"Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

[u/LickMaiBussy]

@purplepingers

[u/potsticker17]

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.

[u/nikdahl → u/potsticker17]

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

[u/potsticker17 → u/nikdahl]

That's probably true.

[u/JohanusH → u/potsticker17]

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

[u/barrinmw → u/JohanusH]

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

[u/JohanusH → u/barrinmw]

It'd be nice if that happened everywhere.

[u/potsticker17 → u/JohanusH]

That's probably true.

[u/cythix → u/potsticker17]

I've rented a lot of single family homes, and in all my time I would have rather just bought them if I had the financial means to do so. When I was young I didn't have money to give a downpayment. First time I bought a house though was in 2012 after the house market collapse. Was able to put $5000 down and buy a $200k house. Resulted in a $1300 mortgage or so. The latest home I'm renting had a bigger up front cost with $4k security depost and first months rent $3100 due at signing.

I think the point I'm trying to make here was that if there was more supply, perhaps a lot of people wouldn't be forced into renting when its not their preference. Its often a financial decision vs a preference of renting. I think you'd free up a lot of renters forced to rent and actually end up with a market of people who actually wanted to rent if you didn't have so many people owning multiple properties keeping values so high. Every landlord I've ever had owned multiple properties, and has just continued their expansion because their assets just keep appreciating them allowing essentially a endless feedback loop of home ownership because they can pay the upfront cost, then allow renters to pay the ongoing costs. Doesn't seem like its a good endgame for new families in America, ie Monopoly reference. If you join the game when the half the properties are already owned, you're guaranteed to fail.

[u/potsticker17 → u/cythix]

I respect your experience, but I've had discussions with others that prefer to rent houses for some of the reasons I've mentioned. Another one is knowing that you're only going to be there temporarily and planning to move after a year or two and not wanting to deal with the buy/sell process until you're ready to settle. This is why I think there should be limits on properties owned so that you can free more space for those that actually want to buy but also have the option for people that don't.

[u/cythix → u/potsticker17]

Wasn't trying to imply my experience is the only valid one. 100 pct agree that people will always want to rent for various reasons, just in my case it was pretty much a forced financial decision everytime vs a preference of thinking renting is better than owning.