Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
That’s genuinely fantastic news.
The skeptic, pessimistic part of me now wants to know how BlackRock et al will get around this with creative corporate and financial shell games, because I’m absolutely sure they will try to do just that.
Blackrock splits into redrock, orangerock, yellowrock, etc.
All owned by rainbowrock (a blackrock® company).
Because it's not a ban on private equity purchasing homes, it's a limit of 350 going forward. Because as if that limit isn't absurdly high (it should be more like 3) it's also unlikely to hold up in court. They should have levied increasing taxes.
Frankly the limit should be 0 for private equity. The only exception should be for mortgage lenders (for obvious reasons) who should also not be ownable by PE or VC.
It should not be legal for corporations to own a residential property outside of the context of a mortgage. Any corporation (here, including banks) owning a residence for the purpose of rental income should be flat out illegal as well.
If it were me, I would have just passed a federal tax on property where whatever the local city, state, and county taxes are, there's also a federal levy of property taxes of the exact same amount multiplied by the number of properties each taxpaying owner owns - 1.
So if you own one home, you pay no additional taxes.
If you and your spouse own two homes, you pay no additional taxes.
But if you own five 1 million dollar properties as a single person and the property taxes on each of those properties is $5,000, then instead of paying a total of $25,000 in property taxes as a single homeowner, you would pay
$5,000 * 4 * 4 + $5,000, or $85,000/yr.
That $60,000 a year difference for being a multiple homeowner would go into a fund specifically to provide grants and assistance for low-income renters and first-time homebuyers.
This would make it so that owning multiple homes becomes a sign of affluence.
And it would put a steep price curve on going over the limit of even moderately reasonable amounts of homes to own as a person.
Adding one additional $1 million home with a $5,000 property tax annual on it would actually add another $45,000/yr to the taxes that you would pay compared to someone who only owns that single home, and doing it this way, make sure that the scale of increasing taxes that you would pay on home ownership would become exponentially prohibitive.
It would also ensure that at a very reasonable point, no matter how much you charged for rent, for any property you own, once you own more than four, it becomes impossible to actually profit off of multiple home ownership, because very quickly, no renter in the universe would pay what you need to earn in order to cover the taxes off of owning that property.
This is part of my pitch to become president in 2032 when I become eligible.
Oh, slight correction. Add the original taxes to the numbers I generated because the federal taxes are separate from the city, state, and local taxes.
So in the first example, $85,000 plus $25,000 equals $110,000 a year to own five $1 million properties at $5,000 a year property taxes.
And in the second example, $130,000 plus $30,000 equals $160,000 a year to own the sixth one.
They'll buy up property management companies who will then buy the houses to rent out.
Change in the definition of what a single family home is in 3, 2, 1....
If there is no enforcement then why bother to write laws down?
I see an awful lot of non-enforcement of laws that are already on the books.
I’ve become so jaded that I’m sitting here thinking, “if this was actually going to work the private equity firms would’ve never let it pass.
My first thought was "what is a private equity firm" really and does the law have provisions for firms that are owned by private equity.
If some numbered corporation in Delaware owns a house and private equity owns a controlling stake in that firm can it still own housing.
What I'm asking is what is the blood quantum of a cooperation.
They realize the market is at peak so they're going to get out anyway.
Or, better theory, they've grandfathered in existing arrangements so it's just keeping out additional PE firms.
Thank goodness, this just prevents them from acquiring additional housing.
Be exceptionally cautious of legislation like this, the housing market is becoming a more and more obvious bubble, companies like BlackRock are going to try to twist every legislation like this into a bailout. They'll want government to take the houses from them, by buying them all "at market rate", despite the reality that these firms would never be able to offload all those houses into the market without cratering the market rate.
Now pair with legislation that says all existing corporate owned properties are taxed at 100% of any revenue derived from ownership of those properties
I'd start with taxing 100% property taxes of empty properties as a logical next step.
I get where you're coming from and an for the sentiment, but that will need at least some sort of caveat or having to sell the house of a lost family member will be become very dangerous.
Or buying a foreclosure and making it livable.
Now make it retroactive.
Are they stripping them of the ones they already have?
Hopefully they're just being taxed at increased rates that make profit unviable and allows them to unload the houses normally. I don't really know how the legislation works though.
This does absolutely nothing. As others pointed out, they'll just create new shells. Even if they lowered prices somehow it would be pointless. There is no money or jobs anymore.
how bout ban them in general, since they are ruining alot of companies.
Good! Those fucking passive income vultures.
Under the Constitution, legislation passed by Congress can become law if the president neither signs nor vetoes it within the required 10-day window while Congress remains in session.
I wonder if Trump simply misunderstood the execution of a Pocket Veto when he refused to explicitly sign or veto the law.
Also, a little nervous at the prospect of the SCOTUS deciding to rewrite the rules on the pocket veto. Or whether they'll just find some other bullshit reason to overturn this law.
Good on Warnock for getting this language through a minefield of a legislature. If there's a bright spot on the horizon for 2027, its guys like this in high office. But I'm not pinning my hopes given how absurd the deck has been stacked against the working class of late.
ok, so this Bill was passed by a Supermajority (2/3+ majority) in Congress, which means that it doesn't require the President's approval to become law. While his signature would be nice and expedient, it's it's required. So...
After a prescribed period of time (which has now passed) it becomes law automatically (which has now happened). Yay!
Under normal circumstances, a law in Congress gets passed by a simple majority (51%). That requires the President to sign off (or they can veto). A lack of signature can act as a "pocket veto" during which the Bill will expire and require a new House/Senate vote to resubmit. But that didn't happen this time.
Trump got handed a slam-dunk Supermajoority-approved Bill that he decided not to sign and hold hostage for his crybaby shitty-diaper election cheating bill. He lost that fight, and this Supermajority-approved housing bill has now been approved anyway. He could have vetoed it, but it just would have gone back to Congress who would have, again, Supermajority voted to approve it, overriding his veto, and embarrassing him further when it passed anyway.
So fuck Trump and his Election Cheating Act, and we get this (weak-ass) bipartisan housing bill anyway.
Quick! Someone dangle something shiny in front of him before the window closes!
Maybe hold an award ceremony from “FIFÔ. They are award him the FIFÅ Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence. That might distract him long enough…
If Trump didn't veto it, there must be some loopholes large enough to drive a battleship through.....
Senate vote was 85-5
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin Mike Lee of Utah Rand Paul of Kentucky Rick Scott of Florida Tommy Tuberville of Alabama
Guessing Trump knew it would be a losing battle to veto it. Also, it should make him look better with him having to do nothing but stay out of the way
So for every 350 homes they make a new LLC or shell company.
You didn't expect this to actually fix the problem did you? Sorry, too much money to be made.
I mean any progress is a step in the right direction. It just seems that these days are Democrats are very performative. Most of their legislation has no teeth and is just for show. Enforcement of any policies is basically none.
It's a great way to get younger people to stop caring when they can't actually afford to own anything. This is a step in the correct direction, corporate gatekeeping needs to end, we need to give people opportunities to own. If someone rents, borrows, and leases their entire life, why would they care if it all goes to shit?
Finally some good news!
It's a long bill, but the details for this ban can be found in Title X almost at the bottom:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6644/text#d10163e18706-intro-1
Finally! I've watched these fucking companies buy up every house in my neighborhood that came up for sale. IMO when this trend started was when the people's dream of ever owning a home got destroyed. Warnock for President?
Can we apply that to farms too? If you aren't actually farming, whether you have a corporation or not, you can't buy farmland. Sorry, JD.
I'll note that this is happening as corporate owners are net sellers, not buyers. There are better uses for their money (they think) than holding onto houses now. This is good for the future, and nice in certain areas that were getting choked to death. But... corporate owners only have ~3-9% of the single-family home market (source). Every little bit helps, though we need cities to fix up zoning and increase density. (There's incentives for them to do that now iirc, so push for density on the ballot this fall!)
They need to be forced to sell en mass and the limit needs to be was lower like 5 not 350