FFS. How about just deny the purchase of single family homes by all businesses altogether?
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.
I can’t follow your reasoning. If companies cannot own houses, how do you propose this shell-ownership would work? Wouldn’t the owner just be free to sell the house at any time and pocket the cash for themselves?
As for tax evasion by foreigners that own real estate, I mean how is that even a problem? There’s millions of foreigners that do business in the US everyday, plus, these ones have actual immovable assets that can be seized…
Financing.
The shell-owners would get paid to be a shell, and the properties would get financed under their names, thus circumventing the law.
Because what I described above could be considered tax evasion, that is why it becomes another new problem when dealing with foreign investors.
The US Government sells seized real estate dirt cheap, but that negatively impacts the shell owners who could fight it in court.
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.
Passing any law is within the purview of congress per the necessary and proper clause.
You can’t deny the purchase of a single family home from a person and businesses are people in this upside down country
Just because California’s cool doesn’t mean the entire country gets to benefit. And until Citizens United at least gets weekend, then we’ve got fucking corporations with an equal or stronger voice than humans dying on the streets from heat stroke
ETA: I was obviously really tired and not thinking when I wrote this. I’d edit it, but I like to own up to my mistakes. Have a great weakened, everyone!
I didn’t downvote you for your response, but also didn’t feel the need to explain it further.
To add to it however, a proposed bill in Minnesota’s Senate would ban the conversion of single-family ownership housing into rental housing.
In the US Congress, legislation has also been introduced to prohibit hedge funds from owning single-family homes.
Progress is slow, but it’s happening.
You’re making very valid points and I appreciate your optimism. I’m just being a sarcastic, salty little baby about shit cuz I’m in a mood about all this.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Probably all of them
That “probably” is just based on complete ignorance. Don’t just throw out nonsense like this, especially when you have no idea.
Aw poor baby. Did I upset your rich overlords? Cry me a river.
Yes, because I called out your ignorance, that clearly means I must have rich overlords. Lol This is some batty ass shit.
I’m not so sure. The knee-jerk reaction of the cynic in me is to agree with you, but I actually think it’s fairly unlikely that they own rental properties specifically. Many, if not most, probably own multiple properties as rich people are wont to do but, I would imagine that most of those are just “summer homes” or similar rather than something that is rented out as a “landlord” in the way most people think of it. It is possible that they could be investors in these funds, REITs, or other such vehicles which would make them indirect owners of these items.
AirBNB can be more profitable so I’ve read.
It would be nice for Congress to make a report about it at least the percentage of congresspersons that make a portion of their income through commercial and rental properties and likewise financial investment.
because i would like to compare that report to their voting records on such topics. i mean if they come from a district where they own rentals and vote against public housing that is a conflict of interest especially if their voters are stuck in housing deserts.
They are OUR reps as much as we are their voters.
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.
Raising sales tax won’t do a fucking thing. The increase needs to be on property taxes, so it recurs year after year. And it needs to apply to everyone except owner-occupants. Investors need to abandon renting as a viable business model. They can replace it with private mortgages and land contracts (contract for deed, rent to own) arrangements where the “tenant” gains equity and is considered an owner-occupant.
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.
Nice. Bring it on!!!
NOTUS - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for NOTUS:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.notus.org/democrats/ro-khanna-wall-street-landlords-rising-home-prices
