7 ms·

Well, governments have successfully enabled wealth disparity to the point where corporations are buying up several tens of thousands of homes. Maybe free range

Well, governments have successfully enabled wealth disparity to the point where corporations are buying up several tens of thousands of homes. Maybe free range capitalism isn't the amazing utopia it's cracked up to be?

WalterBright 1mo ago
1. There are 90 million single family homes in the US 2. If you want to live in a house, but for less than 5 years, it is better to rent 3. If corporations really want to buy all the houses, there's a business opportunity for you. Build houses and sell them to the corporations at exorbitant prices. 4. Nobody is making anybody sell their home to a corporation. 5. Renting out homes does not reduce the supply of housing. 6. Homes are crummy investments. Capitalist countries are indeed quite amazing compared to socialist countries. That's why people flee socialist countries and try to get in the US.
- FireBeyond 1mo ago
  1. And? Most are occupied. How many unoccupied SFHs are there? 2. I am a home owner. There is a certain subset of the populace that likes to act as though renters have it so easy, because owning a home is a never ending stream of credit card swipes for the next four (or five) digit maintenance expense - when they're not posting memes talking about not having to pay property tax or insurance or even utilities, as if landlords absorb those out of the goodness of their heart. These corporations, if you read the article in the first place are colluding across other corporate landlords because if they don't get the rent they want, they would rather keep the occupancy vacant, because then they also get to claim it as a tax loss. > Capitalist countries are indeed quite amazing compared to socialist countries. That's why people flee socialist countries and try to get in the US. People don't generally flee socialism, but corruption. But hey, here we are in the US where we're doing a spectacular job of showing what a corrupt capitalist society looks like. And hey, look, the number of people trying "to get in here" is dropping like a rock.
  - WalterBright 1mo ago
    > And? Tens of thousands is not significant wrt 94 million. > 2. If you ever owned a vacant home, not only are you still going to have to pay all the usual bills, you'll be dealing with vandalism, squatters, and that undetected roof leak that ruins the interior. Thinking that "tax losses" are the way to make money does not work. If you don't believe me, buy a rental and see how it goes as a landlord. Personally, I want nothing to do with being a landlord. > People don't generally flee socialism, but corruption The two go hand in hand. See "Learing Centers".
    - FireBeyond 1mo ago
      > Thinking that "tax losses" are the way to make money does not work. Never said that. But if I'm a corporation who owns 3,000 homes and/or apartments, I can easily decide that rather than earning less than I'd like on rental income, I might keep those units vacant and claim rental loss to offset my tax burden elsewhere. Helpfully, corporations can also depreciate those dwellings as an asset. Keeping a portion of those dwellings vacant benefits me as a corporation - it doesn't benefit society or the community they're in (or the communities where the offset is going to come from). But hey, fuck society and community, we're a capitalist-over-all nation! > If you ever owned a vacant home, not only are you still going to have to pay all the usual bills, you'll be dealing with vandalism, squatters, and that undetected roof leak that ruins the interior. What "usual bills"? Property tax? Insurance? If I own 3,000 dwellings I can self-insure. I can shut off water/sewage/garbage service, I can shut off electricity, internet. Of course, if I'm a corporation with 3,000 homes, it'd be almost a certainty that I have dedicated maintenance crews who can be mitigating many of those other issues, and doing it far cheaper than you or I could (short of DIY).
      - WalterBright 1mo ago
        > Never said that. Well, you went on to say it again. > I have dedicated maintenance crews They cost money. As for shutting off utilities, that's a good way to develop mildew in the house. You'll also get rodents moving in, as well as insects. And then there are the teens who use it as a party house. (That's why home insurance is more expensive for vacant houses.) But hey, don't let me stop you. Sounds like you have a sound business plan of buying homes and leaving them vacant. Let us know how it goes!

WalterBright 1mo ago

1. There are 90 million single family homes in the US 2. If you want to live in a house, but for less than 5 years, it is better to rent 3. If corporations really want to buy all the houses, there's a business opportunity for you. Build houses and sell them to the corporations at exorbitant prices. 4. Nobody is making anybody sell their home to a corporation. 5. Renting out homes does not reduce the supply of housing. 6. Homes are crummy investments. Capitalist countries are indeed quite amazing compared to socialist countries. That's why people flee socialist countries and try to get in the US.

FireBeyond 1mo ago
1. And? Most are occupied. How many unoccupied SFHs are there? 2. I am a home owner. There is a certain subset of the populace that likes to act as though renters have it so easy, because owning a home is a never ending stream of credit card swipes for the next four (or five) digit maintenance expense - when they're not posting memes talking about not having to pay property tax or insurance or even utilities, as if landlords absorb those out of the goodness of their heart. These corporations, if you read the article in the first place are colluding across other corporate landlords because if they don't get the rent they want, they would rather keep the occupancy vacant, because then they also get to claim it as a tax loss. > Capitalist countries are indeed quite amazing compared to socialist countries. That's why people flee socialist countries and try to get in the US. People don't generally flee socialism, but corruption. But hey, here we are in the US where we're doing a spectacular job of showing what a corrupt capitalist society looks like. And hey, look, the number of people trying "to get in here" is dropping like a rock.
- WalterBright 1mo ago
  > And? Tens of thousands is not significant wrt 94 million. > 2. If you ever owned a vacant home, not only are you still going to have to pay all the usual bills, you'll be dealing with vandalism, squatters, and that undetected roof leak that ruins the interior. Thinking that "tax losses" are the way to make money does not work. If you don't believe me, buy a rental and see how it goes as a landlord. Personally, I want nothing to do with being a landlord. > People don't generally flee socialism, but corruption The two go hand in hand. See "Learing Centers".
  - FireBeyond 1mo ago
    > Thinking that "tax losses" are the way to make money does not work. Never said that. But if I'm a corporation who owns 3,000 homes and/or apartments, I can easily decide that rather than earning less than I'd like on rental income, I might keep those units vacant and claim rental loss to offset my tax burden elsewhere. Helpfully, corporations can also depreciate those dwellings as an asset. Keeping a portion of those dwellings vacant benefits me as a corporation - it doesn't benefit society or the community they're in (or the communities where the offset is going to come from). But hey, fuck society and community, we're a capitalist-over-all nation! > If you ever owned a vacant home, not only are you still going to have to pay all the usual bills, you'll be dealing with vandalism, squatters, and that undetected roof leak that ruins the interior. What "usual bills"? Property tax? Insurance? If I own 3,000 dwellings I can self-insure. I can shut off water/sewage/garbage service, I can shut off electricity, internet. Of course, if I'm a corporation with 3,000 homes, it'd be almost a certainty that I have dedicated maintenance crews who can be mitigating many of those other issues, and doing it far cheaper than you or I could (short of DIY).
    - WalterBright 1mo ago
      > Never said that. Well, you went on to say it again. > I have dedicated maintenance crews They cost money. As for shutting off utilities, that's a good way to develop mildew in the house. You'll also get rodents moving in, as well as insects. And then there are the teens who use it as a party house. (That's why home insurance is more expensive for vacant houses.) But hey, don't let me stop you. Sounds like you have a sound business plan of buying homes and leaving them vacant. Let us know how it goes!