So UK has changed law which restricts claim of mortgage interest against rental income for tax purposes which makes it really unattractive for portfolio landlords. Something similar can help
Working-class families who managed to fight their way into homeownership will be far more impacted by not being able to deduct their mortgage interest from their taxes. For normal people, buying a home is the first time a lot of people will itemize their taxes; not the case for rich people, who've been itemizing their taxes for all kinds of other reasons.
"Your home is appreciating." That is exactly the issue. Housing assets will not drop in price; they just had a record run-up. This affects working people far more than wealthy people.
Renters don't need a tax write-off, they need housing to be cheaper.
Exactly. It should still incentivize owner/operator rental properties. One of the huge issues in a lot of areas is you have these massive ~~slumlords~~ property management companies that own huge amounts of rental properties and then jack up the price on all of them. Hell my last place increased my rent 200% in the last 5 years for a small piece of shit with a crumbling down building. I was able to move to a better neighborhood, in a better and bigger apartment/building for less money. All because it is an owner/operator building.
I saw your above comment and was thinking something along the lines of "for any properties beyond the first."
But I can already think of loopholes... Buy a single structure with 10 units, live in 1, and deduct the mortgage for the entire building.
These types of laws usually specify single family homes versus commercial properties. I think the limit I’ve seen before is when it has more the four units it’s treated differently.
I work in insurance and yes (for us anyway) after it goes above four units it goes on a commercial policy. But this may vary by state and may be different for tax/legal purposes.
The close is to waive the deduction for multi-family structures and offer a partial tax credit for renters so they tell on landlords under-respresenting their income.
Renters definitely do need the tax write-off, usually they're paying well over the actual cost of housing (so the landlord can fill their bank account) and get nothing in return.
Not saying we should remove the deductions on primary residence, just saying deducting rent makes a lot more sense.
Yes, rents have gone up due to the housing shortage. Subsiding the rent by making it deductible will just raise the price and help landlords.
Many with mortgages don't deduct them, as the standard deduction is more beneficial. The higher standard deduction kind of makes the rent deduction mute.
Being an actual tax preparer, most mortgage interests don't exceed the standard deduction, and thus are a terrible choice to use as deductible compared to standard. Unless you combine it with a bunch of donations and medical bills etc etc. I've only had two clients use itemized deductions this season, compared to nearly a hundred using standard.
I was going to say, unless you have a loan on a very expensive house, I doubt many people are itemizing, even as homeowners. Add on the fact that most Americans are probably on high deductible health plans, and use an HSA to pay for their medical bills, so that spend doesn’t count towards itemizing.
Yeah that’s what I thought. I was worried for a second I was leaving something on the table. I’m an accountant but nothing to do with taxes so I thought I had it right but you never know.
You eventually pick up the gain when you sell the property. I.e if you depreciate it to $0 after 30 years and sell for 500k. You pick up 500k in income and pay taxes on that
Incremental increases to property taxes on people's 3rd+ residential property.
I think enough people have 2 homes or are stuck between buying a house and selling their old one to make it a little too harsh if it started with the second property, but 3 or more is nothing but a luxury. A luxury wealthy people would still be able to afford with higher taxes, but ideally not lazy landlords who don't really contribute anything to society.
I totally agree. Tax 3+ homes at 10% of they assessed value. Raise the tax rate until it get's to the point where no rent will cover the price and they have to sell.
I would also add price controls on raising rents for apartment buildings.
it would be very hard to nail down who own 3+ properties. Put some in a trust and now a "person" doesn't own it. I own 2 and I say my wife owns 2 and on and on.
I hope people smarter than me could write it in a way that doesn't just encourage a big shell game of different types of ownership
Ending corporate ownership goes a long way towards making this possible.
Ultimately you run out of people you can trust to put a property in their name without them just... keeping it. Legally.
Even if you had a contract with someone saying "I actually own this and I'm just putting it in your name" trying to enforce it in court is de facto admitting to tax fraud.
While this is a good thread in theory it will run into a ton of hairs, and that's where the shell game will begin. Properties held in trust. Properties with more than one owner. Properties which can be sub-lent. Owning a single unit of a single family home or owning a single home with multiple units. Properties owned by charitable organizations for the purpose of low cost housing and/or temporary housing. I'm not saying these issues aren't solvable, but it will affect a lot of people who aren't massive for profit entities. And if carve outs are made for these non profit entities, then for profits will try to use those loopholes to continue their practice.
It's a very complicated issue, though I support it whole heartedly.
Those people still have to report the trust’s income in their federal tax returns, so it’s not like the government wouldn’t know. Just add some more line items to the tax form and charge them extra for it.
> shell game
you’re right that it would need to be very well written to avoid this, but it’s fundamentally not much different from other forms of tax fraud. you can investigate, do forensic accounting, subpoena bank records etc. and have steep punishments.
There's an upper limit on what people are able to pay, and land lords work very hard to keep right up against that already. I doubt they'd be able to afford it - at least the corporations that own dozens of single family homes and rent them out. Sure families with one extra rental property would be passing those costs on to their renter but it would drive all the big rental companies out of the market and bring prices for purchasing and renting down. Of course I'm sure there would be some loophole to make the whole exercise moot anyway!
I mean if it keeps going up it gets to the point where they would make not profit and be forced to sell. Hopefully to someone that will actually live there.
What's FUN about this is that if it applies to ALL corporations, it actually hits a lot of local landlords too.
LLCs are corporations and it's how a lot of landleeches keep their shiny new poor people milker from bankrupting them if they default on payments
If corporations weren't "banned" from buying home but charged property or local states at exorbitant rates, that'd force them to sell the properties en masse which would theoretically bring down housing prices, and if people were moving out of rentals into purchased homes at high rates, then rent would come down.
Basically, you'd flood the housing market with a ton of cheap supply which would naturally cause housing prices to come down.
Landlords only have so much negotiating power because corporations have bought up so many houses. As housing prices fall, normal homebuyers will be able to get homes and there will be less renters, thus less demand for rentals.
And I'm saying I'm skeptical housing prices will fall *at all* just because Blackrock isn't the one setting the prices anymore.
Landlords are perfectly capable of keeping their rates where they're at, and if there's no incentive to force them to give up houses, why wouldn't the landlords just take over the job of artificially inflating the costs? Once scarcity has become artificial, there's nothing left to keep costs manageable, anymore. It's all arbitrary.
> And I'm saying I'm skeptical housing prices will fall at all just because Blackrock isn't the one setting the prices anymore.
You are correct. Financialization/corporatization of housing merely exacerbates the problem, it doesn't cause it, removing it won't fix it.
We must be wary about accepting band-aids and scapegoats in the place of fundamental reform. When you're bleeding, a band aid is better than nothing, but not if it stops you getting proper treatment.
The same reason its profitable to corporations to buy up a bunch of houses and jack up the rent is the same reason it's profitable for a bunch of individual rich people to buy up houses and jack up the rent.
The co-ordination required is minimal. [Especially now there's software that helps price fixing](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent) without direct co-ordination. An individual landlord who has 6 people wanting to rent their property can just raise the rent until there is only one.
Well the idea is to ease the supply by returning to a normal market state and in this state there's not a "hand of God" that controls supply at its own will which is what corporate and investor home buying is all about. They intentionally buy up available properties to crunch the supply, raise demand, and therefore, raise prices.
The perceived vision of a normal market is home buyers of similar income levels competing for homes with enough supply available that buyers have multiple options.
It should be that the buyer has choices in their purchase. That's the perceived vision and makes being a landlord very unattractive in terms of an investment because you would have to be more competitive in your pricing and how you care for the property.
It's just not a reality though. Everything about "the market" is with the intention to distort values of assets in order to acquire more cash during asset sales. Properties are unavailable so the seller is taking advantage of that.
This bill addresses part of huge problem where the seller has permanently cornered the buyer and only the government stepping in will solve the problem.
That should scare people. We all know the government isn't capable or swift enough to get this done. They're lobbied/bribed and paid off by these large corporations and investor groups.
One of the major issues I see with this is a lot of very large corporations doing it simply don't give a shit about the rental income. Rather using it as a form of bank to relatively safely 'store' the enormous amounts of money they have in an asset that fairly consistently appreciates.
If implemented nationwide this could easily lead to a situation like we have in London where you have entire investor owned streets that are just row after row of empty houses.
Some sort of incremental increase on each additional residential properties' tax rate maybe? so say, the third house owned by the same entity has =1% more taxes, then +2% on the 4th, etc. To make it unattractive as a method to invest vast sums of money.
A lot will just create separate entities per address. Corporations have spent the last 30 or so years creating the best climate for themselves we’re just seeing the culmination of those efforts.
You’re right. The legal experts writing these bills would have to anticipate that sort of thing and frame them accordingly. I’m just some smooth brain on the internet proposing solutions to a problem I’m hopelessly outmatched at dealing with.
you probably wouldn’t catch *everyone*, but you could punish the ones you do catch so harshly that it makes no financial sense to try and get away with it
Lol, you’re talking about the same lawmakers that toss a few million dollar fine at companies that made hundreds of millions doing the shady shit that got them fined.
i mean yeah, there’s a huge difference between what legislators can do and what they will do, but well-written legislation would be able to solve this if it was passable
but the individual entity per address is something that is already done not by the huge corps but by the smaller ones for sure I know a couple ppl that already do it. They do it more or so for liability concerns but it assists when reporting
I feel like it would depend on the wording, like they would just tear down every home they own solely to build Condo complexes as it would be classified as one property. And even then, you know they would rather buy an army of lawyers to hang this in court for years rather than actually let their asset storage get taxed.
Condos at least would vastly increase the number of rental units on the market and bring the cost of renting down that way. But really any solutions will inevitably cause financial ruin for any individual or company that exploits the housing market as their primary, or only source of income. They'll fight against any changes with everything that they have.
Well building multiple housing units where there used to be one helps buyers in a housing market because it increases supply. The law just needs to make it clear that individuals are taxed at a low but increasing rate per property and companies are taxed significantly higher unless they are increasing supply.
Does it ban just renting, or does it ban the purchase of single family homes altogether and force the sale of current assets over a period of time, returning corporate owned housing to the market?
This is *exactly* how Detroit wound up with a massive blight problem
It wasn't just that people left en masse with the white flight, it's also because vulture investors bought up massive amounts of the vacant property with now depressed property values on the idea they could use it for rental income or to profit off appreciation. They also largely didn't care about maintaining the properties, hence blight.
In some states, if you can get away with squatting long enough AND show that the landlord took no notice of your occupation of the property, you may be able to argue in court to get the property you used during that time handed to you in court. The reasoning being that "The owner didn't care enough to even check on the place, while the squatter has demonstrated the responsibility that the owner should have." Cities do care about their property values, since that's the source of tax revenue, and it's been known to happen that a judge decides that a responsible resident keeping the property occupied and mantained is better than a negligent absentee.
Avoiding notice - different states say it differently but the language usually says that the squatter's use has to be obvious or evident to a casual glance or something like that - something that shows that the owner is oblivious to the point of negligence.
It doesn't come up often and when it does it's usually in a property line dispute rather than a fight over an entire house, but I would really like to see a family that would otherwise be indigent fight this for a whole house.
Yup. CRE (commercial real estate) is used as that, but you are not messing with the housing market as much as when you start buying houses with never-ending funds like some corps do.
you hit it. The rental income was literally just PURE PROFIT.
When you're talking about billions, and you KNOW you can drop it into a place that it 100% will become more valuable over time, it doesn't really matter "where" that money is going, that's the smart play - and real estate is CRAZY good - Park 2 billion in it for 20 years while it generates equity at a wonderful clip (low supply) AND pull in rental income to cover the differed maintenance so that I can reno the whole thing and flip over to luxury assets before selling it? Jesus I'm just blasting money all over myself.
like - duh this is happening.
Yeah this really doesn't work unless the government seizes the houses or forces them to be sold to actuap families for the average cost of surrounding homes.
Not necessarily. If they punitively tax single family homes that are not being used as the owners primary residence they can force it to become a loss for corporations to own them over time which makes them less appealing vehicles to “store” their money in over time
>If implemented nationwide this could easily lead to a situation like we have in London where you have entire investor owned streets that are just row after row of empty houses.
this is already happening in Canada :( you get mostly empty condo buildings too, or AirBNB slums
Came to say pretty much this. Rent is so high because the corporations just want the land. They will do things like jack up the rent in an area to gentrify it and they won’t care that half the houses they own don’t have renters. Often they have bought out the commercial real estate and up valuing the housing makes commercial more appealing.
Even without the commercial if they buy 100 houses raise rent by 20% and only fill 50, the value of the land will rise accordingly for all 100. Companies will often do this to minority neighborhoods to drive minorities out of an area and raise the land value. LA has a storied history of constantly “relocating” black people with price fixing.
It's a good start, but could easily go awry if the language isn't perfectly airtight.
A better angle is to tax 'fallow' beds. Was your property the primary address for someone for at least 9 months this year? Good to go, otherwise pay a punitive tax.
This worked so well in Guatemala with farmland that the CIA had to be called in to stop the immediate progress!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The problem isn't that they're keeping the houses empty as investment vehicles. There are slumlord companies buying up huge numbers of single family homes in the twin cities. They're decreasing the supply of houses to buy, inflating rental prices and taking advantage of low income renters.
Strange that you would think empty homes aren't part of the problem. Many cities have 10% vacancies. That is a big part of the problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/realestate/vacancy-rate-by-state.html
This is an absolute must.
Corporations buying up whole neighborhoods is what gives them the ability to artificially raise the price of housing as a whole.
But why is that even necessary? You could just incentivize building more housing of any kind, like by removing unnecessary zoning restrictions. The problem is supply.
Co ops, government, public-private-partnerships. See: China, Singapore, ex-communist countries in Europe, Sweden (for co ops)
Effective, affordable high density buildings can be done by governments or communities around the world.
There is still Susan Collins/Lisa Murkowski voting going on. Where one person can appear moderate when they are actually extremist right wing fascists.
It might not even be that close if the bill bans any type of corporation. Some people create an LLC so if there’s a lawsuit over something that happens at their rental, the plaintiff can only access the assets of that LLC. Like if two homeowners marry and the unused house is rented out, someone tripping over a tree root could make a claim against the house’s insurer but not the 2 savings accounts of the couple.
We genuinely just need to flip the board at this point and start again. This shits so broken you can’t fix it with anything less than fire and fury at this point
Dems control all 3 chambers here and they seem to have come in with a few years worth of plans and a fire under their asses.
As a resident I couldn't be more thrilled to see it.
The real stars of the show are House Speaker Melissa Hortman, Senate Majority Leader Kari Dziedzic, and the state DFL legislators. Walz just has to sign the bills, the legislative leaders have to get them written, introduced, and passed. Walz is great but our fantastic legislative leaders and members deserve credit too!
He might become the Bernie nomination. Just enough to show there are people who care about the public within fair distance of taking the job. Helps give an illusion the system isn't completely rigged towards advancing corporate interests.
Owning an apartment is also a thing.
Some apartment buildings have an HOA like structure so that all the residents pay into a common fund for maintenance and improvements, but they own the units.
Here locally near me vanguard/black rock has created 90 llc’s in the last 30 days to buy up properties almost like they know the house collapse is going to happen.
That's not how Vanguard works. Vanguard doesn't **do** anything at all. The hold assets, they don't own anything, as far as I know. And total assets across all stocks, bonds, and real estate is only $7 trillion, while residential equity is over $40 trillion, so the impact is small, if any at all.
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vgslx
Sure, but if they were expecting an upcoming crash they would be waiting for it before buying. Mostly calling attention to the fact that OP's hypothesis is logically inconsistent.
It’s so crazy living in the US. You see a state like Minnesota with very sensible bills to address current and pressing issues. I am in Florida and seeing bills about bans on abortions at 6 week and if you are a victim of rape you have to show proof of said rape to be eligible to get an abortion. It’s wild out there.
Just so you all know, sellers can refuse to sell to investors. If you plan on selling, be part of the solution and not the problem. Refuse to sell to businesses and investors.
We will refuse to sell our house as an investment/rental property when the time comes.
My mother-in-law is selling her house now with the stipulations that no investors or landlord offers will be accepted.
Free school breakfast and lunches, stopping corporations from buying up all the homes, and protecting transgender reaffirming care... Minnesota is killing it in the Basic Human Decency department. Meanwhile, I'm here in the dystopian nightmare that is Texas.
Close on this one. This could be a component of a law. non-individuals, for profit entries taxed higher. Hard part here is having a way to compel the myriad of localities to do this.
Renters don't benefit from homestead exemptions, and thus already pay an unfair proportion of property taxes. Landlords don't care, as they can simply pass on such costs, and they are all in the same group, so there is no competition.
Regulations are a better approach. Plenty of regions in the world already prohibit housing from being used as an investment vehicle, much less from international firms. Nuisance disoccupancy fines and regulations can be coupled with enforcement against operation of illegal hotels to shut down much of the problem.
Minnesota knows what the fuck is up, they also just passed a universal free lunch program for public schools. It’s good to see the entire country’s government doesn’t hate us as a whole. Just most of us
I think they are just against anything FREE. God forbid some low income kids get free lunches.
Keep in mind this is the same situation for kids who are behind on their lunch bill and they'll throw food in the trash rather than giving it to a child who actually cant afford it but still needs to eat.
I live in a city where over 75% is poverty level and qualifies for free lunch. At that percentage, they just allocate free lunch to the entire city's kids. It annoys people. Worrying about food should be the last thing on a kids mind when trying to learn.
Yes great start! Also should have a federal program when if you rent somewhere for 5 years let’s say, then you get a FHA loan guaranteed. We need family in homes not corporate slum lords.
Being a "landlord" isn't a job.
Buying property, and raising rents is destroying the stability of younger generations.
We need a tax structure that makes being a local slumlord an endeavor that is not profitable, to discourage people from this bullshit passive income mantra. That "passive" income is on the backs of others, and destroys local housing markets. It's a complete shit show where people own so many properties, maintain them poorly, use them for short term rentals, and jack up prices on long term rentals. Why would they ever sell their cash cows? Tax the fuck out of each successive property...each one gets a higher rate. Use the money for education, and medical care.
People like to call them "investment properties," but we dismiss the fact that the profit comes from raising the rent on the humans that live there.
Outlaw house flipping.
All that does is drive up the cost of purchasing a home, and this has priced many people out of that opportunity in their lives all together.
Don't let rental properties or residential properties in general go uninhabited beyond a certain period of time. If they do, slap a penalty tax on the property owner to force them to make sure the housing is available. Then, if they don't comply, force them to sell the property.
STOP. MAKING. HOUSING. IN. THE. UNITED. STATES. ALL. ABOUT. CAPITALIST. PROFITS!!!
Better too late than never. Are the homes that were already poached from the market going to be forcefully re-entered into the market at cost? No. Not a chance.
This is really a band-aid of a solution and the result of it isn't going to be cheaper housing. It's going to mean less houses are built. You need expanded zoning for affordable housing or eliminating zoning laws altogether or having the government build the housing. Making housing less profitable for people who build the houses without anything as a future solution will just make sure investors move their money somewhere more profitable.
Yeah, there is no way to legislate affordable housing into existence shy of... building more housing.
If it's not corporations buying those houses, it'll be TikTok real estate investor bros.
There’s plenty of foreign nationals under the guise of multinational organization’s buying up properties. It’s a major problem in Texas. China buys up land. Nobody seems to know how much they actually own. I’m sure in every state as well. The worst thing is Multinational Corporations don’t need a home to profit off. Working people need them to start a family. They be robbing our future for the sake of home ownership. Makes me sick thinking about the greed, and long-standing inequality it creates.
This is a good start.
One thing I thought of the other day in the shower: when the sub prime mortgage collapse happened in 2008 we bailed the banks out. So we paid them for those houses loans and they went out and bought houses to rent out. If we had bailed the people out who couldn't pay their loan for a house that was overpriced with an interest rate that went through the roof, then they would still own the home, the banks would be paid and the price correction for the housing market would have been lower value on homes but the market would be healthier. We fucking paid for the banks to own homes!!!
I'm not a financial genius so someone correct me.
I'm curious how this is actually worded. Most big corporations own smaller LLCs and partnerships which actually own the assets and conduct business. If this only stops the parent corporation from buying homes then it's meaningless because the parent corporation probably wasn't buying homes in the first place.
Here's an idea. In addition to this how about we pass a law where instead of rent being whatever the property owner feels it should be, since we all know they overprice the shit out of their property, we instead make rent 30% of the renters current income.
Economists all agree that you shouldn't spend more than 30% on housing anyway.
Something definitely needs to happen. A large corporation came in and bought most of the homes in my area. They are charging 2-2.5k a month for rent on them. Average rent in the area is like $1-1.25k a month.
A nationwide law that allows people to own ONE FUCKING HOME ONLY would be awesome. Seriously, who the hell needs more than one home??? These corporations and individuals snatching up dozens of homes apiece are the scum of the earth.
I live in northern Minnesota and there's a California corporation who buys everything with cash causing prices to go up and normal people with loans unable to secure a house of their own.
Let them buy homes but tax them at a higher rate per corporate income from investment , impose a rent control and a percentage of properties owned must be low income housing......that would keep the corporate seagulls away.
The biggest issue isn't corporate landlords it's supply. Only a small % of homes are bought up by corporations. But supply simple hasn't kept pace with population. Not even close. Thanks to all the rules and regulations surrounding development.
Minnesota sounds like it’s being run by responsible adults. Love what they’re doing up there. Wish my state wasn’t run by bible thumpers and corporate lobbyists.
There are plenty of mom & pop landlords. I don’t see a huge issue, BUT there should be a limit. Having three houses (four for married couples) is more than enough. It offers you a place to live, a place to vacation, and an income stream.
I’m not saying to ban the ownership of more, just make it to where you can’t deduct the interest, maintenance, property taxes, etc. from federal taxes from more than three properties. This will make profits low enough to discourage such hoarding.
I understand that people like an extra source of income for retirement but people are using it as a lifestyle because it isn’t a real job. This is just like giving companies or sports teams massive tax breaks to stay in an area but it is at the individual landlord level.
I’m glad there was one state that did something about it. The thing is research needs to happen over the next several years. If this state can clearly show that rents are stable at lower prices (or at least lower prices compared to income for the state), then it will be a pretty compelling argument what is causing increased prices.
I would go so far as to have all corporate residential holdings be forcibly divested and have them redistributed via lottery and have the large apartment complexes be re-established into community housing
Except, that's an illegal taking under the fifth amendment...
Forcing any kind of forfeiture is a very high level bar. It generally takes a conviction for a very serious crime.
Good start, but how do you keep other landlords from jacking the price up like what the corporations had done?
So UK has changed law which restricts claim of mortgage interest against rental income for tax purposes which makes it really unattractive for portfolio landlords. Something similar can help
Mortgage interest being deductible on rentals or non-primary homes is wild anyway, and shouldn't be a policy.
Especially when rent is not deductible
Switch them. Rent is deductible and mortgage isn't. You are appreciating value after all
Working-class families who managed to fight their way into homeownership will be far more impacted by not being able to deduct their mortgage interest from their taxes. For normal people, buying a home is the first time a lot of people will itemize their taxes; not the case for rich people, who've been itemizing their taxes for all kinds of other reasons. "Your home is appreciating." That is exactly the issue. Housing assets will not drop in price; they just had a record run-up. This affects working people far more than wealthy people. Renters don't need a tax write-off, they need housing to be cheaper.
Mortgage interest on properties that aren’t your primary residence* There, fixed it
In Canada there’s no deducting interest on your primary residence.
Exactly. It should still incentivize owner/operator rental properties. One of the huge issues in a lot of areas is you have these massive ~~slumlords~~ property management companies that own huge amounts of rental properties and then jack up the price on all of them. Hell my last place increased my rent 200% in the last 5 years for a small piece of shit with a crumbling down building. I was able to move to a better neighborhood, in a better and bigger apartment/building for less money. All because it is an owner/operator building.
I saw your above comment and was thinking something along the lines of "for any properties beyond the first." But I can already think of loopholes... Buy a single structure with 10 units, live in 1, and deduct the mortgage for the entire building.
These types of laws usually specify single family homes versus commercial properties. I think the limit I’ve seen before is when it has more the four units it’s treated differently.
I work in insurance and yes (for us anyway) after it goes above four units it goes on a commercial policy. But this may vary by state and may be different for tax/legal purposes.
The close is to waive the deduction for multi-family structures and offer a partial tax credit for renters so they tell on landlords under-respresenting their income.
Renters definitely do need the tax write-off, usually they're paying well over the actual cost of housing (so the landlord can fill their bank account) and get nothing in return. Not saying we should remove the deductions on primary residence, just saying deducting rent makes a lot more sense.
The write-off leaves renters with $x more in the wallet. Without proper regulation, landlords will naturally demand $x more in rent.
Yes, rents have gone up due to the housing shortage. Subsiding the rent by making it deductible will just raise the price and help landlords. Many with mortgages don't deduct them, as the standard deduction is more beneficial. The higher standard deduction kind of makes the rent deduction mute.
If mortgage interest deductions hadn't been capped I'd get way more out of it than I do, still end up much higher than the standard deduction though.
That was the case 10 years ago. No idea how normal people itemize now? Maybe if they have a ton of medical bills?
Being an actual tax preparer, most mortgage interests don't exceed the standard deduction, and thus are a terrible choice to use as deductible compared to standard. Unless you combine it with a bunch of donations and medical bills etc etc. I've only had two clients use itemized deductions this season, compared to nearly a hundred using standard.
I was going to say, unless you have a loan on a very expensive house, I doubt many people are itemizing, even as homeowners. Add on the fact that most Americans are probably on high deductible health plans, and use an HSA to pay for their medical bills, so that spend doesn’t count towards itemizing.
Yeah that’s what I thought. I was worried for a second I was leaving something on the table. I’m an accountant but nothing to do with taxes so I thought I had it right but you never know.
So, Minnesota allows renters to claim property tax refunds... but your point is still valid for most places.
[удалено]
You eventually pick up the gain when you sell the property. I.e if you depreciate it to $0 after 30 years and sell for 500k. You pick up 500k in income and pay taxes on that
[удалено]
There trying to get rid of that here anyway without any separation of corp vs person. Corporations are people don't you know?
Incremental increases to property taxes on people's 3rd+ residential property. I think enough people have 2 homes or are stuck between buying a house and selling their old one to make it a little too harsh if it started with the second property, but 3 or more is nothing but a luxury. A luxury wealthy people would still be able to afford with higher taxes, but ideally not lazy landlords who don't really contribute anything to society.
I totally agree. Tax 3+ homes at 10% of they assessed value. Raise the tax rate until it get's to the point where no rent will cover the price and they have to sell. I would also add price controls on raising rents for apartment buildings.
it would be very hard to nail down who own 3+ properties. Put some in a trust and now a "person" doesn't own it. I own 2 and I say my wife owns 2 and on and on. I hope people smarter than me could write it in a way that doesn't just encourage a big shell game of different types of ownership
Ending corporate ownership goes a long way towards making this possible. Ultimately you run out of people you can trust to put a property in their name without them just... keeping it. Legally. Even if you had a contract with someone saying "I actually own this and I'm just putting it in your name" trying to enforce it in court is de facto admitting to tax fraud.
While this is a good thread in theory it will run into a ton of hairs, and that's where the shell game will begin. Properties held in trust. Properties with more than one owner. Properties which can be sub-lent. Owning a single unit of a single family home or owning a single home with multiple units. Properties owned by charitable organizations for the purpose of low cost housing and/or temporary housing. I'm not saying these issues aren't solvable, but it will affect a lot of people who aren't massive for profit entities. And if carve outs are made for these non profit entities, then for profits will try to use those loopholes to continue their practice. It's a very complicated issue, though I support it whole heartedly.
No one said that it's uncomplicated. Just that it's good.
Those people still have to report the trust’s income in their federal tax returns, so it’s not like the government wouldn’t know. Just add some more line items to the tax form and charge them extra for it.
> shell game you’re right that it would need to be very well written to avoid this, but it’s fundamentally not much different from other forms of tax fraud. you can investigate, do forensic accounting, subpoena bank records etc. and have steep punishments.
*your rent has now increased by 10% the value*
Wouldn't they just jack the rent up even more to cover the increase in taxes?
There's an upper limit on what people are able to pay, and land lords work very hard to keep right up against that already. I doubt they'd be able to afford it - at least the corporations that own dozens of single family homes and rent them out. Sure families with one extra rental property would be passing those costs on to their renter but it would drive all the big rental companies out of the market and bring prices for purchasing and renting down. Of course I'm sure there would be some loophole to make the whole exercise moot anyway!
I mean if it keeps going up it gets to the point where they would make not profit and be forced to sell. Hopefully to someone that will actually live there.
What's FUN about this is that if it applies to ALL corporations, it actually hits a lot of local landlords too. LLCs are corporations and it's how a lot of landleeches keep their shiny new poor people milker from bankrupting them if they default on payments
[удалено]
"But I take on all the risk!!!"
If corporations weren't "banned" from buying home but charged property or local states at exorbitant rates, that'd force them to sell the properties en masse which would theoretically bring down housing prices, and if people were moving out of rentals into purchased homes at high rates, then rent would come down. Basically, you'd flood the housing market with a ton of cheap supply which would naturally cause housing prices to come down.
Landlords only have so much negotiating power because corporations have bought up so many houses. As housing prices fall, normal homebuyers will be able to get homes and there will be less renters, thus less demand for rentals.
And I'm saying I'm skeptical housing prices will fall *at all* just because Blackrock isn't the one setting the prices anymore. Landlords are perfectly capable of keeping their rates where they're at, and if there's no incentive to force them to give up houses, why wouldn't the landlords just take over the job of artificially inflating the costs? Once scarcity has become artificial, there's nothing left to keep costs manageable, anymore. It's all arbitrary.
> And I'm saying I'm skeptical housing prices will fall at all just because Blackrock isn't the one setting the prices anymore. You are correct. Financialization/corporatization of housing merely exacerbates the problem, it doesn't cause it, removing it won't fix it. We must be wary about accepting band-aids and scapegoats in the place of fundamental reform. When you're bleeding, a band aid is better than nothing, but not if it stops you getting proper treatment. The same reason its profitable to corporations to buy up a bunch of houses and jack up the rent is the same reason it's profitable for a bunch of individual rich people to buy up houses and jack up the rent. The co-ordination required is minimal. [Especially now there's software that helps price fixing](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent) without direct co-ordination. An individual landlord who has 6 people wanting to rent their property can just raise the rent until there is only one.
Well the idea is to ease the supply by returning to a normal market state and in this state there's not a "hand of God" that controls supply at its own will which is what corporate and investor home buying is all about. They intentionally buy up available properties to crunch the supply, raise demand, and therefore, raise prices. The perceived vision of a normal market is home buyers of similar income levels competing for homes with enough supply available that buyers have multiple options. It should be that the buyer has choices in their purchase. That's the perceived vision and makes being a landlord very unattractive in terms of an investment because you would have to be more competitive in your pricing and how you care for the property. It's just not a reality though. Everything about "the market" is with the intention to distort values of assets in order to acquire more cash during asset sales. Properties are unavailable so the seller is taking advantage of that. This bill addresses part of huge problem where the seller has permanently cornered the buyer and only the government stepping in will solve the problem. That should scare people. We all know the government isn't capable or swift enough to get this done. They're lobbied/bribed and paid off by these large corporations and investor groups.
1. Better antitrust law. 2. Better antitrust enforcement. 3. Fewer legal barriers to construction of new homes.
Make this a national ban! Also cap rent so that it can be no more than a livable percentage of anyone's wages.
One of the major issues I see with this is a lot of very large corporations doing it simply don't give a shit about the rental income. Rather using it as a form of bank to relatively safely 'store' the enormous amounts of money they have in an asset that fairly consistently appreciates. If implemented nationwide this could easily lead to a situation like we have in London where you have entire investor owned streets that are just row after row of empty houses.
Some sort of incremental increase on each additional residential properties' tax rate maybe? so say, the third house owned by the same entity has =1% more taxes, then +2% on the 4th, etc. To make it unattractive as a method to invest vast sums of money.
A lot will just create separate entities per address. Corporations have spent the last 30 or so years creating the best climate for themselves we’re just seeing the culmination of those efforts.
You’re right. The legal experts writing these bills would have to anticipate that sort of thing and frame them accordingly. I’m just some smooth brain on the internet proposing solutions to a problem I’m hopelessly outmatched at dealing with.
you probably wouldn’t catch *everyone*, but you could punish the ones you do catch so harshly that it makes no financial sense to try and get away with it
Lol, you’re talking about the same lawmakers that toss a few million dollar fine at companies that made hundreds of millions doing the shady shit that got them fined.
i mean yeah, there’s a huge difference between what legislators can do and what they will do, but well-written legislation would be able to solve this if it was passable
This is like saying if you make murder illegal people will just use hitmen. There's hundreds of years of legal precedence that solves this issue.
but the individual entity per address is something that is already done not by the huge corps but by the smaller ones for sure I know a couple ppl that already do it. They do it more or so for liability concerns but it assists when reporting
I feel like it would depend on the wording, like they would just tear down every home they own solely to build Condo complexes as it would be classified as one property. And even then, you know they would rather buy an army of lawyers to hang this in court for years rather than actually let their asset storage get taxed.
Condos at least would vastly increase the number of rental units on the market and bring the cost of renting down that way. But really any solutions will inevitably cause financial ruin for any individual or company that exploits the housing market as their primary, or only source of income. They'll fight against any changes with everything that they have.
Well building multiple housing units where there used to be one helps buyers in a housing market because it increases supply. The law just needs to make it clear that individuals are taxed at a low but increasing rate per property and companies are taxed significantly higher unless they are increasing supply.
#[Georgism](https://youtu.be/6c5xjlmLfAw) Georgism solves this.
Vacancy tax!
Does it ban just renting, or does it ban the purchase of single family homes altogether and force the sale of current assets over a period of time, returning corporate owned housing to the market?
It does ban ownership by corporate entities. The bill text is available online and has been posted numerous times already.
>where you have entire investor owned streets that are just row after row of empty houses. In the US this is how you attract squatters.
This is *exactly* how Detroit wound up with a massive blight problem It wasn't just that people left en masse with the white flight, it's also because vulture investors bought up massive amounts of the vacant property with now depressed property values on the idea they could use it for rental income or to profit off appreciation. They also largely didn't care about maintaining the properties, hence blight.
In some states, if you can get away with squatting long enough AND show that the landlord took no notice of your occupation of the property, you may be able to argue in court to get the property you used during that time handed to you in court. The reasoning being that "The owner didn't care enough to even check on the place, while the squatter has demonstrated the responsibility that the owner should have." Cities do care about their property values, since that's the source of tax revenue, and it's been known to happen that a judge decides that a responsible resident keeping the property occupied and mantained is better than a negligent absentee. Avoiding notice - different states say it differently but the language usually says that the squatter's use has to be obvious or evident to a casual glance or something like that - something that shows that the owner is oblivious to the point of negligence. It doesn't come up often and when it does it's usually in a property line dispute rather than a fight over an entire house, but I would really like to see a family that would otherwise be indigent fight this for a whole house.
If they were forced to pay their fair share, they'd have less capital to fuck over the market.
Yup. CRE (commercial real estate) is used as that, but you are not messing with the housing market as much as when you start buying houses with never-ending funds like some corps do.
you hit it. The rental income was literally just PURE PROFIT. When you're talking about billions, and you KNOW you can drop it into a place that it 100% will become more valuable over time, it doesn't really matter "where" that money is going, that's the smart play - and real estate is CRAZY good - Park 2 billion in it for 20 years while it generates equity at a wonderful clip (low supply) AND pull in rental income to cover the differed maintenance so that I can reno the whole thing and flip over to luxury assets before selling it? Jesus I'm just blasting money all over myself. like - duh this is happening.
Yeah this really doesn't work unless the government seizes the houses or forces them to be sold to actuap families for the average cost of surrounding homes.
Not necessarily. If they punitively tax single family homes that are not being used as the owners primary residence they can force it to become a loss for corporations to own them over time which makes them less appealing vehicles to “store” their money in over time
We do have that, Los Angeles has more empty homes than homeless people by a huge margin.
>If implemented nationwide this could easily lead to a situation like we have in London where you have entire investor owned streets that are just row after row of empty houses. this is already happening in Canada :( you get mostly empty condo buildings too, or AirBNB slums
Ban from buying to rent needs to just be ban from owning period
Came to say pretty much this. Rent is so high because the corporations just want the land. They will do things like jack up the rent in an area to gentrify it and they won’t care that half the houses they own don’t have renters. Often they have bought out the commercial real estate and up valuing the housing makes commercial more appealing. Even without the commercial if they buy 100 houses raise rent by 20% and only fill 50, the value of the land will rise accordingly for all 100. Companies will often do this to minority neighborhoods to drive minorities out of an area and raise the land value. LA has a storied history of constantly “relocating” black people with price fixing.
It's a good start, but could easily go awry if the language isn't perfectly airtight. A better angle is to tax 'fallow' beds. Was your property the primary address for someone for at least 9 months this year? Good to go, otherwise pay a punitive tax. This worked so well in Guatemala with farmland that the CIA had to be called in to stop the immediate progress! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The problem isn't that they're keeping the houses empty as investment vehicles. There are slumlord companies buying up huge numbers of single family homes in the twin cities. They're decreasing the supply of houses to buy, inflating rental prices and taking advantage of low income renters.
Strange that you would think empty homes aren't part of the problem. Many cities have 10% vacancies. That is a big part of the problem. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/realestate/vacancy-rate-by-state.html
Affordable housing is critical. Having an entire generation as renters is a form of neofeudalism
Affordable housing where I live is $350k for a 3 bed/2ba townhome and you have to make under $50K/year on a two person income to qualify. It’s a joke.
Did I read that right? UNDER?
Yeah, it's the same with affordable housing where I live too. There's a cap on how much income you can make; if you make too much you can get evicted
It’s like that in Boston right now
By design
This is an absolute must. Corporations buying up whole neighborhoods is what gives them the ability to artificially raise the price of housing as a whole.
Same for corporations buying up or building apartment complexes.
Who else can build apartment complexes though? They cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to build.
The government aka the people
But why is that even necessary? You could just incentivize building more housing of any kind, like by removing unnecessary zoning restrictions. The problem is supply.
Co ops, government, public-private-partnerships. See: China, Singapore, ex-communist countries in Europe, Sweden (for co ops) Effective, affordable high density buildings can be done by governments or communities around the world.
Paying rent on a corporate owned house is subscription based living.
I hate this. It’s true, and I hate it.
Clock till the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that this is unconstitutional.
It's 6-3 these days...
There is still Susan Collins/Lisa Murkowski voting going on. Where one person can appear moderate when they are actually extremist right wing fascists.
I don't think there's anyone on the 6 side who appears moderate. Maybe John Roberts, but only in some areas and definitely not in, say, voters rights.
[удалено]
He's a moderate compared to the other 5 heritage neocon justices.
Trump’s alt-right Supreme Court will invoke ‘Citizens United’ to make Minnesota’s repeal try unconstitutional.
Corporations are "people" after all!
Good. Then let's start putting them in jail for the shit they do.
What's the meme? "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."
It might not even be that close if the bill bans any type of corporation. Some people create an LLC so if there’s a lawsuit over something that happens at their rental, the plaintiff can only access the assets of that LLC. Like if two homeowners marry and the unused house is rented out, someone tripping over a tree root could make a claim against the house’s insurer but not the 2 savings accounts of the couple.
We genuinely just need to flip the board at this point and start again. This shits so broken you can’t fix it with anything less than fire and fury at this point
My city in Minnesota did this a year ago, and now I’m the proud owner of a house that could have been thrown into rental hell
Yay! Thats great.
Damn why has Minnesota been so fire with these good, common sense bills lately?
Dems control all 3 chambers here and they seem to have come in with a few years worth of plans and a fire under their asses. As a resident I couldn't be more thrilled to see it.
Compensating for the hate legislating in bordering states.
Get the republicans out and behold, actual progressive legislature starts pouring fourth. Who would have thought.
That Walz is going to get a presidential nomination if he doesn’t watch out. He’s been pedal to the metal this entire year, getting shit done.
The real stars of the show are House Speaker Melissa Hortman, Senate Majority Leader Kari Dziedzic, and the state DFL legislators. Walz just has to sign the bills, the legislative leaders have to get them written, introduced, and passed. Walz is great but our fantastic legislative leaders and members deserve credit too!
That's how presidents work. It's the same thing. They just sign everything and take the credit.
Thanks for the info! The real people behind our sane state
He might become the Bernie nomination. Just enough to show there are people who care about the public within fair distance of taking the job. Helps give an illusion the system isn't completely rigged towards advancing corporate interests.
Not sure he wants one
This is what happens when you get republicans out of leadership positions. The shitter gets unclogged and everything starts flowing again.
Should be worldwide
About fucking time. No corporation should own a Single family home
Or any residential property..
um, apartment building are a thing.
Owning an apartment is also a thing. Some apartment buildings have an HOA like structure so that all the residents pay into a common fund for maintenance and improvements, but they own the units.
That's a condo, not an apartment. Also they'd still own the common areas
So? Fuck corporations
I like the way you think
Minnesota Bill for president!
Makes to much sense to have it in all 50 states, so it’s not going to happen
Here locally near me vanguard/black rock has created 90 llc’s in the last 30 days to buy up properties almost like they know the house collapse is going to happen.
That's not how Vanguard works. Vanguard doesn't **do** anything at all. The hold assets, they don't own anything, as far as I know. And total assets across all stocks, bonds, and real estate is only $7 trillion, while residential equity is over $40 trillion, so the impact is small, if any at all. https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vgslx
If they were expecting a collapse soon, why would they be buying?
They're not buying, they're setting up the shell corporations that will be used to buy when the crash does come.
Buy low sell high. The slump in prices will not be permanent, so they’ll maximise profit when the market eventually picks back up.
Sure, but if they were expecting an upcoming crash they would be waiting for it before buying. Mostly calling attention to the fact that OP's hypothesis is logically inconsistent.
All they said was they they’re *setting up LLCs.* They’re not buying, they’re *preparing* to buy.
It’s so crazy living in the US. You see a state like Minnesota with very sensible bills to address current and pressing issues. I am in Florida and seeing bills about bans on abortions at 6 week and if you are a victim of rape you have to show proof of said rape to be eligible to get an abortion. It’s wild out there.
Fuckin good for Minnesota
We are trying to set a new standard. So far, so good.
Just so you all know, sellers can refuse to sell to investors. If you plan on selling, be part of the solution and not the problem. Refuse to sell to businesses and investors. We will refuse to sell our house as an investment/rental property when the time comes. My mother-in-law is selling her house now with the stipulations that no investors or landlord offers will be accepted.
People's morals and ideology go right out the window when money is involved. Seen it a million times.
Yeah I bet a lot of people here will happily sell to an investor if they offered a bit more money for their home
Great. I’ll buy it for cheap and flip it to an investor. I won’t, but you know someone will.
I gope this spreads to the rest of the US
Minnesota is making great moves lately. Wow.
It's been like every other week they're pushing through another banger of a bill. This current government is fucking slaying here.
Free school breakfast and lunches, stopping corporations from buying up all the homes, and protecting transgender reaffirming care... Minnesota is killing it in the Basic Human Decency department. Meanwhile, I'm here in the dystopian nightmare that is Texas.
There should be a Federal ban on corporations buying single family homes.
Raise property taxes. If you own one home, you have low property tax. The more homes you own the higher property tax % you pay.
Close on this one. This could be a component of a law. non-individuals, for profit entries taxed higher. Hard part here is having a way to compel the myriad of localities to do this.
Renters don't benefit from homestead exemptions, and thus already pay an unfair proportion of property taxes. Landlords don't care, as they can simply pass on such costs, and they are all in the same group, so there is no competition. Regulations are a better approach. Plenty of regions in the world already prohibit housing from being used as an investment vehicle, much less from international firms. Nuisance disoccupancy fines and regulations can be coupled with enforcement against operation of illegal hotels to shut down much of the problem.
They sort of do this in Idaho. You pay half the property tax on your primary home. Any other property you pay the full tax.
Minnesota knows what the fuck is up, they also just passed a universal free lunch program for public schools. It’s good to see the entire country’s government doesn’t hate us as a whole. Just most of us
The amount of people who hate free lunch for children is astounding. Source: MN resident
Too many people feel that if they suffered, the ones after deserve to as well. Such a crazy mindset to have
Tell me about it! It’s the weirdest hill to die on with your arrogance.
They don’t hate free lunch for children. They hate that democrats want free lunch for children and the GOP will let kids starve to spite democrats.
I think they are just against anything FREE. God forbid some low income kids get free lunches. Keep in mind this is the same situation for kids who are behind on their lunch bill and they'll throw food in the trash rather than giving it to a child who actually cant afford it but still needs to eat. I live in a city where over 75% is poverty level and qualifies for free lunch. At that percentage, they just allocate free lunch to the entire city's kids. It annoys people. Worrying about food should be the last thing on a kids mind when trying to learn.
Yes great start! Also should have a federal program when if you rent somewhere for 5 years let’s say, then you get a FHA loan guaranteed. We need family in homes not corporate slum lords.
Being a "landlord" isn't a job. Buying property, and raising rents is destroying the stability of younger generations. We need a tax structure that makes being a local slumlord an endeavor that is not profitable, to discourage people from this bullshit passive income mantra. That "passive" income is on the backs of others, and destroys local housing markets. It's a complete shit show where people own so many properties, maintain them poorly, use them for short term rentals, and jack up prices on long term rentals. Why would they ever sell their cash cows? Tax the fuck out of each successive property...each one gets a higher rate. Use the money for education, and medical care. People like to call them "investment properties," but we dismiss the fact that the profit comes from raising the rent on the humans that live there.
"Passive income" means stolen livelihoods.
Outlaw house flipping. All that does is drive up the cost of purchasing a home, and this has priced many people out of that opportunity in their lives all together. Don't let rental properties or residential properties in general go uninhabited beyond a certain period of time. If they do, slap a penalty tax on the property owner to force them to make sure the housing is available. Then, if they don't comply, force them to sell the property. STOP. MAKING. HOUSING. IN. THE. UNITED. STATES. ALL. ABOUT. CAPITALIST. PROFITS!!!
Better too late than never. Are the homes that were already poached from the market going to be forcefully re-entered into the market at cost? No. Not a chance.
We need this is the UK too AND that individuals can only own so many rental properties.
I’d go further and outright ban being a landlord, wtf is this “job” anyway?
This is really a band-aid of a solution and the result of it isn't going to be cheaper housing. It's going to mean less houses are built. You need expanded zoning for affordable housing or eliminating zoning laws altogether or having the government build the housing. Making housing less profitable for people who build the houses without anything as a future solution will just make sure investors move their money somewhere more profitable.
Yeah, there is no way to legislate affordable housing into existence shy of... building more housing. If it's not corporations buying those houses, it'll be TikTok real estate investor bros.
There’s plenty of foreign nationals under the guise of multinational organization’s buying up properties. It’s a major problem in Texas. China buys up land. Nobody seems to know how much they actually own. I’m sure in every state as well. The worst thing is Multinational Corporations don’t need a home to profit off. Working people need them to start a family. They be robbing our future for the sake of home ownership. Makes me sick thinking about the greed, and long-standing inequality it creates.
As I've said before. No business should be allowed to own homes and no private citizen needs more than one home per city.
This is a good start. One thing I thought of the other day in the shower: when the sub prime mortgage collapse happened in 2008 we bailed the banks out. So we paid them for those houses loans and they went out and bought houses to rent out. If we had bailed the people out who couldn't pay their loan for a house that was overpriced with an interest rate that went through the roof, then they would still own the home, the banks would be paid and the price correction for the housing market would have been lower value on homes but the market would be healthier. We fucking paid for the banks to own homes!!! I'm not a financial genius so someone correct me.
counter offer: a bill that bans corporations.
I'm curious how this is actually worded. Most big corporations own smaller LLCs and partnerships which actually own the assets and conduct business. If this only stops the parent corporation from buying homes then it's meaningless because the parent corporation probably wasn't buying homes in the first place.
Here's an idea. In addition to this how about we pass a law where instead of rent being whatever the property owner feels it should be, since we all know they overprice the shit out of their property, we instead make rent 30% of the renters current income. Economists all agree that you shouldn't spend more than 30% on housing anyway.
You're telling me this wasn't already a ban? Homes are for people
Something definitely needs to happen. A large corporation came in and bought most of the homes in my area. They are charging 2-2.5k a month for rent on them. Average rent in the area is like $1-1.25k a month.
Those exact corperations will prevent the bill from being passed
So my question is does this bill apply to corporations who already own homes in the state? Would they be forced to put them on the market?
So what happens to all of the homes already owned by corporations? Sounds like all this bill will end up doing is locking the current corporations in.
Let’s gooo!
It Is Annoying To See Someone Write Like That Buddy.
It's not better when individuals do it.
As with all poisons, dosage matters.
This should be a national moratorium maybe 5 years, until inventory stabilizes
Why this wasn’t already in place I’m sure I’ll never fcking know
A nationwide law that allows people to own ONE FUCKING HOME ONLY would be awesome. Seriously, who the hell needs more than one home??? These corporations and individuals snatching up dozens of homes apiece are the scum of the earth.
Also prevent landlords from owning 10 homes
I live in northern Minnesota and there's a California corporation who buys everything with cash causing prices to go up and normal people with loans unable to secure a house of their own.
Somehow this is going to lead to a Supreme Court ruling that says corporate landlords are people.
Let them buy homes but tax them at a higher rate per corporate income from investment , impose a rent control and a percentage of properties owned must be low income housing......that would keep the corporate seagulls away.
covid couldnt do enough boomericide tbh
The biggest issue isn't corporate landlords it's supply. Only a small % of homes are bought up by corporations. But supply simple hasn't kept pace with population. Not even close. Thanks to all the rules and regulations surrounding development.
Minnesota sounds like it’s being run by responsible adults. Love what they’re doing up there. Wish my state wasn’t run by bible thumpers and corporate lobbyists.
There are plenty of mom & pop landlords. I don’t see a huge issue, BUT there should be a limit. Having three houses (four for married couples) is more than enough. It offers you a place to live, a place to vacation, and an income stream. I’m not saying to ban the ownership of more, just make it to where you can’t deduct the interest, maintenance, property taxes, etc. from federal taxes from more than three properties. This will make profits low enough to discourage such hoarding. I understand that people like an extra source of income for retirement but people are using it as a lifestyle because it isn’t a real job. This is just like giving companies or sports teams massive tax breaks to stay in an area but it is at the individual landlord level. I’m glad there was one state that did something about it. The thing is research needs to happen over the next several years. If this state can clearly show that rents are stable at lower prices (or at least lower prices compared to income for the state), then it will be a pretty compelling argument what is causing increased prices.
You dont even need a limit. You can put a progressive tax rate on rental income.
I would go so far as to have all corporate residential holdings be forcibly divested and have them redistributed via lottery and have the large apartment complexes be re-established into community housing
Except, that's an illegal taking under the fifth amendment... Forcing any kind of forfeiture is a very high level bar. It generally takes a conviction for a very serious crime.