Ro Khanna Goes After Wall Street Landlords to Address Rising Home Prices
www.notus.org
Khanna introduced a bill on Tuesday going after private equity investors who have been buying up homes as speculative investments.
  • comador @lemmy.world
    993·
    15 days ago

    FFS. How about just deny the purchase of single family homes by all businesses altogether?

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        181·
        15 days ago

        Sounds perfect, do it. I wanna see your income statement when you own 20 apartments.

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
          7·
          15 days ago

          Don’t remember what the business was but there have been cases of businesses using individuals names on paperwork, saying they own the business, but that person has zero responsibility and gets no pay for it. Probably it was on an episode of Last Week Tonight.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          21·
          14 days ago

          Not only would it make sense for each of the shell people to have the income on their own tax statements when running that sort of subsidizing loan operation, but its actually got fiscal incentive to be done that way because it puts them in lower brackets.

          Plus, given the number of foreign owners invested in US properties, it would be difficult or possibly even impossible to charge and expedite them for tax evasion given the tightly constrained budget of the IRS and therefor their inability to go after people without a gaurantee they can earn more back than they spend on the court proceedings.

          • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
            11·
            14 days ago

            I can’t follow your reasoning. If companies cannot own houses, how do you propose this shell-ownership would work? Wouldn’t the owner just be free to sell the house at any time and pocket the cash for themselves?

            As for tax evasion by foreigners that own real estate, I mean how is that even a problem? There’s millions of foreigners that do business in the US everyday, plus, these ones have actual immovable assets that can be seized…

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              2·
              13 days ago

              Financing.

              The shell-owners would get paid to be a shell, and the properties would get financed under their names, thus circumventing the law.

              Because what I described above could be considered tax evasion, that is why it becomes another new problem when dealing with foreign investors.

              The US Government sells seized real estate dirt cheap, but that negatively impacts the shell owners who could fight it in court.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        3·
        14 days ago

        Right. And tax fraud is a crime, so then could be massively fined or locked up for it.

          • orcrist@lemm.ee
            1·
            13 days ago

            That’s not actually what those words mean, although I understand what you’re saying. Also, if you’re trying to imply that fines cannot be used to greatly dissuade various undesirable behaviors, the real world would disagree with you.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      151·
      14 days ago

      Passing tax law is firmly in Congress’ remit. Telling corporations what they can and cannot buy is a whole lot stickier. The former is far easier.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      148·
      15 days ago

      You can’t deny the purchase of a single family home from a person and businesses are people in this upside down country

        • thefartographer@lemm.ee
          513·
          14 days ago

          Just because California’s cool doesn’t mean the entire country gets to benefit. And until Citizens United at least gets weekend, then we’ve got fucking corporations with an equal or stronger voice than humans dying on the streets from heat stroke

          ETA: I was obviously really tired and not thinking when I wrote this. I’d edit it, but I like to own up to my mistakes. Have a great weakened, everyone!

          • comador @lemmy.world
            6·
            14 days ago

            I didn’t downvote you for your response, but also didn’t feel the need to explain it further.

            To add to it however, a proposed bill in Minnesota’s Senate would ban the conversion of single-family ownership housing into rental housing.

            In the US Congress, legislation has also been introduced to prohibit hedge funds from owning single-family homes.

            Progress is slow, but it’s happening.

            • thefartographer@lemm.ee
              31·
              14 days ago

              You’re making very valid points and I appreciate your optimism. I’m just being a sarcastic, salty little baby about shit cuz I’m in a mood about all this.

  • LostMyRedditLogin@lemmy.world
    71·
    15 days ago

    They shouldn’t even be able to buy single family homes. They’re buying houses all over the world raising house prices. They belong in the trash with Airbnb.

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      12·
      14 days ago

      There are a few, limited, cases where they should be able to. For example, if they have operations in an area that has frequent medium term employees coming in and out. It’s valid for them to say we will offer you a house for the time you are here. But I would generally agree there is no reason for an investment company to be investing in single-family homes. It’s good for the investment company, bad for society.

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          2·
          9 days ago

          Why do we force them to do that? How does that help? The condo could be just as easily bought by a single family. The only point I am making is that there are a few legitimate situations where a corporation would want to buy property and we should let them. Houses should be for people to live in. Not for giant corporations to invest in.

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          1·
          12 days ago

          How about, corporations can own single-family homes, but can only provide them for use by their employees or contractors, not rent them out on the open market and if they sit vacant for more than a couple of months there is some huge tax or fine?

      • Kattiydid@slrpnk.net
        2·
        14 days ago

        I think there are a significant number of different ways that a large corporation could provide housing for medium-term employees besides purchasing single family homes. Purchasing small apartment buildings, like a fourplex, or purchasing an empty lot and putting manufactured homes on it creating more housing instead of taking the starter homes from normal families.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    674·
    15 days ago

    Raise taxes? They’ll just pass the cost on to the renters. We need to forbid then from buying houses.

    • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
      23·
      15 days ago

      Yes beyond a limit that property would be unrentable due to high rent. Then since the property owner still would have to pay taxes on the property he might sell it.

      That is if the law is properly worded and properly applied.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      9·
      14 days ago

      Your analysis is missing half the story. This setup would encourage local property ownership. They would undercut the corporations. We might see increased competition and therefore lower prices as a result.

      I agree with you, though. A strong solution is better.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
    481·
    15 days ago

    Not a chance this bill passes considering most of congress stands to benefit from not passing it.

    I really hope it sends a message though.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      15 days ago

      Sometimes you need a few good Congress critters to up the idea on the table.

      Too many people don’t even know what is possible

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      101·
      15 days ago

      Fucking seriously… I’m expecting some absolutely absurd numbers like (don’t check my math) D200 No D11 Yes R All No

      :(

  • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
    332·
    14 days ago

    Even a baby step is a step in the right direction, but can we be honest with the naming here? “Mildly Inconvenience Wall Street Landlords with a Tax They will pass on to their Renters Act” is more wordy, but tells you everything you need to know.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    252·
    15 days ago

    Good, but the damage is done, and they can afford those taxes which will only get caught on the backend resale.

    They need to be forced to divest immediately to do any real good.

    • DrPop@lemmy.world
      9·
      15 days ago

      This is specifically about corporations owning private property. Fuck landlords but i’d rather rent from a private citizen than an llc.

      • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        14 days ago

        That “probably” is just based on complete ignorance. Don’t just throw out nonsense like this, especially when you have no idea.

          • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            14 days ago

            Yes, because I called out your ignorance, that clearly means I must have rich overlords. Lol This is some batty ass shit.

      • Betazed@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        1·
        14 days ago

        I’m not so sure. The knee-jerk reaction of the cynic in me is to agree with you, but I actually think it’s fairly unlikely that they own rental properties specifically. Many, if not most, probably own multiple properties as rich people are wont to do but, I would imagine that most of those are just “summer homes” or similar rather than something that is rented out as a “landlord” in the way most people think of it. It is possible that they could be investors in these funds, REITs, or other such vehicles which would make them indirect owners of these items.

        • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.comEnglish
          1·
          14 days ago

          AirBNB can be more profitable so I’ve read.

          It would be nice for Congress to make a report about it at least the percentage of congresspersons that make a portion of their income through commercial and rental properties and likewise financial investment.

          because i would like to compare that report to their voting records on such topics. i mean if they come from a district where they own rentals and vote against public housing that is a conflict of interest especially if their voters are stuck in housing deserts.

          They are OUR reps as much as we are their voters.

  • Sabata@ani.social
    122·
    14 days ago

    “Here’s $5000 and a week at my private ski resort. Your voting no.”

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
    6·
    14 days ago

    Raising sales tax won’t do a fucking thing. The increase needs to be on property taxes, so it recurs year after year. And it needs to apply to everyone except owner-occupants. Investors need to abandon renting as a viable business model. They can replace it with private mortgages and land contracts (contract for deed, rent to own) arrangements where the “tenant” gains equity and is considered an owner-occupant.

  • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
    32·
    14 days ago

    Worth noting that private equity only owns a very small percentage of homes in the country so while this would have impact, it’s not going to change house prices, it simply might make the line take slightly longer to go up. What will impact housing affordability is simply building more housing. Eliminate single family zoning and replace it with a residential-compatible zoning that allows for quadplexes, ADUs and quiet businesses.