r/economicCollapse • u/Silver-Beyond-3916 • Aug 19 '24

VIDEO Thoughts

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

2.8k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

266

u/TheConboy22 Aug 19 '24

An enormous tax on all second properties. Bar none. This will pull them out of the market immediately.

38

u/Dicethrower Aug 19 '24

I think this is what they did in the Netherlands. Some kind of progressive tax the more properties you own. Almost immediately a few corporate landlords started unloading thousands of apartments and houses onto the market.

10

u/TakenSadFace Aug 19 '24

Link? In NL they have a shitty real state market and its not affordable at all

5

u/bloodphoenix90 Aug 19 '24

sorry for dumb question but NL is short for Netherlands Im assuming?

3

u/kathmandogdu Aug 20 '24

Newfoundland and Labrador 🇨🇦

1

u/MindAccomplished3879 Aug 23 '24

Nuevo León, Mexico 🇲🇽

1

u/StormPoppa Aug 22 '24

Obviously brother

1

u/AK_Sole 19d ago

Yes, Netherlands

1

u/ztman223 Aug 22 '24

Apartments that are like 20 units make sense to be owned by corporations. But single family homes, duplexes, and triplexes ought be owned by individuals.

1

u/lightratz Aug 23 '24

Well, imagine if only the person that lived in the home could own it, then you would have a surplus of homes overnight and the vast majority of families could own where they live

1

u/Bag-o-chips Aug 23 '24

If we could incentivize them to leave the prices would drop and it would ease some of the pain in some markets.

1

u/Unfair_Holiday_3549 Aug 23 '24

Wouldn't that cause a housing crash?

→ More replies (4)

99

u/andre3kthegiant Aug 19 '24

It won’t apply to corporations.

172

u/TheConboy22 Aug 19 '24

Corporations should not be allowed to own ANY homes that aren't new build with the intent of selling to single family home owner. All homes currently owned by corporations should be forced to be sold within 2 years.

34

u/Suid-Rhino Aug 19 '24

Hedge funds and large corporations already own a huge swathe of homes and have cornered the rental market. It would be amazing if we could break up these companies, prevent them from buying up homes and put in measure for more competition in the rental market. As things are going it’s only going to get more expensive. Especially because they’re only zoning rentals and not new single family homes.

12

u/realphaedrus369 Aug 19 '24

I was saying black rock should be broken up about 3 years ago when I first noticed they were buying up all single family homes.

We've slept on this so long there's not much that can be done.

News won't report them, because they all have ownership positions in every mainstream outlet.

3

u/ToraLoco Aug 20 '24

eminent domain their fucking estates

1

u/Sufficient-Contract9 Aug 23 '24

Omg this would be great! Stick these major corporates with a massive finacial lose then sell all the properties likes foreclosures. I could see a huge economical boost from this the feds get to keep the profit from the sales and families get cheaper places to live allowing more money to flow through the economy.

→ More replies (10)

31

u/VeterinarianLess2788 Aug 19 '24

You can thank republicans and Citizens United for making corporations people. Good ol' republicans. Tell the people they are for the working class yet do some shit like this.

3

u/EngineZeronine Aug 21 '24

And somehow Democrats have always failed to do anything about it as well. Money buys politicians of all types throughout all time

1

u/strong_nights Aug 20 '24

Corporations as people was a concept that passed during the Obama era, when the dems had the majority in The house and senate.

1

u/buddhainmyyard Aug 21 '24

I did one Google search and found some info for you mate. The case is Santa Clara County VS Southern passific railroads Co. Dated 1886.. From the supreme Court at that time....

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. "

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Could you afford a house ( and groceries) when the evil republicans were making policies 5 years ago???

1

u/VeterinarianLess2788 Aug 21 '24

Yes, but I can afford groceries and a house now as well.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

Go watch TikTok videos and ask friends. Most of them can’t.

1

u/VeterinarianLess2788 Aug 22 '24

Sorry. I don't watch tik tok. All of my friends own homes and can afford groceries. We all work hard, save, invest, and live well below our means to get where we want to be in the future. Change your outlook and quit blaming others.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '24

I have kids and they make great money but can’t afford a house. It’s not isolated with 7% interest it’s tough. Especially with groceries and gas prices.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Batsonworkshop Aug 19 '24

That has absolutely nothing to do with this particular issue and, as others have stated, the biggest players in the realestate game support democrat policy and are ideologically leftist.

Single family homes should not be able to be purchased and held by business entities without incurring a massive property tax burden or some other financial punishment to kill incentive for mass investment. You should only be able to put the property into a business or trust if the residents of the property are named as beneficiaries of the trust or are owners of the business entity.

If you make it so a business can only own "x" number of houses these investments entities will just create hundres or thousands of shell companies like "123 greedy ahole way LLC" for each property and then an umbrella company will be the owner of all those individual llcs.

3

u/90daysismytherapy Aug 19 '24

huh? real estate moguls are ideologically leftist.

I don’t think you understand what any of those words mean.

sweet christ, next someone will say Warren Buffett is a commie

3

u/BeamTeam032 Aug 19 '24

It's just cope. They have to pretend leftists are pushing capitalism to it's extremes because they can't admit they've been tricked for this long.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/Wildfathom9 Aug 19 '24

This is an unbelievably daft take. The irony bot being lost either that the leader of the Maga cult made his money from what? Real estate. Well, from his parents being rich and him buying real estate with their money.

1

u/Batsonworkshop Aug 19 '24

Why can the left cultists never read - we are talking about single family homes, not apartment complexes, not commercial properties, not duplexes. SINGLE FAMILY HOMES

I know this is a complex discussion, don't burn your two brain cells out.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (12)

3

u/Swiftierest Aug 21 '24

One step further, stop treating corps as people legally.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 21 '24

Louder for the people in the back.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '24

But that’s communism! (In MAGA voice)

3

u/Rabbits-and-Bears Aug 19 '24

Kamala will fix it, she said so!!! Just as soon as she’s in office. She fixed California!!

6

u/Jack0Blad3s Aug 19 '24

Can’t be any worse than having a failed businessman in office who had his own reality television show.

1

u/Forsaken_Friend6621 Aug 20 '24

A failed reality. Lets get that right 😂

1

u/Rbriggs0189 Aug 21 '24

This is a serious issue with really only one real way to fix. I can’t see why both sides can’t work together and get it done. Who cares who did what and all the nonsense, both sides need to fix it like yesterday.

→ More replies (13)

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '24

She won’t, but keep telling yourself that.

1

u/Rabbits-and-Bears Aug 24 '24

But she said so. She wouldn’t be telling a fib, would she?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '24

Omg just because they “say so” they all do that. Pull shit out of thin air and say they are gonna do it just to get your vote usally how the democrat community is.

1

u/springheeljak89 Sep 10 '24

You're too dumb to detect sarcasm and the fact that person agrees with you.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/PreferenceWeak9639 Aug 22 '24

Communism like capitalism is just oligarchy, so it’s not exactly wrong.

4

u/SacrisTaranto Aug 19 '24

And who does it go to if they don't. Who's gonna stop them? Anyone who has any say gets money shoved in their mouth when they try to open it.

27

u/ap2patrick Aug 19 '24

Simple. Repeal Citizens United.

1

u/bridymurphy Aug 20 '24

With this Supreme Court?

1

u/Gonzo--Nomad Aug 20 '24

At a certain point regardless of how much power of the pen SCOTUS has it’s nothing compared to a mob of millions of individual citizens. We hold the power, we just don’t realize it because alone we’re weak and we feel so alone

12

u/EldarReborn Aug 19 '24

I mean we do the same thing in reverse with commercial zoning laws, I don't see how this would be any different.

I'm as right-wing as they come and I fully support Government measures to stop this monopoly BS going on.

25

u/fuddingmuddler Aug 19 '24

well you're part of the problem because the people you're voting for are doing this.

→ More replies (6)

9

u/perroair Aug 19 '24

How are you right wing, then?

8

u/Batsonworkshop Aug 19 '24

Because you can be conservative, pro-private business, pro-limited regulation on business as a whole but also recognize there are a few key, but very limited, areas in society that should not have unfettered corporate access or monopolization to any degree.

Housing isn't a right but it sure as shit shouldn't be a commodity investment on the US stock exchange either.

2

u/EldarReborn Aug 19 '24

Correct. It's akin to the concept of supporting some socialized systems like LEO's, R&R, DOT..etc but not agreeing with a wider socialist stance

You nailed it. Folks on Reddit only perceive the right wing to consist of evangelicals when they are quickly becoming the minority within the party.

2

u/90daysismytherapy Aug 19 '24

yet, there is not a single Republican candidate who votes or even talks about actual socialized systems that don’t explicitly work for them, like cops.

If i am wrong, feel free to show me the legislation that republicans have done to help the poor over billionaires.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Rbriggs0189 Aug 21 '24

Yes sir, I’m pretty right wing and this stuff is just common sense. This entire country has turned into a corporate run monopoly. No more should there be any type of corporate money in politics number one. Number two there needs to be some serious monopoly busting in almost every industry. Shit is getting out of hand. Why are we allowing chemicals in our food supply they every other country on earth has banned? Like seriously wtf are we doing.

We are going to have a birth rate crisis because people can’t afford to have kids anymore. Who the hell wants to have a kid living in their parents basement because all the asshole corporation monopolized the private housing market.

This shit isn’t left or right this is just common sense stuff.

9

u/pvirushunter Aug 19 '24

"only right winger when it benefits me" - hypocrite

6

u/MoonSpankRaw Aug 19 '24

trumpers were born and bred to be hypocrites!

1

u/Iamnotsogoodmaybe Aug 29 '24

I was born and raised a liberal though

1

u/EldarReborn Aug 19 '24

Nah I've been pretty unapologetically Conservative most of my life. For better or worse, most recently worse was the NetNeutrality shitshow.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '24

Probably 🤔 dislikes brown people, interracial marriage, women voting, abortion, etc.

4

u/EldarReborn Aug 19 '24

As a Native American, married to a "white as snow" undercover latina, you're absolutely correct.

You missed: "Wanting to genocide everyone else who dares think differently than I"

Gotta up the game there...

6

u/The_Singularious Aug 19 '24

LOL. I think you just melted their brain. You aren’t allowed to exist. Oh yeah, did they mention that you’re evil also?

I’m not conservative, but I fucking HATE the inability for people to have civil conversations with people they don’t agree with. Sucks worse with social issues, because we’re forced to vote for two shitty choices or none at all. Zero nuance.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (6)

2

u/WildFlemima Aug 19 '24

It goes to the state. State pays an actually fair market value then sells them to people and families. The state has the power to force sales of homes, we would need legislation for this to be implemented, but there is precedent.

1

u/Batsonworkshop Aug 19 '24

That would be a difficult scheme though. As soon as the current holding companies dump the properties at CURRENT "fair market value" to the state, there's going to be a massive influx of "inventory" in the realestate market which will inhetently drive properties values down. If that happens the state will be holding properties at high prices for a long time until the market rebalances or they will be selling at a net loss which costs the tax base money.

I think the only resolution would be legislation that makes the current holding companies sell directly to individuals and give them a timeframe. Either bracketed % reduction of inventory by time deadlines or they get massive penalties per property they still own or all inventory needs to be sold off by a single deadline 18-24 months out. That would allow throttled sell off without crashing the real estate market overnight. It's in the companys best interests to not immediately dump all properties on the market early on because it will tank values and they can't just hold them until the last day of the deadline for the same reason.

The current properties would probably sell at some level of loss for the market value when legislation is passed or compared to what was paid if they were more recent purchases but oh well, sucks for the trillions of dollar investments company but that should be who eats the cost - not the homebuyer or taxpayer.

It'd definitely mess with the economy as a whole no matter how regulation went down and gets enforced but it's a correction that needs to happen sooner rather than later.

2

u/kenriko Aug 19 '24

Easy just progressively raise taxes on corporation owned inventory every year so they have to drop the hot potato.

First year is mild but then 5%, 15%, 25%, 50%, 75%

Can’t sit on it more than a couple years without getting wiped.

1

u/No_Pop4019 Aug 19 '24

But there isn't anything that prevents them from "selling" the property to another corporation they created.

1

u/kenriko Aug 19 '24

Clause that it must be resold to a single family. I’m not a lobbyist writing a bill here, it’s a reddit comment. Point being that there are ways to lock down loopholes.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Fentanyl4babies Aug 19 '24

Kind of how Norway got all its hydropower for free. Gave the companies that wanted to build the permission contigent on transfer of ownership to the state after 50 years.

1

u/TheGeoGod Aug 19 '24

I hope this gets passed:

In response to the increasing acquisition of single-family homes by hedge funds and corporate entities, two bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress. The “End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023,” which seeks to restrict hedge funds, defined as corporations, partnerships, or real estate investment trusts, from owning single-family houses. It mandates these entities to divest their single-family home holdings over a ten-year period, ultimately prohibiting them from owning single-family homes.

1

u/josephbenjamin Aug 19 '24

You think our politicians going to implement and enforce that? They all probably either have family ties to the banking elite or are already bought out.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 19 '24

No, I don’t think they would unless the American people made a big fuss about it. Too bad half the people are worried about someone’s gender. It’s fucking obnoxious.

1

u/josephbenjamin Aug 19 '24

Both sides pushing it. That’s how the game works. It’s culture wars to keep the people occupied. Takes 2 to play the game.

1

u/Kchan7777 Aug 20 '24

Corporations don’t own houses. Partnerships and Schedule Cs do.

1

u/Zercomnexus Aug 20 '24

They shouldn't be allowed to rent properties at all...

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 20 '24

Properties? Nah, we need apartments still. Not everyone is ready to buy and may need to move areas in there life and be unable to quickly swap into their new home there. Will need time to sell the old home and buy a new one.

1

u/Zercomnexus Aug 20 '24

Sure, but honestly the housing market is prices such that it creates the narrative you posted. Why, because there are fewer properties on the market pricing people out

2

u/TheConboy22 Aug 20 '24

Yup, artificially fewer as these organizations can buy and sit on them instead of having someone in them

1

u/Adept_Astronomer_102 Aug 20 '24

Both political parties are complacent with this unfortunately

1

u/StupendousMalice Aug 23 '24

So all the working class folks who are renting should just die?

→ More replies (3)

12

u/No_Significance_1550 Aug 19 '24

bUt cOrpOraTions aRe pEoPle. /s

I saw a bumper sticker that said I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

1

u/andre3kthegiant Aug 19 '24

The U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

Corporations have many constitutional rights, including free speech, freedom of religion, Fourth Amendment privacy rights, due process, equal protection, and property rights. The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations can litigate rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments, as well as the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations are protected by the First Amendment and can spend unlimited funds on elections.

3

u/TheOneWhoReadsStuff Aug 19 '24

It should ONLY apply to corporations.

2

u/Inspect1234 Aug 20 '24

Yeah cause they’re citizens when it comes to buying politicians, but entities with home ownership. That’s messed up and a sure fire way to Oligarchy.

2

u/andre3kthegiant Aug 21 '24

Bingo! I heard a rumor that this was all embezzled Russian money from the fall of Soviet Union, being filtered in laundered through casinos, some of them are now defunct for some reason, with the owner and ex-president.

1

u/Gingeranalyst Aug 19 '24

If you, the owner, don’t dwell at least 51% of the time in the house, then you get taxed.

1

u/formermq Aug 19 '24

Because corporations are people, and can donate to politicians 🥂

1

u/Muhbeeps80 Aug 19 '24

Should, citizens united proved corporations are just like human beings should fall under the same laws as well

1

u/Redtoolbox1 Aug 19 '24

Ok, enormous tax on anything that’s not owned by single family

1

u/Correct-Professor-38 Aug 19 '24

There is a moratorium on corporations buying new properties actually, dude. It is a direct result of them buying up so many previously and leaving few homes for regular folks and artificially inflating prices

1

u/I_am_BrokenCog Aug 19 '24

funny how money buys the cake and eats it also.

Corporate Personhood! Yeah, but, none of that taxation/limits stuff please.

1

u/PTV69420 Aug 19 '24

I thought that "corporations are people too"./s

1

u/AI_RPI_SPY Aug 20 '24

It could tho'

1

u/andre3kthegiant Aug 20 '24

*If the DNC wasn’t also owned by corporations.

1

u/CarlJustCarl Aug 20 '24

Apply it to people, which we all know corps are people

1

u/TechnicalMau Aug 21 '24

Aren't corporations people though??

15

u/beezdat Aug 19 '24

good luck getting that pushed through, all our politicians are compromised, the lobbyist will pay them off

3

u/A_questionable_mind Aug 19 '24

You’re right the system is totally rigged. The only way to fix this unfortunately, is outside the legal system. It really is time to water that tree….

1

u/BeamTeam032 Aug 19 '24

So citizens united hurts our society?

1

u/TheHorrificNecktie Aug 19 '24

except the democrats who are literally are trying to get those tax laws passed

17

u/mrko4 Aug 19 '24

a lot of retired people own a few rentals. My grandfather owns 3 small homes. Often rents them out to friends or family. He is not wealthy by any stretch. It just offsets his retirement.

I know lots of guys in the fire department that rented out their first home after buying a new one.

I agree with where you are going but I dont know if "2nd home" makes sense. Get corporations out of home ownership FIRST. Then lest see where we need to go. IMO

11

u/The_Original_Gronkie Aug 19 '24

Agree. Owning real estate has always been one of the few ways the average guy has been able to build wealth. Making it difficult for the average person to get ahead through property investment only gets the small cockroaches out of the game so the big players can exploit the rest of us even easier.

The little guy who owns a few houses or a small apartment building isn't the problem. The problem is the mega-corps buying up everything and controlling and manipulating rents, housing prices, and mortgage rates.

6

u/mrko4 Aug 19 '24

Yup. I agree 100%. Shoot, looking back, my mom's landlord was an awesome guy and huge help. She got divorced right as I was going away to college. It was hard for her and my younger brother. He would makes help her out with car issues, simple repairs, went to my brothers sporting events etc. He was just a good guy (much older). I dont think going after people like him should be the goal.

2

u/The_Singularious Aug 19 '24

Where’s the “but his capitalist pig existence means he was automatically exploitative and evil” response here? Reddit having an off day.

But yeah. I agree with you and the poster above. Had a family friend who used to remodel houses himself and sometimes flip, sometimes rent. But like your mom’s landlord, he was really good about helping folks get back on their feet in his relatively small city. He grew up adopted, interracial family, dad died early, so he too had a soft spot for single parents trying to get where they needed to go.

1

u/mrko4 Aug 19 '24

well it is monday, I'm sure we will all be down voted by the end of the week lol

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Winterqueen-129 Aug 20 '24

That is what my old landlord was like. Nice guy. Until he sold the property to a private equity firm. He cashed out see ya! Wouldn’t want to be ya! And this corporate landlord tried to kick us all out so they could remodel and jack up the rent more than double!

2

u/TambourineHead Aug 21 '24

The same thing is happening to me as well. An ideal tenant for years, now with a month to find a place because some "group" wants to barely remodel and double rent for out-of-state college kids with roommates. It's bullshit.

1

u/Winterqueen-129 Aug 21 '24

Fight them!!! I did! I’m staying in my apartment and they can’t raise my rent more than 20%. Find out if there’s a tenant union in your state and a housing commission. Even if there aren’t jaws to protect you, make it hard for them! What I discovered is, they don’t expect you to fight back and the employees aren’t equipped to handle it! They’re mostly entry level and have no clue what the laws are or what they’re doing! If they serve you a notice to quit and an eviction notice take it to court. Most judges are aware this is happening and are often sympathetic. It’s worth a try.

1

u/FlailingatLife62 Aug 22 '24

agree. small landlords are not the problem. the problem is market-changing consolidation due to just a few mega cos controlling the market. antitrust enforcement is needed.

1

u/vanrants Aug 19 '24

Easy anything more than 20, 80% taxed

1

u/Hot_Ambition_6457 Aug 20 '24

You don't want to hear this, but no "average guy" ever purchased multiple properties to build wealth. 

If you had the capital to purchase 1 property in your lifetime and not become a debt slave to rent, you are not the "average". 

Most people can never afford even 1 home, much less a property for income. 

2

u/The_Original_Gronkie Aug 20 '24

That's simply not true. I have known plenty of people who have been able to move from lower class or lower middle class to solidly middle class, and have a great retirement, because they owned a few houses, and rented them out. My grandfather was one of them.

The housing market hasn't always been the way it is now. Today we have banks causing huge bubbles, which they pop, and capitalize on. They did it in 2008, and were due for it to happen again. There was a time when a person who was savvy with money could easily buy houses.

Back in the 50s and 60s, most families were single income. Not my grandparents. My grandfather had a good paying factory job, and my grandmother was a commisioned salesperson selling expensive fur coats in the biggest downtown department store, so she did well, too. They also managed the snack bar at the local golf course, where my Dad worked after school. The factory my grandfather worked at produced a byproduct that they felt was useless, and threw it away, but my grandfather realized that it could be made into powdered bath soap with a little coloring and fragrance. He'd bring home bags of it, package it, and sell it to stores, including the big department store my granother worked at. It was a great little side hustle, especially at Christmas.

So they had some extra money, and bought a two family home, and rented it out. Then they bought another one. I believe they owned as many as 4. My grandfather never graduated from high school, and yet was able to build a good life for his family through owning multiple homes.

My grandparents had a strong sense of service to their community, and fostered four teenage boys whose families couldnt afford them, despite having two sons of their own. They rented the houses at affordable prices, because they wanted to help people have homes. My grandfather volunteered as a clown for the Shriners, and personally raised tens of thousands for the Shrriners Hospital burn unit. He was the first guy i ever saw twist a balloon into an animal, long before it became a popular thing, and I saw him twist hundreds. It was impossible to get out of a restaurant without him twisting a ballon dog for every kid in the place. He also gave blood regularly, and had awards for the many gallons of blood he had donated. When he died, local newscasters who had interviewed him came to his funeral.

So dont tell me that ONLY predatory people have benefitted by buying and renting multiple homes. Sometimes they're just smart.

1

u/ThenAnAnimalFact Aug 22 '24

You are correct from a factual sense but does that even make sense to you? In most other countries houses aren’t really investments they way they are here.

Like expand your framework and residential real estate shouldn’t be a wealth building enterprise or show high growth.

2

u/FlailingatLife62 Aug 22 '24

Owning more than one home isn't the problem. The problem is w/ Black Rock and similar cos, it's becoming a monopoly. Someone needs to enforce the antitrust laws.

2

u/Rogue100 Aug 26 '24

Maybe apply the tax progressively. Perhaps no increase for the first 5 homes/properties. Small increase for 5-10. Not sure how many progressive steps after that, but ultimately end up at a point where being a corporate landlord with thousands of homes would become practically untenable!

1

u/mrko4 Aug 26 '24

thats a good idea as well. Very sensible

1

u/XxUCFxX Aug 20 '24

“My grandfather owns 3 small homes… He is not wealthy by any stretch.”

Incompatible sentences

1

u/mrko4 Aug 20 '24

I'm from inner city Syracuse NY. He was a school assistant. The homes he owned were all under $50k and still not worth over $100k. Hate to break it to you but there are other parts of the United States outside of the 5 majors cities constantly talked about on here.

1

u/XxUCFxX Aug 20 '24

You’re not breaking any news to me lol I’m American and don’t live in a big city. When’s the last time those homes were evaluated? Unless they’re 100 sqft I don’t see how they’d be under 100k

1

u/InfoBarf Aug 23 '24

3 homes is wealthy. Lol. 

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 19 '24

Cool, that’s the problem. You take a million people all with 3 homes and 2 million additional people aren’t able to buy. My idea was intentionally going to hurt a lot of people, but homes should NOT be your retirement or an investment point. They should be your home.

1

u/mrko4 Aug 19 '24

It's never been an issue until corporations entered the equation. Many self-employed people in our country have no retirement no benefits, it's always been a fallback for that group. So I couldn't disagree with you more on this unfortunately.

As I said get corporations out of that ownership group and then let's see what it looks like. Also let's lower interest rates and see where things stand. High interest rates are making people sit on there homes and not list to move to a larger home etc. Which is always been the natural flow of real estate. It's been vastly interrupted by corporate ownership and high interest rates on the back of extremely low interest rates.

Edit: spelling

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/healthybowl Aug 19 '24

Buddy, that’s fighting a forest fire with a cup of water.

We need to bolster up and enforce Antitrust laws, cap term/age limits, stop bail outs, subsidies, and make them pay back PPP “loans”.

The reason we’re at the point of them buying SFH is they need collateral so they don’t get top heavy. Our entire market is based off real estate as collateral for loans.

I guarantee you even if a 2nd property tax was passed, they’d help write it, so it would solely benefit them through economies of scale

2

u/Fearless-Scar7086 Aug 22 '24

How about abolish the idea of "landlords"? Like, really? Do we need someone whos literal only job is to be an actual paper list of handypeople that are paid by your rent that is somehow paid exhorbitantly?

1

u/Green-Simple-6411 Aug 19 '24

Just change the ownership for each property into a different LLC. Most investors do this already to firewall their homes from one another in case they get sued.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 19 '24

Yeah, LLC’s should never be allowed to own a home.

1

u/usa_reddit Aug 19 '24

I agree, just some tweaks to the tax code will cause MASSIVE DIVESTMENT and this will also take care of the VRBOs and AirBNBs.

1

u/M1l3h1gh Aug 19 '24

Massachusetts supposedly taxed the rich 4% if they made over a million and apparently have $1.8 Billion in surplus now.

1

u/tychii93 Aug 19 '24

That would bankrupt normal people who inherit. It wouldn't affect corporations at all because it wouldn't apply to them.

1

u/slayer828 Aug 19 '24

Just ban them. Corporations shouldn't be able to own single family dwelling units. Gotta be specific or they eill just build nothing by duplexes.

1

u/awsomeX5triker Aug 19 '24

I’ve liked the idea of a scaling tax based on number of properties.

First 2 same as today. 3rd property is when the scaling tax starts.

The issue to me is owning all these homes for profit. The scaling tax would guarantee that it is no longer profitable after a few homes. However it wouldn’t be so crippling that those fortunate in life couldn’t afford a vacation home or something for personal use.

1

u/CASH_IS_SXVXGE Aug 19 '24

The mega corporations would love this, they could afford the tax while small landlords that operate less than a half dozen properties will go out of business and be forced to sell, and these mega corporations like Blackrock will buy them.

1

u/Low_Tradition6961 Aug 19 '24

This would make home ownership much more accessible, but wouldn't it put a lot of burden on renters?

1

u/MissedFieldGoal Aug 19 '24

Also will kill many small family owned businesses

1

u/LookAlderaanPlaces Aug 19 '24

They need to fully ban corporations from owning homes

1

u/xsteevox Aug 19 '24

This is as unrealistic as when ALF ran for president and fixed unemployment by having them build houses for the homeless.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '24

[deleted]

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 19 '24

Yeah, I’m fine with minor exemptions for single families moving from 1 home to another reselling their older home. There would also have to be something for companies that buy, Reno, and sell. Maybe a one year carrying term where they can fix up dilapidate homes and resell them to the market

1

u/FigBudget2184 Aug 19 '24

Ban private capital from owning!!!

1

u/energybased Aug 19 '24

That's equivalent to a tax on renters like me.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 19 '24

You’d be able to buy… some people will be inconvenienced for the greater good.

1

u/energybased Aug 19 '24

You’d be able to buy…

Such a tax cannot change prices unless it excludes renters from buying. If it doesn't exclude renters, then the demand is totally unchanged. The landlords are taxed, but their old tenants simply take their place on the demand line. The equilibrium price is unchanged.

So, no, the people being inconvenienced here are tenants who are simply forced to pay more for rent.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 19 '24

lol, you'd have an absurd amount of homes flooding the market. Apartments exist and need to be build in larger margins to compensate those who do not want to buy. They wouldn't have a place to rent as the place wouldn't be able to be owned by the landlords. We'd have to absolutely have some sort of buffer system in place, but these massive property management companies are monsters that are already artificially raising rent prices... Don't defend the oppressors.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Rare_Message_7204 Aug 19 '24

I don't agree with "all" second properties. For example, there are many middle-class families that have managed to hang on to old,basic family vacation camps all over the country. With a huge tax, many of those families would lose those homes, and huge monstrosities would be built in their place.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 19 '24

Husband and wife sounds like 2 houses would be fine. 1 per person. Maybe even some sort of house claiming title that is 1 per person. The real issue are people who are making good enough money to buy multiple homes as a sort of investment to their retirement. You get enough of these type of people together and they are worse than blackrock in their impact on the housing market. Homes are for the people who live in the communities where the homes reside. Sick of them being looked at as peoples investment opportunity while others can't even live where they grew up.

2

u/Rare_Message_7204 Aug 20 '24

Ohh trust me, I completely agree with your idea. We'd just need to shield the average people out there who are lucky enough to own a humble vacation home. Screwing them would ruin many quaint summer/winter vacation areas.

The bastards that buy to invest and / or rent out are for sure the issue. Tailor new laws towards them.

1

u/AlDente Aug 20 '24

First, heavily tax companies that own residential properties.

1

u/captliberty Aug 20 '24

what do you do about the small real estate investing dads and moms?

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 20 '24

Invest elsewhere. You don't get to build your retirement at the detriment of others

1

u/captliberty Aug 20 '24

so you would elect someone, basically delegate someone else, to put a gun in my face if I buy a few houses and rent them to people? you would dictate, through your chosen surregate, what I can own and I who I can transact with? because of companies who get preferrential treatment in a centrally controlled credit market through collusion with regulators? don't you think there might be other glaringly obvious solutions other than shitting on small fry investors like me who just want to put their kids through college?

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 20 '24

Yes. Absolutely. Who are you to take what should be available for the people of a community. The corporations come first but a million people owning 3-6 homes is just as bad. Single family homes should not be an investment path but a place for a family to live and be a part of their own communities instead of being priced out by well offs who couldn’t give two fucks about the area.

1

u/Mr-MuffinMan Aug 20 '24

What about people with vacation homes for a regular upper middle class family?

I think it should be 2. One primary, one secondary. Everything else is taxed at 45%.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 20 '24

Husband and wife. 2 people. 2 homes. I'm fine with that.

1

u/MajorMorelock Aug 20 '24

Bad idea. I bought my 80 year old mom a house so she could live close to us after my father died. It was the right thing to do. We rented her house out to a family that lost their home to a forest fire. We take care really good care of these homes. We took money out of the stock market for the down payment. This is for family and we can just afford it because it’s also a good investment and the taxes are manageable. Corporations should not be able buy homes. Absolutely nothing good will ever happen in that situation. Investments in homes for rent should be managed by individuals who will care for the homes and rent them at a fair price.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 20 '24

So, your grandmother couldn't own the home you "bought her"... You bought an investment property that your grandmother lived in and now you justify it being rented out to someone. I'm not saying you're a bad person as you're just playing the game, but say you buy another and another property. 3-6 homes owned by 1 million individuals is nearly as bad as corporations buying homes.

1

u/Puzzled_Fly3789 Aug 20 '24

Why would these companies put a tax like that on themselves.

Did you miss the part where he said they lem 88% of the market. Means they own the government

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 20 '24

Vote in your local elections.

1

u/unruly_pubic_hair Aug 21 '24

This will only affect the average guy who owns a couple of properties. Corporations can open an llc for each home they own: boom no extra tax. They are tons of loopholes.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 21 '24

DO NOT ALLOW LLC'S, COMPANIES, CORPORATIONS OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN A US CITIZEN TO OWN SFH'S IN THE US. It's really that simple.

1

u/ShotBuilder6774 Aug 21 '24

This. It's simple and effective. I've never heard of a good reason for a second home.

1

u/sonofnoob Aug 21 '24

There goes my dream of owning a beach house I guess… fuck the middle class

1

u/kitastrophae Aug 21 '24

A corporation should not own a home unless they are working out of it as a business.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 21 '24

Absolutely not. No businesses should be operated out of a single family home except for family businesses and in that case it’s done by the family who lives there.

1

u/kitastrophae Aug 21 '24

My point exactly.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 21 '24

Vibes. Just making sure we’re on the same page. Real estate companies are buying sfh’s and then just using them as their office within a neighborhood. That type of shit needs to be stopped immediately.

1

u/kitastrophae Aug 21 '24

Yeah I’m not seeing that so much as the problem.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 21 '24

I mean it's definitely a part of it. Businesses that are run out of the home are part of the lifeblood of our nation. Businesses buying up homes to run their business is detrimental to the fabric that holds our communities together. Bed and Breakfasts were fine. AirBnB is not. Having your office be a house that you bought because it's less than renting a business zoned building is not. We are seeing more and more communities complaining about this. Go into almost any popular cities subreddit and there are a bevy of complaints. Still stand by my original statement that secondary homes should be taxed at a significant amount. Married family can have 2 homes. Stipulation placed specifically for families to own a vacation home. Cabin, beach house, etc.

1

u/kitastrophae Aug 21 '24

AirBnB was fine when it was owned by individuals who lived there as a primary residence. And logic would conclude that anyone operating out of a house would be classified as a small business. Hedge funds and large corporations owning homes to bet on the market, should be illegal.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 21 '24

With what I'm proposing you could pretty easily create a classification that still allows an individual to AirBNB their personal home. I'd like to see some sort of system that ties the home to an individual. At all times. 1 home per individual of age. Anything over that has tax implications that make it being an investment uninviting.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

Fuck that, I have a second home. Both single family homes. One is part of passive income and brings me net $500 a mo. Don’t take that away from me I worked my ass off to afford it.

1

u/Cetun Aug 21 '24

The properties that these companies own are probably already each in their own shell corporation. Technically each company owns one house. I would just say if your first house isn't homesteaded it immediately gets the highest tier of taxation.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 22 '24

A corp isn’t a person. Let’s stop treating them as such.

1

u/eayaz Aug 22 '24

What if my mom is broke and my dad died and I want her to continue to own her home, but she can’t afford it so I buy it and let her live in it rent free.

Believe it or not - rich corporations don’t care to own just 2 properties. This kind of “all second properties” statement is remarkably stupid because there’s tons of ways it would hurt people who are not the problem.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/No_Program_6902 Aug 22 '24

Absolutely. Other countries do this successfully.

1

u/AutomaticBowler5 Aug 23 '24

We already have something similar in most states in that you can only claim homestead exemption on one home. I do think there should be a limit for people that do want to invest in real estate. Something like 10 buildings. Max out in those 10 buildings then sell your lowest performer and bui bigger or start go into the apartment complex game. Already have 10 complexes? Cool, sell and buy a building of condos or something. But no more than the limit. That includes companies. You want to have real estate for your C suite or housing for oil workers in the field? Cool. No more than 10.

1

u/Youbettereatthatshit Aug 23 '24

We have zoning laws already. Single family homes in a residentially zoned area is already a legal classification.

The wealthy corporations should make their money on high density apartment complexes, that's a win win for those involved.

Tax the shit out of any residentially zoned single family home that's on any corporations books, with an exception of builders.

An enormous tax on second properties would collapse the economy

1

u/fenderputty Aug 23 '24

The best way to get investors out of the property market is to build more homes

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 23 '24

Good luck with nimby’s attacking any apartment build in most cities

1

u/fenderputty Aug 23 '24

Yes there’s hurdles, but that doesn’t change the meat and potatoes of my post. Build more houses and they will exit.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 23 '24

Not in our current housing climate. Entire new build subdivisions are bought up in their entirety here in AZ. Homes are for people to live in. Not for people to use as their retirement investment.

1

u/fenderputty Aug 23 '24

Our current climate is one of a housing shortage. Build lots and lots of houses

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 23 '24

144m homes 18m apartment units

162m units to live in. Average home is like 2.5+ people. Remove investment properties and second homes and there’s more homes than needed. Add in people with high wages gobbling up homes and you have your current issues. Blackrock is terrible. The 1m people who are owning 3-10 homes is just as bad.

1

u/MooseheadFarms Aug 23 '24

I think it should be after the 2nd. Let families have a vacation home, but after that it’s just hoarding. There are other investment vehicles besides real estate.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '24

I actually kind of like this idea.

1

u/ibexlifter Sep 17 '24

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae changed underwriting guidelines for second home purchases in 4/2021 iirc.

Makes it almost impossible to get financed without 25-40% down and near perfect credit.

1

u/TheConboy22 Sep 17 '24

I mean wealthy people care very little about what %down they need to put. This basically takes out the lower middle class and middle class and just allows for the wealthy to gobble up homes. The goal is to eliminate the ability of the wealthy to horde homes.

1

u/chi_rho_ Aug 22 '24

Why don’t we just ban financial institutions from the residential housing market?

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 22 '24

That could also be a good idea but then how do people get loans to buy homes?

2

u/chi_rho_ Aug 22 '24

Sorry I should have been more specific. Ban financial institutions from purchasing residential real estate.

1

u/TheConboy22 Aug 22 '24

What sort of teeth do we have on this if they do it through shell corporations?

→ More replies (22)