Investors, meaning they will want return, meaning get ready to pay more. This might be an unpopular opinion, but housing should be limited to 1 ownership per person and managed by governments.
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
324 points (99.4% liked)
News
32702 readers
2885 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
managed by governments.
Money's paw, seeing the current US government: "Really? Easiest one ever."
finger curls
Any idea will turn to shit if you let republicans and other conservatives near it. They're the worst people.
They do manage section 8 housing, not sure how effectively.
Pretty effectively to be honest. For a largely underfunded program. Mileage will vary with some managers.
Even if you limit to one house per person you’ll still get housing as an investment. A house in Malibu is worth way more than a house in Arkansas.
With a single house per family it would still mean they'd actually live there
Yes but they could also rent out extra rooms. Every Airbnb I’ve stayed at has the owners living there.
Surely there will be no consequences to these events!
Look to Australia, there is possibly no more fucked up housing market thats celebrated as a good thing by its mortgage and rent slaves..
Canada.
Yeah. The job market is abyssmal, the wages are shit and the house prices are stratospheric.
Don't worry, AI will solve all those problems, and more!... by crashing all the markets and forcing governments to actually deal with their problems. While everyone else suffers the fallout of an economic collapse like nobody's ever seen before, same as the last 4 times.
No way?! You don't say. I wonder if that's why housing prices have skyrocketed as "people" bought and sold properties like a commodities exchange?
They want your shelter, your air, your warmth and your food, then comes the boot on the throat.
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
Solution: A tax on residential property that isn't someone's primary residence for more than half of the year, that scales up exponentially with the number of such properties the owner owns, regardless of whether the owner is an individual or a corporation.
Take the money this generates and put it towards helping the homeless and low-income families.
Make it cheaper to put someone - anyone - in a home (even for free) than to keep it unoccupied.
I don't think this will work simply. Probably, they'd just have a individualized RIT (Real estate Investment Trust) for each house, and then have investors buy shares (up to 100%) of the individualized RITs or a "master RIT" that doesn't own any property directly, but just all the shares of the indivudalized RITs that aren't sold to an investor.
Disclaimer: I do make the problem slightly worse buy investing through https://arrived.com/ (Slightly because I don't have that much money to invest, and only a portion of it is invested there.)
Seems like the sort of loophole that, once identified, would be pretty easy to close if the legislators actually desired to do so.
Yeah, I'm all for more legislation and regulation to try to address this issue, it just won't be quite as simple as the comment I replied to.
Also, I think landlords should support such legislation, because the alternative I see is violence toward landlords (which I don't [yet] advocate).
personally, I'm just raiding this everything bubble for all the $ I can get my hands on, in the hopes I can get enough capital to start throwing down massive high-density high-quality affordable housing projects for sale to long-time local renters/first time home buyers exclusively.
i have a theory about crashing localized housing markets via over-supply I want to test out. my hypothesis is that the parasitic renter-speculators, who probably took out loans or otherwise leveraged themselves to throw $ into the casino we call the stock/futes market, should end up distressed when they no longer have renters/are forced to lower rents due to competition.
at which point I step in, buy their properties for cheap, then throw down more high-density, high-quality, affordable housing for local residents.
That scale should be very steep. I've always advocated for a limit around 3 independent homes. That gives you a primary, a vacation home and a potential rental. Beyond that, you would need to operate as a business.
And even that would be limited to something like 5, across all related businesses, no loophole by creating a ton of shell companies under a parent company to operate them. You want to be a larger scale landlord? You're doing that with higher density apartments, not single family homes. Single family homes should be owned by families. Not hedge funds.
Likewise, empty residences should be taxed higher as well. None of this bullshit where there are a bunch of empty places operating as capital holdings for big business. Sometimes even intentionally creating housing scarcity in large cities to jack up rental prices across the board. Your rental isn't going at the price you want? You're priced too high, lower the price until they do. If that rental is fit for habitation, and unfilled after say a year on the market, then it gets taxed at an extremely high rate.
Disincentivize businesses sitting on housing as a means of cash storage with no intention of it being used.
I would be much more aggressive. Any home or residentially zoned property that isn’t someone’s primary residence is either surrendered, sold, or taxed at 100% of the property value per year. That would include high density housing. Homes should be owned by their occupants, not abused by the rich to exploit the poor. Landlords need to be abolished with intense prejudice. Corporate landlords, independent landlords, it doesn’t matter. Real estate as a lease or rental investment is unethical in the extreme and should not be tolerated by society.
Agreed. Even Adam Smith decried rent-seeking behavior as the bane of Capitalism. Abolish landlords, encourage more co-op housing, and renting rooms from your primary residence out, with just enough association / State provided housing to fill in the gaps.
You seem to forget that some people actually prefer to rent than own. I know people who have sold their houses and moved into apartments because they were sick of the hassle, risk, and expense of home ownership.
What's your solution for folks who need short-term housing (for example someone relocating for work for a year, or someone going to college who doesn't want to stay in dorms)?
State owned communities work in some places. It's an option.
Canada has a good chunk of this law in place, but it doesn't cover all owners you're listing.
Underused Housing Tax:
The Underused Housing Tax (UHT) is an annual federal 1% tax on the ownership of vacant or underused housing in Canada that took effect on January 1, 2022. The UHT generally applies to foreign national owners of housing in Canada. However, in some situations, the UHT also applies to some Canadian owners (such as certain partners, trustees, and corporations).
Its got some big carve-outs, but its still better than we have in the States. One big carve-out is that publicly traded Canadian corporations are exempt. However, private corporations are subject to it. So its better than nothing.
One big carve-out is that publicly traded Canadian corporations are exempt.
Of course they are. Gotta keep the sHaReHoLdErS happy 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I like this idea. It would be good if two was a very slight increase because of buying and then having to sell. Also long ago having a vacation home was something obtainable by relatively common folk. Would like to see that again but wealth disparity would have to come way down for that to happen.
In my magical Christmasland hypothetical scenario, it would be something like $10 ^ [number of qualifying properties] per year, for each property.
Mom and pop have a vacation home, or a property on the market? $10 / year. No problem. Got 5 vacant homes? That'll be an extra $500,000 per year. Get a tenant or sell.
Would need some sort of limit such that the tax ceased when homelessness reached, say, 0.01% of the population or less, because right now there's about 26 vacant homes in the US per homeless person; the point is to reduce homelessness, not to bankrupt everyone, of course.
Nah, keep it going even when homelessness is low. If you own three vacant properties, you're paying 3,000 a year. It would be cheaper to give one of your homes away to a poor person who only has one, so they get to have a vacation home too. The poor person only has to pay 10 dollars a year.
Real estate taxes are usually done at the town level.
Who gets the money? Where does it go to?
I'm on board...don't get me wrong...but I think shouldn't be prohibitively expensive for the upper middle class to have a cabin in the woods or some such.
I think it should also have a bit to do with the market of the area where the home(s) are located.
If the market is hot because people want to live there, then yeah, they shouldn't be letting it sit vacant, and shouldn't be making a living off landlording (supplemental income I could forgive...there needs to be private leasing of homes/apartments at some level...not every body wants or needs to buy a house, and the alternative would be corporate landlords which brings us right back to square one).
But if you've got a cabin in BFE Utah? Go you. Get out of here and enjoy some quiet time.
The cabin thing can be fixed by proper zoning and regulations. Zone for "recreational use", meaning it can't be your primary residence (totaling an absolute maximum usage of, say, 6 months out of the calendar year). Enforce it with regulations and regular audits for such things as propane/electricity, mail activity (some have mail service), and maybe even vehicle permit activity.
This could grant lower taxes than the hypothetical you replied to, but proof of compliance would be required. Wealthy people should be able to facilitate that without a problem.
Get a third property? Tax it heavily. Register it to an LLC? Tax it heavily. No residence should ever be under an LLC, that is an obvious tax loophole that needs to be closed up. Trusts need to be audited as well.
Fourth property? 100% tax. End of the story, no loopholes, no exceptions, no further questions your honor.
Since I'm on this tangent, the same should apply to cars. Work vehicles should be subject to far higher scrutiny as far as compliance goes, and no, Kyle, your brand new Dodge 3500 on 22" wheels and 12" lift with pristine bedliner and a shitty smoke tune does not count as a work vehicle just because you haphazardly slapped a shitty magnetic company logo on the door.
Since I’m on this tangent, the same should apply to cars. Work vehicles should be subject to far higher scrutiny as far as compliance goes, and no, Kyle, your brand new Dodge 3500 on 22" wheels and 12" lift with pristine bedliner and a shitty smoke tune does not count as a work vehicle just because you haphazardly slapped a shitty magnetic company logo on the door.
This is funny because in my country we actually have a system that you can use your company car for personal use only if you pay an extra tax, based on the power rating. This makes for two sorts of people who use company cars for personal usage: Those who get small economical company cars so the tax is as low as possible... And those whose Lamborghini Urus is registered for company use only (Yeah right, I saw you use it on a fucking Saturday).
Technically the tax authority should occasionally investigate these, but unless you really stick out, they don't have the bandwidth.
I assume it would be the same in the US: Those who want big powerful trucks for personal use with less tax paid, will just lie. All you have to do is make up stories about your miles. IRS don't have time to check.
What could actually be done? Just tax all cars, company car or not, based on weight. Oh there will be a LOT of whining. But heavy trucks do more damage to the roads, and it's not linear or even quadratic. And just allow personal usage, because it's difficult to enforce rules about that. People would be less incentivized to get heavy work trucks. Fuck it, get a luxury car for your company car, at least that is way less dangerous to pedestrians + way less wear to the roads compared to a truck.
You completely ignored the public housing approach. Did you realize that? It kinda undercuts the second half of your comment.
I absolutely would not want this government in charge of my housing.
Adequate public housing as part of this would be a pipe dream that would require a completely different form of governance. Otherwise it will be used to contro; and it would probably be means tested, resulting in another welfare cliff for people to be scared of.
Have you seen current housing projects?
I'd rather there be guaranteed minimum housing. Essentially hostels on transit routes where there's a bed, showers, a locker, etc. No means testing. At most, require an ID so it's at least known who is inside. Not glamorous, but not sleeping on the street.
Well, that's going exactly according to their plan.
Put the squeeze on working people, then those with ready cash can buy them out cheap.
In this country money WINS and people LOSE. Where have you been?
Trying to live in America's most populous state, Denial.
Three things would be great for this.
- Residential property can only be owned by individuals or a family. No businesses, LLCs, or loopholes.
- Insane tax on any additional houses that makes renting not profitable and owning not feasible. Tax scales exponentially with additional properties.
- Must be an domestic citizen to own property.
I'd be okay with slightly elevated taxes on one additional property. There's room for some luxuries and if the rest of the above happened, there would be plenty of houses available for purchase to those interested and pricing would normalize. There needs to be something carved out for multi family homes or whatever for rent options.
This prevents refugees from owning their own home
I don’t think you need to worry about the refugees anymore my friend there are deporting them, while you guys imagine a world where housing prices are dropped due to popular reform…? Sounds nice, but I don’t know if you’re gonna be able to sell it to the homeowners.
They're not deporting all the refugees, that kind of thing only happens in America
First off, the article is about US home sales. And yes there’s no anti-immigration policies or politicians in Europe and Asia, sure bud 🤣
to the surprise of … nobody.
sighs...system working exactly as intended
The economy would collapse if housing stopped being a commodity.
The economy collapsing would be a symptom of housing being an unaffordable commodity. It's all connected. Our entire government is meant to sell everything under it from the bottom-up. It's just doing its job.
As for a collapse, they'll cook the numbers forever and hold the entire system up on life support if it means burning poor children as fuel to do it, they'll make sure it happens. It's the world we live in. Cheers.
God I wish. That kind of economy is not valuable for the general public, and to hell with the real estate speculators and absentee landlords.