Current Events > Housing shouldn't be an investment

(+) Yeah! (+)

corporations shouldn't be allowed to own residential land

Only citizens should be able to buy residential property

Gritty posted...

Only citizens should be able to buy residential property

As an investment? Just wondering how you feel about non-corporate entities buying residential properties as an investment.

Landlords are necessary, but there should be regulations in place that prevent them from buying up a bunch of property, and from being able to raise rent at any price without a cap.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Let the government handle it

All landlords are scum. All they do is jack up rent to unattainable rates for the people that NEED lower cost housing and do FUCKING NOTHING for maintenance making the whole point of paying rent MOOT

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


ahahahahahah

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Citation needed.

Everyone should legally entitled to have their own home but only be allowed to have a single dwelling to their name.

MarthGoomba posted...

Let the government handle it

All landlords are scum. All they do is jack up rent to unattainable rates for the people that NEED lower cost housing and do FUCKING NOTHING for maintenance making the whole point of paying rent MOOT

This has not been my experience whether renting from individuals, apartment complexes, or now a property management firm.

Solid_Sonic posted...

Everyone should legally entitled to have their own home but only be allowed to have a single dwelling to their name.

No.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

More than you.

YourBestFrenemy posted...

As an investment? Just wondering how you feel about non-corporate entities buying residential properties as an investment.

Yeah this.
Is TC fine with "regular" people owning multiple homes?

Tell us you've never owned a home without etc etc

Housing can't both be affordable AND and investment

YourBestFrenemy posted...

As an investment? Just wondering how you feel about non-corporate entities buying residential properties as an investment.

No investing. Its a home. Not against it as long as its not exploited like the corpos buying swaths of homes nationwide

MarthGoomba posted...

corporations shouldn't be allowed to own residential land

your mistake is conflating some billion dollar company like blackrock to Mr. and Mrs. oldsfuck who saved their entire lives to make buy another home they can rent because social security won't cut it and it may disappear anytime thanks to the GOP.

I do agree that corporations shouldn't be able to own residential land, though

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The existence of government owned slums is irrelevant unless they represent a statistically relevant amount. Otherwise one can say that privatized housing is slums with just as much validity.

Gritty posted...

No investing. Its a home. Not against it as long as its not exploited like the corpos buying swaths of homes nationwide

Exploited in what way compared to corporations?

I think some people vastly underestimate how many non corporations own lots of rental homes...and going after just "corporations" will do little to fix the issue*

*Fixing the issue is making it easier to build more housing which is where the vast bulk of effort should be based on

Simple solution: homes which are not occupied but are listed for rent must also be for sale at a market rate. Multi family homes need not be listed for sale so long as a unit is occupied. No squatting on rentals or airbnbs

warlock7735 posted...

Simple solution: homes which are not occupied but are listed for rent must also be for sale at a market rate. Multi family homes need not be listed for sale so long as a unit is occupied. No squatting on rentals or airbnbs

So if you purchased a house to use as a rental and then the housing market in your area collapses you should be forced to sell it at a loss if you are in between tenants and someone wants to buy it?

Should be a limit on how long a house is on the MLS before a person with X amount of properties can put in an offer.

Still tons of houses that sell off the MLS, but that takes effort and work to hunt those down, so that can be a workout or something for investors

It should be a significant public investment fo the point where trying to corner the market is simply unfeasible. It should also be the subject of regular oversight through legislation.

Its true. When a house is sold, you should legally not be allowed to sell it for profit for ten years (to prevent house flippers who destabilize the market) and you should also be prevented from renting the house out for profit for ten years to prevent companies from mass-buying them to get money.

Housing is not a luxury commodity and it needs to be viewed as a human right. It is not something that should wipe out your bank account. We need common sense rules to make sure people can get homes in their area for fair prices. Sorry, but Im not moving out to the Midwest to get arrested for marijuana just because everyone wants to turn my home into a resort town.

Once youve owned your home for 10+ years and want to sell, your profits are limited to:

original cost + (value of renovations x 2) = profit

The biggest obstacle to this probably aren't the large corperations but home owners themselves. Either with a intent to sell their home in the near or mid future or those it's a retirement for.

Anything that would threaten their property value they'd be vehemently against.

emblem-man posted...

Is TC fine with "regular" people owning multiple homes?

There's a distinction between owning multiple homes and owning investment property.

I'm willing to concede some people, for whatever reason, may need or want a second home.

They don't need a second property to generate revenue off of, though.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Most people aren't renting because they want a temporary domicile, they are renting because housing prices are ridiculous. And increasing housing prices just drives rent up, too.
Contrast to Japan where the long term expected value of your home is ZERO and people just buy a house once they're ready to settle down.
It's obvious the solution is to build more homes, LOWER house appreciation, and restrict landlords.

DnDer posted...

There's a distinction between owning multiple homes and owning investment property.

I'm willing to concede some people, for whatever reason, may need or want a second home.

They don't need a second property to generate revenue off of, though.

lmao.

Yeah, because people can, or should work until they're 90 or until they die. Living of SS is not an option.

Some people get a 2nd home and supplement their SS and 401k money with rent income. What's so wrong about it?

The government should buy up all private housing and replace them with mega apartments complete with parking garages.

Every single person gets an identical housing unit once they hit the age of 18. A 2 bed 1 bath living space that you have to live in. It doesnt matter if you have nothing to your name or 100 billion dollars, you can never own more than your government assigned space.

Same with cars. No more private autos. Everyone will get a white 4 door sedan, truck or van depending on your government assigned job. If something happens with it, you take it to a government owned auto shop to get a new one while they fix that one and give it to the next person.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Then people stop building housing and demand outpaces supply and you still can't get a home. Limited price controls can work to curb inflation, but long term lead to shortages.

A safe home should be recognized as a human right

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Oh honey

How do you think people like him view minimum wage

DarthAragorn posted...

Oh honey

How do you think people like him view minimum wage

I phone banked for Bernie, you have no clue. It's just a facet of economics that increasing the minimum wage to a certain amount increases unemployment. Meanwhile, the Fed is literally saying unemployment is not high enough, so...

ChocoboMogALT posted...

Then people stop building housing and demand outpaces supply and you still can't get a home. Limited price controls can work to curb inflation, but long term lead to shortages.

So subsidize construction of affordable housing

I feel like corporations are probably like 95% of the current issue, so I don't feel like there's much point in going hard on individual landlords. It feels kind of like the whole personal carbon footprint nonsense.

The_shibe posted...

Some people get a 2nd home and supplement their SS and 401k money with rent income. What's so wrong about it?

It's extracting someone's labor for profit without contributing any labor in return for it.

It removes the ability of someone else to own that as a home and not an investment.

That's the top two reasons. Never mind all the other ones that involve how fucked up it is that the only way to retire is to have just enough money to exploit someone else who's still working.

Gritty posted...

No investing. Its a home. Not against it as long as its not exploited like the corpos buying swaths of homes nationwide

what do you think of people who buy their first home solely so they can sell it later and buy a bigger one?

SHRlKE posted...

what do you think of people who buy their first home solely so they can sell it later and buy a bigger one?

That's a radically different proposition and you know it.

You're making an awful, bad-faith take saying this.

I know its different. I just want to know where his head is at.

Flauros posted...

The government should buy up all private housing and replace them with mega apartments complete with parking garages.

Every single person gets an identical housing unit once they hit the age of 18. A 2 bed 1 bath living space that you have to live in.

this would be nice in a perfect world. not so much the car thing. most public transportation isn't too costly unless taking cab or uber.

most oregon rentals have a rent cap. cant go above a certain percentage per year. though doesn't help when the new tenant takes over (landlord can set any price).

average rent is 1500$ in my town for 1 bedroom or studio apartment if any are available.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


it would be a start

Payzmaykr posted...

Once youve owned your home for 10+ years and want to sell, your profits are limited to:

original cost + (value of renovations x 2) = profit

That formula does not take inflation into account, when one of your goals is to encourage owning property for the long term (long enough that inflation matters). A major advantage of a fixed-rate mortgage is that it effectively becomes "cheaper" over time, even if you pay the same amount each month, because that monthly payment is worth slightly less each time you pay it.

MarthGoomba posted...

Let the government handle it

That solution is somehow even worse than letting landlords exist.

"My hot water stopped working."
Agency of Rental Housing: "We have logged your complaint."
"So... Fixed when?"
"Meh."