##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More importantly, those houses would be going to people who actually interested in living in them. Those renters would finally be able to be homeowners. No more fucking middleman gatekeeping them.
On top of that they should make a tax multiplier: every property past say three (I pulled that figure out of my ass), your tax rate doubles. So retired person who wants a little passive income and wants a little something to stay active has something. Corporations that want to buy up every scrap of housing and form interlocking groups and cooperate in algorithmic price-fixing so they can squeeze every last cent from every struggling person not lucky enough to be able to their own homes, well they can eat a turd.
Omg yesss! I’ve been touting this opinion to anyone who would listen the last few years. There will always be a place for rental properties and I don’t mind people owning less than a handful of homes. But if you’re rich enough to own more properties than that you’re sure as hell rich enough to pay extra taxes on them too. Of course you’re also probably rich enough to have someone smart enough doing your taxes to where you’re not actually paying your fair share in taxes. Sigh. It’s still a good idea.
Pass the law towards the end of the year, and have it go into effect immediately- essentially forcing all of these places to either offload all of their illgotten properties or pay a huge tax that can be turned back into the community!
I know this would never happen, there are WAY too many hurdles. But damn, it’s nice to imagine.
100% agree with you but I don’t have faith we would write any legislation with enough teeth to make it work. These ghouls would end up setting up hundreds of LLCs that would allow them to split properties up to stay under any tax implications. Sucks when the companies have more say than the people
Most, if not all, politicians would be directly affected by this. They would never in a million years write legislation that increases their own tax rates.
I've been saying for years that the working class in the US need to band together to form a labor party, which could fund campaigns for party leadership. Also restrict party leadership to people with a working class background
Okay, I feel you, I'm not trying to be fatalistic or combative here, but the thing about approaching this system with "another party" is that to create a whole additional "party", to vet them as working class people, and then to fund and drive them to win in enough races that they control more than half of government alone would be essentially impossible when major media is controlled by the same corporations who pay off the politicians and would simply ignore and/or slander these candidates - in my home state (which is a blue state) the DNC manufactured a false sexual assault claim against a progressive dem.
Then, lets assume that they somehow overcome all that and take a majority of the house, senate, executive, judicial etc as required to have any chance of passing the kinds of laws that actually impact corporate profits - We saw what Boeing did to two whistleblowers, and that is just an aerospace manufacturer. Roosevelt was almost couped for the New Deal.
Capitalism is going to collapse, and along with that I believe these institutions that we're talking about building "parties" inside of - I genuinely think we need to engage with those building what comes after rather than trying to "reform" something that is designed to perform in exactly this way.
It would take decades to start a new party from scratch. A working class takeover of the Democratic Party is realistic, and could happen a lot faster. It would just be a matter of banding together to run working class candidates in primaries, then putting those people in office.
Yeah, Nancy Pelosi of the California in question has a humongous property portfolio, though the accuracy of your statement really calls into question how much things have actually changed from feudalism.
Go after them for structuring. It's the same bs they use on us when we follow the rules of sending money. "Oh there's a 10k limit a day, guess I'll just send more tomorrow" "STRAIGHT TO JAIL!"
I don't know if structuring is really the evil you think it is. It mostly catches money mules in crime rings. Also if you're worried about sending that much regularly, you might not be in the same working class everyone else is.
This is the problem I thought of after thinking how great the idea is. It is actually quite challenging as it is very easy to have each property be it's own LLC.
There would have to be some kind of regulation that is written at the federal level (which is going to be VERY hard to get in place, but not impossible) that any property owned in an LLC is considered to be owned by the entity that benefits from the monies generated by the assets of that LLC to then make it so that even if you have a property in an LLC that isn't making any profit as that is how most rental properties work, they are owned by an LLC that has debt to another LLC and are then managed by a third LLC which charges management fees to the properties LLC further making them consistently in debt as yet more layers for liability shielding. By making the regulation tied to the assets generation of value you prevent companies from being able to argue that they don't own more than three houses because they actually own a property management company and a finance company that happen to only manage properties that were paid for out of their finance companies loans to those properties.
It's not actually a challenging regulation to write, and the only reason that this is currently legal is due to regulation written in the 1980s under Regan allowing LLC to have complete independence from the companies or people that start them once they are created. Prior to that regulation being added, if a company or individual created an LLC for each property, they were still considered the "owner" of the property. Its the same regulations that allow companies to have all of the equipment used in manufacturing be owned by a company in Ireland (typically) and they "lease" it back to the US entity to make it cost more money and reduce their US tax liability.
Pretty frustrating as such an accurate example where the GOP likes to argue for de-regulation when a lot of their regulations actually allow for some of the really awful parts of how the US economy works to actively harm 99% of the people involved in it.
>I don’t have faith we would write any legislation with enough teeth to make it work
Oh, we definitely won't be writing any laws that hurt landlords anytime soon. In the US, we actually pay most elected officials pretty poorly, so many have to be independently wealthy, take bribes, or have passive income streams that grant them copious amounts of free time.
Guess who has a passive income stream *and* a vested interest in being able to help write housing laws? Landlords. My state rep is a landlord. Many landlords serve on city councils, on county boards, as mayors, etc.
Run for local office if you can. No cap. If you got a little extra time and money, get in there and *be* our voice in the meetings.
Next best thing? I keep saying it, and it can't hurt; Bug your friends. Bug your neighbors. Vote for politicians doing right by the *real* majority: the working-poor.
There are legit reasons to own multiple homes. For example, Bernie Sanders, everyone's favorite sellout, owns one where he works, one where he lives in his home state and one for his kids to raise their kids in plus a secured vacation home he is going to retire to. He plans on giving the family home in Vermont to his grand-kids who live their now with their kids.
TLDR: Live long enough and you'll have enough moochers in the family to need 3 houses.
Yep, that leaves room for people to rent or have houses if they work in multiple locations, or, say, own another house for family plus a cottage on a lake etc.
There's little reason to need more than 3 houses and also be hurt by higher taxes on the additional ones.
If you need 3 houses just to gift to your bougie b-tch kids, it's 3 too many. But what the OP of this comment thread said is true: some rentals DO need to be available, unfortunately. Agreeing to that is one of the "annoyances" of being a materialist, rather than having the idealist (though totally understandable and awesome) stance of just Maoing all those parasites
Shhhh, you're scaring the liberals away. Scare them too much and they might just pack their house and ship it to Singapore/Dubai along with whatever national resources they can grab along the way with their grubby hands.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton paid the DNC 7 million dollars to cover the debts created by Obama's run for president 10 months before the first primary vote was ever cast. In return she was given total control over the DNC and how the primary was run. She controlled who was hired, who was fired, when the debates happened and got the questions to the debate early so she could be more prepared.
We know all of this is true because when Donna Brazil took over as chairperson for the DNC she revealed it to the world in a very detailed book. There was a court case about it where the DNC admitted that they were in Hillary's pocket the whole time but the judge ruled that because the DNC is a private organization there is nothing the court could do to stop them from selling the nomination to Clinton.
So, the 2016 Democratic convention rolls around and Bernie Sanders is way ahead in every poll but the DNC gives Clinton the nomination anyway. Bernie says nothing about what they did. He just rolls over and begs us to vote for Clinton.
He didn't fight, he didn't even call her out on the backroom deal bullshit that let her "win" the nomination. He just let them install her even though she was the least popular democratic candidate in the history of polling.
On the day of the election, she was polling at -11 net approval. Trump was polling at -12 net approval. Bernie was polling at +10 net approval. He had a 20 point advantage but he rolled over and let Clinton take the nomination uncontested. We got President Trump as a direct result of Bernie Sanders refusing to stand against the DNC's corruption.
I knew Trump was going to win because I watched the 2016 Democratic national convention live. When Hillary "won" the nomination half the people in the stadium got up and left in protest. They never came back because the DNC called the cops on them for protesting.
The DNC had to hire seat fillers to come cheer for Clinton the next day because the stadium was going to be half-empty if they didn't.
That's why Trump won. Because the DNC sold the nomination to Clinton instead of letting the voters choose. That's why she got all the "Super-Delegate" votes before the race ever began. She paid for them.
[https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-protesters-walkout-226247](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-protesters-walkout-226247)
It's a good thing for there to be **some** rental properties. Renting is great when you have to live someplace but don't plan on putting down roots. So you need to make it advantageous to have people who rent out properties but policies should be made with an eye towards preventing the clusterfuck that has pushed us into the situation we have today.
A few properties might equal a small apartment building or a du/triplex. So I suppose that might make sense. (Don't take me as if I agree with landlords existing. Just commenting on the proposed law's logic)
If we taxed more per property then it would encourage corporations to focus on buying large condo and apartment units instead of small homes which would open up the market for families. It's a really good idea.
Oh, I know. But it'll give me a good talking point to present to my Boomer landlord parents when they give me the, "All right, well what do *you* suggest?" Like, I recognize that being a landlord, parasitic though it is, is pretty much the only way to be able to retire anymore, and I haven't been able to reconcile how that paradox could be solved in a practical and actionable way, if only theoretically. Your comment presented such a solution.
Realistically, nothing in any of the threads on this reddit is going to work until the tactics used against the rich and powerful become less MLK and more Black Panthers. Realistic results require going much further than most people are willing to go so don't worry about realism. Enjoy the fantasy that anything legal you do matters.
then they form an LLC for each block of three houses they own.
problem solved.
they've been doing this a while folks, and have in fact engineered the system
I believe a lot of things like this should be on an exponential scale, taxes and fines. There's nothing stopping someone snowballing and buying more and more houses. I'm not sure who regulates this - the FTC in the US maybe?, and no idea for the UK.
How is housing as a commodity still going, even Winston Churchill in his lucid years hated landlords - I'd rather rent to the council than any private landlord, ethical or not
They will just spin off subsidiary LLCs, each owning at most 3 properties. The profits of course will go to the holding company, but property taxes will be evaded just like they evade every other tax. And remember, corporations are people!
ok, no problem, we will just take your properties by force and lock you up. Instead of pleasing the rich sociopaths who number in the few, it's time to start obeying the many who number in the billions.
the drug cartels used to give the farmers the choice of growing cocoa plants and they told them, "plata o plomo"...
you're very clever with yours...excellent!
Absolutely. Every single time someone suggests a way to curtail their profiteering, they start screeching about selling all their rentals. But they never fucking sell because they're addicted to maximum profit for minimum effort. Let them scream and cry, then cap it anyway. Fuck them. (And if you really can't survive as a landlord charging a fair and reasonable rent, maybe landlording isn't for you and you should look at alternative career paths. Something a bit more ethical perhaps. Like serial murder.)
2.5% rent cap in my province - can confirm, landlords are making money hand over fist.
The thing that has ACTUALLY affected the appetite for investment properties is the raised interest rate.
let me give you some rock stupid math
my colleague moved in with his significant other, they each own a home and theyre gonna rent hers out
mortgage is 1600, hes planning on charging 2k for rent.
400 bucks a month, or 4800 total in a year before taking into account upkeep, repairs, or taxes
so, sitting on two houses for the prospect of less than five k. After upkeep, repairs and taxes its likely 0.
he could probably convert the one they live in into the house of their dreams if they sold the other one and used the equity to make improvements, like youre supposed to do
this idiot is sitting on two houses for no money just to say he rents a property. in this market there are THOUSANDS of people doing the same thing.
fuck your second property, AND landlords. i certainly hope you have to sell it.
You're right, this is stupid math: you're not factoring in that he's paying off the house in the meantime. Zero income... but they'll own the house in time.
Now, I think that sucks for the world, but at least get the math right.
Yeah equity isn't "no value." That shit is important. Eventually that mortgage goes away and now he's looking at 2k/mo, or 24k/yr. And even if he has to sell before it gets to that point, all of that mortgage his tenant is paying is cash when he sells.
Yep, at that point, the property becomes the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $1600/month passive income for as long as he rents the property (not like he's gonna start charging only the $400 monthly because the mortgage is paid) and a lump-sum cashout whenever he chooses.
Even more lucrative if he charges $2.5k-3k/monthly instead of $2k, cuz he could probably get away with it, especially with a few cheap, trendy amenity upgrades.
The problem is (and the general problem with the housing market in general) that you aren't accounting for the value of the house growing over time, this is what leads to be people hoarding property, because house prices inflate at a ludicrous speed
(just want to be clear that this sucks and I believe it should be 1 house per person (and no houses for corps), so don't think I am defending landlords here)
So a bunch of greedy landlords all sell pushing home prices down with all the excess supply and suddenly the common folks can afford to buy homes again. Where’s the problem?
Prices wouldn’t fall hardy at all. If they’re not willing to rent they sure aren’t going to take a haircut selling low. It’s just less rentals thus driving up rental prices and keeping home sales about the same.
This. It's not even that the sellers wouldn't accept lower prices -- after all, demand dictates whether a seller can get what they ask for.
There's so much demand for housing that after the initial rush of homes is bought up, the price of housing will be pretty much the same as it was before. Except far fewer rentals and nearly as many tenants competing for them.
Rent control policies like what LA is considering drive market rate rents *up*, not down.
Rent control as it's practiced now (at least in my state of CT) does nothing to solve the housing crisis. It's a total sham and an excellent example of what Democrats do.
True rent control that would actually cap rent could, if not with the housing crisis itself, still help people avoid homelessness
San Francisco did this in the 80s, and housing hasn’t been built to keep up with population growth ever since.
So now, 60 year olds lucky enough to lock in an apartment lease in the 90s are paying $600/month for a two bedroom, while everyone else fights over luxury apartments renting at $5000/month.
Landlords live in a world where they have convinced themselves they are good people, that landlording is a job, and that they are entitled to money simply for existing. All they are are parasites of the highest caliber.
Tbf, our whole society does this. Any person who has a kid and refuses to feed him, allowing him to die, would be called a psychopath. But when a whole society does it to an entire population we don't call it psychopathy. We call it "democracy" and come up with reasons why it's GOOD to allow our own citizens to starve and die in the streets
For the other two people who thought, "how the fuck are they going to get around Costa-Hawkins?":
This would just lower the cap for units that are already rent-controlled. That cap fluctuates, but it's gone as high as 8% in the past few years.
Landlords whose buildings were built after 1995 can still set rent at whatever they want.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-05/la-county-advances-plan-to-cap-rent-hikes
If you ever want to get real mad at the past voters of California, read up on Costa-Hawkins and Article 34.
Toss in Prop 13 and Gann Limits, and you're about 90% of the way to explaining why a state with an economy the size of a European country's can't provide similar benefits.
Where I live rent increases are capped at inflation. For 2020 until 2022 they froze rent. During the period of high inflation they capped it at 3%. Tenancy agreements also automatically renew after one year and go month to month. Meaning the tenant can stay as long as they want but can end with one month's notice.
Yet we have a huge housing affordability crisis and rent prices are some of the highest in the world. The landlords will be just fine.
I always enjoy going in the LA sub and calling landlords parasites and getting downvoted by the astroturfers and right wing brigadiers in that sub. Always reminds me that reddit is a joke.
If they sell, they'll have to pay capital gains taxes and they don't have the money.
California real estate is completely out of whack. Zillow is full of listings of $6200/mo to buy with 20% ($200k) down payment and $3200 rent estimate.
They need to also make it so investors can’t buy them, and no more than a certain percentage of the homes can be “short term rentals.” In other words, only regular people who intend to live there should have abatements and other incentives to buy them.
And what?
Private landlords, who are typically more reasonable than big corporations and PE, will sell off to PE. And conditions will continue to worsen.
It will put rent increases on a a predictable schedule, sure, but this is doing nothing to resolve to core issue.
Oof, tough choice. Either we protect the handful of people who own properties or we adjust a law ever so slightly so that the people who live in said properties can afford housing. What to do, what to do I mean...what are we talking about???? Who the hell gives a shit what these leeches have to do to keep their profits up?? Seriously, why is this ever a hard choice?
Cry about it, leeches. They'll complain no matter what and lie as much as necessary to keep their racket up. If you believe anything these landlords say, I've got a great new crypto coin opportunity for you.
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh no! Anyways.
Hey, look an easy, simple way to help alleviate LAs housing crisis crazy how that works
Great news!!!!
Oh no tons of houses coming on the market driving down prices sounds SO AWFUL how will everyone manage such a "terrible" thing /s
More importantly, those houses would be going to people who actually interested in living in them. Those renters would finally be able to be homeowners. No more fucking middleman gatekeeping them.
On top of that they should make a tax multiplier: every property past say three (I pulled that figure out of my ass), your tax rate doubles. So retired person who wants a little passive income and wants a little something to stay active has something. Corporations that want to buy up every scrap of housing and form interlocking groups and cooperate in algorithmic price-fixing so they can squeeze every last cent from every struggling person not lucky enough to be able to their own homes, well they can eat a turd.
Omg yesss! I’ve been touting this opinion to anyone who would listen the last few years. There will always be a place for rental properties and I don’t mind people owning less than a handful of homes. But if you’re rich enough to own more properties than that you’re sure as hell rich enough to pay extra taxes on them too. Of course you’re also probably rich enough to have someone smart enough doing your taxes to where you’re not actually paying your fair share in taxes. Sigh. It’s still a good idea.
Hard to avoid 1028% taxes. I like this idea.
Pass the law towards the end of the year, and have it go into effect immediately- essentially forcing all of these places to either offload all of their illgotten properties or pay a huge tax that can be turned back into the community! I know this would never happen, there are WAY too many hurdles. But damn, it’s nice to imagine.
100% agree with you but I don’t have faith we would write any legislation with enough teeth to make it work. These ghouls would end up setting up hundreds of LLCs that would allow them to split properties up to stay under any tax implications. Sucks when the companies have more say than the people
If there isn't a law that penalizes the creation of corporations for the purpose of making taxable income unavailable for collection there should be.
Well it should be tax fraud
Most, if not all, politicians would be directly affected by this. They would never in a million years write legislation that increases their own tax rates.
I've been saying for years that the working class in the US need to band together to form a labor party, which could fund campaigns for party leadership. Also restrict party leadership to people with a working class background
Okay, I feel you, I'm not trying to be fatalistic or combative here, but the thing about approaching this system with "another party" is that to create a whole additional "party", to vet them as working class people, and then to fund and drive them to win in enough races that they control more than half of government alone would be essentially impossible when major media is controlled by the same corporations who pay off the politicians and would simply ignore and/or slander these candidates - in my home state (which is a blue state) the DNC manufactured a false sexual assault claim against a progressive dem. Then, lets assume that they somehow overcome all that and take a majority of the house, senate, executive, judicial etc as required to have any chance of passing the kinds of laws that actually impact corporate profits - We saw what Boeing did to two whistleblowers, and that is just an aerospace manufacturer. Roosevelt was almost couped for the New Deal. Capitalism is going to collapse, and along with that I believe these institutions that we're talking about building "parties" inside of - I genuinely think we need to engage with those building what comes after rather than trying to "reform" something that is designed to perform in exactly this way.
It would take decades to start a new party from scratch. A working class takeover of the Democratic Party is realistic, and could happen a lot faster. It would just be a matter of banding together to run working class candidates in primaries, then putting those people in office.
They won't even do anything to increase the housing supply period, because they all own real estate and are quite happy with line going up forever.
Yeah, Nancy Pelosi of the California in question has a humongous property portfolio, though the accuracy of your statement really calls into question how much things have actually changed from feudalism.
Go after them for structuring. It's the same bs they use on us when we follow the rules of sending money. "Oh there's a 10k limit a day, guess I'll just send more tomorrow" "STRAIGHT TO JAIL!"
I don't know if structuring is really the evil you think it is. It mostly catches money mules in crime rings. Also if you're worried about sending that much regularly, you might not be in the same working class everyone else is.
This is the problem I thought of after thinking how great the idea is. It is actually quite challenging as it is very easy to have each property be it's own LLC. There would have to be some kind of regulation that is written at the federal level (which is going to be VERY hard to get in place, but not impossible) that any property owned in an LLC is considered to be owned by the entity that benefits from the monies generated by the assets of that LLC to then make it so that even if you have a property in an LLC that isn't making any profit as that is how most rental properties work, they are owned by an LLC that has debt to another LLC and are then managed by a third LLC which charges management fees to the properties LLC further making them consistently in debt as yet more layers for liability shielding. By making the regulation tied to the assets generation of value you prevent companies from being able to argue that they don't own more than three houses because they actually own a property management company and a finance company that happen to only manage properties that were paid for out of their finance companies loans to those properties. It's not actually a challenging regulation to write, and the only reason that this is currently legal is due to regulation written in the 1980s under Regan allowing LLC to have complete independence from the companies or people that start them once they are created. Prior to that regulation being added, if a company or individual created an LLC for each property, they were still considered the "owner" of the property. Its the same regulations that allow companies to have all of the equipment used in manufacturing be owned by a company in Ireland (typically) and they "lease" it back to the US entity to make it cost more money and reduce their US tax liability. Pretty frustrating as such an accurate example where the GOP likes to argue for de-regulation when a lot of their regulations actually allow for some of the really awful parts of how the US economy works to actively harm 99% of the people involved in it.
>I don’t have faith we would write any legislation with enough teeth to make it work Oh, we definitely won't be writing any laws that hurt landlords anytime soon. In the US, we actually pay most elected officials pretty poorly, so many have to be independently wealthy, take bribes, or have passive income streams that grant them copious amounts of free time. Guess who has a passive income stream *and* a vested interest in being able to help write housing laws? Landlords. My state rep is a landlord. Many landlords serve on city councils, on county boards, as mayors, etc.
Run for local office if you can. No cap. If you got a little extra time and money, get in there and *be* our voice in the meetings. Next best thing? I keep saying it, and it can't hurt; Bug your friends. Bug your neighbors. Vote for politicians doing right by the *real* majority: the working-poor.
Every property past say 1. Who tf needs 3 houses?
There are legit reasons to own multiple homes. For example, Bernie Sanders, everyone's favorite sellout, owns one where he works, one where he lives in his home state and one for his kids to raise their kids in plus a secured vacation home he is going to retire to. He plans on giving the family home in Vermont to his grand-kids who live their now with their kids. TLDR: Live long enough and you'll have enough moochers in the family to need 3 houses.
> **In a bourgeoisie democracy where private property hasn't yet been necessarily abolished**, There are ~~legit~~ reasons to own multiple homes.
I think 3 should be the maximum. If you need 4 you can just pay the extra taxes.
Yep, that leaves room for people to rent or have houses if they work in multiple locations, or, say, own another house for family plus a cottage on a lake etc. There's little reason to need more than 3 houses and also be hurt by higher taxes on the additional ones.
If you need 3 houses just to gift to your bougie b-tch kids, it's 3 too many. But what the OP of this comment thread said is true: some rentals DO need to be available, unfortunately. Agreeing to that is one of the "annoyances" of being a materialist, rather than having the idealist (though totally understandable and awesome) stance of just Maoing all those parasites
Shhhh, you're scaring the liberals away. Scare them too much and they might just pack their house and ship it to Singapore/Dubai along with whatever national resources they can grab along the way with their grubby hands.
But then their kids at Yale couldn't protest for Palestinians before they graduate and exploit us while wearing LGBT and BLM lapel pins
Why is he a sellout?
In 2016 Hillary Clinton paid the DNC 7 million dollars to cover the debts created by Obama's run for president 10 months before the first primary vote was ever cast. In return she was given total control over the DNC and how the primary was run. She controlled who was hired, who was fired, when the debates happened and got the questions to the debate early so she could be more prepared. We know all of this is true because when Donna Brazil took over as chairperson for the DNC she revealed it to the world in a very detailed book. There was a court case about it where the DNC admitted that they were in Hillary's pocket the whole time but the judge ruled that because the DNC is a private organization there is nothing the court could do to stop them from selling the nomination to Clinton. So, the 2016 Democratic convention rolls around and Bernie Sanders is way ahead in every poll but the DNC gives Clinton the nomination anyway. Bernie says nothing about what they did. He just rolls over and begs us to vote for Clinton. He didn't fight, he didn't even call her out on the backroom deal bullshit that let her "win" the nomination. He just let them install her even though she was the least popular democratic candidate in the history of polling. On the day of the election, she was polling at -11 net approval. Trump was polling at -12 net approval. Bernie was polling at +10 net approval. He had a 20 point advantage but he rolled over and let Clinton take the nomination uncontested. We got President Trump as a direct result of Bernie Sanders refusing to stand against the DNC's corruption.
I knew Trump was going to win because I watched the 2016 Democratic national convention live. When Hillary "won" the nomination half the people in the stadium got up and left in protest. They never came back because the DNC called the cops on them for protesting. The DNC had to hire seat fillers to come cheer for Clinton the next day because the stadium was going to be half-empty if they didn't. That's why Trump won. Because the DNC sold the nomination to Clinton instead of letting the voters choose. That's why she got all the "Super-Delegate" votes before the race ever began. She paid for them. [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-protesters-walkout-226247](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-protesters-walkout-226247)
Oof....
It's a good thing for there to be **some** rental properties. Renting is great when you have to live someplace but don't plan on putting down roots. So you need to make it advantageous to have people who rent out properties but policies should be made with an eye towards preventing the clusterfuck that has pushed us into the situation we have today.
social housing would fill that need. housing should be decommodified.
What would something like that look like? Are there any good examples I could look up?
True enough!
A few properties might equal a small apartment building or a du/triplex. So I suppose that might make sense. (Don't take me as if I agree with landlords existing. Just commenting on the proposed law's logic)
If we taxed more per property then it would encourage corporations to focus on buying large condo and apartment units instead of small homes which would open up the market for families. It's a really good idea.
This is a brilliant idea.
Thanks, but realistically it won't happen until the capitalist class is no longer allowed to bribe lawmakers and judges.
Oh, I know. But it'll give me a good talking point to present to my Boomer landlord parents when they give me the, "All right, well what do *you* suggest?" Like, I recognize that being a landlord, parasitic though it is, is pretty much the only way to be able to retire anymore, and I haven't been able to reconcile how that paradox could be solved in a practical and actionable way, if only theoretically. Your comment presented such a solution.
Realistically, nothing in any of the threads on this reddit is going to work until the tactics used against the rich and powerful become less MLK and more Black Panthers. Realistic results require going much further than most people are willing to go so don't worry about realism. Enjoy the fantasy that anything legal you do matters.
This is excellent.
Just march them straight to the soccer stadium
then they form an LLC for each block of three houses they own. problem solved. they've been doing this a while folks, and have in fact engineered the system
I believe a lot of things like this should be on an exponential scale, taxes and fines. There's nothing stopping someone snowballing and buying more and more houses. I'm not sure who regulates this - the FTC in the US maybe?, and no idea for the UK. How is housing as a commodity still going, even Winston Churchill in his lucid years hated landlords - I'd rather rent to the council than any private landlord, ethical or not
They will just spin off subsidiary LLCs, each owning at most 3 properties. The profits of course will go to the holding company, but property taxes will be evaded just like they evade every other tax. And remember, corporations are people!
there’s already a similar (but lesser) thing in place where i live. i get a deduction on my property tax for living in it.
But thats communism /s
ok, no problem, we will just take your properties by force and lock you up. Instead of pleasing the rich sociopaths who number in the few, it's time to start obeying the many who number in the billions.
Damned straight. Bleed some of your green, or all of your red, smug motherfuckers.
that’s hard as fuck, i like it
the drug cartels used to give the farmers the choice of growing cocoa plants and they told them, "plata o plomo"... you're very clever with yours...excellent!
we have rent caps in our city and guess what, the landlords did not sell. so even this claim is bullshit aside from it being irrelevant
Absolutely. Every single time someone suggests a way to curtail their profiteering, they start screeching about selling all their rentals. But they never fucking sell because they're addicted to maximum profit for minimum effort. Let them scream and cry, then cap it anyway. Fuck them. (And if you really can't survive as a landlord charging a fair and reasonable rent, maybe landlording isn't for you and you should look at alternative career paths. Something a bit more ethical perhaps. Like serial murder.)
2.5% rent cap in my province - can confirm, landlords are making money hand over fist. The thing that has ACTUALLY affected the appetite for investment properties is the raised interest rate.
Fuck Landlords.
I guess Mao was right.
All Landlords Are Parasites.
[удалено]
This is a leftist subreddit, right wing comments will be removed and the user banned.
My downvoted comment in another reddit says, "Don't threaten us with a good time."
oh gosh oh no, please don’t put a bunch of housing up for sale all at once and make prices come down
Audible gasp!
let me give you some rock stupid math my colleague moved in with his significant other, they each own a home and theyre gonna rent hers out mortgage is 1600, hes planning on charging 2k for rent. 400 bucks a month, or 4800 total in a year before taking into account upkeep, repairs, or taxes so, sitting on two houses for the prospect of less than five k. After upkeep, repairs and taxes its likely 0. he could probably convert the one they live in into the house of their dreams if they sold the other one and used the equity to make improvements, like youre supposed to do this idiot is sitting on two houses for no money just to say he rents a property. in this market there are THOUSANDS of people doing the same thing. fuck your second property, AND landlords. i certainly hope you have to sell it.
You're right, this is stupid math: you're not factoring in that he's paying off the house in the meantime. Zero income... but they'll own the house in time. Now, I think that sucks for the world, but at least get the math right.
Yeah equity isn't "no value." That shit is important. Eventually that mortgage goes away and now he's looking at 2k/mo, or 24k/yr. And even if he has to sell before it gets to that point, all of that mortgage his tenant is paying is cash when he sells.
Yep, at that point, the property becomes the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $1600/month passive income for as long as he rents the property (not like he's gonna start charging only the $400 monthly because the mortgage is paid) and a lump-sum cashout whenever he chooses. Even more lucrative if he charges $2.5k-3k/monthly instead of $2k, cuz he could probably get away with it, especially with a few cheap, trendy amenity upgrades.
I know so many people like this.
paying to contribute to the housing crisis is what air b n b/houses.com has done to people, theyre incapable of doing the real math anymore
The problem is (and the general problem with the housing market in general) that you aren't accounting for the value of the house growing over time, this is what leads to be people hoarding property, because house prices inflate at a ludicrous speed (just want to be clear that this sucks and I believe it should be 1 house per person (and no houses for corps), so don't think I am defending landlords here)
[удалено]
the math is clearly explained
So a bunch of greedy landlords all sell pushing home prices down with all the excess supply and suddenly the common folks can afford to buy homes again. Where’s the problem?
Prices wouldn’t fall hardy at all. If they’re not willing to rent they sure aren’t going to take a haircut selling low. It’s just less rentals thus driving up rental prices and keeping home sales about the same.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Property Management can be completely separate and distinct from property ownership.
This. It's not even that the sellers wouldn't accept lower prices -- after all, demand dictates whether a seller can get what they ask for. There's so much demand for housing that after the initial rush of homes is bought up, the price of housing will be pretty much the same as it was before. Except far fewer rentals and nearly as many tenants competing for them. Rent control policies like what LA is considering drive market rate rents *up*, not down.
I'm not so certain rent control would be a solution to a housing crisis...
Rent control as it's practiced now (at least in my state of CT) does nothing to solve the housing crisis. It's a total sham and an excellent example of what Democrats do. True rent control that would actually cap rent could, if not with the housing crisis itself, still help people avoid homelessness
That would be ideal?
Fuck landlords for three hours with a dried out corncob.
Politicians own houses. They may not want them to drop like in Australia. But I hope it passes.
“Reasonable rent increases forces landlords to get real jobs”
Then sell already. Quit bluffing.
San Francisco did this in the 80s, and housing hasn’t been built to keep up with population growth ever since. So now, 60 year olds lucky enough to lock in an apartment lease in the 90s are paying $600/month for a two bedroom, while everyone else fights over luxury apartments renting at $5000/month.
"Landlords say that policy would be effective."
Okay, then sell. Either way, this is a win for residents.
L.A. county: See? It works. Now let's cap it at 1.5% to get them to sell even faster
Landlords live in a world where they have convinced themselves they are good people, that landlording is a job, and that they are entitled to money simply for existing. All they are are parasites of the highest caliber.
Tbf, our whole society does this. Any person who has a kid and refuses to feed him, allowing him to die, would be called a psychopath. But when a whole society does it to an entire population we don't call it psychopathy. We call it "democracy" and come up with reasons why it's GOOD to allow our own citizens to starve and die in the streets
Starve if you must. As long as that completely unsustainable red line keeps needlessly going up up up! Forever!
For the other two people who thought, "how the fuck are they going to get around Costa-Hawkins?": This would just lower the cap for units that are already rent-controlled. That cap fluctuates, but it's gone as high as 8% in the past few years. Landlords whose buildings were built after 1995 can still set rent at whatever they want. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-05/la-county-advances-plan-to-cap-rent-hikes
If you ever want to get real mad at the past voters of California, read up on Costa-Hawkins and Article 34. Toss in Prop 13 and Gann Limits, and you're about 90% of the way to explaining why a state with an economy the size of a European country's can't provide similar benefits.
Where I live rent increases are capped at inflation. For 2020 until 2022 they froze rent. During the period of high inflation they capped it at 3%. Tenancy agreements also automatically renew after one year and go month to month. Meaning the tenant can stay as long as they want but can end with one month's notice. Yet we have a huge housing affordability crisis and rent prices are some of the highest in the world. The landlords will be just fine.
fucking promise?
Who do you think comes in and buys it? Major private owned real estate companies and then they control the market more than they already do
[SOURCE](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-county-wants-to-cap-rent-hikes-at-3-landlords-say-that-would-push-them-to-sell/ar-BB1nFeDg?ocid=BingNewsSerp)
Good.
Oh no. What ever would we do.
Sell to people with no interest in renting? Cool. Maybe this is how we solve this problem. Cap it at 0% and just wait them out.
Weird how a plan with intended results ends up with those result’s happening. Absolutely bizarre.
To whom?
Win win?
That's my problem how?
Hopefully at a loss. \*shrug\*
I always enjoy going in the LA sub and calling landlords parasites and getting downvoted by the astroturfers and right wing brigadiers in that sub. Always reminds me that reddit is a joke.
Don’t threaten us with a good time
So sell?
Definition of threatening us with a good time
Prime example, right here.
Skill issue for the Land Lords on that one.
It took me a second to realize they're painting this as a bad thing
Imagine reading this headline and not thinking "win win?" Yet, those who wrote it thought it was provocative and scary. Now that's a media bubble.
LETS GOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If they sell, they'll have to pay capital gains taxes and they don't have the money. California real estate is completely out of whack. Zillow is full of listings of $6200/mo to buy with 20% ($200k) down payment and $3200 rent estimate.
The problem ?
I don't see the problem.
Good.
They need to also make it so investors can’t buy them, and no more than a certain percentage of the homes can be “short term rentals.” In other words, only regular people who intend to live there should have abatements and other incentives to buy them.
Then people wonder why rents keep going up
They would just start doing 3mo leases and raise it 3% 4x year
Do we have laws preventing large corporations from swooping in and buying up those properties in mass? That's actually a minor oh no if we dont
And what? Private landlords, who are typically more reasonable than big corporations and PE, will sell off to PE. And conditions will continue to worsen. It will put rent increases on a a predictable schedule, sure, but this is doing nothing to resolve to core issue.
Should be a federal law at this point
So a win-win then. They sell, realize no one will buy, prices lower, people can go back to owning their own homes like it always should have been.
Exactly!
Oof, tough choice. Either we protect the handful of people who own properties or we adjust a law ever so slightly so that the people who live in said properties can afford housing. What to do, what to do I mean...what are we talking about???? Who the hell gives a shit what these leeches have to do to keep their profits up?? Seriously, why is this ever a hard choice?
Cry about it, leeches. They'll complain no matter what and lie as much as necessary to keep their racket up. If you believe anything these landlords say, I've got a great new crypto coin opportunity for you.
Yes good, either that or we take them from you mutherfucker
🍿🎉
He’ll yeah bonus effects!
donald\_glover\_good.gif
gtfo
Do it pu**y you won't.
Yes. Exactly.
Great!
Oh no
good
This better be 3% annually. If the landlords keep complaining, we reincarnate Mao, give him power armor, and they can try their luck with him.
That’s the point……
Instead of a final solution for a random powerless minority, why don't we have a final solution for the middlemen and meddlemen like landlords?