(12-27-2024, 11:50 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Hoo boy what a rabbit hole. The suggestion is we FORCE someone to sell an asset of theirs. What if the person renting it doesn't want to, it could be the business they use to support their family? Is the plan to seize the house to ensure compliance? ? Tell me no firearms are involved at least. I believe the constitution would need to be changed to allow this. Then it would open the government up to being able to force people to sell assets they deem excessive. Quite a slippery slope there.
Now these resource hogs. We would need to establish a limit to the number of homes one person could have right? I can see all this working in places like China, Venezuela, Russia, 1930's Germany, yea piece of cake.
Just my opinion...
Your reading comprehension is not great today.
The idea is to make an offer of sale part of every lease of a single family, free standing home. The only person who would be eligible to buy it would be the tenant, and only at the end of the lease term. No force required. The tenant would already be there and would already have the keys. They would just have to take out a mortgage and pay the landlord the full price for the home, if they wanted to exercise the option.
(12-28-2024, 12:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2024, 11:50 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Hoo boy what a rabbit hole. The suggestion is we FORCE someone to sell an asset of theirs. What if the person renting it doesn't want to, it could be the business they use to support their family? Is the plan to seize the house to ensure compliance? ? Tell me no firearms are involved at least. I believe the constitution would need to be changed to allow this. Then it would open the government up to being able to force people to sell assets they deem excessive. Quite a slippery slope there.
Now these resource hogs. We would need to establish a limit to the number of homes one person could have right? I can see all this working in places like China, Venezuela, Russia, 1930's Germany, yea piece of cake.
Just my opinion...
Your reading comprehension is not great today.
The idea is to make an offer of sale part of every lease of a single family, free standing home. The only person who would be eligible to buy it would be the tenant, and only at the end of the lease term. No force required. The tenant would already be there and would already have the keys. They would just have to take out a mortgage and pay the landlord the full price for the home, if they wanted to exercise the option.
And if the landlord doesn't want to do this? You cannot make this be a requirement to rent or lease. This option has been available for a long time. It was quite popular in the 80's when the interest rates we much higher than now. By the way look back, the word
force was your choice. not mine.
"I only said that the landlord should be forced to offer the home for sale at a price"
(12-28-2024, 10:25 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Europe, especially Germany, went full-on stupid with the renewable energy and it is now costing them economically and politically.
https://youtu.be/kwKDfNlXdaE?si=vIvHaA_XXd9d5iR5
Coal is bad. The Greens are right about this.
Nuclear is good. The Greens are wrong about this.
The sooner Germany gets their nuclear plants turned back on, they can start to repair their economy.
(12-28-2024, 10:41 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 10:25 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Europe, especially Germany, went full-on stupid with the renewable energy and it is now costing them economically and politically.
https://youtu.be/kwKDfNlXdaE?si=vIvHaA_XXd9d5iR5
Coal is bad. The Greens are right about this.
Nuclear is good. The Greens are wrong about this.
The sooner Germany gets their nuclear plants turned back on, they can start to repair their economy.
No doubt. Aside from that episode the world had with them 85 years ago, Germans are typically prudent. They absolutely lost the plot with green energy.
(12-28-2024, 12:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2024, 11:50 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Hoo boy what a rabbit hole. The suggestion is we FORCE someone to sell an asset of theirs. What if the person renting it doesn't want to, it could be the business they use to support their family? Is the plan to seize the house to ensure compliance? ? Tell me no firearms are involved at least. I believe the constitution would need to be changed to allow this. Then it would open the government up to being able to force people to sell assets they deem excessive. Quite a slippery slope there.
Now these resource hogs. We would need to establish a limit to the number of homes one person could have right? I can see all this working in places like China, Venezuela, Russia, 1930's Germany, yea piece of cake.
Just my opinion...
Your reading comprehension is not great today.
The idea is to make an offer of sale part of every lease of a single family, free standing home. The only person who would be eligible to buy it would be the tenant, and only at the end of the lease term. No force required. The tenant would already be there and would already have the keys. They would just have to take out a mortgage and pay the landlord the full price for the home, if they wanted to exercise the option.
Forcing an owner to sell his property when he doesn't want to is...force, you idiot.
(12-28-2024, 11:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 12:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Your reading comprehension is not great today.
The idea is to make an offer of sale part of every lease of a single family, free standing home. The only person who would be eligible to buy it would be the tenant, and only at the end of the lease term. No force required. The tenant would already be there and would already have the keys. They would just have to take out a mortgage and pay the landlord the full price for the home, if they wanted to exercise the option.
Forcing an owner to sell his property when he doesn't want to is...force, you idiot.
Nobody made him offer the property for lease. Nobody made him buy that property in the first place. Maybe he should have left it for someone who was actually going to live in it. You nincompoop.
(12-28-2024, 11:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 11:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Forcing an owner to sell his property when he doesn't want to is...force, you idiot.
Nobody made him offer the property for lease. Nobody made him buy that property in the first place. Maybe he should have left it for someone who was actually going to live in it. You nincompoop.
Stop being stupid, you're actually better than this level of nonsense. Forcing an owner to sell his property in order to first rent it out is asinine and you know it. I'm disappointed that you would even try to legitimize such nonsense.
(12-28-2024, 11:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 11:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody made him offer the property for lease. Nobody made him buy that property in the first place. Maybe he should have left it for someone who was actually going to live in it. You nincompoop.
Stop being stupid, you're actually better than this level of nonsense. Forcing an owner to sell his property in order to first rent it out is asinine and you know it. I'm disappointed that you would even try to legitimize such nonsense.
I don't see how it's different from most of the other regulations we have. For instance, overtime rules.
The overtime rule forces the employer to offer time and a half for the 41st hour before the worker has even worked 1 hour.
(12-28-2024, 11:23 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 11:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Stop being stupid, you're actually better than this level of nonsense. Forcing an owner to sell his property in order to first rent it out is asinine and you know it. I'm disappointed that you would even try to legitimize such nonsense.
I don't see how it's different from most of the other regulations we have. For instance, overtime rules.
The overtime rule forces the employer to offer time and a half for the 41st hour before the worker has even worked 1 hour.
But there's no good reason to do it. If we want houses to be more affordable, we have to build more of them. We have to increase the supply. Allowing people to build houses in order to rent them out incentivizes the building of more houses. Telling people they have to sell their rental properties at the end of every lease discourages the building of more houses. Your typical lease for a house is two years. You're telling me if I buy a house and lease it out I will have to sell it after two years? That would cause a depression in the housing market. Sure, houses would be more affordable for a while after that, but with new houses not being built, it wouldn't take long before the price of houses skyrockets because of a lack of supply.
I think you understand how a free market functions, but someone reading this thread would think you do not. You're making an Elizabeth Warren-level proposal.
If someone wants to buy or build a house and rent it out, and someone else wants to rent it from them, that is how a free market is supposed to work.
(12-28-2024, 11:23 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 11:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Stop being stupid, you're actually better than this level of nonsense. Forcing an owner to sell his property in order to first rent it out is asinine and you know it. I'm disappointed that you would even try to legitimize such nonsense.
I don't see how it's different from most of the other regulations we have. For instance, overtime rules.
The overtime rule forces the employer to offer time and a half for the 41st hour before the worker has even worked 1 hour.
Not all regulations are bad. Some of them are good. But that doesn't mean more regulations would be even better. You have to draw a line somewhere and stop.
(12-28-2024, 11:36 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 11:23 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see how it's different from most of the other regulations we have. For instance, overtime rules.
The overtime rule forces the employer to offer time and a half for the 41st hour before the worker has even worked 1 hour.
But there's no good reason to do it. If we want houses to be more affordable, we have to build more of them. We have to increase the supply. Allowing people to build houses in order to rent them out incentivizes the building of more houses. Telling people they have to sell their rental properties at the end of every lease discourages the building of more houses. Your typical lease for a house is two years. You're telling me if I buy a house and lease it out I will have to sell it after two years? That would cause a depression in the housing market. Sure, houses would be more affordable for a while after that, but with new houses not being built, it wouldn't take long before the price of houses skyrockets because of a lack of supply.
I think you understand how a free market functions, but someone reading this thread would think you do not. You're making an Elizabeth Warren-level proposal.
If someone wants to buy or build a house and rent it out, and someone else wants to rent it from them, that is how a free market is supposed to work.
You're overthinking this.
As long as the landlord is fully covering his mortgage payment with the monthly rent, the landlord will end up selling the house for more than he bought it for. He will profit and he will want to do it again.
If the landlord is not covering his costs with the rent payment, he was aggressively speculating and that's bad for the housing market.
The policy really wouldn't change behavior that much, I don't think.
We need to do something to make sure the market for housing isn't dominated by landlords.
Building more housing has costs in terms of traffic and displacing people. These costs are worth it if we end up with more people owning homes and having more disposable income to keep the economy going, keep kids in the same schools, etc. The costs are not worth it if we're just feeding a new landlord class.
(12-28-2024, 12:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 11:36 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]But there's no good reason to do it. If we want houses to be more affordable, we have to build more of them. We have to increase the supply. Allowing people to build houses in order to rent them out incentivizes the building of more houses. Telling people they have to sell their rental properties at the end of every lease discourages the building of more houses. Your typical lease for a house is two years. You're telling me if I buy a house and lease it out I will have to sell it after two years? That would cause a depression in the housing market. Sure, houses would be more affordable for a while after that, but with new houses not being built, it wouldn't take long before the price of houses skyrockets because of a lack of supply.
I think you understand how a free market functions, but someone reading this thread would think you do not. You're making an Elizabeth Warren-level proposal.
If someone wants to buy or build a house and rent it out, and someone else wants to rent it from them, that is how a free market is supposed to work.
You're overthinking this.
As long as the landlord is fully covering his mortgage payment with the monthly rent, the landlord will end up selling the house for more than he bought it for. He will profit and he will want to do it again. This is called being successful in the real estate business.
If the landlord is not covering his costs with the rent payment, he was aggressively speculating and that's bad for the housing market. This is called being un successful in the real estate business as you paid more for the asset than you can recoup.
The policy really wouldn't change behavior that much, I don't think. Yes it would
We need to do something to make sure the market for housing isn't dominated by landlords. Why? They provide a service making housing available to the market. Repair and upgrade older housing and provide capital to build new.
Building more housing has costs in terms of traffic and displacing people. These costs are worth it if we end up with more people owning homes and having more disposable income to keep the economy going, keep kids in the same schools, etc. The costs are not worth it if we're just feeding a new landlord class.
The first bolded is how it should work in a free society. The rest just comments.
(12-28-2024, 12:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 11:36 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]But there's no good reason to do it. If we want houses to be more affordable, we have to build more of them. We have to increase the supply. Allowing people to build houses in order to rent them out incentivizes the building of more houses. Telling people they have to sell their rental properties at the end of every lease discourages the building of more houses. Your typical lease for a house is two years. You're telling me if I buy a house and lease it out I will have to sell it after two years? That would cause a depression in the housing market. Sure, houses would be more affordable for a while after that, but with new houses not being built, it wouldn't take long before the price of houses skyrockets because of a lack of supply.
I think you understand how a free market functions, but someone reading this thread would think you do not. You're making an Elizabeth Warren-level proposal.
If someone wants to buy or build a house and rent it out, and someone else wants to rent it from them, that is how a free market is supposed to work.
You're overthinking this.
As long as the landlord is fully covering his mortgage payment with the monthly rent, the landlord will end up selling the house for more than he bought it for. He will profit and he will want to do it again.
If the landlord is not covering his costs with the rent payment, he was aggressively speculating and that's bad for the housing market.
The policy really wouldn't change behavior that much, I don't think.
We need to do something to make sure the market for housing isn't dominated by landlords.
Building more housing has costs in terms of traffic and displacing people. These costs are worth it if we end up with more people owning homes and having more disposable income to keep the economy going, keep kids in the same schools, etc. The costs are not worth it if we're just feeding a new landlord class.
You really cannot believe what you're spouting here, it's got to be more engagement farming. "You must sell your property whether you want to or not or you won't be allowed to rent it out" might be the most tyrannical thing I've read here, and there've already been some doozies.
The bullets this country dodged are insane..
![[Image: SPygP.png]](https://s7.gifyu.com/images/SPygP.png)
These people are a disgrace to humanity..
Yeah I agree. There is no way you actually believe this Mike.
I’d think the way to achieve the desired outcome is via the tax code. Your first house you get a homestead exemption. A second is taxed at X%, a third property a higher tax rate ect. The goal is to get Blackrock out of the home rental business and get those rental homes on the market for home ownership.
(12-28-2024, 02:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I agree. There is no way you actually believe this Mike.
I’d think the way to achieve the desired outcome is via the tax code. Your first house you get a homestead exemption. A second is taxed at X%, a third property a higher tax rate ect. The goal is to get Blackrock out of the home rental business and get those rental homes on the market for home ownership.
Blackrock is not in the home rental business. Blackrock is an asset manager that, like other asset managers and millions of individual investors, invests in companies that build single family homes, apartment complexes, and other residential real estate. But they are not in the home rental business, and they do not buy homes.
Facts on BlackRock Buying Houses | BlackRock
We want to make perfectly clear: BlackRock is not buying individual houses in the U.S.
A number of other large asset managers and private equity firms are very active today in purchasing single-family residences. BlackRock is sometimes confused with them.
As a fiduciary asset manager, we invest and manage capital on behalf of our clients in a vast array of public and private U.S. real estate markets – but buying individual homes is not one of them.
Below are facts on how we DO participate in the U.S. real estate market. Combined, we are investing approximately $120 billion1 in the U.S. residential real estate market on behalf of our clients.
(12-28-2024, 02:56 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2024, 02:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I agree. There is no way you actually believe this Mike.
I’d think the way to achieve the desired outcome is via the tax code. Your first house you get a homestead exemption. A second is taxed at X%, a third property a higher tax rate ect. The goal is to get Blackrock out of the home rental business and get those rental homes on the market for home ownership.
Blackrock is not in the home rental business. Blackrock is an asset manager that, like other asset managers and millions of individual investors, invests in companies that build single family homes, apartment complexes, and other residential real estate. But they are not in the home rental business, and they do not buy homes.
Facts on BlackRock Buying Houses | BlackRock
We want to make perfectly clear: BlackRock is not buying individual houses in the U.S.
A number of other large asset managers and private equity firms are very active today in purchasing single-family residences. BlackRock is sometimes confused with them.
As a fiduciary asset manager, we invest and manage capital on behalf of our clients in a vast array of public and private U.S. real estate markets – but buying individual homes is not one of them.
Below are facts on how we DO participate in the U.S. real estate market. Combined, we are investing approximately $120 billion1 in the U.S. residential real estate market on behalf of our clients.
OK, fine, change the name Blackrock to the name of your choice. My point stands, corporations owning entire neighborhoods with the sole purpose of renting houses is a detriment to home ownership.
![[Image: cartoon122624.webp]](https://i.ibb.co/JFLcCnF/cartoon122624.webp)