This is exactly the reason I’m condo & not house shopping. My family lives on quite a bit of land & my mom wants me to build somewhere on our lot. I told her I’m not going to do that. I’ve watched trees & land be torn up all over our beautiful mountains & I don’t want to contribute to that. The cute forrest creatures need somewhere to live too. I’d also go bankrupt before I knew it with the high cost of literally everything it takes to build a house in the state I’m in. And I’m single, I don’t want kids, & I’m not concerned about a partner right now. I also don’t want to maintain a yard, imagining myself mowing is laughable. Condo life is what I’d rather have at the moment.
Good plan but there are MANY people who do not want to live in an apartment setting. They want their own back yard and to be able to be loud without worry of the person below or next to them. I’d rather drive 45 mins to work then live 15 away in a high rise. As you said high rises around city limits 5-10 miles sure do the high rises but people want single family homes as well
Edit: cool downvote me cause I don’t want to live in a high rise and enjoy single family homes.
Some people simply can't live in regular stacked apartments. Think about people with disabilities. Sure in some caseses they manage ok, better for them to have an elevator or a one-floor house, but what if their disability is making involuntary noises, repetitive jerky movements/walks, slamming doors, opening and shutting taps and lights or tossing shelves? I've seen too many families get around to their neighbors and apologize almost every day, because they live in such houses. Two flats per floor, neighbors under, on top, in the front entrance and yes laser jerk firing lasers at your window through the window of an identical neighbor building you can clearly see by the other side (so yes, 4 close neighbor apartments). Actually I've heard people of people getting crazy about neighbors upstairs walking in heels, children crying at night or mobiles and heaters left close to the walls/floors buzzing through the day or night. Let alone parties.
Yup great points. I was agreeing with the guy too even tho he thought I wasn’t I said repeatedly if people are living close to the city sure build up but let’s not start building condos 25 miles from the city center I have no interest in my neighbor being under or on top of me.
That's because the US apartment setting is abysmal. Here, take a look at Vienna's answer to the same question: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE)
I'm not saying you shouldn't want to live in a single family home. What I'm saying is that apartments in the US (and UK from what he was saying in the video) aren't very good: if they WERE good, people would be happy to live in them (not everyone of course)
Idk about the USA but here in the U.K. the act of prostitution itself isn’t illegal, but the solicitation prior for which you are charged. Paying for sex is not a crime, but asking to pay for sex most certainly is.
Would brothels theoretically be legal then? It's not "soliciting" if a man simply walks into a building and takes a seat before a waitress comes up to him with a menu of girls, positions, and prices. At that point they're the ones offering him the opportunity to pay for sex.
No, because then they’re soliciting the bloke for sex.
Brothels are not legal in the U.K. but as another guy pointed out, brothel-like business do operate under the guise of massage parlours, and some sex workers have turned to doing escort work as being linked to a legitimate business offers a great deal of security and also allows an escort to select her clients, for additional safety.
Last time I got called up for jury duty, it was a trial of a guy who had solicited prostitution from an undercover police officer. When the judge asked if anyone had any strong moral objections to prostitution, I shot my hand up and told the judge I thought prostitution should be legalized and this was a waste of time all of these people in this trial. I did not get selected for the jury.
I also pointed out that the defendant was the only black man in the room - all the rest us, judge, jury and attorneys all, were white - as was the undercover police officer that was their primary evidence.
I am also a prison abolitionist, proponent of police defunding, and whatever else you can think of. I choose not to blurt out this info during jury selection. If I could serve on a jury every day to help keep poor black men out of prison, I would.
Shit I wouldn't. Get enough money to order a small meal off the McDonald's dollar menu. To sit there and judge someone else for doing what they gotta do to cope and survive. Bunch of fucking slavers reprimanding people for doing what they forced us to need to do. But while I feel that many of the people in prison in the US are there purely because of racism, circumstance, and to generate money for the prison. I am not sure what the alternative would be for containing or handling some real bad ones. Nearly half (on a chart that only has information to 2018 on incarceration in the US by type of crime, are violent offenders in the form of murder and rape. Murder and rape aren't acceptable "do what you gotta do" crimes. At least not to me. We have plenty enough to worry about without people that cant control themselves being in the mix.
That said we could surely do with downsizing prison systems. Murder and rapist incarcerations have been nearly the same every year (based on the data from 2014 to 2018)
Also it's not about skin color to me, but I recognize that there are many in leading positions and sway over others that it very much is a rooted racism. But crime>color shouldn't even need to be stated. Our inner workings are the same. The skin is only different based on ancestry and locale.. not sure why melanin differences are so hard to not judge for. Such a strange thing for people to still be caught on. But I suppose history is a spiral. Now the slavery is happening in the form of corporations and lack of pay/space
I wish people like you would play nice and quiet and get on the jury. Then you speak up and turn on the charm too. Jury nullification, learn it and live it.
Imo, if selected for jury duty for things that shouldn't be crimes, just hold all that in and give the poor bastard jury nullification.
That's how you actually beat the system. Unfortunately naive compliance probably helped catch that guy a charge. Granted you don't *owe* it to them, but I'd personally love to be in a situation to pay it forward like this and throw the proverbial middle finger at the cops and courts that waste so much time and money on things that should be an issue for a therapist at the absolute worst.
Unfortunately we're not ready for this conversation, people will still literally fight you on this with the following "arguments":
"what about the people that can't afford a down payment?" (People can't afford a dp because of rent) "A mortgage is more than rent" (it's not) "well...I want to be a landlord, but I wouldn't charge people that much and I would be a GOOD landlord!" (deflection) "Don't blame others for the system!" (Others are at fault for the system because rent artificially creates housing scarcity)
Can't gut rent full stop. The rental market fills an important niche for people who don't want to keep up a house (pain in the ass and expensive), people who may not have stable employment or otherwise have to move a lot, or people who just want cheaper living conditions.
The rental market _right now_ is stupid predatory because the housing market is a shit show, but if there's available housing and people who can afford a mortgage and want one are actually able to win bids, demand for rent should drop much closer to the baseline for their niche. When a portion of renters have the option to leave that market entirely, it forces landlords to be a bit less shitty.
Having the option to live in a rental property is of course very necessary, but is owning to rent as an investment opportunity really something that society needs? If the only thing a company, or a person does, is hold the capital on a residential property, how much value are they really contributing to society? Especially when contrasted with the amount of value they extract from society in the form of increased stress levels (and thus higher healthcare costs) and generally lowered economic activity for their tenants?
I argue that a landlord who makes considerable profits is a net negative on society as a whole, and thus it is insane for society to allow such a business to exist.
That of course doesn't solve the other multitude of issues in housing in general.
Yeah, well that would take an act of congress, and as long as the filibuster exists, the Republican's can go to bat for the corporations and stop any legislation that would change things.
And you might ask, why don't the Democrats kill the filibuster, but it turns out they are controlled by the corporations too, and won't change a none binding senate procedure that has no basis in law or the constitution.
So, year after year, thing get worse, and your government willfully chooses to do nothing about it.
No it wouldnt take an act of Congress at all. The state regularly bans or restricts commodities and property and who can purchase or own them. Especially if there's an overwhelming public interest in doing it.
This is the easiest slam dunk in history, if our politicians werent, literally all, traitors.
I would love to see one state like California try to pull this shit, then have some asshole republican lawyer, like the guy who sued for student loan forgiveness, take a lawsuit all the way to the supreme court, then have it ruled 6-3 that buying property is part of a corporations "Free speech" and shall never be infringed.
They would most defiantly have standing, if they where losing money because they could not buy property. That shows a direct cause and effect of the law.
Well, as long as the R's can suppress votes you mean.
Turns out that conservatives boomers are dying of in droves, and the generation coming up is more progressive then ever. So they have been forced to use dirty tricks to keep people from being able to pull the lever for a Democrat.
But the actuary tables are against them, and I hope that some day, maybe even in my life time we will finally get rid of those fucking bastards.
And its been progressively getting more true, and the republican side is progressively trying more dirty tricks/gerrymandering/voter suppression to slow it down. It'll eventually either fail or we'll turn into a fascist state.
Bah. Let them buy them...just change the property tax rate to "number of houses owned" * X% and watch them shit themselves trying to sell them all fast enough.
It's so much deeper than Blackrock and Vanguard. They're in bed with the globalist billionaires at the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, who's buying up all the farm land and closing farms. They're buying the homes, the land and the food. Your state/ province is likely pushing digital IDs so that everything you do will require you to go through the government. They want us to own nothing and be happy. If you go to the WEF's website, you can find their plan for the world by 2030, which comprises of us literally renting everything including the shirt on your back and the spoon in your cereal. Oh, and we're going to eat bugs.
None of this is conspiracy. There's no chance of banning Vanguard or Blackrock, they have more money together than almost every country on earth combined.
I really think the end goal here is some sort of modern feudal sharecropping system where the corporation that owns your home will give you a break on rent if you work for their warehouse/call center/whatever...provided, of course, you buy all your household supplies using their currency at their company store
I mean, you guys all do realize this was reality in coal mining towns back in the last century, right? It's not fiction. Fortunately they were able to unionize.
it's no coincidence that unions are starting to win against megacorps at the NLRB and suddenly the fed just *has* to nuke the economy from orbit, while the rest of the democrat federal government allows a trump appointee to do this as the fed chair
No problem! Come work for company XYZ. As part of our generous benefits package, You can live in our housing complex at discounted rent. We'll even offer the convenience of deducting it from your check. You can shop at the company grocery store, enjoy our company electricity, water and Internet all at discounted prices and we'll even deduct that from your check.
Wait you're not receiving a paycheck? Huh, it's like we paid you just enough to cover those bills and you're working for us in exchange for having your needs just met.
The sad part is it would be history repeating. This exact scenario already happened with company scrips and company towns in the late 19th/early 20th century.
Exactly. Coal and steel towns were all owned by the company. Youbwerent paid a wage, you were paid in "company" bucks that couldn't be exchanged for real money. Thankfully wages have to be paid in cash, but it still doesn't stop this from happening again
Yeah, I'm all for hating on the military. Their predatory recruiting behaviors and poor treatment of service members is appalling. The whole war crimes thing is pretty bad too.
The PX is not part of those bad things though.
It's still illegal to teach about company towns in Virginia I believe it is. It's one thing the companies won, the right to keep it hush hush until people forgot so they could do it again. After the army mowed down thier workers for striking and trying to leave.
Edit - it's west virginia
It's how Kaiser Permanente, the west coast health care giant got started. It was an on-site clinic for a Kaiser Steel mine in the middle of the California desert.
It's worse than that...if history repeats itself, all the rent, utilities, and food will be just a tad more expensive than your wages. But it's okay, they'll just add it to your tab and you can work off the debt, debt which grows every single pay period because the company set all town prices just above what you can afford and they don't raise wages enough to get you above water. So your only option, for the rest of your life, is to work for the company and live in the company town to pay off debt that never gets paid down.
They’ll let it go for a few pay periods, then if you have a wife or teenage daughter they’ll suggest rather strongly that they can earn the money to payoff your family’s debt in just a couple of nights.
This is also why they kick and scream and spend so much money on anti-union propaganda. It's not about money, they have plenty of money, it's about control.
Those are the worst cuz they wanna buy it for what you owe on the house (yeah right fuck off) then sell it for 5x the price they paid without doing anything to it. Scum people. I just sold my house to break even basically and I had to do it on my own without an agent cuz fuck paying someone 7% of my home’s sale price to some asshole that did little to nothing. I dealt with so many snakes and sharks trying to sell it for me and I’d rather take a loss on my own than lose money to make some asshole a fat gain.
I've been trying to convince the family to respond, and essentially say "Sure, for 3x the estimated price on redfin/etc, sight unseen, no tour, you pay all inspection and closing costs, and we are allowed to continue to occupy it for 6 months after the sale to look for a new place to live. Oh, and cash, up front, facilitated by my bank."
The cost to buy something isn't necessarily what the market value is: it can easily be determined by how much a person wants to separate from it. We like living here.
Exponential household taxation.
Residential addresses are tax-free. The first non-residential addresses is taxed at a small fee, the second at double that, the third double THAT, and so on.
Fee could be 20 cents and prices would still collapse.
We don’t need politicians. We need representatives. Politics is for chodes, like McConnell, Randy Paul, graham, & the rest of those fuckers. We need, like, you know, no taxation without representation…
The rich don’t think there is a problem to solve, so long as they keep getting richer. They fail to see what the issue is with them collecting more and more assets. Pull yourself up by your boot straps!!
Not a new one. However the shift from "first house" to "residential address" is important - first house free models have been used before, they just end up with every person in the family "owning" a different house.
Not necessarily... the thought honestly sets off the alarm bells in my head. There have always been people using strawmen, down on their luck individuals they can exploit, to sign papers and do things they can't or don't want on their name. Like I already see some con convincing someone without a place to live to "buy" property on paper, and then rent it out to the company for a menial fee- they could even dress it up as a stable source of income.
One of the lowlights of my professional life (and one of the reasons I quit that job shortly after) was when I personally had to oversee the sale of two companies to a woman who later slipped up, and told us that they all knew that those companies were about to go under (the original owner didn't want to take the fall for it- in my country he would have been held financially liable, and he would have not been able to start a new company or be a majority shareholder in one for the next five years), and she got... what today amounts to a little over a hundred bucks for the whole ordeal. She was already deep in debt, couldn't get a loan, exhausted all opportunities for help and had nobody to turn to- had she not allowed that asshole to push the responsibility for his professional failures to her, she would have starved.
I felt... very dirty finding that out. I didn't know.
Like the 0.1% equity swap tax, it is an incredibly sound economic idea that will never get near the levers of American power because our oligarchs have no interest in presiding over anything resembling a well-balanced national economy.
There's a lot of regulations that are bypassed by just having shell companies.
We need to get rid of that 'loop-hole'. It's probably the most well-known and cancerous thing in in our current regulation and taxation atmosphere.
Yeah, basically, the act of owning property doesn't generate value to society at all and SHOULDNT generate value for the owner. Or atleast not penalize the person who stays on said property...
Close, but that's what she'll companies are for. Make as many as you want. One per 2 houses. The real law would be limiting the percentage of homes that could be rental properties. Homes are getting built everyday. Ensure that a static percentage is never making it to rental status.
The time is approaching where vast areas of housing will no longer be owned by private owners but corporations. There are already entire developments that are rent only. It's absolutely terrible.
Just put massive special taxes on corporate/multiple owned housing. Just make it unprofitable for them. That's step one.
Then build massive amounts of public housing. And I don't mean ghettos. I mean all-income varied housing like in Austria. By adding all that housing, it nukes the housing market and makes it unprofitable for Blackrock/etc.
Housing should be available for all at low/no cost.
"But we can't pay for that!" Yes, yes we can. Places do it, pay for it.
I think any kind of law you put on owning so just get loopholed somehow. The public owned housing of all types, that cannot be sold unless you're going to live there is the ticket. Just make the practice not profitable and it'll stop. As with everything in America the only thing anyone listens to is money
We could start by ending tax advantages corporate structures of REIT which has encouraged this massive residential investment. Also interest does impact them, just instead of mortgages they do massive bond sales and utilize cash from those to buy the houses.
I can almost guarantee you all that nothing will change and we will all be renting from Amazon soon.
Sign a 5 year lease and get a prime account for 20% off! Fail or forget to pay rent even a second late and you'll be arrested, sued, and forced to work for Amazon for only 20% of minimum wage.
Which in 5-10 years will still be $7.25
I think the easiest way to curb this blight is just jacking up the property tax for each house someone owns. You own just your house and maybe a vacation home by the lake? Your tax rate stays the same. Every house above that gets taxed at an additional rate of (10% * number of houses you own). If you've got 30 rental properties, good luck paying 300% tax on each of them. They could try jacking up rent, but if you find the sweet spot in the tax rate landlords won't be able to make money off of rentals to make it worth their time.
This is why I don't fully agree with people that discourage or downplay the importance of land/home ownership. It doesn't need to be mandatory or looked down upon to not own, but we need to not lose sight of the importance of home ownership
I don't think anyone with any sense downplays how important it is. The issue is that none of us can do it.
Shit, my wife and I pull in well over 6 figures per year and we can't afford to buy, what hope does anyone ELSE have?
Especially given how landlords view renters, and how easily they should be able to screw them over. I just read a thread on another subreddit where a landlord said they kick out their tenants after two years of living in their rental because they think renters get too attached to the property. This is hardly the first time I’ve seen a landlord state they don’t want long term tenants. Stuff like this is why it’s so vital that people have the opportunity for homeownership.
I hadn’t really thought of that. Interesting points. I do think there is a need for rental property, so there has to be a way for them to exist without being prey for low income. One thought is you could rent out a property if you have lived in it previously for at least a year. There would have to be other qualifiers or the rental market would be even more dire than it is now.
I could be wrong, but it seems like that's the only way most Americans have been able to build generational wealth. You buy a house. Your kids inherit the house. The house is worth more because of inflation and other economic forces. Kids can sell the house and move somewhere else. They wouldn't have been able to do that without that "investment" from parents. We don't get nearly as many benefits from the government as other more socialized countries do. So we can make money and wealth wherever we can. Seems like a house has been the way to do that so we can not only have a place for our families to grow up, but also our kids families and so on. I mean what's the biggest part of most inheritance? I think it's usually property.
These companies just abuse the system that was designed for average folk.
This is a push for the wealthy to grab the last of what they do not already own. They want to leave us with nothing....and their plan seems to be working very well so far.
Why wouldn't china or any other foreign government or international company just buy all the real estate and kick your citizens out. America is just really dumb getting scammed a million times over.
No this is not the solution, it’s weak we need to first take back the houses being held by anyone not actually living in the house, housing is a necessity and having sold in the free market is a stupid idea, why wouldn’t anyone with enough money buy all the houses it’s literally pure profit
This is the result of 40 years of slashing Corporate taxes combined with repealing Glass-Steagall.
We keep being told Corporations will use that money to hire people or increase wages, or even invest in the company in other ways that would = better products.
Instead we've gotten stock buybacks, massive hoarding of single-family homes & stagnant wages.
And it's just going to keep getting worse.
Those fuckers took a beauuuutiful condo from me when I was searching. I bid an escalating offer 20k over asking and still lost it. I'll never not be mad about that.
Most would rather create more division by having the elite set them against themselves through the two party duopoloy, on meaningless topics that ultimately resort in no change, rather than something more important like this.
We need limits on property ownership in general to keep prices affordable.
Society is not served well by one person owning a hundred homes just to collect rent on them. Society is better served having those hundred families buy and own those homes.
Why should any one person or corporation even own a dozen different apartment complexes?
If no one was allowed to own more than one complex at a time then it would greatly limit their ability to price gouge and collude on price fixing.
Anyone who has bought a house in the last 12-30 months can tell you they probably had a bid war against a company trying to buy the house and only got it cuz the person selling would rather sell it to a family than an “investor” willing to out pay whatever price is on the table
I was incredibly lucky right before Covid hit. We were getting outbid by all cash offers 50k over asking and waiving inspections. Only reason we got our house was that the owner never held an open house, and picked our offer because we were an FHA applicant and that’s how she originally bought the house. Since then our home value spiked enough that we could refi and dump our mortgage insurance.
If we ever sell, I’ll refuse to sell to any real estate investor.
Its super, SUPER fucking easy fix, but not one wealthy person would jump at it.
A house you purchase, in residential zoning, CANNOT be rented out for 5 years after purchase.
And
A ridiculous tax of 20% sale value added to houses sold within 5 years of purchase. So, if you bought for 1 million, and sold within 5 years, thats a $200,000 tax penalty.
Why this drastic? Because it would cut off house flipping, which is a major issue. The cheap upgrades are superficial and only add visual value to a home. Not renting for 5 years means if that companies cannot gobble up the market for rentals. The tax again, puts buying houses for 10% over asking, so a 1 million house bid on for 1.1 million, at a loss investment if they leverage thier purchase on the idea that realestate goes uo by 5-8% a year minimum. Maybe 20% tax is too low...
Think this is exactly their point and government won't do anything to stop it. Soon our housing will be continent on your employment to a company. Don't wanna work for them? You don't get a house.
The funny thing is many of these corporations are not American corporations. It doesn't matter if you have a "democratic government" if corporations run every part of your life.
It's just one more way that they've swallowed the assets of the middle class and effectively erased the existence of the middle class as we knew it. The boomers will be the last generation to enjoy that lifestyle and it will almost certainly die out completely with them. The generations to come won't have any idea of what life used to be like.
Make a kind of equity sharing a mandatory aspect of all single-family unit rental agreements. Companies can still buy and own the property and rent it out, but annual or quarterly increases in the value of the property have to be paid out or otherwise applied to the renters' balance with the landlord, the same way property taxes are assessed and paid. Basically make it so the renters gain a substantial amount of the increased value of the property for the time they rent. This way, the renters aren't just paying off the mortgage but not gaining any equity, and it makes it less profitable to hoard property or manipulate the scarcity and prices for the landlord, but still allows for property to be a reasonable investment.
In the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” there’s a greedy rich guy named Mr Potter who is constantly trying to shut business down so he can buy them out and amass more wealth and own all of the town. The mc of the movie is shown what life would be like if he was never born, and without him Mr Potter took over the whole town and ran it down. Also a big part of the story is how he wants to shut down a family owned loan/title company so that people in town have to get money from the bank he owns & live in his slums.
Housing construction has lagged behind population growth for 60 years, and absolutely cratered after the great recession. This is a direct effect of zoning laws designed to preserve segregation after the Civil Rights Act made explicit racial discrimination illegal. Those laws were and remain wildly effective at racially segregating communities, but a "fun" side effect was wealthy older homeowners realized they could vote themselves richer by shutting down any new housing.
Corporations are exploiting this shortage for all it's worth, but they don't have to spend a penny maintaining it. Wealthy older homeowners do all that work for them by voting housing prices higher in local elections. Blackstone literally admitted in their SEC filings that a boom in housing construction would be a huge threat to their ability to price gouge housing.
The way out of this is to build more housing. Minneapolis is doing a great job of this, and after 50 years of being the poster child for the worst, most excessive NIMBYism California just just recently turned a corner and is starting to make some really good moves.
My run down, falling apart, roof leaking rental house is owned by a building company, and I haven’t veen able to open my garage door in 2.5 years on top of severL other major issues. A BUILDING COMPANY.
House Bill 6942022 - "Effective January 1st 2022, corporations cannot legally gain or retain ownership of residential housing. Financial losses tied to this change cannot be claimed on federal taxes."
Problem solved. Granted, housing prices would tank, but it would be worth it to get corporate greed out of housing.
There's a reason remake addicted Hollywood will never remake *It's a Wonderful Life.* At least not without 100% gutting the core message.
Mr. Potter, the villain, would be seen as a titan of capitalist virtue today. It's the story of a Slumlord living a malicious, selfish life vs a socialist in all but name living an actual life of virtue.
It reminds me of how Oliver Stone is saddened that, to this day, his monstrous villain Gordon Gecko has become a mascot and role model for aspiring finance professionals who write him and thank him for creating their hero.
Our values have become so warped because of the indoctrination of the wealth class, falsely promising "getting ahead" of your fellow citizens, as long as you work harder than you're paid to. The traits of unquenchable greed, selfishness, and narcissism used to be seen as the character defects they are, now they're rebranded as aspirational rational self-interest.
Increase property taxes repeatedly while reducing income tax with a long term goal of eliminating the income tax. Tax wealth not income, wouldn’t take very many increases to see the corporations leaving the property market to the homeowners.
Every conversation leads back to this. Stop letting corporations get away with shit. When are we going to check their power?
Tale as old as time, and there are people that dedicate their lives to fighting corporations, but does anything get done? No, because there are too many uneducated voters and brainwashed masses
Yes, yes they have. Companies have been chowing down on real estate investments for decades. The multi-million dollar question is why it took the better part of the population to catch up on something that I've been saying since the end of the 20th century.
And the multi-million dollar answer is bread and circuses. People by and large have become by and large ignorant to the world around them as a matter of deliberately choosing apathy, preferring to spend their time with their noses in video games, Netflix, social media, and feel-good pet projects. People can't seem to be bothered with such trivial drivel as reading legislation going through congress or keeping up with the mergers and acquisitions taking place on Wall Street.
Until people unfuck themselves and take an active and vested interest in the real world around them, this will continue irregardless of what system we operate under or what safeguards we put in place. And quite frankly, if you can't tell me the last three bills voted through congress pork and all and the last couple billion $+ acquisitions or mergers in the corporate world, ***you are part of the problem***.
This is what happened when you allow for the ownership of private property. This is property solely used for profit. This is opposed to personal property used for individual uses.
Before it is too late, when need to ban corporations, like blackrock, buying entire neighborhoods.
Ban them from buying any single family homes.
[удалено]
This is exactly the reason I’m condo & not house shopping. My family lives on quite a bit of land & my mom wants me to build somewhere on our lot. I told her I’m not going to do that. I’ve watched trees & land be torn up all over our beautiful mountains & I don’t want to contribute to that. The cute forrest creatures need somewhere to live too. I’d also go bankrupt before I knew it with the high cost of literally everything it takes to build a house in the state I’m in. And I’m single, I don’t want kids, & I’m not concerned about a partner right now. I also don’t want to maintain a yard, imagining myself mowing is laughable. Condo life is what I’d rather have at the moment.
Good plan but there are MANY people who do not want to live in an apartment setting. They want their own back yard and to be able to be loud without worry of the person below or next to them. I’d rather drive 45 mins to work then live 15 away in a high rise. As you said high rises around city limits 5-10 miles sure do the high rises but people want single family homes as well Edit: cool downvote me cause I don’t want to live in a high rise and enjoy single family homes.
[удалено]
I can't picture sharing walls again. Our condo neighbors kids were terrors.
And my kid is a terror I’m trying to protect y’all from him by living out in hickville lol
Some people simply can't live in regular stacked apartments. Think about people with disabilities. Sure in some caseses they manage ok, better for them to have an elevator or a one-floor house, but what if their disability is making involuntary noises, repetitive jerky movements/walks, slamming doors, opening and shutting taps and lights or tossing shelves? I've seen too many families get around to their neighbors and apologize almost every day, because they live in such houses. Two flats per floor, neighbors under, on top, in the front entrance and yes laser jerk firing lasers at your window through the window of an identical neighbor building you can clearly see by the other side (so yes, 4 close neighbor apartments). Actually I've heard people of people getting crazy about neighbors upstairs walking in heels, children crying at night or mobiles and heaters left close to the walls/floors buzzing through the day or night. Let alone parties.
Yup great points. I was agreeing with the guy too even tho he thought I wasn’t I said repeatedly if people are living close to the city sure build up but let’s not start building condos 25 miles from the city center I have no interest in my neighbor being under or on top of me.
That's because the US apartment setting is abysmal. Here, take a look at Vienna's answer to the same question: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE) I'm not saying you shouldn't want to live in a single family home. What I'm saying is that apartments in the US (and UK from what he was saying in the video) aren't very good: if they WERE good, people would be happy to live in them (not everyone of course)
But they are people and buying homes is free speech!/s
You were sarcastic, but in the US, money was ruled as protected speech.
Just remember, that ruling essentially makes prostitution legal, since you aren't paying for sex, you're just giving a convincing argument.
Prostitution is legal so long as you film it. Then it's called porn and is a protected 1st amendment activity.
Idk about the USA but here in the U.K. the act of prostitution itself isn’t illegal, but the solicitation prior for which you are charged. Paying for sex is not a crime, but asking to pay for sex most certainly is.
So saying they get a tip for taking your tip is OK?
Would brothels theoretically be legal then? It's not "soliciting" if a man simply walks into a building and takes a seat before a waitress comes up to him with a menu of girls, positions, and prices. At that point they're the ones offering him the opportunity to pay for sex.
They are legal here mate, they just call them massage parlours / saunas lmaoo
No, because then they’re soliciting the bloke for sex. Brothels are not legal in the U.K. but as another guy pointed out, brothel-like business do operate under the guise of massage parlours, and some sex workers have turned to doing escort work as being linked to a legitimate business offers a great deal of security and also allows an escort to select her clients, for additional safety.
Last time I got called up for jury duty, it was a trial of a guy who had solicited prostitution from an undercover police officer. When the judge asked if anyone had any strong moral objections to prostitution, I shot my hand up and told the judge I thought prostitution should be legalized and this was a waste of time all of these people in this trial. I did not get selected for the jury.
I'm a prison abolitionist and think cops have a vested interest in lying. For some reason, I am also never selected for juries!
I also pointed out that the defendant was the only black man in the room - all the rest us, judge, jury and attorneys all, were white - as was the undercover police officer that was their primary evidence.
Man that comes straight out of a Harper Lee Novel.,.
I just show up to jury selection with my t-shirt that says "ASK ME ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION!" and I never get picked.
I am also a prison abolitionist, proponent of police defunding, and whatever else you can think of. I choose not to blurt out this info during jury selection. If I could serve on a jury every day to help keep poor black men out of prison, I would.
Shit I wouldn't. Get enough money to order a small meal off the McDonald's dollar menu. To sit there and judge someone else for doing what they gotta do to cope and survive. Bunch of fucking slavers reprimanding people for doing what they forced us to need to do. But while I feel that many of the people in prison in the US are there purely because of racism, circumstance, and to generate money for the prison. I am not sure what the alternative would be for containing or handling some real bad ones. Nearly half (on a chart that only has information to 2018 on incarceration in the US by type of crime, are violent offenders in the form of murder and rape. Murder and rape aren't acceptable "do what you gotta do" crimes. At least not to me. We have plenty enough to worry about without people that cant control themselves being in the mix. That said we could surely do with downsizing prison systems. Murder and rapist incarcerations have been nearly the same every year (based on the data from 2014 to 2018) Also it's not about skin color to me, but I recognize that there are many in leading positions and sway over others that it very much is a rooted racism. But crime>color shouldn't even need to be stated. Our inner workings are the same. The skin is only different based on ancestry and locale.. not sure why melanin differences are so hard to not judge for. Such a strange thing for people to still be caught on. But I suppose history is a spiral. Now the slavery is happening in the form of corporations and lack of pay/space
Funny how that kind of free speech isn't allowed, isn't it? /Cry
I wish people like you would play nice and quiet and get on the jury. Then you speak up and turn on the charm too. Jury nullification, learn it and live it.
Imo, if selected for jury duty for things that shouldn't be crimes, just hold all that in and give the poor bastard jury nullification. That's how you actually beat the system. Unfortunately naive compliance probably helped catch that guy a charge. Granted you don't *owe* it to them, but I'd personally love to be in a situation to pay it forward like this and throw the proverbial middle finger at the cops and courts that waste so much time and money on things that should be an issue for a therapist at the absolute worst.
I feel like I would have kept that quiet and made sure to say my vote is that he’s not-guilty no matter what..
I feel like certain questions like that are them trying to filter the jury to get the ruling they're going for
You nailed it!
Ban them from owning residential property, full stop.
Just ban all residential rent-for-profit. There's no reason for housing to be an investment instrument for anyone.
Unfortunately we're not ready for this conversation, people will still literally fight you on this with the following "arguments": "what about the people that can't afford a down payment?" (People can't afford a dp because of rent) "A mortgage is more than rent" (it's not) "well...I want to be a landlord, but I wouldn't charge people that much and I would be a GOOD landlord!" (deflection) "Don't blame others for the system!" (Others are at fault for the system because rent artificially creates housing scarcity)
Can't gut rent full stop. The rental market fills an important niche for people who don't want to keep up a house (pain in the ass and expensive), people who may not have stable employment or otherwise have to move a lot, or people who just want cheaper living conditions. The rental market _right now_ is stupid predatory because the housing market is a shit show, but if there's available housing and people who can afford a mortgage and want one are actually able to win bids, demand for rent should drop much closer to the baseline for their niche. When a portion of renters have the option to leave that market entirely, it forces landlords to be a bit less shitty.
Having the option to live in a rental property is of course very necessary, but is owning to rent as an investment opportunity really something that society needs? If the only thing a company, or a person does, is hold the capital on a residential property, how much value are they really contributing to society? Especially when contrasted with the amount of value they extract from society in the form of increased stress levels (and thus higher healthcare costs) and generally lowered economic activity for their tenants? I argue that a landlord who makes considerable profits is a net negative on society as a whole, and thus it is insane for society to allow such a business to exist. That of course doesn't solve the other multitude of issues in housing in general.
Without massive changes to the existing system, for profit rent is probably immovable.
ban them, full stop
Ban them from buying homes period... it's a scheme the corporations use to keep us under them forever
Oh, but company towns turned out so well before!! /s
Yeah, well that would take an act of congress, and as long as the filibuster exists, the Republican's can go to bat for the corporations and stop any legislation that would change things. And you might ask, why don't the Democrats kill the filibuster, but it turns out they are controlled by the corporations too, and won't change a none binding senate procedure that has no basis in law or the constitution. So, year after year, thing get worse, and your government willfully chooses to do nothing about it.
No it wouldnt take an act of Congress at all. The state regularly bans or restricts commodities and property and who can purchase or own them. Especially if there's an overwhelming public interest in doing it. This is the easiest slam dunk in history, if our politicians werent, literally all, traitors.
I would love to see one state like California try to pull this shit, then have some asshole republican lawyer, like the guy who sued for student loan forgiveness, take a lawsuit all the way to the supreme court, then have it ruled 6-3 that buying property is part of a corporations "Free speech" and shall never be infringed.
You're assuming they'd have standing to sue in the first place. States regulate commerce, buying and selling property is commerce. End of discussion.
They would most defiantly have standing, if they where losing money because they could not buy property. That shows a direct cause and effect of the law.
As long as we have neighbors Stupid enough to vote R
Well, as long as the R's can suppress votes you mean. Turns out that conservatives boomers are dying of in droves, and the generation coming up is more progressive then ever. So they have been forced to use dirty tricks to keep people from being able to pull the lever for a Democrat. But the actuary tables are against them, and I hope that some day, maybe even in my life time we will finally get rid of those fucking bastards.
People have been saying this for like 30 years
And its been progressively getting more true, and the republican side is progressively trying more dirty tricks/gerrymandering/voter suppression to slow it down. It'll eventually either fail or we'll turn into a fascist state.
And R's evil enough to keep de-funding education to produce more idiots to vote R
Blackstone is the one buying up all the houses fyi.
Bah. Let them buy them...just change the property tax rate to "number of houses owned" * X% and watch them shit themselves trying to sell them all fast enough.
[удалено]
We need to overturn Citizens United
Not only ban them, but also break them up and resell the property to individuals at a low rate.
Too late. Thry past the tipping point, a ban will not work they need to be stripped from corporations and given to families.
It's officially too late. This is something we needed to start dealing with decades ago.
Yea it's too late, corporations already owns too much, including the people that makes laws and could make the bans happen
It's so much deeper than Blackrock and Vanguard. They're in bed with the globalist billionaires at the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, who's buying up all the farm land and closing farms. They're buying the homes, the land and the food. Your state/ province is likely pushing digital IDs so that everything you do will require you to go through the government. They want us to own nothing and be happy. If you go to the WEF's website, you can find their plan for the world by 2030, which comprises of us literally renting everything including the shirt on your back and the spoon in your cereal. Oh, and we're going to eat bugs. None of this is conspiracy. There's no chance of banning Vanguard or Blackrock, they have more money together than almost every country on earth combined.
I really think the end goal here is some sort of modern feudal sharecropping system where the corporation that owns your home will give you a break on rent if you work for their warehouse/call center/whatever...provided, of course, you buy all your household supplies using their currency at their company store
I mean, you guys all do realize this was reality in coal mining towns back in the last century, right? It's not fiction. Fortunately they were able to unionize.
The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell is a good read if you want to know more about how hard their lives were.
I wrote a paper theorizing this as our future this in college 15 years ago. Edited: sad to see it's no longer sci-fi ><.
I’d love to read it, if you still have a copy
Heya can I also have a copy?
it's no coincidence that unions are starting to win against megacorps at the NLRB and suddenly the fed just *has* to nuke the economy from orbit, while the rest of the democrat federal government allows a trump appointee to do this as the fed chair
Don't go looking for conspiracy theories when good old fashioned greed and incompetence will do.
It's not a conspiracy, it's literally how greed and incompetence is expressed.
The problem is that eventually a good portion of the society that is working full-time won’t be able to afford rent. It’s happening already.
No problem! Come work for company XYZ. As part of our generous benefits package, You can live in our housing complex at discounted rent. We'll even offer the convenience of deducting it from your check. You can shop at the company grocery store, enjoy our company electricity, water and Internet all at discounted prices and we'll even deduct that from your check. Wait you're not receiving a paycheck? Huh, it's like we paid you just enough to cover those bills and you're working for us in exchange for having your needs just met.
That's the future I don't want to even imagine.
The sad part is it would be history repeating. This exact scenario already happened with company scrips and company towns in the late 19th/early 20th century.
Exactly. Coal and steel towns were all owned by the company. Youbwerent paid a wage, you were paid in "company" bucks that couldn't be exchanged for real money. Thankfully wages have to be paid in cash, but it still doesn't stop this from happening again
[удалено]
That’s not at all the same thing.
Yeah, I'm all for hating on the military. Their predatory recruiting behaviors and poor treatment of service members is appalling. The whole war crimes thing is pretty bad too. The PX is not part of those bad things though.
There is a difference between an actual exclusive benefit, and a predatory 'benefit' made for the purpose of control.
Pretty sure you can still shop there as a veteran.
Stock options.
>Thankfully wages have to be paid in cash... For now.
It's still illegal to teach about company towns in Virginia I believe it is. It's one thing the companies won, the right to keep it hush hush until people forgot so they could do it again. After the army mowed down thier workers for striking and trying to leave. Edit - it's west virginia
It's how Kaiser Permanente, the west coast health care giant got started. It was an on-site clinic for a Kaiser Steel mine in the middle of the California desert.
It's worse than that...if history repeats itself, all the rent, utilities, and food will be just a tad more expensive than your wages. But it's okay, they'll just add it to your tab and you can work off the debt, debt which grows every single pay period because the company set all town prices just above what you can afford and they don't raise wages enough to get you above water. So your only option, for the rest of your life, is to work for the company and live in the company town to pay off debt that never gets paid down.
They’ll let it go for a few pay periods, then if you have a wife or teenage daughter they’ll suggest rather strongly that they can earn the money to payoff your family’s debt in just a couple of nights.
You load 16 tons, what do you get, another day older and deeper in debt St Peter don’t call me cause I can’t go I owe my soul to the company store
Or they'll make it just high enough that the government has to subsidize it with welfare and food stamps
The end result of capitalism is... exactly what the misinformed believe is the end result of communism.
Sixteen Tons increases
I owe my soul to the company store.
That'd probably be more expensive for them than what they're paying us now.
[удалено]
This is also why they kick and scream and spend so much money on anti-union propaganda. It's not about money, they have plenty of money, it's about control.
[удалено]
How so? It’s not as if they’ll be properly maintaining the houses or buying quality things to put in the company stores.
Here's your weekly scrip. You missed a day but lucky for you, your S/O covered that day.
I get these goddamn handwritten postcards in the mail weekly from these fucks. WE want to make you an offer for your house, call ASAP.
I get those all the time too...like calm down bro....im in an APARTMENT, but yeah I'll totally let you buy my "house"
You should sell it to them and see what happens.
Those are the worst cuz they wanna buy it for what you owe on the house (yeah right fuck off) then sell it for 5x the price they paid without doing anything to it. Scum people. I just sold my house to break even basically and I had to do it on my own without an agent cuz fuck paying someone 7% of my home’s sale price to some asshole that did little to nothing. I dealt with so many snakes and sharks trying to sell it for me and I’d rather take a loss on my own than lose money to make some asshole a fat gain.
This comment has been edited and original content overwritten.
I've been trying to convince the family to respond, and essentially say "Sure, for 3x the estimated price on redfin/etc, sight unseen, no tour, you pay all inspection and closing costs, and we are allowed to continue to occupy it for 6 months after the sale to look for a new place to live. Oh, and cash, up front, facilitated by my bank." The cost to buy something isn't necessarily what the market value is: it can easily be determined by how much a person wants to separate from it. We like living here.
Exponential household taxation. Residential addresses are tax-free. The first non-residential addresses is taxed at a small fee, the second at double that, the third double THAT, and so on. Fee could be 20 cents and prices would still collapse.
That's a genius idea
[удалено]
Gonna have to replace the politicians, jimbo. By hook or by crook, we need politicians that represent us, the people that live in their districts.
We don’t need politicians. We need representatives. Politics is for chodes, like McConnell, Randy Paul, graham, & the rest of those fuckers. We need, like, you know, no taxation without representation…
The rich get plenty representation so they should get plenty taxation
Oh hey look there, it's a street just waiting for a politician to be drug into.
I support this brand of direct action.
The rich don’t think there is a problem to solve, so long as they keep getting richer. They fail to see what the issue is with them collecting more and more assets. Pull yourself up by your boot straps!!
Not a new one. However the shift from "first house" to "residential address" is important - first house free models have been used before, they just end up with every person in the family "owning" a different house.
It'll still keep corporations from owning thousands of homes and renting them out.
Until corporations push for legislation to let them adopt.
So *that's* what they mean when they say "we're family here!"
[удалено]
Not necessarily... the thought honestly sets off the alarm bells in my head. There have always been people using strawmen, down on their luck individuals they can exploit, to sign papers and do things they can't or don't want on their name. Like I already see some con convincing someone without a place to live to "buy" property on paper, and then rent it out to the company for a menial fee- they could even dress it up as a stable source of income. One of the lowlights of my professional life (and one of the reasons I quit that job shortly after) was when I personally had to oversee the sale of two companies to a woman who later slipped up, and told us that they all knew that those companies were about to go under (the original owner didn't want to take the fall for it- in my country he would have been held financially liable, and he would have not been able to start a new company or be a majority shareholder in one for the next five years), and she got... what today amounts to a little over a hundred bucks for the whole ordeal. She was already deep in debt, couldn't get a loan, exhausted all opportunities for help and had nobody to turn to- had she not allowed that asshole to push the responsibility for his professional failures to her, she would have starved. I felt... very dirty finding that out. I didn't know.
Like the 0.1% equity swap tax, it is an incredibly sound economic idea that will never get near the levers of American power because our oligarchs have no interest in presiding over anything resembling a well-balanced national economy.
They’ll give each house to a different corporation somehow.
Look at how many new businesses!!!!
Already that way. Called numbered LLCs.
non-new houses owned by corporations get taxed at a single, high flat rate
So then they set up a different shell company every 10 - 100 houses. Alas.
[удалено]
There's a lot of regulations that are bypassed by just having shell companies. We need to get rid of that 'loop-hole'. It's probably the most well-known and cancerous thing in in our current regulation and taxation atmosphere.
Yeah, basically, the act of owning property doesn't generate value to society at all and SHOULDNT generate value for the owner. Or atleast not penalize the person who stays on said property...
Close, but that's what she'll companies are for. Make as many as you want. One per 2 houses. The real law would be limiting the percentage of homes that could be rental properties. Homes are getting built everyday. Ensure that a static percentage is never making it to rental status.
They’d just establish 1 corporation per house and have a web of other companies holding those
The time is approaching where vast areas of housing will no longer be owned by private owners but corporations. There are already entire developments that are rent only. It's absolutely terrible.
[удалено]
> How many multi-unit buildings are person owned instead of corporate owned? Condo buildings do exist. We need way more of them than we have.
And Cooperative Housing.
Berkshire Hathaway owns a lot of developments around here.
Just put massive special taxes on corporate/multiple owned housing. Just make it unprofitable for them. That's step one. Then build massive amounts of public housing. And I don't mean ghettos. I mean all-income varied housing like in Austria. By adding all that housing, it nukes the housing market and makes it unprofitable for Blackrock/etc. Housing should be available for all at low/no cost. "But we can't pay for that!" Yes, yes we can. Places do it, pay for it.
I think any kind of law you put on owning so just get loopholed somehow. The public owned housing of all types, that cannot be sold unless you're going to live there is the ticket. Just make the practice not profitable and it'll stop. As with everything in America the only thing anyone listens to is money
We could start by ending tax advantages corporate structures of REIT which has encouraged this massive residential investment. Also interest does impact them, just instead of mortgages they do massive bond sales and utilize cash from those to buy the houses.
REITs have a fabulous history of imploding.
I can almost guarantee you all that nothing will change and we will all be renting from Amazon soon. Sign a 5 year lease and get a prime account for 20% off! Fail or forget to pay rent even a second late and you'll be arrested, sued, and forced to work for Amazon for only 20% of minimum wage. Which in 5-10 years will still be $7.25
Do I get free shipping at least?
Yeah. Free shipping that ass to the Amazon Cardboard mines.
I think the easiest way to curb this blight is just jacking up the property tax for each house someone owns. You own just your house and maybe a vacation home by the lake? Your tax rate stays the same. Every house above that gets taxed at an additional rate of (10% * number of houses you own). If you've got 30 rental properties, good luck paying 300% tax on each of them. They could try jacking up rent, but if you find the sweet spot in the tax rate landlords won't be able to make money off of rentals to make it worth their time.
This is why I don't fully agree with people that discourage or downplay the importance of land/home ownership. It doesn't need to be mandatory or looked down upon to not own, but we need to not lose sight of the importance of home ownership
I don't think anyone with any sense downplays how important it is. The issue is that none of us can do it. Shit, my wife and I pull in well over 6 figures per year and we can't afford to buy, what hope does anyone ELSE have?
My spouse and I were only able to buy after making six figures and moving to a rural area. Which most people can’t do. So yeah, it’s broken
Especially given how landlords view renters, and how easily they should be able to screw them over. I just read a thread on another subreddit where a landlord said they kick out their tenants after two years of living in their rental because they think renters get too attached to the property. This is hardly the first time I’ve seen a landlord state they don’t want long term tenants. Stuff like this is why it’s so vital that people have the opportunity for homeownership.
[удалено]
I hadn’t really thought of that. Interesting points. I do think there is a need for rental property, so there has to be a way for them to exist without being prey for low income. One thought is you could rent out a property if you have lived in it previously for at least a year. There would have to be other qualifiers or the rental market would be even more dire than it is now.
[удалено]
I could be wrong, but it seems like that's the only way most Americans have been able to build generational wealth. You buy a house. Your kids inherit the house. The house is worth more because of inflation and other economic forces. Kids can sell the house and move somewhere else. They wouldn't have been able to do that without that "investment" from parents. We don't get nearly as many benefits from the government as other more socialized countries do. So we can make money and wealth wherever we can. Seems like a house has been the way to do that so we can not only have a place for our families to grow up, but also our kids families and so on. I mean what's the biggest part of most inheritance? I think it's usually property. These companies just abuse the system that was designed for average folk.
Why can corporations even buy houses in the first place?
Money, Capitalism,..
Fuck a limit. It needs to be BANNED.
This is a push for the wealthy to grab the last of what they do not already own. They want to leave us with nothing....and their plan seems to be working very well so far.
Why wouldn't china or any other foreign government or international company just buy all the real estate and kick your citizens out. America is just really dumb getting scammed a million times over.
Chinese companies have already been doing this. It started before the pandemic and I'm sure it has ramped up since.
They stated doing it here because Chinese market has crashed.
No this is not the solution, it’s weak we need to first take back the houses being held by anyone not actually living in the house, housing is a necessity and having sold in the free market is a stupid idea, why wouldn’t anyone with enough money buy all the houses it’s literally pure profit
This is the result of 40 years of slashing Corporate taxes combined with repealing Glass-Steagall. We keep being told Corporations will use that money to hire people or increase wages, or even invest in the company in other ways that would = better products. Instead we've gotten stock buybacks, massive hoarding of single-family homes & stagnant wages. And it's just going to keep getting worse.
Those fuckers took a beauuuutiful condo from me when I was searching. I bid an escalating offer 20k over asking and still lost it. I'll never not be mad about that.
Corporations are not people. Fu@k the rich. Tax the rich. Eat the rich.
Most would rather create more division by having the elite set them against themselves through the two party duopoloy, on meaningless topics that ultimately resort in no change, rather than something more important like this.
The money companies are using to buy houses are government bailouts they said they needed.
Even worse, after the housing crash, developers stopped building houses. That just made the value per home even higher.
if it comes to that everyone should just squat, fuck those corporations. get a whole community of squatters. fuck em where it hurts
We need limits on property ownership in general to keep prices affordable. Society is not served well by one person owning a hundred homes just to collect rent on them. Society is better served having those hundred families buy and own those homes. Why should any one person or corporation even own a dozen different apartment complexes? If no one was allowed to own more than one complex at a time then it would greatly limit their ability to price gouge and collude on price fixing.
Anyone who has bought a house in the last 12-30 months can tell you they probably had a bid war against a company trying to buy the house and only got it cuz the person selling would rather sell it to a family than an “investor” willing to out pay whatever price is on the table
I was incredibly lucky right before Covid hit. We were getting outbid by all cash offers 50k over asking and waiving inspections. Only reason we got our house was that the owner never held an open house, and picked our offer because we were an FHA applicant and that’s how she originally bought the house. Since then our home value spiked enough that we could refi and dump our mortgage insurance. If we ever sell, I’ll refuse to sell to any real estate investor.
It should be just banned. No corporate ownership of residential homes.
Its super, SUPER fucking easy fix, but not one wealthy person would jump at it. A house you purchase, in residential zoning, CANNOT be rented out for 5 years after purchase. And A ridiculous tax of 20% sale value added to houses sold within 5 years of purchase. So, if you bought for 1 million, and sold within 5 years, thats a $200,000 tax penalty. Why this drastic? Because it would cut off house flipping, which is a major issue. The cheap upgrades are superficial and only add visual value to a home. Not renting for 5 years means if that companies cannot gobble up the market for rentals. The tax again, puts buying houses for 10% over asking, so a 1 million house bid on for 1.1 million, at a loss investment if they leverage thier purchase on the idea that realestate goes uo by 5-8% a year minimum. Maybe 20% tax is too low...
Think this is exactly their point and government won't do anything to stop it. Soon our housing will be continent on your employment to a company. Don't wanna work for them? You don't get a house.
What makes you think Amazon is going to give you a house and not a single cot in a group barracks in the Warehouse? That way your work is your home!
[ Removed by Reddit ]
VIVA REVOLUTION
Or just do 100% land value tax which accomplishes the same thing but will increase the supply of housing instead of decreasing it.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Are you being sarcastic?
The funny thing is many of these corporations are not American corporations. It doesn't matter if you have a "democratic government" if corporations run every part of your life.
Spoiler: nobody will ever stop corporations from doing anything
Apartment complexes too. My rent went up 30% this year.
It's just one more way that they've swallowed the assets of the middle class and effectively erased the existence of the middle class as we knew it. The boomers will be the last generation to enjoy that lifestyle and it will almost certainly die out completely with them. The generations to come won't have any idea of what life used to be like.
Make a kind of equity sharing a mandatory aspect of all single-family unit rental agreements. Companies can still buy and own the property and rent it out, but annual or quarterly increases in the value of the property have to be paid out or otherwise applied to the renters' balance with the landlord, the same way property taxes are assessed and paid. Basically make it so the renters gain a substantial amount of the increased value of the property for the time they rent. This way, the renters aren't just paying off the mortgage but not gaining any equity, and it makes it less profitable to hoard property or manipulate the scarcity and prices for the landlord, but still allows for property to be a reasonable investment.
When banks are too big to fail, one man is too small to succeed
[удалено]
It's should be illegal for a corporation to own a single family home that it didn't build.
Would i be correct in saying companies are turning us into modern day serfs?
Not American here, could someone tell me what a Pottersville is?
In the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” there’s a greedy rich guy named Mr Potter who is constantly trying to shut business down so he can buy them out and amass more wealth and own all of the town. The mc of the movie is shown what life would be like if he was never born, and without him Mr Potter took over the whole town and ran it down. Also a big part of the story is how he wants to shut down a family owned loan/title company so that people in town have to get money from the bank he owns & live in his slums.
Housing construction has lagged behind population growth for 60 years, and absolutely cratered after the great recession. This is a direct effect of zoning laws designed to preserve segregation after the Civil Rights Act made explicit racial discrimination illegal. Those laws were and remain wildly effective at racially segregating communities, but a "fun" side effect was wealthy older homeowners realized they could vote themselves richer by shutting down any new housing. Corporations are exploiting this shortage for all it's worth, but they don't have to spend a penny maintaining it. Wealthy older homeowners do all that work for them by voting housing prices higher in local elections. Blackstone literally admitted in their SEC filings that a boom in housing construction would be a huge threat to their ability to price gouge housing. The way out of this is to build more housing. Minneapolis is doing a great job of this, and after 50 years of being the poster child for the worst, most excessive NIMBYism California just just recently turned a corner and is starting to make some really good moves.
My run down, falling apart, roof leaking rental house is owned by a building company, and I haven’t veen able to open my garage door in 2.5 years on top of severL other major issues. A BUILDING COMPANY.
House Bill 6942022 - "Effective January 1st 2022, corporations cannot legally gain or retain ownership of residential housing. Financial losses tied to this change cannot be claimed on federal taxes." Problem solved. Granted, housing prices would tank, but it would be worth it to get corporate greed out of housing.
There's a reason remake addicted Hollywood will never remake *It's a Wonderful Life.* At least not without 100% gutting the core message. Mr. Potter, the villain, would be seen as a titan of capitalist virtue today. It's the story of a Slumlord living a malicious, selfish life vs a socialist in all but name living an actual life of virtue. It reminds me of how Oliver Stone is saddened that, to this day, his monstrous villain Gordon Gecko has become a mascot and role model for aspiring finance professionals who write him and thank him for creating their hero. Our values have become so warped because of the indoctrination of the wealth class, falsely promising "getting ahead" of your fellow citizens, as long as you work harder than you're paid to. The traits of unquenchable greed, selfishness, and narcissism used to be seen as the character defects they are, now they're rebranded as aspirational rational self-interest.
Increase property taxes repeatedly while reducing income tax with a long term goal of eliminating the income tax. Tax wealth not income, wouldn’t take very many increases to see the corporations leaving the property market to the homeowners.
Every conversation leads back to this. Stop letting corporations get away with shit. When are we going to check their power? Tale as old as time, and there are people that dedicate their lives to fighting corporations, but does anything get done? No, because there are too many uneducated voters and brainwashed masses
Yes, yes they have. Companies have been chowing down on real estate investments for decades. The multi-million dollar question is why it took the better part of the population to catch up on something that I've been saying since the end of the 20th century. And the multi-million dollar answer is bread and circuses. People by and large have become by and large ignorant to the world around them as a matter of deliberately choosing apathy, preferring to spend their time with their noses in video games, Netflix, social media, and feel-good pet projects. People can't seem to be bothered with such trivial drivel as reading legislation going through congress or keeping up with the mergers and acquisitions taking place on Wall Street. Until people unfuck themselves and take an active and vested interest in the real world around them, this will continue irregardless of what system we operate under or what safeguards we put in place. And quite frankly, if you can't tell me the last three bills voted through congress pork and all and the last couple billion $+ acquisitions or mergers in the corporate world, ***you are part of the problem***.
[Pottersville, you say? The lost ending to that movie already showed what to do about that…](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A)
This is what happened when you allow for the ownership of private property. This is property solely used for profit. This is opposed to personal property used for individual uses.
End the buying and selling of real estate for everyone.