politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
view the rest of the comments
By Purchasing up and holding the supply empty, artificially creating the housing crisis by lobbying against affordable housing construction and exploiting the rent economy of our cities. The rich are outcompeting us for resources.
What do regular home owners have to do with it? Most regular home owners only own one home.
I've made a million dollars in appreciation on my home in the last 15 years.
Are you telling me just because I own one home, that I'm not part of the problem?
No, you're not the problem there. The problem in your scenario is the landlords buying up all available real estate and leasing it back. Not you.
That million dollar gain has no actual value to you. You can't get that money out of the house, because you'll need to spend it to acquire new housing.
And in the meantime, your tax payments are going to increase: you're a victim of corporate investment in the housing market, not a perpetrator.
Why do people keep saying that I can't get that money out of the house?
And, to top off your stupid assumptions, you say my tax payments will increase. That's not how property tax is calculated at all. People see "Taxes per 100k" and assume that if your house price goes up, so do the taxes. Instead, municipalities set a total budget, and just divide it by the total value of all the homes in the area to come up with something called the "Mill rate." If the municipal budget doesn't change year to year, and all the house prices go up evenly, the mill rate simply goes down.
In which case, you owe more than you borrowed. The net result of your borrowing is handing money to oligarchs. That makes them the problem, not you.
Proportionally, you are not making any gains when you do that. That smaller home's value increased at the same time your own home did.
In which case, you would then be leveraging your wealth to strip others of wealth generated through labor. You would become part of the problem class with this approach.
Your ownership of an appreciating asset is not the problem.
You really don't understand finances at all.
Rich people borrow money at low rates all the time, in order to make larger returns on other investments. If I borrow 500,000 at 4%, and then invest it, I can make a lot of money. For example, If I had borrowed against my property in 2024 and invested it in the S&P 500, I would have made a 22.3% return, minus the 4%, so 18% profit on the value I pulled out of my house. There's obviously risk involved, but this is not an uncommon practice. You can even re-invest it in real estate itself by borrowing the money to buy more properties.
Proportion doesn't matter at all, If I had bought a million dollar house, and sell it for 1.7 million (70% increase) and downsize to a $600k house that went up to $1020k (also 70%) in that same time, I've made 700-420=$280k more than if I had just bought the smaller house to begin with, minus a bit of interest difference (much less than the $280k)
You say that renting it out is the problem, but both of the options above are also generating money by stripping wealth from other people (whoever buys the house, or whoever is buying houses that cause my house to appreciate in value)
Housing appreciation IS the problem, without housing appreciation, housing wouldn't have become unaffordable in the first place and we wouldn't be complaining about the current cost of living issues.
In order for us to have affordable housing, property cannot appreciate faster than wages. Otherwise over time, it will ALWAYS become unaffordable.
Finally, you're approaching the actual issue. Appreciating assets are not the problem. Wage stagnation is. The working class is having too large a share of its productivity diverted to the Problem Class.
I mean, wages have been increasing at a fairly reasonable rate related to inflation, the cost of most things have gone down relative to incomes with the big exception being housing.
https://cepr.net/publications/in-the-good-old-days-one-fourth-of-income-went-to-food/ https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/home-price-income-ratio-reaches-record-high-0
Based on that, I'd say you're wrong that it's wage appreciation that's the issue, it's definitely housing costs that are the problem.
I don't think you're wrong here, but I need to let this sink in after a nap.
It's a very fundamental concept that almost everyone is missing.
If houses increase faster than wages, the price of them relative to incomes will slowly go up forever making them less and less affordable.
If housing prices go up less than wages (or even go down) then the people owning the houses are losing money each month, but the housing costs will stabilize at a price level that is balanced by how much money people are willing to lose each month just to have a home.
The second option isn't as bad as most people think, it's how cars work right now. You're willing to buy a car and spend money each month because it benefits your life, not because it gives you money back.
How do we achieve prices going up less than wages? There are about a dozen different possible ways for the government to do it. Options include the Government owning all land and just renting/leasing it to people instead of selling it, putting a 100% capital gains tax on the land (not the buildings), or my personal favorite which is a yearly land value tax (not a property or building tax) and using that revenue to pay for a basic income leaving a net zero tax change for a person who uses an appropriate amount of land for a given area.
Because they do. Not immediately, but they are periodically reassessed, based on prevailing market value.
They set their total budget largely based on what they can collect in taxes.
That possibility doesn't merit consideration.
You clearly don't understand this, so I'll make it even simpler for you.
Here's the City of Victoria tax rates for the last 7 years https://wowa.ca/taxes/victoria-property-tax
The property tax rate for Victoria was higher in 2018 than it was in 2025
Meanwhile, property values are up about 25-30% in that same time period.
You can even see the rate drop significantly in 2022 when housing prices spiked during COVID, despite the City of Victoria budget not going down.
You're simply wrong that house value appreciation leads to higher property taxes, it's increases in the municipal budget that leads to increases in property taxes.
You're not really even in the same category as the idle rich. Like sure, you can sell your house and get a profit but you have to live somewhere. If you bought again a similar house in the same area you'd break even.
I've got a quarter million dollars in appreciated wealth from my home in five years, but that's only useful to me if I want to take out a HELOC (with shitty ass rates) or move to someplace that sucks a lot worse.
Every other option would require me to become a landlord, in which case I would be part of the problem.
I'm looking to buy a better place and sure my place went up in value, but unless I want to also change locales I'm gonna have to fork over another wad of bills to get one.
It's definitely not as bad as being a new market entrant with no capital and no existing investment, but it certainly isn't the lighting up cigars with hundreds type of wealth you're pretending it is.
Correct. I'm telling you that individuals owning a single home aren't part of the problem.
Individuals voting to keep the value of their home from dropping down to reasonable levels ARE the problem. That's almost all home owners.
Alright, I'm done indulging your stupidity.
No one mentioned regular home owners. Why are you making devisive comments not related to any point that were made?
Yes they did.
You'll notice it wasn't me though, so why am I being asked what somebody I'm actively disagreeing with means by "regular homeowners"?
Bollocks, billionaire propaganda. Less that 3,000 people collectively control more than 90% of the World's wealth. It doesn't pale in comparison to anything. You're just a bootlicker, or contrarian, makes no difference. You're still wrong.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Practice more.
What am I wrong about? You think the equity held by private honeowners is worth more than an infinite line of credit from JP Morgan and Chase Bank? You're a moron.
You responded to what they quoted, not why they quoted it. The quoter does not agree with the quote; they presented it as evidence of the original commentor's malfeasance.
Your response is appropriate against the person who made the original comment, not the person who quoted it.
There's that pesky reading comprehension again.
No one but the TLC was supporting corporate ownership of residential property.