- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump looking to ban institutional buying of single-family homes
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well some people commit mortgage fraud, yes, but read what I wrote
I read it. Believe it or not, I earned an A in my 2nd grade reading class. Plenty of profitable investors hold the properties in their name. Just add an indemnity clause to the lease and buy an umbrella insurance policy.
quote:
What's the difference from a property rights perspective?
Corporations exist at the pleasure of the state. Under the new policy they’ll retain the right to invest in classically commercial properties.
2
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:31 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
Wanna know how you damage the globalist agenda?
quote:
Trump looking to ban institutional buying of single-family homes
Yup. "You'll own nothing and be happy." Dafuq I will!
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:34 pm to SaintsTiger
quote:
The zoning codes were written to serve single fsmily home ownership and some mom and pop investors. Not Black Rock and mega-rich Chinese investors.
What do local zoning laws have to do with a proposed federal ban on "institutional buying" of SFHs?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:37 pm to SaintsTiger
quote:
Corporations exist at the pleasure of the state.
The stateS. Not fedgov.
But that's still irrelevant to the question asked.
quote:
Under the new policy they’ll retain the right to invest in classically commercial properties.
That doesn't answer the question of why rental homes for single families are different form a property rights perspective
Just because you're trying to define a certain type of property as "classically commercial" means nothing from a property rights perspective.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:37 pm to RelicBatches86
If this one issue makes me a horrible "socialist," or "populist," I'm okay with that. A primary component of the American Dream, and one of founding aspects of liberty/freedom in this country, is the ability to own land and a homestead. For most of the population that is simply out of reach now for the first time in our nation's history. Even for many professionals making six figures or more.
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:40 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
For most of the population that is simply out of reach now for the first time in our nation's history.
Due in large part to government (local and federal) manipulation of the market.
Remove that manipulation, let the market take hold, and prices will crater and create those opportunities you (and I, mind you) seek for others.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:42 pm to NOLALGD
quote:
Democrat president gets elected and changes the limit to 5 or 10
Most of the Democrats in Congress are rich and own multiple properties, rental properties etc. They're not going to frick with it if Trump caps it at 100, at least not successfully. IMO.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Due in large part to government (local and federal) manipulation of the market.
Remove that manipulation, let the market take hold, and prices will crater and create those opportunities you (and I, mind you) seek for others.
I'm definitely willing to give that a try as well.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 5:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What do local zoning laws have to do with a proposed federal ban on "institutional buying" of SFHs?
1) Ownership has ALWAYS been effected by fed rules. Its called anti-trust
2) The problem with local zoning laws is pols always get bought off. Federal action reverses all the back room deals that have been made. And SFH is the prime focus currently, because the number of homes NOT on the market results in bigger profits/less purchasing power for those single families. Who should be the very people protected by zoning laws that would prevent this
Plus, monopolies are more socialist, than the govt preventing them from forming.
quote:
As for Capitalism vs Socialism, the Socialist argument is that single source suppliers of a product are more economically efficient than “wasteful competition”.
“Nobody needs 23 different kinds of deodorant,” said Bernie Sanders, demonstrating this principle. Thus the Socialist emphasis is on creating monopolies, and eliminating the competition from a free market
Posted on 1/7/26 at 11:40 pm to fwtex
quote:Well, you were wrong. The housing shortage is millions of units and has nothing whatsoever to do with some PE companies buying rent houses. If anything, they INCREASE the stock of housing.
I called for this policy as soon as it was known that large institutional investors were driving up values buy creating a housing shortage for owner occupied buyers. They should be prosecuted for market manipulations.
quote:wut
If institutional investors want to invest in real estate it should be through mortgages and business investment channels, not direct ownership that unfairly competes against the consumer public that also depends on their investment services.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 11:41 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:In that instance there were TOO MANY HOUSES. No, I don't see the pattern.
The investment crisis was caused by corporations and investment firms (corporations) benefited from it.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 11:44 pm to SaintsTiger
quote:As do property rights.
Corporations exist at the pleasure of the state.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 11:45 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:And Blackrock's puny ownership count has nothing to do with that.
If this one issue makes me a horrible "socialist," or "populist," I'm okay with that. A primary component of the American Dream, and one of founding aspects of liberty/freedom in this country, is the ability to own land and a homestead. For most of the population that is simply out of reach now for the first time in our nation's history. Even for many professionals making six figures or more.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 7:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only leftists call it a "loophole
And only and idiot would think there is nothing inbetween.
quote:
No by default arguing for socialism makes you an idiot
Please explain, in great detail, how arguing against investment firms being able to purchase swaths of single family homes is socialistic.
Before you attempt to do so, you must realise that is exactly what was done in socialist Yugoslavia as well as others.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 7:58 am to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Are you seriously arguing against corporate ownership of property categorically? That is what your post implies
Topic is about large investment firms buying single family homes. Something they have done, in some zip codes, to a tune of 70% of the single family home stock. How could one think I am against corporate ownership of all private property? That is a leap.
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 8:00 am
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:00 am to KiwiHead
quote:
You'll stifle new building and increase the amount of slum properties long term. This is nothing more than rent control by another name.
Dude, single family homes.
Keep reading that until you understand it.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:04 am to UtahCajun
quote:Because of your post that says corporations don’t have a right to private property and that anyone saying otherwise are blithering idiots.
How could one think I am against corporate ownership of all private property? That is a leap.
quote:andquote:
Corporations have private property rights, too.
It is not a right. It is an ability to do so through a loophole.
quote:quote:
People arguing otherwise sound like leftists bitching about Citizens United, or classic hippies and "the corporations, man"
Or maybe, just maybe, someone who isn't a blithering idiot.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:32 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
As do property rights.
False. Property rights proceed government. On the other hand, corporations are a legal fiction sanctioned by the state.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What do local zoning laws have to do with a proposed federal ban on "institutional buying" of SFHs?
They undercut your misguided argument that a federal policy promoting human people is somehow socialism. It's primarily because of federal policy allowing over-fictionalization from hedge funds, pension funds, etc. to buy up single family homes and compete with mom and pop that we're in this mess. Adjusting policy to serve mom and pop falls in line with state policies reflected in zoning laws that were implemented on the predicate that neighborhoods were for people.
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 8:47 am
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The stateS. Not fedgov.
But that's still irrelevant to the question asked.
The incoming executive order will likely incentivize the states themselves to discourage large financial investors from hogging housing stock. Not a new set of federal regulations. We will see. DJT is a real estate genius. You are not.
quote:
That doesn't answer the question of why rental homes for single families are different form a property rights perspective
It's more a policy thing rather than property rights properly so called.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News