Corporations will own the majority of homes by 2030

[911 Rod]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

I will never rent again.

If someone gets divorced in this f##ed up market one might not have a choice.

[Tobra]

The WEF people said this was the plan, did you think they were joking?

Originally Posted by Arizona_928

That's a low ROI...


I feel something fishy is going on with the market...

SUPER low, hence there is more to it

Originally Posted by craigster59

With these "corporate owned homes" I bet we won't see an "eviction moratorium" put in place the next time there's a pandemic.

I guarantee it

Will it take all of 6 years though, doubt it.

I guess they have all the service industry people live in state owned dormitories or something.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by 911 Rod

If someone gets divorced in this f##ed up market one might not have a choice.

I am not worried about that at all. Not even a little.

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by Paul T

Only if you blindly invest without reading prospectus/PPM….nothing is being done in hiding. People are just lazy or don’t pay attention. Most money is in index funds anyway….

A lot of my money is in a union pension plan and an Individual Account Plan that I have no say or control over. I know much of it is in large apartment complexes, commercial real estate, etc.

[stevej37]

Originally Posted by Bill Douglas

They can buy my house, but it's 6 million dollars.

Do you take credit cards? I'm looking to build up my flying miles.

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by stevej37

I'm looking to build up my flying miles.

It's nearly summer here, you could come here for a holiday. That would get you some air miles..

[billybek]

There was just an article published the other day in Canada that blamed mom and pop investors for the rapid increase in housing pricing.
Seems like the government will target regular people that are trying to safely invest their money in property.

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by billybek

There was just an article published the other day in Canada that blamed mom and pop investors for the rapid increase in housing pricing.
Seems like the government will target regular people that are trying to safely invest their money in property.

There is a lot of hate for people who own multiple homes, and it's generally unfounded. People with multiple homes rent them out, they don't sit empty, they don't get removed from the housing supply. But it's an easy target.

You can expect tax changes at some level, not to fix the problem, but to raise money in a way that appeases the masses.

[zakthor]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

There is a lot of hate for people who own multiple homes, and it's generally unfounded. People with multiple homes rent them out, they don't sit empty, they don't get removed from the housing supply. But it's an easy target.

You can expect tax changes at some level, not to fix the problem, but to raise money in a way that appeases the masses.

It doesn’t seem fair to me that rented houses give their owners tax write offs. What societal benefit is there to subsidize my holding the asset? Removing that benefit would lower housing cost.

Today a prospective home liver bidding against me is dealing with entirely different costs. Mine are much lower for a house that needs work. Doesn’t seem fair.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by epbrown

I don’t see how. The fee you’re paying the fund is literally you paying them to invest your money, so reasonably you should have a good idea what you’re paying for them to do.

Yes. A prospectus can be painful to try to read, but you can get a good idea of the manager’s investment strategy & philosophy from it.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by zakthor

It doesn’t seem fair to me that rented houses give their owners tax write offs. What societal benefit is there to subsidize my holding the asset? Removing that benefit would lower housing cost.

I disagree.
Business expenses are deductible.
If a landlord cannot deduct the cost of replacing a water heater, the costs go up, the rent goes up.

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by zakthor

It doesn’t seem fair to me that rented houses give their owners tax write offs. What societal benefit is there to subsidize my holding the asset? Removing that benefit would lower housing cost.

Are you going to differentiate between apartment buildings and single-family homes? They are both technically businesses. Why should one be allowed deductions but not the other? Or do you want to increase rents for apartment owners also?

The societal benefit is a) the owner pays income tax on any money takes home (just like any other business), and b) the rent required to make a reasonable return is reduced.

People that rent either a) choose to rent for personal reasons, or b) don't have the financial ability to buy, because typically a renter covers the mortgage. Is this an 'owner' problem, or a 'renter' problem?

A house is an asset, like a car, a stock portfolio, etc. People think about it in emotional terms and want to alter the tax system accordingly.

[Brian 162]

I remember seeing a story on 60 Minutes a year ago about a Canadian investment group buying up single family homes and renting them out. From what I remember I think they mainly bought in Florida and Georgia.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by fanaudical

My opinion - We saw that trend start back in ~2008 during the subprime fiasco. Banks were foreclosing homes and sitting on them to get the prices back up so they could mortgage again.

I tried like hell to buy but only if you are in the club that they will return a simple call. My agent was trying like hell too. some that have the connection or many agents would advertise that they have the connection but haven't got siht but an empty ad. We were writing offer 30 over the asking (norm was about 15-20back then) with no contingencies. That was when the corp came into socal and hung my ass dry. Still we did pretty well, but its has gotten so much harder after that. Corp almost own more of the mid size cities in middle America. There are always bred crumbs to be had if you really want it.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by Evans, Marv

Although I've been retired for close to 20 years now, I can't imagine how people make it now days. Housing (bought and rented) in this area always runs the highest (or closed to it) in the country. Recently a local news peice reported to live a decent life and be able to afford a house in this area, a family had to make $240K/yr. That seems insane to me and doesn't surprise me tha only corporations could afford to buy houses.

We can't always believe in what you read. There are many people that are still buying homes they are to live in. Many I know personally some young kids that have great jobs. One I know, just had thanksgiving dinner with tonight, have been looking for the past year. He's a young engineer working for the city of LA. Just made management so he's getting a bump in pay and have been living in their parent's garage he help pay for into an ADU. His young wife works for an auction house. He has 200k saved. He will have to settle for a fixer, match box size home if he wants to stay near the city center for over 1 mil. 45 min drive out, he can get away with 8-900 for a larger, newer home to raise a family. They are 26.

My advice is to buy the damn house, doesn't matter too much on the location as long as its isn't in Compton or San Bernandino, stick around for two years, have a roommate to help out with a few bucks, sell it, keep the change and buy something else and have the tax free 500k cap. gain.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

There is a lot of hate for people who own multiple homes, and it's generally unfounded. People with multiple homes rent them out, they don't sit empty, they don't get removed from the housing supply. But it's an easy target.

You can expect tax changes at some level, not to fix the problem, but to raise money in a way that appeases the masses.

You are goddamn correct about that. They hit us each and every way they can especially in LA or part of CA. I have two houses empty due to covid's no eviction policy. I let my tenant go and closed out her lease because she lost her job. She was a great girl so I didn't want to pin her to the wall with the lease. Immediately I took it off the market. Its still empty. They start stupid law, we can play the same stupid game to protect ourselves.

Yep, people find out we have rentals, they started talking siht. We busted our asses to get them but they seem to forget that.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by zakthor

It doesn’t seem fair to me that rented houses give their owners tax write offs. What societal benefit is there to subsidize my holding the asset? Removing that benefit would lower housing cost.

Today a prospective home liver bidding against me is dealing with entirely different costs. Mine are much lower for a house that needs work. Doesn’t seem fair.

Why does everything have to have a social benefit? Write offs are just that, write offs to off set their expenditure. Do you really think it would lower housing cost by removing the ability to write offs? We are forced to fixed the buildings we own down to a single paint chip under the eves by the housing inspectors. If we can't write off the expense of maintaining our buildings, what's the incentive of investing in them?

[look 171]

Did I ever tell you that I hate Newsome? He proposed, when covid hit, that people that have their apt. or homes foreclosed due to tenants' lost of work must offer the sale of the house or apt to the tenants first before it hits the market. When it hits the market, special interest group will then have their first dip on the purchase because they will turn around and rent it back to the people who are in need of housing. After that private individuals will finally get their chance to buy. What a crock of siht. Who the hell owns those special interest groups? He knew damn well the renters can't afford to buy them. The want full control the Ca real estate market. How do you think Policy became the richest female politician. Yep many of the stupid dumb sihts love him for doing this for the poor, working class people. They love him.

[zakthor]

Originally Posted by look 171

Why does everything have to have a social benefit? Write offs are just that, write offs to off set their expenditure. Do you really think it would lower housing cost by removing the ability to write offs? We are forced to fixed the buildings we own down to a single paint chip under the eves by the housing inspectors. If we can't write off the expense of maintaining our buildings, what's the incentive of investing in them?

Raise the rent to maintain your investment or business expense.

Tax break for our rental costs means everyone pays, instead of you and the tenant. Which brings us to ‘why social benefit’ why roads, why is tax money spent on anything? It’s supposed to be to get useful common good stuff done. Giving tax breaks for rentals is forcing everyone to subsidize them, of course we should agree there’s a good reason. An alternative, instead of sweet deal for rental owners, give tax money to the renters themselves. Or don’t. I’m just saying current policy is a structural reason why homeowners don’t have a level field against the corps.

We can decide as a society that we want owner occupied houses, clearing rental owners out of market can only lower prices.

I’m skeptical any of this will get fixed though…. Way too much interest in the profits of the status quo.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by zakthor

Raise the rent to maintain your investment or business expense.

Tax break for our rental costs means everyone pays, instead of you and the tenant. Which brings us to ‘why social benefit’ why roads, why is tax money spent on anything? It’s supposed to be to get useful common good stuff done. Giving tax breaks for rentals is forcing everyone to subsidize them, of course we should agree there’s a good reason. An alternative, instead of sweet deal for rental owners, give tax money to the renters themselves. Or don’t. I’m just saying current policy is a structural reason why homeowners don’t have a level field against the corps.

We can decide as a society that we want owner occupied houses, clearing rental owners out of market can only lower prices.

I’m skeptical any of this will get fixed though…. Way too much interest in the profits of the status quo.

In CA, renters do get a bit of a tax break.

In case if you haven't noticed, there's section 8 housing where everyone pays into it so the poor can benefit. Ask owners how they feel about Section 8 renters? I am sure there are those who are good and true but most end up destroying the place at the owner's dime.

Raise rent? Don't make me laugh. Rent control only allow 3-4% around here. So, for a place that's been rented for the past 10 years at the original rental rate maybe around 12-1500 bucks a month. At 4 %, that is 60 bucks. While market rental rate is 3000 for the same place. Easier said then done. This is like reading one book on communist and people go out, rave about it and want to turn this place into a communist country.

Explain to me again why is tax break to subsidize renters good for everyone? (in red). Who's the everyone you are referring to? The gov. rarely and almost never cut any tax or give us any tax breaks. We have some of the highest tax in the nation what makes you think that we are getting breaks. It only goes up from there. What is this sweet deal for owners you are talking about? Where is it, I like to learn about it if it exist?