Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
What if we make it illegal to own more than 2 residential properties. Yes, 2. Why 2? Because it won't pull votes away from assholes with a summer house.
AND let's make it illegal for corporate entities to own livable units, and force them to sell via eminent domain within 180 days.
Don't make it illegal. Make it unprofitable.
Increasing taxes per property owned.
On 3+ extra taxes and huge fine if not rented for more than 3 months of the year.
We have an issue with comapnies and foreigners apparently buying property in cities then leaving them empty. Tax them HARD.
Much more likely to pass a plan like that then just making things illegal.
so just to be clear, does this mean two apartment properties, two buildings, or two units?
I'd say two thingies that can fit a single household each. So no, a hotel or an apartment complex wouldn't count.
In some areas there's nothing but plexes available. I'd say one plex=one property. Even if it has multiple units.
Then these shouldn't be privately owned as a whole, wasn't it the OP's point?
There is some advantages to renting sometimes. I don't think all properties should be for ownership only.
If you have to stay somewhere temporarily for a few years and intend on eventually moving, maybe you don't want to go through all the hassle of buying a property. Renting is a simpler solution.
Or if you don't want to be responsible for your residence, its maintenance, fees, taxes, etc. and rather let someone else take care of it, you can rent and let the landlord take care of everything.
Of course, capitalism and greed completely fucked up the whole system. Without strong regulation, there's going to be abuses by anyone driven by greed.
Not all landlords are rat bastards. Some actually do care about their tenants and their well being and comfort. Just as there are tenants who just wreck everything in their residence and make a living hell for their neighbors and landlord.
I've been on both sides. I rented for nearly 10 years and had to deal with an asshole landlord at the beginning. The new landlord kept my rent the same for 8 years because she didn't want to lose me since I was a good tenant who took care of my home. When my girlfriend and I finally moved in together, she kept her condi and decided to rent it in case our relationship didn't work out after moving in together. And she's had some awful tenants who destroyed her place. Right now she has good tenants and we're doing our best to provide them a comfortable living space while being fair. We're not looking to make profit off the tenants. Hell she's even renting lower than what it actually costs to keep the place! Losing a couple of thousands per year on taxes and condo fees and replacing furniture when it breaks.
But, I gotta say, the rental market is plagued with greedy sociopaths and it's hard to feel any sympathy towards any landlord.
You can still live on a property you don't own without having a landlord. Housing cooperatives are a collective ownership of the property where you elect a property management board from the residents and pay a membership due for living there. There is no profit or excessive rent because it's all money that belongs to you collectively.
The politicians to make such a law probably have at least 3 residential properties. One regular home in their state, one close their job in Washington and one for recreation.
Anyway it wouldn't solve the issue. It would likely just create an illegal market.
Like that time John McCain couldn't remember how many houses he owned...
That was fun.
The one in Washington DC is rented and paid for by taxpayers. It's part of the perks of being a politician.
Are you sure about that? If that's true, it's very new:
Under the new system, lawmakers can get reimbursed for hotel stays as well as utilities and insurance for property rented or owned in the capital. Members who bought property will not be able to claim reimbursement for principal or interest on their mortgage, but rental costs will be eligible to claim. The daily rate is capped at between $172 and $258, depending on the month.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/07/house-finalizes-expenses-plan-00090806
Lol so he just set a bar that property managers will meet every year. 5% is crazy because that's far outside what the average person sees in wage increases. Cap it at 2% or less if you want to help. And pass a federal renters bill of rights. And create a Poland esq public housing program so government can actually act as a counter balance to the private market.
Biden and gifts to corporations wrapped as progressive policy.
Name a more iconic duo.
Bjden and not stepping down?
R's will kill this and continue to blame D's for high rent prices. same as they did with gas. same as they did with the border. republican voters are just that fucking dumb
Sounds like a good reason to get to the polls and cancel out as many of their votes as possible
It is something good but he will need to get more aggressive than that to fix issues with rent/housing.
Housing is so fucked it literally cannot be fixed just by the president, any president. We need laws, we need zoning, we need judicial protections for renters, we need private companies increasing supply... But yes: we also need this cap on rent increases. It's a start!
Boy, it's a real pity you didn't do this before 2023.
That said, if they manage to craft legislation, the Supremes will torpedo it in a hot minute, as soon as the cheque clears or the RV is delivered.
Give us an annual 5% pay raise then. wtf?
Burying the lede:
But the plan would require solid Democratic control of Congress to become law.
That's going to apply to pretty much any good legislation for the foreseeable future. The GOP isnt interested in governing whatsoever. People need to understand that if they want shit to even have a chance of getting done they're gonna have to vote (at a minimum).
Yup. The “O” in GOP stands for “Obstruct”. The GOP has been focused on breaking the government from the inside, so they can then point at it and say nothing works and it should all be privatized instead.
And if we have it...
Biden will once again make an announcement that as defacto party leader there's no way he can change anyone's mind and we're idiots for expecting him to try
Ah yes a half assed solution
If you really want a one-liner like this just tax empty units with some function (exponential, linear, logarithmic, whatever you want) with the listing price.
And of course you'd need stuff regulating what is an empty unit and punishing misreporting, only allowing leases at that price, etc. But it's simple as an idea.
This is just a soft rent control which isn’t going to increase the supply of housing.
We don’t need this, we need to tax the fuck out of secondary residences and short term rentals.
This will be one of his first changes to get reversed if he’s replaced by Trump.
There's nothing to reverse, he's just called for Congress to pass a law doing this
And arguably there won't be anything to reverse in the future. Even attempting this, it'd be blocked by the republican controlled house.
The sentiment is nice though. My worry is they knows it's only sentiment, cause they know it would never pass. I'm cynical.
True. But I’ll take words over nothing. At least it’s some acknowledgment that some thing ought to be done.
How about set that cap at 1/4 average monthly wages for a state or county or even a city.
That wouldn't work because some housing is much more expensive than others. It might have more rooms. It might be better built. It might be newer. At least a 5% increase cap would scale with all of those things more appropriately.
Could have used this like 10 years ago