FFS. How about just deny the purchase of single family homes by all businesses altogether?
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
682 points (99.7% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2747 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As much as I'd like to see that done, I'm sure businesses would just use shell-people to buy the homes.
Sounds perfect, do it. I wanna see your income statement when you own 20 apartments.
Don't remember what the business was but there have been cases of businesses using individuals names on paperwork, saying they own the business, but that person has zero responsibility and gets no pay for it. Probably it was on an episode of Last Week Tonight.
Not only would it make sense for each of the shell people to have the income on their own tax statements when running that sort of subsidizing loan operation, but its actually got fiscal incentive to be done that way because it puts them in lower brackets.
Plus, given the number of foreign owners invested in US properties, it would be difficult or possibly even impossible to charge and expedite them for tax evasion given the tightly constrained budget of the IRS and therefor their inability to go after people without a gaurantee they can earn more back than they spend on the court proceedings.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Right. And tax fraud is a crime, so then could be massively fined or locked up for it.
If the only penalty for a crime is a fine, then the crime is legal for a fee.
That's not actually what those words mean, although I understand what you're saying. Also, if you're trying to imply that fines cannot be used to greatly dissuade various undesirable behaviors, the real world would disagree with you.
Passing tax law is firmly in Congress' remit. Telling corporations what they can and cannot buy is a whole lot stickier. The former is far easier.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You can't deny the purchase of a single family home from a person and businesses are people in this upside down country
They shouldn't even be able to buy single family homes. They're buying houses all over the world raising house prices. They belong in the trash with Airbnb.
There are a few, limited, cases where they should be able to. For example, if they have operations in an area that has frequent medium term employees coming in and out. It's valid for them to say we will offer you a house for the time you are here. But I would generally agree there is no reason for an investment company to be investing in single-family homes. It's good for the investment company, bad for society.
In that situation they could buy a condo, for example.
Why do we force them to do that? How does that help? The condo could be just as easily bought by a single family. The only point I am making is that there are a few legitimate situations where a corporation would want to buy property and we should let them. Houses should be for people to live in. Not for giant corporations to invest in.
Then they cannot rent it... They could offset with wages. This prevents abuse to rent to anyone else.
How about, corporations can own single-family homes, but can only provide them for use by their employees or contractors, not rent them out on the open market and if they sit vacant for more than a couple of months there is some huge tax or fine?
I think there are a significant number of different ways that a large corporation could provide housing for medium-term employees besides purchasing single family homes. Purchasing small apartment buildings, like a fourplex, or purchasing an empty lot and putting manufactured homes on it creating more housing instead of taking the starter homes from normal families.
Raise taxes? They'll just pass the cost on to the renters. We need to forbid then from buying houses.
Yes beyond a limit that property would be unrentable due to high rent. Then since the property owner still would have to pay taxes on the property he might sell it.
That is if the law is properly worded and properly applied.
Your analysis is missing half the story. This setup would encourage local property ownership. They would undercut the corporations. We might see increased competition and therefore lower prices as a result.
I agree with you, though. A strong solution is better.
Not a chance this bill passes considering most of congress stands to benefit from not passing it.
I really hope it sends a message though.
Sometimes you need a few good Congress critters to up the idea on the table.
Too many people don't even know what is possible
Fucking seriously... I'm expecting some absolutely absurd numbers like (don't check my math) D200 No D11 Yes R All No
:(
No chance it will even come to the floor for a vote.
Even a baby step is a step in the right direction, but can we be honest with the naming here? "Mildly Inconvenience Wall Street Landlords with a Tax They will pass on to their Renters Act" is more wordy, but tells you everything you need to know.
Good, but the damage is done, and they can afford those taxes which will only get caught on the backend resale.
They need to be forced to divest immediately to do any real good.
Unless it's horribly written, this is obviously a good idea.
I wonder how many members of Congress own rental properties
This is specifically about corporations owning private property. Fuck landlords but i'd rather rent from a private citizen than an llc.
Meh. I had much better luck with corporations than private landlords. The people working for corporations generally want to do a good job and keep people happy. Owners want to minimize costs and invade your privacy to make sure you aren't causing too much wear and tear, since that's money otherwise going in their pocket.
Both will end up with shitty carpet and cheap appliances, of course.
I agree for the most part. I do think that the businesses that provide/manage properties should be public benefit corporations or whatever the local equivalent is. Housing is an essential human need. In an ideal scenario, profit wouldn't even be a factor, but I'd settle for it not being the first priority.
I totally agree. In Holland we have woon corporaties, literally "companies for places to live". Of course, these have struggled in the face of decades of center right, pro-business governmental policies.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Merely a stop on the road to making it illegal like it obviously needs to be.
Let's grab lunch!
"Here's $5000 and a week at my private ski resort. Your voting no."
Or here is an insider tip and make bank
But that one is still illegal, technically.
Not for members of congres and Senate.
And fully impossible to trace or prosecute
It is sadly only de jure illegal and not de facto illegal. It's great there exists a law in the books, but if it's not being enforced it isn't illegal in reality.
My voting no?
Here's another $1000. Everything is spelled right and grammatically correct.
I don't do it for the money, but it helps.
Worth noting that private equity only owns a very small percentage of homes in the country so while this would have impact, it's not going to change house prices, it simply might make the line take slightly longer to go up. What will impact housing affordability is simply building more housing. Eliminate single family zoning and replace it with a residential-compatible zoning that allows for quadplexes, ADUs and quiet businesses.
view more: next ›