Should big corporations be allowed to buy single family homes

[IGotWorms 3,315]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Sure, but apparently they've slowed down recently, as I correctly predicted.   Will be interesting to see if they unload any of them if the market drops significantly like @edjr keeps wishing for.

That’ll tank the whole market. This is precisely one of the reasons why home ownership should not be concentrated in the hands of a few.

But corporations are people too, so there’s nothing we can do about it

[jonmx 1,591]

53 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Not according to the US Supreme Court. They are “people” with constitutional rights just like you and I

That is not exactly what the ruling says.  That is a popular mischaracterization.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,650]

39 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’ll tank the whole market. This is precisely one of the reasons why home ownership should not be concentrated in the hands of a few.

But corporations are people too, so there’s nothing we can do about it

That’s your boy Mitt talking. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

23 minutes ago, jonmx said:

That is not exactly what the ruling says.  That is a popular mischaracterization.

False

[TimHauck 1,800]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

That’ll tank the whole market. This is precisely one of the reasons why home ownership should not be concentrated in the hands of a few.

I don't think so, that was kinda the point of my bump.  While they're making up a larger percentage of recent sales, they still own a small percentage of the total houses.  So unless no one else sells, then they shouldn't have much impact on the total market.  And I'd imagine if they do they wouldn't start unloading them until after the market has already tanked.

[jonmx 1,591]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

False

I understand you get educated by watching the media, but really that is one of thousands of pieces of propaganda they feed you which is not true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#:~:text=The Citizens United majority opinion,or an association of people.

The Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather argues that political speech rights do not depend on the identity of the speaker, which could be a person or an association of people.

 

You are welcome. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

25 minutes ago, jonmx said:

I understand you get educated by watching the media, but really that is one of thousands of pieces of propaganda they feed you which is not true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#:~:text=The Citizens United majority opinion,or an association of people.

The Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather argues that political speech rights do not depend on the identity of the speaker, which could be a person or an association of people.

 

You are welcome. 

That makes no sense. The unspoken foundation of the decision is that corporations have first amendment rights — otherwise there is no way that citizen United’s rights could have been infringed upon

[jonmx 1,591]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

That makes no sense. The unspoken foundation of the decision is that corporations have first amendment rights — otherwise there is no way that citizen United’s rights could have been infringed upon

It is not the corporation which has free speech, but the individuals who pooled their money together for the sole purpose of providing a message who have free speech.  Citizens United was not speech on behalf of a corporate interest, but was a tool for individuals to speak through.  The simple fact that they were using a corporation, does not remove their right to be heard.  

If you really advocate for and support free speech, you would get it.   If this were IBM, it would have lost, assuming the law was written correctly.  But McCain-Fiengold was written too broadly and encroached upon free speech.   The ruling protected lobby groups,  not for-profit corporations.  

[IGotWorms 3,315]

15 minutes ago, jonmx said:

It is not the corporation which has free speech, but the individuals who pooled their money together for the sole purpose of providing a message who have free speech.  Citizens United was not speech on behalf of a corporate interest, but was a tool for individuals to speak through.  The simple fact that they were using a corporation, does not remove their right to be heard.  

If you really advocate for and support free speech, you would get it.   If this were IBM, it would have lost, assuming the law was written correctly.  But McCain-Fiengold was written too broadly and encroached upon free speech.   The ruling protected lobby groups,  not for-profit corporations.  

That’s simply false. How else do you think Super PACs became a thing?

[jonmx 1,591]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s simply false. How else do you think Super PACs became a thing?

If the legislature understood the ruling, they could prohibit corporations from contributing to super pacs.  They just don't understand they can.  

The reason Citizens United won is because they were making protected political speech on behalf of individuals who have 1st Admendment rights.  Corporate interests do not possess such rights.   

[Mark Davis 169]

6 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Did you read my post or watch the video?  None of this is in disagreement with it.  It’s a concern, but it’s not a large share of the overall market.

The video cites that about 25% of purchases in recent years have been made by investors. But half of those are from mom and pop investors that own between 3 and 9 properties.   Only 9% of that 25% (2% of total purchases) are by institutions with over 1,000 properties.

This has been my experience.  I know several people who are incorporated or have closely held partnerships that own just a couple or a few rentals.  It's a great way to build wealth for individuals who can tolerate the occasional bad tenant.  I own a handful of rentals, two of which are single family homes.  When you get a tenant who trashes your place that you have to evict, it can set you back quite a bit.  I'm going to be under water this year on my two single family homes just because I got some druggie in there who destroyed my walls, changed all my locks, apparently angered someone so bad they kicked the front door in and broke the framing, etc.

[easilyscan 559]

On 12/29/2022 at 5:01 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Blackrock has or controls 90 trillion in assets. That’s power. 

Once you add future unfunded liabilities for SS & Medicare, that's only slightly less than US debt. 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Only people who are citizens of a country should be able to buy property in said country. No exceptions.

[Ron_Artest 681]

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) teamed up to introduce the bicameral End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023. This legislation responds directly and forcefully to a persistent and growing problem — What Happens When Wall Street Buys Most of the Homes on Your Block? The purchasing of single-family homes by hedge funds, especially in the current housing market, has made it more difficult for middle-class Americans to become homeowners and is contributing to America’s twin crises of housing unaffordability and wealth inequality.
 

Looks like something we can all agree on.

[seafoam1 1,879]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) teamed up to introduce the bicameral End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023. This legislation responds directly and forcefully to a persistent and growing problem — What Happens When Wall Street Buys Most of the Homes on Your Block? The purchasing of single-family homes by hedge funds, especially in the current housing market, has made it more difficult for middle-class Americans to become homeowners and is contributing to America’s twin crises of housing unaffordability and wealth inequality.
 

Looks like something we can all agree on.

In biden's amazing economy how is anything not affordable to middle class Americans? 

Hey, Trump's gone, all is going great!!! Right?

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

If you're ok with this you're not a real conservative, you're a rino 100%

[TimHauck 1,800]

7 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

If you're ok with this you're not a real conservative, you're a rino 100%

Conservatives want more regulation now? Interesting

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Conservatives want more regulation now? Interesting

Always have stupid 

[TimHauck 1,800]

On 12/13/2023 at 8:21 AM, iam90sbaby said:

Always have stupid 

No

[seafoam1 1,879]

On 12/10/2023 at 2:13 PM, IGotWorms said:

That’ll tank the whole market. This is precisely one of the reasons why home ownership should not be concentrated in the hands of a few.

But corporations are people too, so there’s nothing we can do about it

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

No

You don't think social conservatives want more regulations?

[TimHauck 1,800]

22 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

You don't think social conservatives want more regulations?

No

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

31 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

No

Lol

[TimHauck 1,800]

31 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Lol

Literally the first sentence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

In the United States, conservatism is based on a belief in limited government,

[lickin_starfish 1,481]

Considering that these mega-corporations control the government, more regulations on them are like more restraints on the government.

[TimHauck 1,800]

4 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

Considering that these mega-corporations control the government, more regulations on them are like more restraints on the government.

Uh, no 

[jonmx 1,591]

16 hours ago, lickin_starfish said:

Considering that these mega-corporations control the government, more regulations on them are like more restraints on the government.

They are definitely on the same team.  The want to own and control everything at the expense of the individuals.  This is a very methodical plan to circumvent and destroy the Constitution and return the world to serfdom.  The once great American experiment which brought some sense of freedom to the world is coming to an end.  Every one of our bill of rights has been greatly diminished in the last decades. 

- The free press is an illusion, mostly just parrots for the establishment. Independant voices are being targetted and silenced through censorship and federal raids criminalizing their reporting.

- Individual free speech is routinely suppressed by mega corporations at the direction of the feds.

- Privacy has been completely breached by technology. 

- The war on the 2nd Amendment is in full swing, although efforts in this area have been slow

- The right to assemble and protest is being criminalized for groups outside of the establishment's agenda.

- Local authorities are under attack with the desire to empower the feds to control them. 

- private ownership is under assault from these massive corporations.  

- the traditional family unit which supported an independant existence is under full assault to be broken up and replaced by individuals most of whom will have dependencies of the federal government.

Yeah, big government-corporate masters the bootlickers cheer. 

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

23 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Literally the first sentence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

In the United States, conservatism is based on a belief in limited government,

Dude, all that means is we don't believe in government having massive budgets and Alphabet mafias.  The only way you can "conserve" anything socially is by having laws and regulations.  I'm socially conservative and fiscally liberal, I could give a fock what the tax rate is my bills get paid either way. What bothers me is you lefties and your rampant social degeneracy. Now go put your metal helmet back on. 

[MDC 5,891]

On 12/13/2023 at 6:35 AM, Ron_Artest said:

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) teamed up to introduce the bicameral End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023. This legislation responds directly and forcefully to a persistent and growing problem — What Happens When Wall Street Buys Most of the Homes on Your Block? The purchasing of single-family homes by hedge funds, especially in the current housing market, has made it more difficult for middle-class Americans to become homeowners and is contributing to America’s twin crises of housing unaffordability and wealth inequality.
 

Looks like something we can all agree on.

A great idea and exactly the sort of thing Congress should be doing. Doesn’t have a prayer of passing and Geeks will ignore this and start another tranny thread instead.  

[League Champion 1,593]

13 minutes ago, MDC said:

Geeks will ignore this and start another tranny thread instead.  

More homes mean more places for Liberals to have Butt Sex