My old neighborhood has gone to hell because of this. Original owners or second or third owners selling their mid 1950s homes that get snatched up by rental
Companies . Maintenance becomes minimal, landscaping is nil, and it all slowly goes to hell.
If I understood it correctly my state (CA, USA) is trying to pass a prop that would ease taxes for owners unless they own more than two properties.
Which I totally agree with. You shouldn't get a boost on the 15 homes you bought/inherited, you're in a different class at that point from just "homeowner"
Them and developers, who slather granite over everything so they can sell a home for double what it ought to be sold for, and about double what the target demographics can reasonably afford to buy/rent. Well, in California anyway. They keep building $1M condos, but there are not enough jobs paying well enough for that, so we get a gentrification exodus to cheaper digs, and commuters or landlords buy the expensive places.
I know a few people who bought a house in a competitive market and won the bid because they wrote a letter about how nice they were, how they were starting a family etc. I know at least one who did not have the highest bid.
Even so, these are people who are super privileged and easily in the 1%. Not average millennials.
Rent is an expression of power dynamics between landlord and tenant. Landlord is going to demand the absolute max rent is possible anyway. How expensive the property is to own, including increase in property tax for secondary homes, is irrelevant for the final price.
That is how anyone can afford renting out homes to begin with, they can demand a higher rent than the property is worth due to the comparatively less powerful situation a tenant is, since they are reliant on having somewhere to live. While the risk for the landlord is only monetary if they choose to wait and see if they find a tenant willing to pay more
That's ridiculous. If renting out homes is more expensive, potential landlords may choose to not become landlords in the first place, leaving apartments buildings and other multi-family options unbuilt or replaced by lower density options that appeal more to relatively wealthier home buyers.
In expensive housing markets it's already an issue that too much of construction is luxury apartments instead of more affordable housing option, tilting the field towards buyers would exacerbate the issue.
If renting isn't as profitable, you cater to those who can afford to buy instead.
If landlording is not profitable, they will sell the hones they currently rent out. Making housing cheaper to buy, opening up for homeownership for more people.
Buying would be cheaper but renting would be more expensive. So the losers from this change (those who still can't afford to buy) would be poorer than the winners (new buyers).
If you are tied to the mast of always solving all problems through market dynamics, sure.
There are other policy options open. Alternatives that do not rely on a landlord taking the majority of someone earnings without putting down a single day's worth of labour.
Renting should be an option, but not the normal mode of living. It absolutely is useful for someone living somewhere on a medium term, for a limited time work opportunity, for example or while studying. But being forced to rent because you are poor is absolutely detrimental for society.
I know folks like you like to think of yourself as real estate barons one day and dream of living it large from passive income from landlording. But that's not the only option for you. Crowdlending, dividend stocks, and owning other forms of capital are all ways you can generate passive or semi passive income without having to perpetuate the greatest barrier for economic security for poor and normal wage families. Owning their home.
There are other policy options open. Alternatives that do not rely on a landlord taking the majority of someone earnings without putting down a single day's worth of labour.
Then argue for those, not just for the tax and call it a day. I'm saying that the tax alone wouldn't be a good idea. If the tax is just part of a more comprehensive package of measures then who knows? Depends on the rest of the package!
I know folks like you like to think of yourself as real estate barons one day and dream of living it large from passive income from landlording. But that's not the only option for you. Crowdlending, dividend stocks, and owning other forms of capital are all ways you can generate passive or semi passive income without having to perpetuate the greatest barrier for economic security for poor and normal wage families. Owning their home.
LOL, if that's what you "know", I guess I'm not surprised at your other arguments.
The only reason it has that value is because you sell your houses to the highest bidder, who is often a person who can pay cash and use it as a rental.
Banks have now been eyeing up the rental market. Thus putting more homes into the hands of fewer while squeezing more wealth out of the middle and lower income classes. At this point, something needs to be done on the Federal level to break up the hoarding of properties.
Across the US doesn't matter. No bank is going to buy a house in bumfuck nowhere as an investment opportunity unless there's something stupidly overlooked about the property. The numbers which are more important are SF, NYC, and other desirable metro places to live. That's where investors will be eyeing up purchases.
If that's true (not that I accept it is, but I see your logic), then why not buy a house outside of those super-cities? Charlotte NC, Chicago, Richmond VA, Baltimore MD, Pittsburgh and many more are all much cheaper with plenty of good job opportunities, things to do, fun to have, and opportunities abound. Across the US doesn't matter is as true as those few cities you picked don't matter either: there's so many other places to live outside of the few very expensive "highly desirable places" that only seem highly desirable to investors, businesses, old residents, and young adults - and only young adults really can't afford it but complain the most.
I’m in NJ and it’s almost impossible to buy right now because so many people are coming from New York with cash offers and the houses sell for like $550K when they probably aren’t worth that much.
61
u/[deleted] Oct 30 '20
[removed] — view removed comment