![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted: America needs to look less like this: https://i.postimg.cc/6QRv7q3Y/IMG-5088.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/9MLFzHGL/IMG-5093.png https://i.postimg.cc/Jnrz1zBy/IMG-5095.jpg And more like this so we can efficiently pack in as many migrants as possible https://i.postimg.cc/x8jJFPP4/IMG-5092.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/85SrLGfD/IMG-5091.webp https://i.postimg.cc/DzdzkXmk/IMG-5098.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/q70kLvwm/IMG-5099.webp View Quote Somehow, somewhere, there’s a group of libertarians applauding this post. |
|
Quoted: Ok. Now check this out. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/219476/1000008164-3203851.png It goes way deeper than just 2008. Look at how many housing starts we had. What happened? View Quote ![]() |
|
Being tyrannized by corporatism and crony capitalism is no better than being tyrannized by government.
|
|
View Quote That's 2008 and on. Look at the 70's and 80's housing starts. We had a MUCH higher start per capita and then it.... stopped. What changed? |
|
|
View Quote How does birth control affect housing starts? |
|
Quoted: You mean no infrastructure improvements to cover the increased traffic, water, sewer, schools, etc? Those kinds of hurdles and red tape? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: One solution would be to let builders build the shit out of new homes. Lift the red tape, remove regulations and hurdles, provide tax incentives, and let builders flood the market with new homes. Make the single family home market an unattractive investment for wall street. You mean no infrastructure improvements to cover the increased traffic, water, sewer, schools, etc? Those kinds of hurdles and red tape? Great point! It would also create tons of new city jobs and contracts! As one Texas Republican state: “If government wants housing to be more affordable, it should stop making housing so unaffordable. Let the free market work.” |
|
|
What’s to prevent a company that owns 100,000 homes from just starting multiple companies with 999 homes each? I work with a guy that owns 6 rental properties and each property is an independent LLC.
|
|
Quoted: What’s to prevent a company that owns 100,000 homes from just starting multiple companies with 999 homes each? I work with a guy that owns 6 rental properties and each property is an independent LLC. View Quote They could put a 50% tax on every home purchase. That tax would then be waived through a Homestead Exemption. |
|
Quoted: Because the Fed bought $2.8 trillion in mortgage backed securities to create a housing frenzy, and artificially suppressed rates which encouraged people and businesses to make investment decisions that would have otherwise been unprofitable in a free market. https://i.postimg.cc/63mG7ZK2/IMG-5087.jpg View Quote So we agree: Government intervention bad, right? |
|
Quoted: America needs to look less like this: https://i.postimg.cc/6QRv7q3Y/IMG-5088.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/9MLFzHGL/IMG-5093.png https://i.postimg.cc/Jnrz1zBy/IMG-5095.jpg And more like this so we can efficiently pack in as many migrants as possible https://i.postimg.cc/x8jJFPP4/IMG-5092.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/85SrLGfD/IMG-5091.webp https://i.postimg.cc/DzdzkXmk/IMG-5098.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/q70kLvwm/IMG-5099.webp View Quote That's an impressive strawman you've built there... |
|
Quoted: This 100%. It is a slippery slope. I'm not saying you can't have rental properties or something but there has to be a balance between Joe Arfcommer with a handful of properties that creates some income/investment vs China and Blackrock buying up $400B worth of property and artificially fucking the market. View Quote |
|
Quoted: ..Because you don't need to build as many houses when people are having fewer children. Just live your strong, independent, girlboss era in an apartment https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5e1519de9318b80006937b04/960x0.jpg?fit=scale https://i.postimg.cc/7P1j3ndy/IMG-5104.png View Quote Fair point. I'll give you that as a partial cause for the lack of housing starts. A big part of the housing shortage right now is simply red tape. Things like Rent Control, Zoning and NIMBY's have made it far more expensive to not only buy, but simultaneously BUILD a house. When we're looking at addressing these problems it's important to remember that it's the GOVERMENT that's causing a lot of the issues. Rent control came about because A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY and demand skyrocketed. When demand goes up.... prices are going to go up. When New York introduced Rent Control to stop these "greedy" real estate tycoons the new supply simply stopped. Developers quit building new buildings because they couldn't charge appropriately. Every law the government passes has consequences beyond the initial problem and as we have seen time and time again it's basically always putting us in a worse position. TLDR we shouldn't pass more laws at the Federal level. Basically all the problems we have are from huge behemoth that we keep asking to govern us harder. Instead we should repeal laws that effectively stifle housing development. The Feds as everyone on this website loves to post, are retarded and will put us in a worse position. |
|
Quoted: Nothing helps government control something better than a handful of big corporations owning everything compared to millions of individuals. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In this case, the big investment banks and other entities have been manipulating the market. They also have been colluding and price setting the rental market also. Plenty of evidence behind this If you own land in Hawaii, you can sell it, you aren't a giant corp As a private homeowner. Don't try to control the sale of my land. Simple. I can't think of a single thing the government has gotten involved with that has been successful or done anything for the average citizen Nothing helps government control something better than a handful of big corporations owning everything compared to millions of individuals. Nothing helps big corporations consolidate ownership more than laws that give more regulatory power to government officials that the deep pocketed corporations influence to eliminate smaller competitors. |
|
Quoted: This 100%. It is a slippery slope. I'm not saying you can't have rental properties or something but there has to be a balance between Joe Arfcommer with a handful of properties that creates some income/investment vs China and Blackrock buying up $400B worth of property and artificially fucking the market. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good. I'm glad the government is getting involved in free Commerce. I shouldn't be able to sell land I own in Hawaii either I'm glad the government solved that problem In this case, the big investment banks and other entities have been manipulating the market. They also have been colluding and price setting the rental market also. Plenty of evidence behind this If you own land in Hawaii, you can sell it, you aren't a giant corp It is a slippery slope. I'm not saying you can't have rental properties or something but there has to be a balance between Joe Arfcommer with a handful of properties that creates some income/investment vs China and Blackrock buying up $400B worth of property and artificially fucking the market. Joe Arfcommer can rent out his home after he's lived in it. If the only fix is to stop all investors, big or small, then so be it. |
|
|
Quoted: So we agree: Government intervention bad, right? View Quote Naturally, you now have a counter reaction where the people on the wrong side of that equation now want intervention that at least has the stated attempt of bringing things back to normalcy. I think the solution is allowing free market interest rates to blood-let all the corporations and individuals that overextended themselves buying up assets like housing and stocks. I don't follow much of what you say, but from what I've seen you seem to be exclusively mad at the people complaining about high housing costs, but silent when it comes to the people that were gloating about their exploding stock portfolio's and housing values that was the result of the Fed's welfare. I don't think we have the same level of disdain for all forms of government intervention |
|
Quoted: Fair point. I'll give you that as a partial cause for the lack of housing starts. A big part of the housing shortage right now is simply red tape. Things like Rent Control, Zoning and NIMBY's have made it far more expensive to not only buy, but simultaneously BUILD a house. When we're looking at addressing these problems it's important to remember that it's the GOVERMENT that's causing a lot of the issues. Rent control came about because A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY and demand skyrocketed. When demand goes up.... prices are going to go up. When New York introduced Rent Control to stop these "greedy" real estate tycoons the new supply simply stopped. Developers quit building new buildings because they couldn't charge appropriately. Every law the government passes has consequences beyond the initial problem and as we have seen time and time again it's basically always putting us in a worse position. TLDR we shouldn't pass more laws at the Federal level. Basically all the problems we have are from huge behemoth that we keep asking to govern us harder. Instead we should repeal laws that effectively stifle housing development. The Feds as everyone on this website loves to post, are retarded and will put us in a worse position. View Quote |
|
Good.
As usual 20% of arfcom willing swallows every drop of the corporate bukkake to their own detriment. |
|
As long as congress critters are heavily invested in the funds that are doing the buying, this will never pass. It's all just election year pandering to the ignorant masses ... er I mean the uneducated low information voters
... aka dumbocrats. |
|
The housing market is manipulated by the government to create a fake wealth effect. The wealth effect (an actual thing) causes consumers to feel wealthy (generally wealthier than they really are) and spend more.
Corporations buying houses keeps prices higher making (mostly) baby boomers feel wealthier and the economy rolling along. Now Democrats want to destroy that, perhaps inflated, wealth. I think there will be adverse consequences besides just the anti-freedom aspects of that. They think forced divestiture will lower prices. Like magically current renters of those houses will become buyers. Like a price collapse will "work"? The word "work" will need to be redefined. We need more houses and it's mostly government standing in the way. |
|
Quoted: Antitrust laws hasn’t been good for the average citizen? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: As a private homeowner. Don't try to control the sale of my land. Simple. I can't think of a single thing the government has gotten involved with that has been successful or done anything for the average citizen Antitrust laws hasn’t been good for the average citizen? Thomas Sowell has commented on this quite a bit. Antitrust laws were supposed to protect us against high prices but are nearly always used to target the lowest priced player in a particular market. |
|
Quoted: Government intervention caused it. A lot of people benefited from that government intervention and were silent/gloating as they watched the results of said intervention unfold. Naturally, you now have a counter reaction where the people on the wrong side of that equation now want intervention that at least has the stated attempt of bringing things back to normalcy. I think the solution is allowing free market interest rates to blood-let all the corporations and individuals that overextended themselves buying up assets like housing and stocks. I don't follow much of what you say, but from what I've seen you seem to be exclusively mad at the people complaining about high housing costs, but silent when it comes to the people that were gloating about their exploding stock portfolio's and housing values that was the result of the Fed's welfare. I don't think we have the same level of disdain for all forms of government intervention View Quote You're right - there is government intervention on the other side that benefits us also, although you could kind of make a point that the Federal Reserve isn't a government agency. Kind of a weak argument, I know... My biggest issue is merely with the people who are clamoring for government to "do something" when you can almost be certain to guarantee that it will not have the desired effect. Rather than taking a step back and thinking "How might this come back to bit me in the ass?", they are going full speed ahead with poorly thought-out ideas. Worse yet: Some of them are even advocating to punitive taxes on things they don't like. It is this public outcry will enable/embolden government to enact short sighted solutions that get foisted on everyone. |
|
Quoted: What’s to prevent a company that owns 100,000 homes from just starting multiple companies with 999 homes each? I work with a guy that owns 6 rental properties and each property is an independent LLC. View Quote The Corporate Transparency Act. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/Corporate_Transparency_Act.pdf |
|
Quoted: Unfortunately they are going to figure out how to fuck it up View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: There hearts are in the right place but it's government so they will fuck us. Unfortunately they are going to figure out how to fuck it up It will like banks in 2008, plenty of inventory and housing upkeep jobs will grow or the Gov will try and convert to low income housing. |
|
|
|
Quoted: This. What we have is Crony Capitalism or Corporate Fascism depending on how you want to look at it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
A Republican who wants to raise taxed on corporations because “it is not fair” isn’t a Republican. His grandkids must be looking for a house. Otherwise he wouldn’t care about corporations doing corporation things like they have done for 30 years or more.
Quoted: Wall Street Has Spent Billions Buying Homes. A Crackdown Is Looming. Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House have sponsored legislation that would force large owners of single-family homes to sell houses to family buyers. A Republican’s bill in the Ohio state legislature aims to drive out institutional owners through heavy taxation. Lawmakers in Nebraska, California, New York, Minnesota and North Carolina are among those proposing similar laws. While homeowner associations for years have sought to stop investors from buying and renting out houses in their neighborhoods, the legislative proposals represent a new effort by elected officials to regulate Wall Street’s appetite for single-family homes. These lawmakers say that investors that have scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are contributing to the dearth of homes for sale and driving up home prices. They argue that investor buying has made it harder for first-time buyers to compete with Wall Street-backed investment firms and their all-cash offers. Investors of all sizes spent billions of dollars buying homes during the pandemic. At the 2022 peak, they bought more than one in every four single-family homes sold, though more recently their activity has slowed as interest rates rose and supply became tighter. Two of the largest home-buying firms, Invitation Homes and AMH, are publicly traded companies, while a number of other companies, backed by private equity, hold portfolios of tens of thousands of homes nationwide. Companies that buy single-family homes say their businesses provide renters the opportunity to live in desirable neighborhoods where they otherwise couldn’t afford to buy. With home prices and rents near record highs around the U.S., legislators and officials at all levels of government have become more active on housing issues. States have passed new measures to fund more affordable housing, to allow builders to bypass local zoning laws and to make the eviction process more favorable to tenants. Most calls to block large companies from snapping up homes come from liberals, but some conservatives also show an inclination to crack down. This “corporate large-scale buying of residential homes seems to be distorting the market and making it harder for the average Texan to purchase a home,” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott wrote on X last month. “This must be added to the legislative agenda to protect Texas families.” Close to equal numbers of voting-age Republicans and Democrats said they would support a measure to block Wall Street firms from buying homes, according to a new study funded by the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. The study gauged opinion from 5,000 renters and homeowners in urban and suburban ZIP Codes. Proposals to curb investors might be popular with voters, but so far they haven’t gained much traction in legislatures. None of the bills in Congress or in any of the state houses has reached a floor vote. Advocates for the single-family rental industry, such as the National Rental Home Council, oppose such legislation and blame rising prices on an undersupply of new-construction homes. They also point to the relatively low number of homes owned by institutional investors, defined as those companies with portfolios of 1,000 homes or more. Some research estimates these companies own 3% to 5% of American rental homes. In some American cities, institutional investors hold a much larger share of homes than they hold nationally. In Atlanta, nearly 11% of all rental homes in the five-county area are now owned by three real-estate companies, a recent study by researchers at Georgia State University found. A 2022 analysis by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said 21% of Atlanta rental homes were owned by some large institution. Rep. Nikema Williams (D., Ga.), from the Atlanta area, in December co-sponsored the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act in the U.S. House. The act “won’t solve all of the problems, but it will definitely make an impact,” she said in an interview. Critics of regulation note that many of the largest investors have bought very few or no homes in the past year. “The great trade is done,” said John Burns, founder of the eponymous housing research and consulting firm. “So what are you trying to stop?” Smaller investors that own between 10 and 99 homes have stepped up their share of home buying this year, Burns said. Some of the proposed legislation would also target these smaller investors. The bills in the House and Senate would cap rental-home ownership at no more than 50 homes for many companies, requiring them to sell off any more they already own. A bill in Minnesota, meanwhile, would limit ownership to 20 homes. Bills to block landlords in the Ohio and Nebraska state legislatures were written in response to a small number of investors buying up hundreds of homes in a handful of Cincinnati and Omaha neighborhoods. Louis Blessing III, a Republican representing suburbs of Cincinnati in the Ohio Senate, introduced a bill to tax large landlords so heavily that they would likely feel compelled to sell their properties. Blessing said he is concerned about real-estate companies developing monopoly power in some neighborhoods, while putting starter homes further out of reach for home buyers. “It’s an antitrust in spirit bill,” he said. View Quote |
|
Let’s cause cognitive dissonance in GD.
A lot of those corporations are also foreign owned. Should foreigners own land and homes in America while Americans can’t afford to? What about Chinese corporations? A common practice is for a Chinese millionaire to buy a home in a part of the US and send their child to live there while going to college. Or is the Government meddling in this big bad? |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.