Real estate investors, both individual and institutional, bought one-third of all single-family residential properties sold in the second quarter of 2025.
Should 10x property taxes on non-primary-residences, and split the proceeds between subsidizing construction of new housing and being distributed as a UBI. Would be better than trying to ban speculative investment in housing outright, because it would be attacking the underlying market factors instead of telling investors they can’t try to make a profit.
not only that, place limits on how many properties they can own as well, plus also close loopholes like using LLC / some kind of other shady company to buy more houses.
place limits on how many properties they can own as well, plus also close loopholes like using LLC / some kind of other shady company to buy more houses.
This is a cat and mouse game that the law, glacially paced as it is, can never win. The tax strategy suggested would be much more effective.
That’s closer to trying to ban speculative investment. I guess my opinion on this is just that this type of approach won’t work as well, because keeping people from participating in the market isn’t a direct way to move the market. And what needs to happen is, lower housing prices and regular people having greater proportional purchasing power, so the best focus would be to give investors strong incentives to sell, increase supply, and redistribute wealth, in a way that’s easy to enforce.
It’s impossible to prevent anything of significant value that can be owned from becoming a “financial vehicle” to some extent. This is idealism with no practical application.
Should 10x property taxes on non-primary-residences, and split the proceeds between subsidizing construction of new housing and being distributed as a UBI. Would be better than trying to ban speculative investment in housing outright, because it would be attacking the underlying market factors instead of telling investors they can’t try to make a profit.
not only that, place limits on how many properties they can own as well, plus also close loopholes like using LLC / some kind of other shady company to buy more houses.
This is a cat and mouse game that the law, glacially paced as it is, can never win. The tax strategy suggested would be much more effective.
That’s closer to trying to ban speculative investment. I guess my opinion on this is just that this type of approach won’t work as well, because keeping people from participating in the market isn’t a direct way to move the market. And what needs to happen is, lower housing prices and regular people having greater proportional purchasing power, so the best focus would be to give investors strong incentives to sell, increase supply, and redistribute wealth, in a way that’s easy to enforce.
Houses should be for living in, not financial vehicles.
It’s impossible to prevent anything of significant value that can be owned from becoming a “financial vehicle” to some extent. This is idealism with no practical application.
I’m not exactly arguing against that, I am suggesting taking steps to tank their price and discourage using them as a store of wealth.