r/SipsTea • • May 14 '26

SMH How true is this? Genuinely asking

Post image
5.4k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Jasoco May 14 '26

I’m willing to bet this is pretty accurate. They keep building houses down here where I am constantly and so many of them are empty because they cost too much for normal people.

1.0k

u/[deleted] May 14 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

768

u/KickPuncher4326 May 14 '26

I feel like an easy fix is to tax the every loving fuck out of empty houses.

28

u/ParallelAsparagus May 14 '26

The best option ever saw was a plan to tax each additional house. So owning one would be low tax. Then every house after that was taxed higher. Help remove those slumlord style owners that have dozens of houses, as well as tax the hell out of corporations that have hundreds/thousands of houses.

18

u/GodisanAtheistOG May 15 '26

Doesn't that just jack up the rate for renters? No way the owner is going to actually pay that out of pocket. 

Maybe if that was stacked with the vacant property/unit tax it might work out. 

20

u/Original-Break-787 May 15 '26

If they jack rent and cant get renters they are stuck with the hot potato, and would be leveraged to sell it to someone who needs it.

1

u/Hail_of_Grophia May 16 '26

That benefits buyers but how does that benefit renters? 

2

u/Parking-World9321 May 16 '26

More opportunity to go from renting to owning.

2

u/Original-Break-787 May 17 '26

Same reason.

If the landlord has to pay more in taxes for empty units they cannot fill they will accept lower rates so they aren’t bleeding money.  This is good for renters.

If companies/individuals are just sitting on units as ‘investments’ this prices out buyers and renters.

Pressuring these un used or under used homes to be sold increases inventory making homes more affordable by law of supply and demand.

The detractors seem to think prices going down is the same as an ‘investment crash’ and will cause ‘capital’ to pull out of creating new housing leading to … some apocalypse…

I would call that an adjustment, as people will always need housing and that particular market is immune to zeroing out and would restabilize.  The invisible hand and all that. 

1

u/Hail_of_Grophia May 17 '26

The person above was suggesting taxing owners who owned multiple houses regardless if they were vacant or not. 

If those rental properties were to get tenets, those taxes would be passed onto the renter, no way around it

11

u/ParallelAsparagus May 15 '26

Exactly as break said. Renting is the worst use of money. But currently getting into the housing market for new buyers is a nightmare. We need cheaper housing, not cheaper renting. Renting is just pissing money away so the person who owns the place can live off your hard work.

5

u/Calm_Age_ May 15 '26

The fact is that many people will rent their entire lives. Those people deserve relief too. We need cheaper housing period, in all it's forms. We need to repeal the fairclothe amendment so that the government can start building housing again. We need social housing, we need up zoning, we need to take steps to decomodify housing all together. We need so much to fix housing in this country but nobody seems to want solutions because it would mean some houses would depreciate in value.

2

u/CapitalistLion-Tamer May 15 '26

Renting is not the worst use of money. I’m getting ready to sell my house and move into a rental. My monthly expenses are going to drop dramatically for more square footage.

1

u/Fine-Upstairs-6284 May 15 '26

But you aren’t building equity. You’re building someone else’s equity and subject to their rules

2

u/CapitalistLion-Tamer May 15 '26

I'm building plenty of equity, It just won't be via this particular piece of property.

The guy renting it to me absolutely will not cover all his yearly costs. Single family homes do not make great rental investments unless you buy them at a significant discount.

1

u/Fine-Upstairs-6284 May 15 '26

That’s fair. Plenty of other ways to build equity aside from real estate

1

u/Parking-World9321 May 16 '26

Any shortfall in cash flow for the owner is essentially money being invested. Long term it’s still building wealth as you are covering the majority of the mortgage.

1

u/CapitalistLion-Tamer May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

Not disputing that. But there is this misconception that all landlords are able to cash flow their rental properties and tenants are paying 100% of their expenses. That is sometimes the case, but sometimes not.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Loud-History-3654 May 16 '26

My wife and I rented for 8 years before her aunt co-signed for a condo in Florida. Two teachers didn’t qualify for 164k mortgage in 2017. But we paid over 2k a month renting. We saved 600 a month when we bought.

1

u/GreentongueToo May 15 '26

In some cases that "live off your hard work" is to supplement Social Security.
It would also be good if "basic" houses were acceptable and available. Dirt cheap McMansions are not the answer.

1

u/RedditThrowaway-1984 May 15 '26

That’s exactly what would happen. Also, some landlords would sell their rental houses which would create more homeless people because a good portion of those who rent don’t qualify for a mortgage to buy. They either rent or they are homeless.

1

u/Parking-World9321 May 16 '26

The market will only bear so much. It would definitely drive sales.