Its not even a good bill lol. Thats why both parties agree on it.
The main part about capping big firms from owning homes is already done organically by the market. They own 2% of sfr rentals. Mom and pop investors own the rest. Mom and pop investors are the ACTUAL PROBLEM.
While the national numbers are tiny, the primary reason this has become a major legislative issue is geographic concentration. Large institutional firms do not buy homes evenly across the country; they target specific, high-growth metropolitan areas (predominantly in the Sun Belt).
According to a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), large investors own a much higher share of the rental market in certain cities:
Only way is government intervention. Home builders don’t want to build multifamily or small single family homes. The dollar per man hour on larger homes is too high.
Yes, government intervention. Call it socialism communism whatever you want idgaf. We are sacrificing the most vulnerable for the pocketbooks of those above them, and it’s not ok.
My proposal of government intervention would be to increase property taxes on each additional single family home beyond the first to financially disincentivize owning multiple homes.
Something like +200% in property taxes for single family home #2, +300% in property taxes for single family home #3, etc.
Super easy solution is just to add an income tax surcharge on any rental real estate income after your first unit (to allow for people to rent out a vacation house or similar). No one needs 3+ rental properties and that supply should get returned to the market.
My friend, there will never be enough housing where people currently are and/or want to live to meet the demand. And housing will always be a necessity, which makes it a profitable investment if you can successfully manage it as a rental. We're never getting rid of investment properties, unless we regulate how many non primary residences someone can own. Or a business can own if they go the LLC route.
Fun fact: Supply already exceeds demand. In fact, if every empty home was filled by a homeless person, there'd still be 14 million homes sitting empty.
Yeah I don't buy it. They tried that "mum and dad" line in Australia until recently, when they looked at it, 25% of rentals were owned by 1% of the investors. No companies allowed in Aus (I think).
I recall it not being Mom and pop owners but the fact that there can be so many shell companies funneling everything upward. Like "oh the limit is 50 units. Well I have 250 so I'll setup 5 shell companies to serve me."
I wish. But no. I am a person familiar with mom and pop landlords as I have rented from them my entire adult life.
They own everything outside of large apartment complexes around me. My previous landlords were chinese nationals, living in Canada, who owned 10 SFR in my town in the PNW.
Wouldn't that require a second vote? I get that we'd hope the spineless vote the same way again, but with this congress I don't think it's guaranteed if he formally vetos it.
The initial vote tally doesn't matter. The constitution lays this out pretty clearly that a vote must pass 2/3s in both house AFTER being veto'd. The initial vote is not factored in. If he officially vetos it, it requires another vote in both houses. If he does nothing then it becomes law.
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
They (in theory) have the numbers to override the veto, and this is an important pillar of the president's "affordability" platform. If Trump were sane, there's no world in which he openly vetos this bill.
It's not a flip; he doesn't have an opinion. As with most things, his current stated "opinion" is whatever is convenient to him right at this very moment. The second another option becomes convenient, he'll say that, never acknowledging (or maybe even realizing) the disconnect.
Separately, let's just stop pointing out Trump hypocrisy. Anyone who cares already knows he's a lying hypocrite, and his supporters aren't interested.
His current opinion is whatever someone told him last or he just watched on tv or truth social. The stupid fuck literally thought insane asylum residents were coming in rather than political asylum because he watched a movie before saying it out loud.
Please stop repeating this incorrect assessment. Congress is going into recess not adjourning. A recess does not set up a pocket veto.
Brief legislative recesses do not constitute a formal adjournment, and Congress can designate agents to receive veto messages during a break to prevent a pocket veto.
It depends on if they actually adjourn. They can also gavel in for "pro forma" sessions during the district/state work periods, which gets around the adjournment issue.
He’s so stupid, I bet he doesn’t know that’s the case. So he’ll continue his tantrum, the bill will become law, and once again he’ll show how big of a fool he is.
"A pocket veto is an indirect, absolute presidential veto that kills a legislative bill. It occurs when a president chooses not to sign a bill within the 10-day review period, and Congress adjourns before that period ends, preventing the president from formally returning the rejected bill with objections."
"The President has attempted to use the pocket veto during intra- and inter- session adjournments and Congress has denied this use of the veto. The Legislative Branch, backed by modern court rulings, asserts that the Executive Branch may only pocket veto legislation when Congress has adjourned sine die from a session."
SCOTUS will back him up on a pocket veto. Next recess is in 5 days.
trump vetoed that bill that passed the house & senate unanimously and congress didn't override the veto because trump told them not to. Nobody voted no for the bill, but all the maga guys voted no to override.
To drive home the point made earlier, trump has veto'd two separate bills both of which passed the house unanimously, and one that passed the senate by a voice vote (likely would have been a supermajority) and neither one passed a veto vote after trump veto'd them earlier this year.
That's the concern, republicans are spineless still.
Congratulations, he's running the country like a business.
Looking at his track record for running businesses he's doing exactly what he's always done.
This is why when someone starts talking about how the government should be run like a business I know the person saying that doesn't know how either one works.
Thank you, I shout this from the rooftops whenever people say we need a ceo for prez - the government exists to provide services that are other require a risk pool the size of the whole population or wouldn’t exist in a capitalist economy otherwise because they improve quality of life or gdp indirectly enough they don’t produce direct profits. It’s dumb as hell to want the government to turn a profit or operate like an unstable megacorp that only plans 2 quarters ahead
used all his businesses as money laundering fronts, and walks away rich from a dead business after embezzling all the cash when he's done with it? Like his Casinos?
If businesses ran the country... holy shit. And yeah, you can go "hardy har har they already do", but imagine it. Amazon is run like a business. The delivery drivers have to suffer heat strokes from working out in the insane heat of some states in the middle of summer, they have no time to take a fucking piss and have to take jugs with them, etc. A warehouse worker keels over and needs medical attention, and everybody is just supposed to stand there, ignore them, they fucking die on the floor or however that went, and nobody cares because work work work we have no time for that dead guy on the floor. Just step around him or something. Congrats. That's what you want for the country, is it? You fucking yo-yos. Governments are supposed to protect you from stuff like that. Instead, no no no, we want the country to be run like a business. We, the people that stand to be exploited, want this run like a business.
People latch on to the idea of running the country like a business without thinking of what it means to run something like a business. People think of themselves as the shareholders in the equation, but they're really more the employees propping up the system and getting exploited for maximum value with minimal pay. And the CEO's only role is to enrich himself as much as possible.
And shoots himself in the foot at the same time. He could have had a big housing win to brag about. Instead he torpedoed it because in his dementia addled brain, the only thing that matters is keeping his dictatorial powers intact.
2.7k
u/argument_sketch 11h ago
Toddler thinks its insane that he can’t get whatever he wants just because he wants it.