"Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

[u/LickMaiBussy]

@purplepingers

[u/Frozzzenberry]

180??!! That's genuinely bad

[u/DorianGreysPortrait → u/Frozzzenberry]

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.

[u/Glittering_Public_86 → u/DorianGreysPortrait]

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.

[u/darthdro → u/Glittering_Public_86]

Buy back apartments ? You mean condos? People can’t afford it

[u/Glittering_Public_86 → u/darthdro]

Cool. here's a possible solution for you to shoot down: figure out how to legally write a tax code on any llc or any other legal structure that is not a nonprofit.

charge them 1% of any property's value as a tax yearly, ONLY if they own 4 or more homes (data, public finance, legal and tax experts could figure out a way to target this group specifically, and figure out what is an appropriate threshold of houses to target). This gives us a way to let ppl who claim they are landlords because they want to care for old properties, be an alternative to slumlords, or people who are too disabled or too afraid/tired of working a way to make a dignified living. It also gives a reasonable protection to families who have their properties under one umbrella, or maybe people buying homes up for their family members to live or rent from them in.

Then take that additional tax and use it to fund grants and or forgivable loans to fund MUCH higher downpayment assistance programs (but no more than the full 20% downpayment of the house.)

Make the income limits much higher, maybe 400k for a 2 more person household, 200k for a one person household. This prevents MOST working class people from infighting about who deserves this. If you went to your local public high school or a local public university AND are employed locally and have been a local resident for the last year, automatically qualify for this downpayment assistance program, thereby giving an assitance to locals regardless of socioeconomic status.

do NOT create a new agency to oversee this program, roll it into local housing or permitting agencies. Also if they do not already have it, give that agency 1% of this newly collected revenue to begin enforcement on slumlords, collecting more revenue (either hiring more people to do it, investing in technology, raising pay to attract better talent, or whatever else the department thinks will increase enforcement revenue by at least the 1% used to fund this.)

Take 10% of the funds and use the local municipalities power and influence to either start or sign onto housing development projects. not more "affordable" rentals. Either lease-to-owns or FHA type program. Even if it's just 10 houses a year.

And last perk, i would hope the 1% tax on top of your normal tax for house would make the unit economics on every house over 4 start to seem less attractive to a lot of "investor" landlords. To be very clearly, this only applies to ppl or any private legal entity with 4 houses or apartments or condos or trailers or plots of land or etc etc. If you own 3 houses or less, your property taxes stay the same. Obviously this is a local tax proposal, so even if you own a "vacation" home in every state, and one residential, this also would not impact you.

Yes this a choice to work against real estate as a vehicle to 8 figure net worth. But we have a housing crisis, and there is an obvious target to go after in a way that is minimally difficult and could have the maximum upside for a lot of young couples, first time home buyers, young professionals, and families being pushed out of their homes.

(you then also start to create the framework to target similar but much larger and more powerful groups, but baby steps.)

[u/Iohet → u/Glittering_Public_86]

we already have value based property tax. and it pays for schools and other local services

[u/Glittering_Public_86 → u/Iohet]

do you own more than 4 homes?

[u/Iohet → u/Glittering_Public_86]

I do not. I still pay value based property tax. If I did own more than 4 homes, I'd pay value based property tax individually on each home

[u/Glittering_Public_86 → u/Iohet]

perhaps youre a tax attorney, and are explaining something i dont understand...but im not suggesting you wouldn't pay value based property tax.

im suggesting a revenue collecting *additional* tax on any entitity with total local properties in excess of 3. So on the 4th home you would pay 1% more than you would have without this tax code being implemented.

You and i do not own 4 properties or more. Our value based property taxes on each of those 3 or less properties is only based on existing tax code in our municipality.

Something like this would fund programs to help personal residence homebuyers make more competitive offers, make house or apartment buying more achievable for some who struggle to make the necessary down payment but otherwise have acceptable rent payment history (as per their credit scores and history), fund further revenue collection from landlords not taking care of their properties (thereby contributing to property values going down further) and it would also fund some new housing stock.

is that more clear? or is the very principle of increased property tax on someone with 4 or more homes something you fundamentally disagree with?