What frustrates me is there doesn’t seem to be anyone in a position to promote change to this problem that is really talking about it. They may pay it lip service but nothing beyond that.
It’s a national problem, but policies that affect housing are mostly local. So you need to override local control with state/federal policy, or convince a 50,000 municipalities to change their laws.
And the few states that have passed reforms for zoning, etc. are getting sued to shit in court by the city/towns.
This problem was 50 years in the making, it would take more than 50 years to fix.
How would people here feel about a tax that increases in rate per-property owned? People and organizations can still own as many properties as they want, but at some point they’re going to be taxed so much it’ll be impossible to profit off of them.
The problem right now is one of supply and demand, not because corporations are buying up too many properties. It’s the other way around where corporations are buying up properties, because due to not increasing supply, and demand continue rising, it’s a good investment.
We need more high density housing all over the place. I live in a nice little town right outside a large US city. We have a train right into the city, and a nice little downtown area that could certainly use more business. They have been trying to put up apartment buildings, but the NIMBY-ism is through the roof. It’s like every little attempt to add more housing, people start whining to high heavens how it is killing our “small town” feel. I mean, I get it, I moved here for a reason, but something has got to give.
I can only imagine what’s happening in more rural areas where everyone wants their big lots and single homes.
So I don’t really oppose increasing taxes per home, but I don’t think it’s really going to solve the issue of increasing home prices as that’s not the root of the issue.
Personally, I’d prefer a monthly fine for unfilled housing, that is based on the rate you are charging for it. Landlord wants to jack your rent up 20%? If you leave, they pay a fine, based on that amount until they fill the unit. The fines go to subsidizing housing costs, so there is a self-balancing system. Right now, with property values increasing at insane rates, owners don’t really need to rent to break even, which leaves them free to price gouge their tenants. There is little pressure pushing rates back down, and there is all the freedom in the world to jack them up as high as you want.
Until we actually remove republicans and republican lites from the legislature I highly doubt we’ll see any progressive tax reforms, like actually taxing the rich. You could probably find more support for expanding house buying programs. Stuff like lowering the down payment requirements, and or give a large grant for a portion of the house value if it is high and it could be clawed back at sale.
How would people here feel about a tax that increases in rate per-property owned?
That’s functionally how the homestead exemption works already
they’re going to be taxed so much it’ll be impossible to profit off of them.
I would simply start a PAC with all my extra money and bribe/coerce politicians into reducing the tax rates.
That’s functionally how the homestead exemption works already
Unless I’m mistaken, that’s just a small tax break you get on the taxes on your primary residence. After that, it makes no difference the number of properties you own, their taxes stay the same.
I’m not sure. Realizing I had no idea how much wealth the truly wealthy possess has been a reoccurring theme from the past few years. I think I’d rather see some hard limitations on who can own what.
It’s already like that where I live. It’s called the homestead exemption – property taxes are cut in half if it’s your primary residence
The homestead exemption is not a tax. It is a discount on tax. Therefore there is no penalty for owning extra homes. Landlords not only benefit from the homestead exemption but also get you to pay the property taxes on the house you’re renting.
Build. Social. Housing.
Its not a difficult concept. The “market” is not going to build anything that lowers the price. The market is not going to build anything fast enough. The market is absolutely not going to give a flying fuck about building to create communities.
The market will built it normally, the government doesn’t allow them to.
If you really want to incentive building then you need a land value tax.
Not in my back yard! Think of all the poor and homeless. Crime rate always goes up around them! This is a nice neighborhood!
Where I live the people in the towns with 5 million dollar home think those of us in the 1 million dollar homes are a criminal element that will invade their town.
The meritocratic, capitalist way, would be to to put a property tax on it and to increase that tax, until
- rents increase so much that people can’t afford to live in cities anymore
- cities lose essential employees
- society shuts down
- THEN property loses value
- then it can be bought cheaply again
- and also rented for a low price, because the tax on the low value property is also low
Let’s go people!
That’s stupid, we already tried social housing and it didn’t work. The market is the one and only thing that can reverse the situation, and it has done so before too, we just need to put in place the right incentives
Other countries made it work… i wonder how lol
Which countries? Unaffordable housing is a problem worldwide
Singapore
Singapore is an authoritarian city state. Their model can’t be replicated in any country that’s not an authoritarian city.
Well there is your answer ;)
the regimes along with ruling elites collude for it not to happen but sure we can play “politics” circle jerk around it
What are you on? There is no grand conspiracy. A city is much easier to manage than a big ass country and an authoritarian government has the power to carry out it’s plans while giving zero fucks about the people. People don’t realize that Singapore is one of the most authoritarian developed countries out there. In Singapore, all land is held by the state, people cannot own any property, they can only lease it from the government kind of like China. Neighborhoods have very strict ethnic quotas. For example, if you’re ethnically Chinese and want to live in a neighborhood that is already 85% Chinese? Well tough luck because you’re legally not allowed to buy there until that percentage comes down. Because everything is publicly owned, the government is in charge of maintenance, and a good chunk of the buildings aren’t well maintained. You can’t complain about it because Singapore is authoritarian. You also can’t complain about the location or the design of the buildings because the governments gets decide all of that. What’s more is that a lot of these projects are built on top Singaporean cultural and historical sites, which a lot of Singaporeans argue is an erasure of their culture. Despite all of these problems, their system works because their government is authoritarian, the city is small enough to be effectively managed, they’ve lucked out with a series of competent leaders. If any of three things isn’t present, you’ll have a recipe for disaster. Want an example? Just take a look at the Soviet Union.
Vienna, among other places, has had a successful model for decades.
https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/
Vienna is an interesting case because it’s one of the few democratic countries where the majority of the country isn’t too opposed to subsidizing the housing of a single city without enjoying any of the benefits. I guess when the model can work when there’s more people putting money into it than people who can actually enjoy it. Speaking of which, this system still has it’s issues though. Everybody wants to live in these units, but not everybody can get one. In order to get one you have to apply and most likely be put on a waitlist. Some of these wait lists are brutal because there’s only 5000-7000 units available. It’s gotten bad to the point where people are turning more and more towards private housing. Even with the limited number of units, the city is actually struggling to maintain the system because of inflation and other factors.
We don’t need tax credits.
We need Private equity out of the housing market.
We need better safeguards for tenants.
Financial moves like tax credits and incentives always end up benefitting the haves.
We actually need Mom and Pop landlords abolished. They own 80% of rentals.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R47332.pdf
Wow. 70% as of 2022.
Imo owning a second property to rent out for some side cash is fine. It’s a problem when your only occupation is “landlord”
That’s idiotic. There’s nothing wrong with owning rentals or being a landlord. It only becomes an issue when massive corporations with endless amount of money buy so much inventory that they start affecting the market
It only becomes an issue when massive corporations with endless amount of money buy so much inventory that they start affecting the market
So you’re saying there’s something wrong with being a landlord?
Of course they are, landlords are buying the house for what you would and doubling the mortgage payment as your rent. It should be illegal for people/corporations to rent out more than one single family home.
Residential units are generally considered 4 units or less. Over 80% of landlords are just normal people who spend their hard earned money on properties like this. Mom and pop landowners are incentivized to rent out their units as quickly as possible. Corporations, on the other hand? They can buy up entire neighborhoods and rent a single unit out for years just to manipulate market prices in their favor.
There’s always talk about tax breaks for home owners…
Never talks of raising taxes on landlords and empty units tho.
That’s what would fix it. Tax them out of the housing market slowly and.prices will go down as they get out of the business.
Wouldn’t a tax hike only get passed through to the renter?
That’s why you set it exponentially based on units owned by parent company, maybe break it down as a tax paid by shareholders for huge corporations landlords.
They could try to pass it on to consumers, but smaller landlords wouldn’t have to pay it.
Making the biggest get out of the game first
They will just split the units owned on more companies then.
That’s why you set it exponentially based on units owned by parent company, maybe break it down as a tax paid by shareholders for huge corporations landlords.
That might not have been clear.
Seriously it at the parent company level so it’s not easy.
If they have X amount invested in rental real estate, that can just be taxed then
Believe me, the tax code for the wealthy is already complicated, they can handle this
Then there is no parent company…? Just another random company. It does not need to be complicated and this is far from it. It needs to be such that they can not easily avoid the taxes.
Not really, because the rental market does not behave like commodities do. Generally, you have to live within a reasonable distance of employment. For this and other reasons, renters are much more vulnerable and tend to get exploited far beyond the cost of the service.
Basically, if tenants had any more money to exploit, they would already take it. Rents are maximally high wherever possible to extract maximum money from people who need a place to live.
Consider the common joke that I pay this much in rent every month but the bank says I can’t afford a house where the mortgage would be substantially less.
Agreed, and this would be solved by sufficiently high land value tax - if wasn’t profitable to be a landlord nobody would do it and the price of land would decline sharply. Henry George saw all of this coming a long time ago.
First time I’ve heard of the idea of a separate land value tax… Frankly it seems like an awesome idea, especially for cities.
I imagine it would make dense housing more profitable than McMansions, and punish the NIMBYs who keep standing in the way of affordable housing. Maybe we could make the tax increase significantly with the number of properties an individual owns and start it at the highest rate for things like shell corps and LLCs.
Need a Land value tax and the ability to build medium/high density housing.
At the very least, they should raise real estate taxes on empty units. This will penalize people for owning several vacation homes, as well as incentivize landlords to lower rates in order to fill the unit.
Difficult to enforce, but send a few people to jail for real estate tax fraud and the rest will fall in line.
Indeed. Nothing about this addresses rental markets and general extreme cost of living. Rather, it finds new ways to prop up severely overvalued housing markets.
That and most people just do the standard deductions.
So tax breaks mostly help the wealthy in mansions.
It’s like how conservatives want to move income tax to sales tax. The wealthiest make a lot more than they spend. And when they spend it’s usually thru some shady shit where they don’t pay sales tax. Like claiming seven figure personal vehicles as a “company car” from a company they own.
It’s way of dressing up expenses to fit our criminally low corporate tax structure.
It’s a special kind of fucked up that the government is paid for by the poor to serve the interests of the wealthy.
Is not that the standard tho?
Like claiming seven figure personal vehicles as a “company car” from a company they own.
My parents did this kind of stuff. :/
Gas, restaurants, cars, insurance, etc. Probably so much stuff I don’t even know about. The company pays for it and they pocket the wages they pay themselves. All this while the people that work for them work part time with no benefits, and predictably have unstable financial situations.
But my parents view themselves as financially responsible and their workers as financially irresponsible. They worked hard to build their company but the rewards far exceed their work relative to their workers.
idk what I’m trying to say. I’m ashamed of the way my parents became successful but at the end of the day they played the game how it was meant to be played. Our society is fucked up on every level.
There’s always talk about tax breaks for home owners…
Because governments want housing prices to stay sky high. The canadian prime minister openly said he doesn’t want housing prices to drop because too many people are using their houses as a retirement strategy. That’s why there are so many government programs that support buying a house but none that support renting.
Or you know, just build more houses?
We’ve got 15 million vacant homes in the US.
The issue with this figure is that it comes from the Census Bureau, and their definition is broad and simple that it doesn’t into account for example. Here’s the definition they use:
Vacant Housing Units. A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. In addition, a vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere. New units not yet occupied are classified as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final usable floors are in place. Vacant units are excluded if they are exposed to the elements, that is, if the roof, walls, windows, or doors no longer protect the interior from the elements, or if there is positive evidence (such as a sign on the house or block) that the unit is to be demolished or is condemned. Also excluded are quarters being used entirely for nonresidential purposes, such as a store or an office, or quarters used for the storage of business supplies or inventory, machinery, or agricultural products. Vacant sleeping rooms in lodging houses, transient accommodations, barracks, and other quarters not defined as housing units are not included in the statistics in this report. (See section on “Housing Unit.”)
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf
As you can see this definition doesn’t really take into account a lot of genuine factors. For example, a lot of units are in really poor condition and require renovations in order to be livable again, but they’re counted as vacant because they still have their exteriors in place. Same goes units. They’re also counting units that are not entirely completed, units that are occupied but just temporarily like vacation homes, and mobile homes. We do have a lot of vacant units in this country, but it’s not as much as this figure would lead you to believe. In reality, we need new units, we need a lot of them, and we need them ASAP.
Never talks of raising taxes on landlords and empty units tho.
Canada passed this law in 2022 addressing that:
If I could, I would pass a law saying that no corporation could own more than two dwelling structures. That still allows them to own things up to apartment high-rises. But only two.
they’d just make nesting doll structured holding companies with all profits going to the top but any losses being contained within each branch
actually this sounds like a great idea BRB gotta register some LLCs in Delaware
I would think that would be covered under antitrust legislation, but if it wouldn’t be, I guess I would pass that as part of the law.
deleted by creator
Sadly, I am aware. It really sucks.
The most common target of antitrust litigation has been unions.
No. You make it so that they cannot hold single family dwellings period unless for the purpose of listing and selling them to non-corporate individuals.
There are reasons why a business might actually need or benefit from having a single family dwelling in a way that aligns with their business. For instance a local theatre company owns two large homes here so that when traveling cast come for shows they have somewhere to house them without spending exorbitantly on hotel rooms for weeks at a time, and the cast get a more comfortable stay. The homes are typically occupied at least a portion of each month, and everyone involved benefits.
It’s reasons like these I wouldn’t want to put a total and complete ban on businesses owning single family homes, but in my opinion there should be a reasonable business justification for it and it needs to be very limited.
Why don’t they just buy homes? Are they stupid?
deleted by creator
That or they just didn’t think it was an appropriate joke.
deleted by creator
When they say “the housing crisis”, is that what the poors call the record profit boon?
That’s just the ruling class acting blind, disguising as a neutral news source
I’ve never understood the need for a downpayment to purchase. If you can make the monthly payments that’s all that should matter.
Its to keep us uppity poors on the down low
Exactly. The entry is a hurdle for many when that money could be used for repairs.
In theory I guess it protects against the costs of dealing with defaults or having people walk away from underwater mortgages. But on the other hand, all of that stuff could be insured against.
But on the other hand, all of that stuff could be insured against.
Thats exactly what PMI (Private mortgage insurance) covers. However if the insurance company doesn’t think you’re a good risk, then you might not be able to get that either. I have never looked at what criteria they use to grant or deny PMI. I’ve also never known anyone personally denied PMI.
It is called credit risk lol
The downpayment requirements are much looser now then they used to be. Pretty much anyone in thw US can get as low as 3 to 3.5% down, which means the down payment can easily be less than all the other home buying expenses (closing cost, inspection, title insurance, loan origination, moving, transfer taxes, …). You also typically have a month before you need to make your first principle repayment, which helps offset the down payment.
Veterans, active service members, and people buying in qualified rural areas can get 0 down mortgages.
Depending on where you live, there might be further assistance available. Around here, the county offers (means tested) down-payment assistance loans that cover 100% the minimum down payment, and has an interest rate that is at least 2% lower than that of the main loan. They also wave all transfer taxes for all first time buyers.
It’s risk mitigation for the banks. You don’t have to put 20% down, but generally you’ll have to pay an additional insurance (PMI) if you don’t.
Just a shot in the dark, but are there any apparent problems with capping the rent at like half the mortgage? Or like 80%? Then there would be financial incentive to keep the tenant happy, to keep working, and keep the property in working order.
Of course, this does not take into account properties without mortgage, or properties where the housing was paid in part with liquid cash.
It also doesn’t take into account rising property taxes, business tax, rising maintenance costs. I’m not arguing in favor of these dirty landlord companies that jack up the rent at every opportunity, however you’d have to control interest rates and the ridiculous home prices if you want to keep rents reasonable based on a percentage of mortgage costs.
That will disproportionately punish small time landlords and incentivize megacorp landlords, which is probably not what you want
Yeah, any more alterations to the idea and it would be gull of wsge cases and confusing shit. Agreed
Could that be because those homeowners are charging rents high enough to cover both mortgage and insurance and more on the rented property?
I am not sure why you think it should be any way else with our current systems, though. Asking less means the home owner is effectively paying for maintenance and upkeep entirely out of pocket, and entirely net loss for them. That said, I also don’t think that means they need to price gouge and trying to make huge profits.
You can only live in one location at any given time, so the fact someone is willing to pay money to use an otherwise unused, extraneous space/house is indeed a profit by any measure.
It’s not a net loss. Renter’s pay can be used for maintenance or equity or anything else. Since houses don’t depreciate in this market and maintenance costs are not even close to rent, the landlord only gains.
I understand, but the comment I replied to was implying that rent should somehow be less than mortgage plus insurance. My point is that under those circumstances, it doesn’t make sense.
An equitable method would beto splitthe cost of mortgage and insurance between the property owner and the renter. 60/40, 50/50 etc. Having the renter foot the entire bill with no benefit other than occupancy is just not a fair deal imho.
Correct. In capitalism one must profit off the necessities of life.
Also, when you buy a house, the cost of the mortgage is locked in…assuming you don’t do an adjustable rate mortgage which were never designed for long term homeownership.
Yessum. I knew someone who put 20k down on a house after saving for awhile, this was back in late 2010s. Locked in $385/mo. Still had the yearly taxes, which weren’t the worst.
Ban corporations/private companies from holding empty residential housing. Problem solved. Not complicated. Our system fucking sucks and is designed to protect land owners which is why we’re in this situation. This is fucking up our entire society, slowly bringing us down, we’re losing to China. This change needs to happen soon otherwise we’re going to see the working class get milked hard enough that our real economy will collapse.
I really don’t see any change happening without… drastic inturruption.
Ban corporations/private companies from holding empty residential housing. Problem solved. Not complicated
Who passes this law? Who signs it? My municipal and state governments are infested with real estate agents landlords, attorneys, and bankers, all of whom profit from artificially scarce housing.
Who passes this law? Who signs it?
Exactly. Exactly.
Our system fucking sucks and is designed to protect land owners which is why we’re in this situation.
Build more housing. That’s what you need to prioritize.
We have significantly more vacant units (around 15M) than homeless people (around 600k-1.5M by various estimates).
New dense energy efficient units connected to social services and green energy infrastructure would be great for everyone. But the idea that we just don’t have residential space to house people is totally wrong.
And where are they located, and why are they empty?
There’s your next big problem, a significant fraction of them aren’t where people want (or need) to be, or are vacation homes and don’t belong in these stats (unless you want to eminent domain them). Suburbs and ghost towns and remote regions pushes the average up.
https://todayshomeowner.com/general/guides/highest-home-vacancy-rates/
And where are they located, and why are they empty?
https://smartasset.com/data-studies/vacant-houses-2023
More than 300,000 housing units in New York City sat vacant. However, the Big Apple’s total vacancy rate of 8.3% in 2022 fell slightly from five years earlier (9.7%). Meanwhile, San Francisco had over 52,000 vacant units in 2022 for a 12.7% vacancy rate.
Turns out nobody wants to live in checks notes New York City or San Fransisco.
a significant fraction of them aren’t where people want (or need)
There are definitely large numbers of vacant units in areas that were de-industrialized or hit with natural disasters. However, speculators moving in and gobbling up the properties at their bargain basement rates, then squatting on them to drive up the overall value of real estate in the area, result in artificially high real estate rates across these neighborhoods. Even in places with ostensibly low demand for housing, the prices remain higher than in historical periods of high demand.
Suburbs and ghost towns and remote regions pushes the average up.
Over-development in less accessible places can make neighborhoods unattractive due to the commute. But the solution to this problem is often to improve mass transit in these neighborhoods and develop local public services (schools, post offices, grocery stores, etc) at their centers. Then do the one thing that Americans hate and fear more than anything - BRING IN THE MIGRANTS. Populate the neighborhoods with large socially cohesive cohorts of new people and energize the neighborhoods with public works spending.
This creates a virtuous cycle of economic growth and development that brings in still more people and creates new demand for more goods and services. This is exactly what big midwestern towns did to revitalize in the wake of deindustrialization. Chattanooga, Tennessee installed public Gigabit internet and became the center of a Tennessee tech boom. Detroit accumulated a network of art collectives in its low rent housing and reinvented itself as a cultural center. Atlanta, Georgia is enjoying an enormous economic expansion thanks to new federally subsidized battery plants in the city.
When public policy identifies a housing surplus, policymakers can create a virtuous cycle of development by building new business capacity in the immediate vicinity. Then you solve joblessness, homelessness, and a stagnant economy in one go.
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/spotlight-new-york-citys-housing-supply-challenge/ 🤷
I don’t disagree with the rest, walkable cities are important, speculators shouldn’t be involved in housing, etc. But some places genuinely have a lack of available housing and the solution is to build away.
Some places have a lack of affordable housing. But anywhere you go, you can find living space at a high enough price point.
The only real exception is in the midst of a natural disaster or similar event, at which point the housing is typically exhausted because it is gobbled up by state bureaucracies for housing troops going in or refugees flooding out. And these sudden shortages are resolved by moving people to long term housing in surrounding areas, not by throwing up enormous tower blocks overnight.
That’s not even to say we don’t need new builds. A lot of the existing housing stock is old, poorly maintained, or inefficient. But the idea that we simply don’t have enough units to go around is real estate developer ad copy. It isn’t based in reality. And pursuing the policies advocated by the “not enough housing” folks inevitably leads to large new Luxury branded establishments that get sold off to speculators rather than lived in by the unhoused.
Sounds like eminent domain talk if you think there’s enough suitable available homes already
The sky is blue
Your boobies are beautiful btw
A partial solution is to remove nimby laws that prevent accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and medium and high density housing. Then you use the tax laws to heavily punish corporate ownership of low and medium density housing, and make it progressively more expensive for mom and pop landlords after a reasonable number of properties.
Hopefully this would lower the cost for single family housing, while increasing supply and variety of rentals. But somehow you’d have to prevent end stage capitalist collusion from fixing prices so competition could actually work to drive down prices.
Do you like HOA’s because this is how you get more HOA’s – if the laws won’t protect the desired community development, people will work together to create it and the result is something less efficient and less open.
This is why libertarianism is nonsense. People will quickly recreate all the old rules when they relearn the lessons that lead to the creation of those old rules.
How would the original comment encourage either more HOA’s or be considered libertarian? Weren’t they asking for more regulations and the addition of tax repercussions to disincentivize rental properties?
They want to remove nimby laws. I don’t know how to read that as more regulations.
