- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: What would you think of a bill that cancelled corporations buying homes, and 1 home limit?
Posted on 7/13/25 at 12:14 am to Saunson69
Posted on 7/13/25 at 12:14 am to Saunson69
quote:
The owner of my company was talking about how he owns 5 homes and rents them out. I couldn't help but want to say, you are part of the problem for high housing prices. Blackrock owning many homes is part of the problem. I'm curious if you, yourself, or majority of Americans would support a bill not allowing corporations to buy US homes, not allow other countries like China buying US homes, and limit to 1 home per individual. I don't think anyone needs to own more than 1 home, and in the rare case you do, put it under wife's name, but owning 40 homes and renting them out for outrageous prices is what is causing this issue. I would support this as it'd help lower prices. I feel this along with reducing zoning restrictions and ignoring NIMBYs is the answer.
This is communism.
Posted on 7/13/25 at 12:31 am to Saunson69
quote:
Blackrock owning many homes is part of the problem
Institutional investors own 1% of US housing market. Not even close to being part of the problem.
Posted on 7/13/25 at 12:40 am to Saunson69
quote:
and limit to 1 home per individual. I don't think anyone needs to own more than 1 home,
You're a fricking idiot.
Single family rental homes have been a solid investment for middle and upper middle income individuals and families for years, for multiple reasons. Most small time real estate investors own between 1 and 5 rental properties. You want to take that ability to invest away from ordinary citizens like me? Go frick yourself.
This post was edited on 7/13/25 at 12:41 am
Posted on 7/13/25 at 12:42 am to Saunson69
quote:
Please don’t have children.
I'm going to have 12 just to stick it to you.
They will all have their own short bus to ride to school.
Posted on 7/13/25 at 12:50 am to AubieinNC2009
quote:
nothing wrong with home ownership being permanently out of reach?
How is it out of reach? Answer it is not.
You can easily buy a house with hard work and changing lifestyle. Work hard, save up and you can buy a house. Pretty simple
This is true.
However, there are people who could easily afford to buy a house but choose to rent just because they don't want to have to deal with the hassles of home ownership...repairs, maintenance, replacing roofs or windows or AC units or whatever. Or maybe they don't want to be tied down to one location for several years. They can afford to pay the rent on nice homes and they choose to do that.
Posted on 7/13/25 at 12:54 am to joshnorris14
I sometimes think that this is a good idea too, but it’s anti-capitalist. What’s next limiting how much money people make? We could implement a regressive tax on profit from owning multiple homes. That would discourage the practice without banning it.
Posted on 7/13/25 at 1:03 am to Saunson69
quote:
I don't think anyone needs to own more than 1 home
There's your problem. It's not your concern how other people spend their money.
Posted on 7/13/25 at 4:15 am to Saunson69
OP obviously doesn't own more than one brain cell.
Posted on 7/13/25 at 4:21 am to Saunson69
quote:"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
I don't think anyone needs to own more than 1 home, and in the rare case you do, put it under wife's name
In terms of that foundational Marxism, I always questioned who would determine "need."
Now I know.
It's Saunson69.
Popular
Back to top


0







