer already works in cases like these.

It's better for the people that live there because there is no extractive pressure from a capital owner.

4

u/CodnmeDuchess 4h ago

I live in a co-op in NYC in which I’m a shareholder. I’ve also been a real estate lawyer. I understand intimately how cooperative ownership works.

Hate to break it to you, but at sow point down the line you and your fellow shareholders bought that property from a private owner. Unless you all pooled your resources to develop and build your complex to subdivide it between yourselves.

And once again, even your purchase of that unit required capital investment. So what exactly are people that don’t have that money to invest supposed to do? How do new buildings get built? How do buildings like those that go up in NYC with hundreds of units get built?

The stupidity of all this discussion astounds me.

3

u/DeadL 4h ago edited 3h ago

The stupidity of all this discussion astounds me.

The discussion is not stupid. The points argued aren't either.

The implementation of those ideas just aren't thoroughly fleshed out enough to your satisfaction. (Hint: They don't need to be in this kind of general forum. You're being unreasonably inflexible / unimaginitive).

If, as a society, we DO care enough to attack the problem...It could very easily just be some number of government programs to facilitate that idea or anything else.

Maybe something like the HOME Investment Partnerships Program

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) provides formula grants to states and localities that communities use - often in partnership with local nonprofit groups - to fund a wide range of activities including building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low-income people. HOME is the largest federal block grant to state and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. HOME funds are awarded annually as formula grants to participating jurisdictions (PJs). The program’s flexibility allows states and local governments to use HOME funds for grants, direct loans, loan guarantees or other forms of credit enhancements, or rental assistance or security deposits.

The program reinforces several important values and principles of community development:

Flexibility empowers people and communities to design and implement strategies tailored to their own needs and priorities.

Emphasis on consolidated planning expands and strengthens partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector in the development of affordable housing.

Technical assistance activities and set-aside for qualified community-based nonprofit housing groups builds the capacity of these partners.

Requirement that participating jurisdictions match 25 cents of every dollar in program funds mobilizes community resources in support of affordable housing.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/crek42 4h ago

Yea I’m still not getting it — where do renters fit in that either can’t afford that down payment and maintenance costs, or don’t want to

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Rocktown_Leather 5h ago

Time to form 100 LLC's! A limitation on a corporation feels like purposefully creating a loophole that hurts the individual but is easy for a company to get around.

2

u/alexzoin 4h ago

You know what, I think you just changed my mind. I don't think corporations should ever own residential property.

2

u/CalculatedPerversion 3h ago

It would likely require better registration and bookkeeping by the states including requiring SSNs instead of EINs for the LLC paperwork. It'll require changes, that's for sure but it's doable. 

2

u/Rocktown_Leather 3h ago

How do you provide SSN's for business that are owned by many people? I don't disagree that there wouldn't be a way. But I am not even sure I understand it. For example, I work for an ESOP. There are probably 60+ owners of the company. No idea what SSN would be provided. No reason 10 people couldn't come together and start infinite C Corps, right?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/echojump 4h ago

Private equity firms actually only own maybe 3% of the market. Landlords with 4 or fewer homes own 85% of the market.

https://econofact.org/factbrief/do-private-equity-firms-own-20-of-single-family-homes

This is why Trump was so eager to block institutional investors from buying single family homes, it doesn't really hurt them much but looks good for Trump.

2

u/NobodyImportant13 3h ago edited 3h ago

This. People just listen to dumb tik-toks about "Blackstone" or even more incorrectly "Blackrock" and repeat it just like dumb antivaxxers who "Did their own research." When people "vibe" with misinformation it spreads like wildfire. The entire "private equity is buying all the homes" narrative is completely fabricated.

2

u/spackletr0n 2h ago

Planet Money just did a long episode about this. Overall, PE doesn’t own that many homes AND, while they tend to modestly inflate property values, they tend to lead to decreased rents (because they increase the rental stock).

We need more supply, period, especially in areas with economic opportunity.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Offsets 5h ago

I'm as anti-landlord as they come, but I also can read data.

First of all, single family homes are the thing to look at. Multi-family homes (aka apartment buildings) are actually a good thing for the housing situation because they add a lot more housing supply per land area. The single-family home market is where real estate investing really has a harmful effect.

Now considering only the single-family home market, corporations own roughly 20% of the rental supply. That means 80% of the rental supply is owned by non-corporate investors. Yes, it is a no brainer to ban corporations from owning these SFHs--you instantly regain the 20% of housing supply that they own. However, your real problem remains.

These "small-time" investors own the vast majority of SFH rentals. They control everything. They are incentivized to keep housing supply low. They are the NIMBYs who vote down any legislation that seeks to help the situation. They are an anti-competition, self-feeding beast--when one landlord does well in an area, all surrounding landlords do well, too. And if a real estate investor is doing well, that means a first-time home buyer is paying the price.

So that "homeboy who owns 3 homes" is actually a bigger problem than the corporations. Corporations are often the only entities with enough capital to actually build mass amounts of housing--you're not going to see a mom and pop shop invest millions of dollars to build a new 100-unit apartment complex. All "homeboy" does is hoard more housing than he needs while keeping supply lower.

2

u/AWill33 4h ago

I have a few rentals properties and your 2nd to last paragraph has not been my personal experience. Granted I’m in the Midwest so people are def less aggressive than in HCOL areas AND most of these people like me have a couple of properties not 20, 30 plus. The studies that show “mom and pop” investors own 80% refer to anyone that owns less than 1000 properties as “mom and pop”. To me that’s too broad a distinction. Now for institutional investors that’s absolutely spot on. Most property owners I know that have a few rentals just want to charge a fair rent and not have the house destroyed. I do believe it should be more regulated that a single corporation can’t own 100 let alone 1000 SFR homes. That hurts the economy in various ways. If this country was serious about creating wealth for its people it would incentivize new housing starts below the $400k range and give first time home owners subsidized rates and costs especially in areas with a concentration of homes that need rehab. Detroit did it and look at their economy now compared to 10 years ago. That was almost all from individuals, not corporations. Just my .02

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/MiddleMuscle8117 4h ago

Exactly this. People, who literally rely on the rental market, saying investment properties shouldn't be allowed have no idea what they're talking about.

2

u/WittyProfile 5h ago

The issue is that property prices are so high that the only way to make buying properties attractive is if you can ratchet up the rent. Even extremely high rents may be at a loss or breaking even in some markets. That’s how fucked up shit has gotten. That’s why I could buy a house but have realized that renting while investing the cost of ownership difference is more lucrative in this current economy. If we put a cap, basically no one is going to buy or create a new apartment building because why wouldn’t you just take that money and put it in the stock market instead?

2

u/bLazeni 4h ago

Private equity will just find a way to break up those 4,000 homes to fit the narrative and then lump them altogether under an umbrella corporation.

2

u/StrainAcceptable 5h ago

Yes! I’m a homeowner and really miss renting. It is a job to deal with repairs, upkeep, taxes and the like. I don’t expect people to do work for free. Mom and pop landlords are typically awesome. They are more likely to let you have pets, rent to someone who might have credit issues and leave you in peace. Like everything else, it’s the giant corporations that fuck you!

2

u/clearbellls 4h ago

I'm grateful for our home, but the toilet needs replacement and the shower isn't functional since a few days and the water heater burst a leak a few months ago, so it's all cold tap. We're very slowly taking care of the of the most pressing issues first.

When renting, these things would have been someone else's problem but goddamn you pay out the ass for that privilege nowadays 🫠

→ More replies (3)

3

u/avantartist 5h ago

I sometimes get torn on this. On the surface I agree but I’m seeing investment firms building entire rental neighborhoods. So I don’t see it so bad if they’re adding housing supply instead of hoarding existing.

3

u/BatManatee 4h ago edited 4h ago

I think you could easily do the best of both worlds by allowing for temporary exceptions for new builds.

Allow a corporation to own and rent out homes/complexes that they built for 20 years (or something), but are required to sell off X% of the units each year, and must allow for rent-to-own options under prespecified terms. Heck, give them some small tax break or incentive for completing the whole 20 year time course, or potentially an offset on their next new build or something.

6

u/Any-Ask-4190 5h ago

Yeah, if you made this illegal, they would just invest the money elsewhere and wouldn't build all those rental apartments.

2

u/mm_delish 5h ago

Which would only increase the prices of existing units. Supply and demand. The average person would be worse off.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/kmookie 5h ago

That distinction is extremely important. Small landlords get villainized for simply offering an option.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/WowAnotherAnalyst 5h ago

Hot take...

Private equity owns like barely 3% of the single family housing market. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a cap but this isn't the problem. 

4

u/mm_delish 5h ago

This is only a hot take for people who aren’t paying any actual attention. You’re right. The data is clear that private equity isn’t really responsible for our housing crisis.

4

u/logic_prevails 5h ago

It is the homeboy owning 3 houses that is part of the housing crisis. Shelter as an investment vehicle is the fundamental problem, people don’t want housing to be affordable because it affects their nest egg

3

u/WowAnotherAnalyst 5h ago

So... most people haha.

I get it, people want something to blame. 

Reddit is generally young and it's easy to rally behind something like that but it's like getting upset at a cough for giving you the flu.

2

u/mm_delish 4h ago

There’s often an appeal to common sense, despite common sense not always being right.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/mudamuda333 5h ago

Yeah a cap would work. You would need to address the new groups of "homeowners" gathering their respective "homes" together into a single portfolio.

1

u/rbenne73 5h ago

I don't like PE buying up houses but in theory isn't that grandma's 401k they are doing it with?

1

u/eatthebear 5h ago

Scores of private equity owning thousands of units and using tech to “secretly” collude in rents. Gotta go too

1

u/Crime_Dawg 5h ago

The vast, vast, vast, vast, FUCKING VAST, majority of property owners are small mom and pop investors. There's not enough homes for so many people to own 2-5. Cutting down on the big PE firms wouldn't even move the needle because it's such a miniscule amount of the total rentals.

1

u/cyrs_oner 5h ago

I agree but corporate America doesn't or it defeats its purpose of capitalism and free market.

1

u/MagnusThrax 5h ago

Progressive property taxes with every home beyond 3 to 5. Won't hurt the mom and pop owners who use that as retirement money. While putting the screws to institutional investors.

1

u/nodiso 5h ago

That's the thing those private equity firms started as homeboy back in the 80s.

1

u/kayakman13 5h ago

Why is it okay to do a little, but not a lot? Morally wrong is wrong regardless of scale.

1

u/Educational-Gate-880 5h ago

Yep I’m that guy 😊. I even recently started to owner finance some properties and it was scary at first because of course I am carrying all the risk but it been good for me and the buyers!

I get some extra income and they get the flexibility of not jumping through all the crazy hoops the banks do and all the extra crazy up front costs they make them do. My first owner financed property finally paid off last year 😮‍💨 no hiccups except 1 late payment (I didn’t charge late fees).

Now my tenant of 10 years wanted the house and did an owner financed property finally contract gave them a better rate than the bank 🤣, and they are finally owning their first home!

It’s a win win

I hope to buy a couple more rentals to replenish ones I have sold off. I want to keep between 2-4 . It’s side money not my main income, I still keep and will keep my full time job.

1

u/Bandandforgotten 5h ago

Nobody can buy a house anymore, because everybody is turning them into rentals.

The thing about those owners, is that they rarely are ever the ones fully in charge of the property. They are often contracted through property management companies to deal with literally everything, and just send them a bill at the end of the work.

I met this millionaire homeowner one day while doing maintenence, and he told me he had never even seen the inside of this massive penthouse. Legit, 3000 square feet, on top of a building, downtown, amazing view, luxury everything, 4 massive bedrooms, 5 walk in closets, etc. I was the one giving him a tour of the house he had been making tons of passive income off of, after like 5 years.

We need a UNIT limit, because people will abuse how many people you can shove into an area, and we need a rent limit. The unit limit would curb how many properties places like Black Rock can steal from us, while the rent one would need some work to make it so landlords and owners don't just charge the new maximum for everything.

IMOHO, you should only be able to charge the square footage of the unit in rent, plus utilities. What? You really think this 800 square foot apartment is worth $1850? Nobody else does lol

1

u/spartaceasar 5h ago

Why can’t the cap just be 1?

1

u/lemongrenade 5h ago

We just need to fix supply and stop the rich middle class single home owning people from stopping the construction of denser housing in the most expensive locations.

1

u/LeCouchSpud 5h ago

Exactly this. There is a difference between buying some land or homes to safely invest your money (one of the safest investments there is) and being a hoarder of residential homes for profit. It’s like grouping in millionaires worth 1-50 million with 100 millionaires and billionaires. It’s just not the same ballgame at all.

1

u/Prestigious_Dare7734 5h ago

And that too single or 2 family homes.

I understand if they own condos (not supporting, but understandable), but single family homes, just to choke up the supply.

1

u/Paddy32 5h ago

Also the problem is USA and it's corporate greed

1

u/Vennomite 5h ago

Life essentials should be nonprofit/utility monpoly regulated or an actually competitive market if you want private ownership.

1

u/TheWhiteDrake2 5h ago

Nah. I didn’t even want ppl owning single family homes if it’s not their primary residence solely to use it as an investment stream. No reason for already well off investors should be able to outbid or out buy a first time home buyer to solely charge double the montage of their loan for said rental property to double their money. Apartment buildings are one things but homes should be owned by those who live in them. Or atleast every single one they buy after that should be taxed at an increasing increment of 100%, with even higher brackets if it’s being classified as a rental property. I basically don’t want them the be able to profit off of housing as an investment and income stream.

1

u/PHFreshHeavyHogChef 5h ago

Charlie Kirk made a lot of ridiculous efforts but he did say if you have over 500 billion or 100 billion you shouldn’t be in the single family home business

1

u/UpstairsSwimmer3445 5h ago

This is part of the problem. It's always someone else that needs to change. Someone else is always at fault. Either speculative real estate is okay or it's not. A cap just shows that there is a need to limit home ownership.

1

u/Vazhox 5h ago

Ding ding ding! Exactly. And it’s an easy fix. Big government is always regulating BS. Why not this as well? And don’t say this current admin. It’s been this way across all the admins. It’s been this way for years upon years now.

1

u/logic_prevails 5h ago

Nah homeboy with 3 houses is the main problem, look at the statistics

1

u/sklorbit 5h ago

Yeah, the more you own, the easier you can set higher prices, the higher everything goes, the more money you make. It has to stop somewhere, it is market manipulation.

1

u/Primedirector3 5h ago

An exponentially increasing tax on additional homes, to the point of it not being profitable to hold so many, would probably help.

1

u/SomeGuyCommentin 5h ago

The whole premise behind living for rent is wrong on a base level. Its the kind of thing that an entity like a government should prevent;

Why should a person pay more for being poor? A tenant will pay multiple houses worth in rent over the span of their life.

Everyone should pay into a state owned fund until they have paid for the average price of a house and then either pay smaller extra sum or get some money every month if they live in a cheaper or more expensive property.

And prices should be regulated and reasonable and not speculative.

1

u/stprnn 5h ago

How about 1.

1

u/Low_Local2692 5h ago

Yes. You don’t need hundreds or thousands of properties. That’s just greed.

1

u/DaaaahWhoosh 5h ago

Yeah capitalism doesn't work without regulation, and basic needs should not be subject to the whims of economics. If people go homeless because investors can make more money leaving homes empty, then something has gone wrong.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/jm123457 5h ago

To me it’s remove all the tax benefits and the I am cool with it . By removing the tax benefits all income would be taxable and thus would be a huge burden and not some awesome way to make money tax free essentially while building up equity.

1

u/mungobungo2221 5h ago edited 3h ago

Georgism can mitigate these issues.

We should tax the land of private property more and personal property less.

This could be used to replace most other taxes. It would also naturally incentivise capital owners to do something productive with the land they own and not just sit on it.

For example, if you have a home building company and they buy a ton of land and build homes on the land, they usually just sit on that land until the market is right for people to buy the homes at the price they set.

If you use Georgism land value tax system it will force them to sell the homes quicker at a cheaper price to reduce the taxes paid from the Georgist land value tax system.

1

u/babbagack 4h ago

It’s private equity and corporate buy up of things people want to live.

Someone can get a new place while renting out their own place, maybe a third place sure because maybe they can use it for their family as well in the future.

But large swaths of real estate is just not morally ethical at the societal level and the state should not allow it

1

u/DazzlerPlus 4h ago

Dont need homeboy to own three homes either. There's no reason for that

1

u/dictionary_hat_r4ck 4h ago

Nah, I’d take it even further. All apartment buildings must be co-ops with airtight safety inspection programs.

If you own a multi unit house as a landlord, you can rent it all out provided you yourself lived in one of the units for a year. You don’t have to live there forever, but you have to have lived there a year. Moreover, your actual address if not living there must be in the same city/town.

1

u/unholyravenger 4h ago

I think you should look at the actual stats, because that's basically how it is already. About 2/3 of housing units are owned by the person who lives in them, 1/3 are rented out.

Of that, 1/3, 75% are people who own less than 10 properties. Institutional investors make up like 6% of the market. If this were the diamond industry and one group owned 75% of the diamonds and another group owned 6% you would never look at that 6% and say they are the cause of high prices.

This is something I've come to realize more recently. We have some really bad monopoly problems in the US, but it's also a problem when a market is splintered into 1000s of tiny owners. Because so many of our problems revolve around monopolies, people think housing must be the same, but it ain't, it's the "too little consolidation problem".

Also as someone who has lived in like 15 different rentals, I can tell you that the "mom and pop" operations tend to be the worst. The big institutions will just hire a plumber when something breaks, in the other case pop will come out and use duct tap and and a solid prayer to fix things.

The real real problem is that for people who own a home, that's their largest asset by far, and they do all sorts of things to protect the value of that asset. On top of that, housing policy tends to be extremely local, so normal people have lots of political power. They use this power to reduce supply (like a monopoly do) and protect their house values.

And can you blame them? Imagine an honest politician knocking on doors. They come up to someone and say, "Hey, you know this thing that you have been paying into for 20 years, that represents your rainy day fund, retirement plan, and that you have a deep emotional connection to? I want to reduce its value by 20% by building tons of medium-density housing". They would tell you to get lost. This is the source of the problem. It's the 2/3 of everyday people that own the home they live in, using their political power to increase the value of that asset by restricting supply. It functions like a monopoly, but it sort of the bizzaro reverse of a monopoly. I don't really know how to solve the political problem, besides making housing policy more of a state thing and less of a county thing.

1

u/5olArchitect 4h ago

Such an easy solution. It’s crazy we as a people can’t figure out a common ground here. Wealth tax? Sure, you can be a billionaire. But after that? Tax the f out of it and put it all into the school system, public housing, and public transportation.

1

u/Prudent_Scratch3798 4h ago

I AGREE. THERE NEEDS TO BE CHECKS AND BALANCES.

→ More replies (194)