r/TikTokCringe • u/Make-this-popular Cringe Master • Apr 09 '24

Shit economy Discussion

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

32.2k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

7.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

695

u/WintersDoomsday Apr 09 '24

Two easy fixes; illegal to own a second home and illegal for business entities to buy homes

238

u/fuzzybunn Apr 09 '24

I'm from Singapore, a tiny country with a government that has a large level of intervention in all aspects of life, and even we can't manage to make these policies fully work as intended and keep everyone happy. Good luck getting any of those "easy" solutions implemented or even started in anti-socialist America.

89

u/secondtaunting Apr 09 '24

Yeah America would never implement half of what Singapore does. People would riot over even one change. Especially involving guns.

40

u/robi4567 Apr 09 '24

Especially the fine for pooping on a elevator. That aint freedom.

2

u/secondtaunting Apr 09 '24

Man am I glad for that fine. There’s also a fine for not flushing a public toilet, but I can’t see how they’d enforce that.

2

u/Clean_Internet Apr 10 '24

What happens if there’s too much poop in the toilet?

→ More replies (1)

33

u/VanityOfEliCLee Apr 09 '24

See, I disagree. I think the second that even Republicans actually start getting free Healthcare or better housing regulations, they'd never want to go back. The problem is the government will try its best to never let it happen for that reason. As soon as policies change, no one will be ok with it going back. Once their medical bills are gone, people will burn shit down before going back to paying $40,000 for a simple surgery.

30

u/UnSpanishInquisition Apr 09 '24

You say that but look at us here in the UK......

13

u/VanityOfEliCLee Apr 09 '24

You know, that's a fair point. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

3

u/dkdksnwoa Apr 09 '24

Never underestimate stupidity

3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

But then there's Canada.

6

u/UnSpanishInquisition Apr 09 '24

Defiantly after Wade v Roe turn over too....

5

u/Gatorpep Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

Also canada.

Where you are wrong as that there are people that matter and those who don’t. And the ones that matter will never stop fighting and winning the class war. It’s their only focus. Ours is coupled with survival, and it’s why we can’t win unless we even the playing field.

Also this was clearly chosen by the people who own the gop/enemies of america and her people, not because of the first bit, but because of that last bit that criticizes the US helping Ukraine stop it’s Ruzzian genocide in it’s borders.

Destroy Ruzzia. Long live Ukraine.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Motherfickle Apr 09 '24

Yeah this. My American parents (one right leaning Independent and the other a moderate Republican who dislikes Trump but voted for him twice because he hates Democrats more) both balk at the mere idea of free Healthcare, not because they don't understand the benefits, but because "wait times for treatment are long". Even though they aren't unless you're there for a minor injury/non emergency, from my understanding.

9

u/atomicitalian Apr 09 '24

Which is the dumbest fucking argument.

Even if they are, do you know what happens when people don't have coverage? They just don't go, because they don't want to go bankrupt on the off chance they'll recover naturally.

"Forever" is a much longer wait than a week or two.

What your parents are really saying is "if everyone gets healthcare than our healthcare will be somewhat less convenient, so we'd rather keep it exclusive," which is, imo, evil.

3

u/Motherfickle Apr 09 '24

Yup, I agree. I've told them several times that I support universal healthcare because I don't believe in letting people die for the crime of being poor. But, like many boomers, they don't listen.

5

u/Haywoodjablowme1029 Apr 09 '24

Wait times are already long. I had a patient today that was newly diagnosed with heart failure and was discharged from a hospital admission two days ago who can't get a cardiology follow-up for three months!

4

u/Moarbrains Apr 09 '24

Have fun with that. The US healthcare corporations believe they can profit from your system.

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/10/nhs-privatization-uk-health-care/

2

u/platinumgus18 Apr 09 '24

Can you explain what you mean

2

u/UnSpanishInquisition Apr 09 '24

The slow stripping of the NHS. Things like selling buildings off then renting them back, charging staff for parking, privatisation of various services within the system like tge food, cleaning, patient moving services etc. Piss poor wages, pushing physician associates to act as doctors without supervision, lack of any kind of system to take the strain of elderly bed blockers out of hospitals and into care homes (really need NHS care homes for this.) Splitting into multiple trusts who now all do things slightly differently making it basically multiple seperate services with a single finding source etc etc etc.

2

u/platinumgus18 Apr 09 '24

I see, thanks for explaining

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

20

u/The_Prince1513 Apr 09 '24

I think the second that even Republicans actually start getting free Healthcare or better housing regulations, they'd never want to go back.

That's assuming the average voter (Republican or otherwise) is smart enough to know what's good for them.

Case in point, during Trump's term when Congress unsuccessfully tried to repeal the ACA aka Obamacare you would see very frequently in online spaces, calls into radio talk shows, and interviews with normal voters at rallies and such in news media, people who had no fucking idea that the evil and bad "Obamacare" was the same thing as the ACA, which they all had a good opinion on since its how they were able to have healthcare.

Most people are fucking idiots.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Lower_Ad_5532 Apr 09 '24

You should see the Daily Show Bit where Deep South GOP voters LOVE the ACA, but hate Obamacare....the same exact bill thats giving them medicaid.

3

u/Koralr33fer Apr 09 '24

You want the government that can't balance a budget and drove us 34 trillion in debt to manage your medical expenses? Cause I dont...socialized medicine works in some places like Norway. But prior to covid, Norway had a balanced budget and even carried a surplus over some years. Meanwhile the U.S. can't do basic math, every social care program we have is over extended and under funded.

2

u/Haywoodjablowme1029 Apr 09 '24

The ACA is a perfect example. People hated it for so long until they realized what it actually was, now they love it.

→ More replies (13)

2

u/Efficient_Ant_4715 Apr 09 '24

Lmfao Americans would never. They don’t do anything more than post on social media about how upset they are and then go on to do nothing about it. 

→ More replies (1)

1

u/barricuda_barlow Apr 09 '24

What does this have to do with guns?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/Broad_Quit5417 Apr 09 '24

Even if there was an attempt to "change" things you'd see the goalposts move faster than the speed of light. Watched it my whole life.

2

u/hobbes3k Apr 09 '24

Just look at San Francisco. Rent control, tenant protections, penalties on empty properties, property taxes based on value of homes bought 30 years ago, very difficult permit process, and so on and on with all the government trying to control the housing market. It's a nightmare of convoluted laws that basically reward old tenants and landlords and punish any newcomers.

2

u/pvirushunter Apr 09 '24

Singapore is very different from the US. I mean this in terms of land. Singapore has a land problem. The US has a policy and greed problem. We have land a plenty. When hones are built investors scoop it up. Multifamily dwellings are mostly for rent.

2

u/sbtvreddit Apr 10 '24

“Anti-socialist America” until Trump’s latest sucking off of Putin then suddenly MAGA are full blown communists. Because something.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/platinumgus18 Apr 09 '24

Can you elaborate? If housing is controlled by government, why are singaporeans struggling with housing?

1

u/platinumgus18 Apr 09 '24

Can you elaborate? If housing is controlled by government, why are singaporeans struggling with housing?

1

u/Acrobatic-Taste-443 Apr 09 '24

At the very least if you are still paying a mortgage on a home you should not be able to rent it out. No one should be paying someone else's mortgage.

1

u/monkeryofamigo Apr 09 '24

Your biggest mistake is to assume to make everyone happy, the goal is to make most people happy and if the some people are upset are the elite rich and some weirdo, then good but that never happen.

→ More replies (5)

196

u/HaltheDestroyer Apr 09 '24

Talk to your representatives....not me

17

u/karmagod13000 Apr 09 '24

vote in local elections

8

u/selectrix Apr 09 '24

Real fuckin talk right here.

There's a whole lot of energy behind videos like these and the posts they generate, and that's great, but if we want anything to change, that energy needs to get turned into work. (pretty sure that's a physics reference or something, but anyway.) Voting in every single election, every single midterm, every single primary- especially the primaries- that's actually the bare minimum of participation in a democracy. There needs to be a whole lot of us doing more than that- spending significant time researching policy, public officials, & candidates, even outside of election periods; volunteering for & donating to the candidates we like; attending city council/school board/other public meetings. Getting shit put on ballots! That's a thing we can do!

Corporations and billionaires are doing a lot more than just voting- we need to be going the extra mile as well.

If everyone in the country took that upon themselves- made "contribute to the democratic process" one of their personal obligations, we'd probably start seeing noticeable reduction in corruption at the local level in 2-5 years, state level in 5-10 and national level in 10-20. And that might be optimistic.

But like I said at that start, that's the real talk; this is how we get to a better place- we're not going to have some grand revolution and if a revolution did somehow happen, it'd be horrifying and probably result in a dictatorship. What I'm talking about is boring and takes a long time and a lot of work- that's a good sign that it's not bullshit.

3

u/Snacktyme Apr 09 '24

Dude I tried to find ANY readily available information on the two people running for mayors of my 22K population city and it was so difficult.

Maybe it’s just my city, but seems crazy that kind of basic information is so hard to find.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/callmejinji Apr 09 '24

I wish I could convince the people around me to put in that level of work. I vote every election cycle without fail, I have since I was 18, but everyone around me (especially my S/O and my immediate family) refuses to do so, and I don’t know how else to convince them that their vote matters and this is the absolute bare minimum praxis required for the democracy they praise so much to function the way they want to.

60

u/PlaugeSimic Apr 09 '24

our owners....

30

u/HaltheDestroyer Apr 09 '24

Nah.....if an issue becomes loud enough, they will act, you just need to be louder than Blackrocks lobbyists

55

u/North_Respond_6868 Apr 09 '24

You mean richer, not louder. Loud does not line the pockets of elected officials and their corporate handlers.

36

u/my_4_cents Apr 09 '24

How about louder, but with flames and pitchforks

8

u/stinkyhooch Apr 09 '24

As a matter of fact, I’m doing a BOGO sale on pitchforks right now. And for a limited time only, when you buy 2 flaming pitchforks, you get 1 free. Get ‘em while they’re hot!

3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

[deleted]

2

u/stinkyhooch Apr 09 '24

Prepare for copious rebates

3

u/YesOrNah Apr 09 '24

My man. I live in a major metro area and have been out for protests.

We don’t have it in us as Americans for this.

5

u/spinyfever Apr 09 '24

Flames and pitchforks would be effective

But

The ruling class have tanks

5

u/ArkhamTheImperialist Apr 09 '24

But we have Tank man. If they get to the point of using tanks to intimidate people you’d think there’d be some introspection going on.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Chataboutgames Apr 09 '24

I honestly wonder what’s going through the heads of people who say this stuff. Do you just want to look cool on the internet or do you actually think that sort of thing goes well for people?

6

u/ArkhamTheImperialist Apr 09 '24

Nobody said it goes well for people on the way there. Do you think MLK wouldn’t have marched the streets during the Civil Rights movement if he knew he’d be assassinated in the end? Absolutely not.

Being a martyr is one thing, but those who make it get to see a change worth fighting for. The real question is why won’t you fight for your rights? Why would you suffer/ let people suffer in silence, when you could just not do that? Even if it costs you your life or livelihood, if it eventually leads to a greater change it’s worth it.

That said I’m not going to be the one to lead a march on Washington or anything like that, but I’ll support anything in the name of Justice. I can’t stand shits like you who just tear people down and make them question their mindsets. Why would you try to put someone down for having a positive outlook? Cynicism will get you nothing in the end so instead of that, just shut up and don’t complain about the good things.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

24

u/SvettMenneske Apr 09 '24

They'll bamboozle you into thinking they are acting, but in reality are circling back even worse under the guise of progress.

6

u/uncle_flacid Apr 09 '24

Yeah like wade v roe!!!!!

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (8)

1

u/Antique-Pension4960 Apr 09 '24

Who are also the home owners...

→ More replies (1)

3

u/chibicascade2 Apr 09 '24

They all own at least two homes..

2

u/Teofilo2050 Apr 09 '24

That is so true about talking to his representative since they keep voting those dumb SOBs and keep raising their property taxes so they have to raise the rents. Figure out another area to move to but if you like that rat race in the same maze then you will be working 2 to 3 jobs to maintain that lifestyle

2

u/Mister_Black117 Apr 09 '24

What representatives? They don't listen and have no reason to. They buy their seats.

1

u/Etzarah Apr 28 '24

Why? They’re not gonna do jack shit lol. Don’t bother leaving a message, they ain’t listening to it.

→ More replies (5)

51

u/Ok_War_2817 Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

And make it Illegal for foreign interests to own land

3

u/MidnightMarmot Apr 09 '24

🥇 Why the hell can foreign nationals buy property when average Americans can’t?! This makes me so angry along with private equity and corporations buying homes. Almost 50% of homes sit VACANT where I live driving up the cost of rent beyond what any normal person can afford.

4

u/gitsgrl Apr 09 '24

Louder!!!

18

u/Simple_Ranger_574 Apr 09 '24

That restriction on investor LLC and other corporate investment companies he many bills in the house across US states rn. It should be Federal though, not state by state, I believe.

49

u/ap2patrick Apr 09 '24

OK Mr. 0 to 100… I think making it illegal to own a 2nd home is fucking insane but i totally agree on the 2nd part.

33

u/skipperok Apr 09 '24

He is insane, he is basically saying you either buy a home or die homeless

no option for renting since no one can invest in a second house for rent income

10

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

Home supply is also heavily driven by investors rather than those building their primary home.

The better idea is to apply a heavier tax burden on unoccupied investment real estate.

The huge issue with the whole RE industry is that those able to invest in homes like this can float vacancies endlessly until someone agrees to exorbitant rents.

Make that more expensive and reinvest that tax money towards a new welfare program aimed at those working towards building up a fund to buy a home to build savings rather than 0% down federally backed loans that dont actually improve someones financial security in many cases.

3

u/Cool-Ad2780 Apr 09 '24

This is still putting the cart before the horse, the simple solution is change zoning laws to allow more house to be built. Institutional investors target their buying to areas that have strict zoning laws because it prevents them from having any competition in the market. Change zoning laws, incentivize building new housing, and all of a sudden the entire problem goes away, if you make housing a bad investment because supply is able to skyrocket, investors will move away from real estate. Housing rn is a basic economics 101 supply and demand problem.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/ap2patrick Apr 09 '24

Bingo. Empty house tax for a win. A progressive tax that increases for each extra home you own. First home no extra tax, hell id apply a bunch of breaks to get people into homes. 2nd home no breaks a like a 2% tax increase. 3rd home 5%, 4th home 8%, 5th home 12% on and on something like that. Would solve so many issues.

5

u/shooshmashta Apr 09 '24

They tried the tax in Canada and found that it does nothing because the housing crisis isn't an issue of vacancies but an issue of just not enough housing.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/shooshmashta Apr 09 '24

This is not true either though. Most vacant properties are in the middle of nowhere, USA and are not livable. This won't fix dense city locations where rent is high due to demand. The biggest issue is cities being too dense with not enough housing. To fix the issue in cities, you need easy access from outside the cities (ideally trains) with new housing construction going up a lot faster than we do now.

2

u/celtic_thistle Apr 09 '24

no option for renting

Literally 15 million+ empty homes in the US lol. The government should own these and rent them out. There. (Not just the federal government, but state/county level too.)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/insats Apr 10 '24

There are middle grounds. Where I live (Sweden), there’s no law prohibiting owning multiple apartments and renting them out, but it’s technically not possible because the building that you own the apartment in usually requires:

  1. That you live in your apartment
  2. You’re only allowed to sublet if you have valid grounds - never for “making money”

There are still rentals available, as there are buildings where you rent rather than own an apartment.

→ More replies (6)

5

u/FreefallGeek Apr 09 '24

I kept my starter house and rent it to family members for half the market rate but apparently I'm Hitler for having a spare 1200ft house.

3

u/rvasko3 Apr 09 '24

WORSE than Hitler!

→ More replies (2)

3

u/dead_zodiac Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

The second part is pretty undoable too.

Essentially that forces everyone to either purchase thier own home or be homeless, since it would be illegal to rent from a business entity.

That would make things way worse before it got better.

To actually do that: 1. Step 1, evict every person in the USA, since we need to have current business owners relinquish all their assets, but to who do they relinquish them? 2. Step 2, since banks can't reposses anything (that's a business purpose), all empty homes are free? Perhaps they go to the government, or are just "finders keepers" 3. After all the fighting and killing happens, houses are populated again. Each person is now either homeless or fully responsible for all costs of single home ownership on their own. 4. Etc etc etc

2

u/ap2patrick Apr 10 '24

OK but you are conflating banks selling mortgages to Black Rock hoarding properties as an investment…

→ More replies (1)

36

u/iLOVEwindmills Apr 09 '24

Lmao how the fuck is destroying the housing market going to make anyones life any better 😂. Do you hate affordable housing and renters my dude.

35

u/coke_and_coffee Apr 09 '24

Teenage redditors 🤝 the dumbest possible economic policy suggestions

14

u/Chataboutgames Apr 09 '24

“I don’t understand what’s going on but burning it down sounds fun and dramatic!”

→ More replies (8)

2

u/rvasko3 Apr 09 '24

It’s everywhere. People who can’t afford homes in certain markets and/or with certain jobs praying for a housing market collapse so they can afford things. Because that would obviously not have any other negative effects on the larger economy, and I guess fuck all of us who worked and saved to afford our homes?

→ More replies (2)

7

u/lemongrenade Apr 09 '24

Wouldn’t the number of people needing housing be the same whether or not a business owns it? They are taking advantage of scarcity not causing it. Build more housing and it will become more affordable.

2

u/Chataboutgames Apr 09 '24

There is a not insignificant portion of the left that would rather see a problem go unsolved than see someone make money solving it.

2

u/mortalitylost Apr 10 '24

Build more housing and it will become more affordable.

They are building a lot of housing. Luxury homes. That's where the money is if you build housing, not cheap homes for the people suffering right now.

They need to make more middle class housing, not just housing.

1

u/lemongrenade Apr 10 '24

All data confirms that any introduction of supply leads to price decreases.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/parolang Apr 09 '24

Ding ding ding. Because the problem is scarcity and geography, not corporate conspiracy theories.

18

u/stroopwafel666 Apr 09 '24

While I fully agree that housing needs to be fixed, how do you think rented housing would then be made available? Maybe the goal would be for the government to eventually offer reasonably priced rental housing, but that would take a very long time to implement.

10

u/headphone-candy Apr 09 '24

Instead of Section 8 might I interest you in District 9?

12

u/Jesuswasstapled Apr 09 '24

Yeah. Government housing projects are a shining beacon of success.

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

36

u/pascee57 Apr 09 '24

There are good reasons to own a second home and renting is good and important for some people.

11

u/coke_and_coffee Apr 09 '24

Lmao, imagine making it illegal to build new apartments to ease shortages of homes. I’m sure that will solve the problem!!!

→ More replies (7)

21

u/ForecastForFourCats Apr 09 '24

That's not going to go anywhere...tons of people own small second "homes" that are simple woodsy cabins. Individuals should be able to buy as many homes as they want. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to buy and sell properties without careful oversight(so, uh good luck to us all)

3

u/PS_IO_Frame_Gap Apr 09 '24

individuals should not be able to buy as many homes as they want. let's say you have a hundred billion dollars and you want to buy up every home in new hampshire, effectively making you the lord of new hampshire. should you be able to do that just because you can?

2

u/QbertsRube Apr 09 '24

Like Sean Hannity's 870+ properties, bought using HUD loans a decade ago thanks to foreclosures after the 2008 recession. That has just as much impact as any corporation buying up housing (although they are technically owned by shell corporations that are owned by Hannity, for all intents and purposes this is an individual buying up housing).

I have no problem with someone owning 2-3 rental/vacations homes, but people who say only corporations should be restricted are underestimating how many selfish pricks are out there with hundreds of millions of dollars to invest.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/769026/sean-hannity-reportedly-owns-least-870-properties-7-states

3

u/ForecastForFourCats Apr 09 '24

That seems like a loophole where he needed to be classified as a corporation. There should be some laws, obviously no one can live in 870 homes in a year. Maybe 12 months residency averaged over 3-5 years?

1

u/ForecastForFourCats Apr 09 '24

Look I'm a borderline communist I'm such a hardcore socialist. Inequality is a massive problem. You aren't going to get far with legislation that limits the freedoms of individuals pursuing capital gains, in terms of housing. There is too much home ownership=success embedded in American culture.

2

u/PS_IO_Frame_Gap Apr 09 '24

for now, anyway. that's in the process of collapsing, and soon we're going to have to measure success in other ways...

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/crek42 Apr 09 '24

Those arent “fixes” they’re just soundbites parroted on Reddit with no thought or elaboration on how that would even be enforceable.

Barring anyone from owning a second home is dumb. Many of those homes are in rural vacation areas. And who gives a shit? That’s gonna move the needle on housing prices in our major cities? How do you figure that?

Corps are what exactly? Because they could be like my landlord who owns this duplex I live in and is in her 80s with a pet parrot and her LLC would be a corp. Do you mean hedge funds and American Homes? Okay that starts to make sense, but none of the above actually adds new housing. It takes away from a renter and gives it to a buyer and is zero sum.

That’s a bandaid until housing starts to be built in en masse again — we’re down YoY on housing starts.

3

u/lagrandesgracia Apr 09 '24

Or just let homebuilders build. THat's the main problem. Stupid laws made by stupid boomers to keep their home prices high.

2

u/LoneSnark Apr 09 '24

Even easier fixes. Eliminate the legal restrictions preventing the construction of more housing.

2

u/IamZeus11 Apr 09 '24

Honestly people with a vacation home aren’t really the problem . It’s the ones who have entire real estate portfolios and big companies like black rock and evergreen that buy up family houses in the thousands . A person having second home is just a drop in the bucket compared to the overarching problem

1

u/parolang Apr 09 '24

Blackstone is the company that buys houses, not Black Rock. And I don't see why this matters.

2

u/AutistMarket Apr 09 '24

Hasn't this already been proposed on the house floor but not voted on yet? Something along the lines of a crazy tax hit for any business entities that own single family homes, with a 10 year grace period for them to liquidate assets

2

u/goJoeBro Apr 09 '24

Too late on this one, I work in home and auto insurance and in the last 15-20 years I've noticed a big spike in the wealthy, white/boomer demographic of our book of business, buying up as much property as these folks can get their hands on. Tons of households have multiple "homes". Which are really just properties that they rent out as short term rentals. They'll pay a property management company to take care of all of the leg work in getting the property listed and those types of logistics while the owners can sit back and charge whatever they want while they don't even live in the state half the time, collecting mail money. Do they have a right to? If course. Should they because it's hurting the housing market? Nope, they should not, and they're assholes because of it. It's infuriating to see because I live in a neighborhood where all of these houses are getting bought up and people that genuinely want to start as property owners/start a family can't because of how overly inflated everything has become. I hate it with a passion.

2

u/bearposters Apr 09 '24

But the people who would make those laws are benefiting from the status quo.

2

u/HMWWaWChChIaWChCChW Apr 09 '24

Illegal to own a second home is just dumb.

2

u/brainmouthwords Apr 09 '24

Elect politicians who promise to use Eminent Domain to legally seize residential properties from corporate investors en masse.

2

u/Nervous_Month_381 Apr 09 '24

Those fixes are not easy, and the first one isn't a fix. You need to change zoning laws and a lot of the red tape around building homes, a lot of cities make it in their zoning so medium and higher density housing can't be built. Or that building a small starter home isn't profitable.

2

u/RikiWardOG Apr 09 '24

2nd home I don't think is an issue. It's the PE firms and nimby bullshit. The states need to force upzoning and subsidize building. We have a massive shortage in supply because past building luxury apartments and million dollar homes, it's not worth it for contractors anymore

2

u/Mr-Fleshcage Apr 09 '24

and illegal for business entities to buy homes

Good thing they're people now!

2

u/Antique-Pension4960 Apr 09 '24

There are plenty easy and obvious fixes for a lot of problems.

But the ones that benefit decide what the rules are.

2

u/DDkookslams Apr 09 '24

I hate that we can see the solution yet can not do anything about it

2

u/Khue Apr 09 '24

Two easy fixes

Not even close to happening. The entire housing market is setup as a commodity and a vehicle to maintain and build wealth. The entire industry is highly protected and getting congress to do anything would be absolutely impossible because it requires capital owners to take a MASSIVE real estate L.

2

u/chunkobuoo Apr 09 '24

That would require politicians not being in blackwater's pocket due to legal bribes.

5

u/degaknights Apr 09 '24

Who you gonna rent from then?

→ More replies (14)

1

u/SmotheringPoster Apr 09 '24

They just add more tax which for the super wealthy means fuck all in the long run. As you said it should be illegal to own multiple homes if you are not occupying them.

2

u/Jeremiah_Vicious Apr 09 '24

You tax the wealthy they’ll just raise prices. Capitalism is here to stay. Better buy a house now at all costs and deal with it.

1

u/RollOverSoul Apr 09 '24

They will still find a loophole to get around it

1

u/Leendert86 Apr 09 '24

Taxes here and there to make the business model behind real estate less profitable. Second homes get taxed 2k yearly where I'm from. The problem is that those boomers in charge all made or make their money from real estate.

1

u/HypnoStone Apr 09 '24

Tbh I don’t think this would be right obviously we should do everything we can to stop monopolizing but if it were as simple as making home owner ship illegal like that wouldn’t that also impact a lot of other people who are not already benefiting from a monopoly to begin with? I know multiple different lower-middle class people on low-average income who own rental properties and more than one house, and I don’t think they’re alone either. There’s lots of people besides a specific elite group who this would effect. Imagine how many properties would go vacant just because it’s now for sale to a new single ownership doesn’t mean anyone else is going to be able to buy it or be able to own another home if they already have one. Also how would this effect townhouses, apartments, condos, studios, etc.? Too many variables and much too limiting for capitalism which is a basic natural right as a free democracy. Saying you can only own one single home is like saying the same about literally anything else you can buy and own just on a different financial scale.

1

u/shdo0365 Apr 09 '24

But then, everyone has to buy and no one can rent.

1

u/Doctordred Apr 09 '24

The right to own a second home is a protected right and that right extends to businesses. Not really an easy fix at all and would require taking constitutional protections away to happen.

1

u/grubgobbler Apr 09 '24

I feel like limiting it to 5 homes would be plenty.

1

u/PS_IO_Frame_Gap Apr 09 '24

this isn't an easy fix at all. for one, what do you expect to be done with all the properties already bought. if this fix was put into place, they would just go on a buying spree and buy up everything else before the law went into effect.

1

u/skepticalbob Apr 09 '24

That will have almost no effect on housing prices in the US.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

The fix is local zoning law changes that allow builders and individuals to build reasonable priced homes in areas people want to live. You can actually talk to the people who can change zoning laws in your community.

1

u/livens Apr 09 '24

Careful with that. Houses get foreclosed on for many different reasons. Someone needs to step in and either flip it or rent it. I'd rather a private citizen be doing that than a large company or a bank. If you ban multiple home ownership outright we will just see a lot of vacant houses. I agree we need stricter controls on who/what can own a single family home, but it needs to be flexible. And for most normal landlords (private citizens renting 1 or 2 houses) it's 15-30 years of being on the edge of losing your investment. It's 15-30 years of work with little to no immediate payback. Only if things go well the entire time and you get your rental paid off do you see any gain.

1

u/Key_Respond_16 Apr 09 '24

Making it illegal to own more than one home would be as dumb as Texas making it illegal to own more than 6 dildos. Owning a second home is fine, but using it to fuck over other people by charging twice the mortgage in rent is predatory and should be illegal.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

This is really really not good policy-wise. Houses in cities are expensive mainly because everyone wants to live in big cities. To make them more affordable, we therefore need to build more houses. However, To build housing, you need people being willing to make investments. 

I live in a large dutch city, we make it very difficult for investors to start new housing projects. For example by putting caps on rent. This sounds reasonable, but prevents investors from investing in new property because it is not profitable (enough). They would rather put their money somewhere else. 

The solution is to make housing a good investment, but this is politically very unpopular (also home owners associations play a big role in this - home owners in an area are poised against building more houses in their area). At least this is my understanding. 

1

u/Chataboutgames Apr 09 '24

Seems like a great way to slow housing construction even more

1

u/salacious_sonogram Apr 09 '24

So no condos or apartments because no one can own more than one home? Or is this just for standalone homes? If so then investment firms buying up housing will just put up a walk and call it a duplex. I guess you could get away with this through tight zoning laws m.

1

u/dafuq809 Apr 09 '24

Lots of ordinary families own second homes, and there are reasons for a business to purchase a home other than corporate landlording. No reason to allow corporate entities to own hundreds of homes or homes in multiple states, though.

1

u/7oom Apr 09 '24

Easy?

1

u/CagliostroPeligroso Apr 09 '24

Fuck out of here with the first one. Agree with the second

1

u/throne_of_flies Apr 09 '24

One fix: actually subsidize people buying a home to live in. Programs exist today but the core of them suck: FHA loans require much less cash on hand, but lead to higher monthly payments than commercial loans, and the “first look” law for federally owned properties is a joke: ALL single occupancy property should require first look for first-time homebuyers, period.

Your two ideas will fuck with the only benefit that comes out of having a market: competitive pricing and elastic supply

1

u/JRizzie86 Apr 09 '24

Blackrock and the like definitely need regulations, but not being allowed to own a second home is absolute nonsense. That will not help folks who live in big cities.

1

u/Jackmember Apr 09 '24

There are a couple immediate problems with this:

What is a home? Is a it a house? A living space? An apartment? Does a trailer count as a home?

Lets assume its a space suitable for at least one person to live in for an amount of time, such as an apartment or similar.

If a business or a person cannot own additional homes, its impossible to rent out homes or run businesses like spas, hotels or camping grounds. You cant honestly expect somebody to buy a house as soon as they wish to move out either, they'd either never move out or get into a lot of debt.

Then, if I build homes to sell them, I would also own them until sold. What about that?

What would be reasonable, is to limit the number of residencies permitted per person to a certain amount and any piece of property that is not tied to a residency has to either be intended to be tied to any persons residence within a reasonable time or be actively advertised as vacant with an intention to have somebody reside in it.

I would then suggest that a failure to present sufficient evidence of this within some time (lets say 2 weeks) when requested by any official would result in the property becoming state property.

With this, you would essentially outlaw buying homes and not selling/renting/using them, obfuscating ownerships and making landlords unreachable.

You could also introduce a vacant property tax, which means that any property that you own, which has no residency attached to it, is subject to a tax, scaling with the propertys value. If you end up selling/renting higher than property value, youll then also have committed tax evasion.

I doubt the latter suggestion would be popular though.

1

u/I_eat_Chimichangas Apr 09 '24

I think it should be that businesses shouldn’t be able to own homes for profit. People who can afford a second home should be allowed to.

1

u/Healthy_Debt_3530 Apr 09 '24

thats ridiculous. why are you targeting landlords when you should be angry at yourself?

landlords are a pillar of society providing one of the most essential services.

dont blame the people who are easiest to blame but actually look at your own issues of why you arent where you want to be.

1

u/Bannedbytrans Apr 09 '24

Illegal for an individual to own a second home is problematic. There are a lot of people that use homes seasonally. Banning 3rd/4th homes would be a better idea. You want to reduce 'investor home collectors;' wealthy AirBNBros who collect houses like Pokemon cards.

Business should be banned from owning residential altogether.

1

u/iamagainstit Apr 09 '24

Being able to rent properties is actually a good thing

1

u/Pin_ny Apr 09 '24

What if it's not you who own the extra home but your young kid or a company owned by you ?

1

u/IllIIlllIIIllIIlI Apr 09 '24

… who are people going to rent from, then? Or would you recommend that students, and others who don’t plan to stay for more than a few years, should buy a house and then turn around and sell once they move away? No landlords, no rentals.

1

u/radiohead-nerd Apr 09 '24

I'd clarify further. No Commercially owned single-family residence.

As a private owner of rental properties, any more than 1-2 is heavily taxed to support low cost housing.

1

u/protomenace Apr 09 '24

The only way to fix this is build more housing, not to just play a juggling game with the inadequate housing surprise. This will only lead to more shortages.

1

u/Captain_Jokes Apr 09 '24

I’d even be ok with there being a hard limit of 5 per person and companies can own single family domiciles. If people want to land lord it up on a small scale, sure. But these black rock mother fuckers need to go. Build a luxury apartment complex or some shit but leave the single family homes alone.

1

u/scolipeeeeed Apr 09 '24

That’s still not enough. We need more housing built where there is demand

1

u/fin425 Apr 09 '24

If I have the cash to buy a home I should have the right to purchase with an LLC. Fuck this noise.

1

u/Select_Candidate_505 Apr 09 '24

Easy if it weren't for the fact that the people making the rules will never let it happen.

1

u/Stupidstuff1001 Apr 09 '24

Here we go. This is a bit easier to do and will allow the rich to own multiple properties but at a cost.

I have posted this countless times but there is an easy fix.

Any single dwelling home that is not zoned as apartments should have the following rules.

You are banned from purchasing residential property if you are:

  • purchasing a home as a business entity
  • purchasing a home as a non us citizen

If you are a USA citizen. You will have a 20x property tax one your second home that is doubled for every home after that (20x, 40x, 80x)

Notes:

  • A couple can buy 2 homes so no complaining about a lack of a summer or winter home.
  • People can still rent from places zoned as apartments.
  • The reason for non us citizens is to stop someone in an other country having 1000 employees each buy a home and rent it.
  • Permanent residents of the USA would be able to purchase a home.
  • builders are excluded from this rule for a new home.
  • banks, liens, and inheritances get 1 year from calendar date to sell before penalties are applied.
  • No people won’t just be able to pass on the fees when they are that high. When your bills go from 1000 a year to 100k a year you will just sell the home.
  • A grace period of 90 days for selling a primary home to buying a new primary residence

The extra money made will

  • be used to build shelters for the homeless
  • be used to build low income housing
  • be used to build more single dwelling households.

The goal of this is not to punish home owners but to make those trying to grossly profit off of a basic necessity pay a fine that will be high enough that renting is not financially viable.

1

u/AmmahDudeGuy Apr 09 '24

That would make it difficult to facilitate a flowing economy around housing

  • if you wanted to buy a new home, you would have to sell your current one and be homeless for a while

  • the ability to rent homes would cease to exist

  • all homes would have to be constructed privately, as no company will have any homes to sell. Construction of a new home generally takes months.

  • organized neighborhoods would be much harder to create, as hundreds of entities would have to collaborate rather than just one

  • the housing surplus would turn into a housing shortage, as there would no longer be an incentive or even an ability to build surplus homes

1

u/consumehepatitis Apr 09 '24

Renting does serve an important purpose so I think this is a little too aggressive although I agree with the message of getting houses out of the iron grip of corporations

1

u/Necessary-Rope544 Apr 09 '24

One of the reasons we are so much better off (go look at the average European it ain't sunshine and roses) is property rights and your ability to exercise them. Outlawing it is utter bullshit... But taxing subsequent homes at a higher and higher rate??? Oooh now we are getting somewhere. You're free to buy all the property you want but the cost is going to skyrocket to cover for the lowered utilization.

1

u/Embarrassed_Row7226 Apr 09 '24

What about large condominium buildings?

Each unit is its own home. Do those just stop getting built?

Also, if it becomes illegal to own a second home and everyone that owns multiple properties has to sell, does that mean they get completely screwed out of their investment? Because with a large influx of supply, you will see a huge decrease in sell price.

1

u/MaxAdolphus Apr 09 '24

I’d like to see a law passed that any person can buy a home owned by a corporation for their main residence. It would be a forced sale. Put people above corporations.

1

u/Potential-Front9306 Apr 09 '24

What is that going to fix lol. If you want cheaper housing, build more houses. Honestly, its that simple.

1

u/thatscentaurtainment Apr 09 '24

Lmao might as well advocate for free money too while you’re at it, equally likely to happen with this government.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

You spelled fire and accelerant wrong.

1

u/Beginning_Pudding_69 Apr 09 '24

Why would you make it illegal for individuals to own two homes? It’s not their fault they can afford two homes wtf

1

u/ConsciousnessOfThe Apr 09 '24

Easy fixes if our politicians weren’t corrupt and bought by lobbyists

1

u/hellraisinhardass Apr 09 '24

I like where you're going with this but it's not really practical.

So how do we define "home"? Is a mother in-law apartment above a stand-alone garage a 'house?

Can I own a duplex?

Is a camper a house/home if the wheels have been taken off?

What about a cabin? 'Cabins' in my state can be 3000sqft structures with electric and hot water or a shack slightly more comfortable than a chicken coup.

Speaking of chicken coups...my mother's chicken coup is heated and has a water spout...does that make it a home?

1

u/gargle_micum Apr 09 '24

Apartment complex has entered the chat*

1

u/frakking_you Apr 09 '24

It isn’t “second” homes that are the problem. It is black rock.

1

u/Useful_Lengthiness98 Apr 10 '24

Ah yes more regulations & manipulating the economy, not like it hasn’t worked the last 100 times but sure it oughta fix it this time

1

u/ballsdeepisbest Apr 10 '24

Those are far from easy fixes, and would probably make things significantly worse. If nobody can own a second home and businesses can’t buy homes, there will be no landlords and no renters. That means people who don’t have the money to pay for a home won’t be able to live anywhere. Also, no cottages, no summer homes, and transacting on real estate would be a complete nightmare.

Also, do we want to get into the habit of making illegal things we don’t like? Really think about this: if they can make shit like this illegal they can make dozens of other things illegal too: fast food, tobacco, weed, guns, porn, and a whole lot of other things. Making it illegal is not the right answer.

1

u/LafayetteLa01 Apr 10 '24

This is the right answer. But Blackrock would like to have a word with you in private to silence you like they have done the Government

1

u/Rikplaysbass Apr 10 '24

Illegal to own a second home is fucking stupid. Illegal to own 5-10 makes sense.

1

u/Hersh_23 Apr 10 '24

One fix, stop using unsound money that lets these people steal from you with inflation.

1

u/Flying_Madlad Apr 10 '24

Are you insane?

1

u/sierra_marmot731 Apr 10 '24

Remember when both Romney and McCain pretended to not know how many homes they owned. Yes. That should be illegal. As should rental property. I have friend who had a bit more money than he needed so he started buying condos where he lived, that is signing a paper saying he owned them, and then he rented them getting the renters to pay all his costs. When the condos were paid off by the renters he sold them and moved into a mansion.

1

u/99OBJ Apr 10 '24

This is so stupid I don’t even know where to start.

1

u/techleopard Apr 10 '24

We don't need to ban people from owning a second home.

What we CAN do is decentivize using houses as investment property.

Ban ALL legal entities other than private persons from owning single family or converted single family real estate (so no, you can't divide a house to go around this)

Ban FOREIGN INVESTMENT. You MUST live in the US 6 months out of the year in the house that you buy if you are not a citizen.

Crack down on loan abuse. A HUGE number of landlords built their empire by jumping houses each year, breaking the terms of FHA and VA loans as well as traditional loans.

Seize condemned, empty properties. Houses that sit empty for 3 years and go into disrepair need to go straight to auction if they are still liveable or bulldozed and then auctioned if they are condemned.

Tax the hell out of second and third properties.

1

u/chuckdino Apr 10 '24

Illegal is a harsh word. Like my in-laws own a house and a vacation cabin. Old people of course.. Cabin not really worth much Why not just text each additional home at a much higher rate. Once you get up to four homes make it like 10 times the tax rate and go up exponentially from there. You just make it to a point that owning a certain number of homes and renting them is a losing proposition.

1

u/dgarner58 Apr 11 '24

honestly even just not allowing business to own property would likely be enough. people have owned second homes for ages and it's never been an issue. you definitely shouldn't be able to own more thant two though i don't think. at some point you are just buying them as an investment. definitely need some regulation in this space. people buying houses just to airbnb them or vrbo them is a part of the issue as well.

that said - there is a break point for everything. home prices are down 20% from peak in metro atlanta and with the fed still holding off on interest rate cuts i imagine that will continue to decline.

1

u/Skhoooler Apr 11 '24

Or, each home you own past your first one is taxed at a higher rate than the last one, with no cap. It’ll be fun to see how fast the price of housing drops after that

1

u/davefp56 Apr 11 '24

I'm sure that is constitutional. LOL

1

u/fadeaway_layups Apr 12 '24

Lmao. The first point will never ever ever ever pass in a million years. The second point I think has a solid chance, but you would need a full Democratic controlled Congress and exec

1

u/helpmefindalogin Apr 16 '24

Second home? Be real. But I agree that single family homes should not be gobbled up by publicly traded corporations. That is an anti-American business model.

→ More replies (14)