I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.
I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.
This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.
What is the practice that should be outlawed? If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too. No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either. Probably too big for that. I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.
I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem. Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose. Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.
What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff. Houses, townhouses, condo's. All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.
Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim. So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations. This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.
I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada. The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff. One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.
He knows this already
You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine. My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs. But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest. I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is. This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents. It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades. But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.
Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund. Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.
Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate. Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership.
I would not be opposed to a cap on real estate profit
Even on your house?
sucks If you want to sell to move to a more expensive market. Or even move up in your current city. You need all the profit you can get.
A lot of people cash out in California and retire in Montana. Their house is their 401k
If we're being serious here, you could legislate that LLCs, s corps, corps, etc. cannot profit. This would allow you to do so on your personal home. Although not sure what all the renters are going to do with no place to live.
True.
But a lot of people form a llc to buy their home. Helps shield your assets from lawsuits and stuff I think. Either that or have a giant umbrella policy. I know getting sued for something stupid is a valid concern
I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.
I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.
This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.
What is the practice that should be outlawed? If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too. No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either. Probably too big for that. I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.
I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem. Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose. Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.
What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff. Houses, townhouses, condo's. All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.
Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim. So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations. This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.
I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada. The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff. One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.
He knows this already
You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine. My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs. But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest. I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is. This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents. It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades. But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.
Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund. Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.
Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate. Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership.
I would not be opposed to a cap on real estate profit
Even on your house?
sucks If you want to sell to move to a more expensive market. Or even move up in your current city. You need all the profit you can get.
A lot of people cash out in California and retire in Montana. Their house is their 401k
If we're being serious here, you could legislate that LLCs, s corps, corps, etc. cannot profit. This would allow you to do so on your personal home. Although not sure what all the renters are going to do with no place to live.
True.
But a lot of people form a llc to buy their home. Helps shield your assets from lawsuits and stuff I think. Either that or have a giant umbrella policy. I know getting sued for something stupid is a valid concern
I though Greg Abbott fixed that
True.
I see it a lot. I really don’t know why properties are listed as llc owned. There has to be a reason though. I don’t think there is a tax benefit
I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.
I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.
This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.
What is the practice that should be outlawed? If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too. No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either. Probably too big for that. I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.
I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem. Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose. Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.
What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff. Houses, townhouses, condo's. All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.
Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim. So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations. This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.
I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada. The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff. One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.
He knows this already
You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine. My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs. But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest. I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is. This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents. It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades. But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.
Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund. Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.
Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate. Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership.
"Might the fact that corporate investors snapped up 15 percent of U.S. homes for sale in the first quarter of this year have something to do with it? The Wall Street Journalreported in April that an investment firm won a bidding war to purchase an entire neighborhood worth of single-family homes in Conroe, Texas—part of a cycle of stories drumming up panic over Wall Street’s increasing stake in residential real estate. "
"Let’s focus on Invitation Homes, a $21 billion publicly traded company that was spun off from Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity company, in 2017. Invitation Homes operates in 16 cities, with the biggest concentration in Atlanta, where it owns 12,556 houses. (Though that’s not much compared with the 80,000 homes sold in Atlanta each year, Invitation Homes bought 90 percent of the homes for sale in some ZIP codes in Atlanta in the early 2010s.) While normal people typically pay a mortgage interest rate between 2 percent and 4 percent these days, Invitation Homes can borrow money for far less: It’s getting billion-dollar loans at interest rates around 1.4 percent. In practice, this means that Invitation Homes can afford to tack on an extra $5,000 to $20,000 to the purchase price of every home, while getting the house at the same actual cost as a typical homeowner. While Invitation Homes uses a mixture of debt and cash from renters to buy houses, its offers are almost always all cash, which is a big leg up in a competitive market." https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.html
That 1% you speak of I am assuming is all residential property ownership in the US? I would like to see how that factors in if you look at that 1% of property in relation to available properties on the market and what percentage of available properties are being bought up. While a number like 1% seems miniscule by itself it could paint a different picture when taken in a different context. 15% of available homes being bought up by corporate investors in a quarter is a much different thing than, oh corporate investors only own .5 to 1% of all residential property in the US total.
I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.
I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.
This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.
What is the practice that should be outlawed? If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too. No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either. Probably too big for that. I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.
I think you are being purposefully obtuse. Private Equity and VC firms are buying up single family homes and rental properties in neighborhoods previously affordable to the average american (also happening globally in countries around the world) to artificially drive up costs with the goal of seemingly keeping people in a cycle of never being able to buy as they are caught up with ever increasing rents and rising costs of housing. So now in addition to competing with each other, would be homeowners are also competing with the industry forces of global capitalism and wealth extraction. See blackrock, I'm sure you have never heard of them before today.
The Idea that anyone could be in favor of a person or entity buying up property to drive up prices thus barring private ownership on a small level in the name of ever increasing rents is immoral. And before you start your next argument, yes I see a person that owns a few properties in which they charge other people rent differently than I do transnational corporations and investment firms, ffs a line has to be drawn somewhere.
But sure what we are talking about is too opaque to see through clearly.
mrussel1 said: Private equity is a much more specific term than "corporations" which was previously stated. So let's get that straight to start. And if you think Blackrocks raison d'etre for this strategy is to price rents so high that a person can never buy a home, well I disagree strenuously with that statement. Blackrock exists to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund. They are not conducting some long game to change the societal makeup of the United States, and make everyone renters beholden to them.
So I don't understand the law you are proposing. You are saying that no one that is back by private equity should be able to buy rental property. Yeah, good luck with your fantasy.
I am not saying anyone sat down in a room to come up with such a plan. Since the goal is to maximize profits for shareholders, if a side effect of the current trend is increasing rents and an endless debt cycle, a corporation or any other perfectly legal business venture has no reason to pump the brakes when it comes to the betterment and livelihood of non investors. Though corporations and private equity partners may be staffed with regular people just like me and you the bottom line doesn't care. When it comes to profits we have seen over and over in this country and around the world that the side effects of capital accumulation and how it affects communities, the environment etc. have little to no influence unless silly little laws are enacted.
To the second bolded, no corporation or private equity firm big time real estate mogul etc. should be able to buy a residential property with the specific goal of converting it to a rental property and thus shrinking the amount of available homes to actual families and homebuyers looking for an actual place to call their home, regardless of how perfectly legal it may be to do otherwise.
I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.
I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.
This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.
What is the practice that should be outlawed? If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too. No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either. Probably too big for that. I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.
I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem. Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose. Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.
What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff. Houses, townhouses, condo's. All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.
Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim. So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations. This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.
I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada. The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff. One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.
He knows this already
You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine. My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs. But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest. I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is. This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents. It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades. But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.
Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund. Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.
Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate. Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership.
I would not be opposed to a cap on real estate profit
Even on your house?
sucks If you want to sell to move to a more expensive market. Or even move up in your current city. You need all the profit you can get.
A lot of people cash out in California and retire in Montana. Their house is their 401k
If we're being serious here, you could legislate that LLCs, s corps, corps, etc. cannot profit. This would allow you to do so on your personal home. Although not sure what all the renters are going to do with no place to live.
True.
But a lot of people form a llc to buy their home. Helps shield your assets from lawsuits and stuff I think. Either that or have a giant umbrella policy. I know getting sued for something stupid is a valid concern
i notice it when we look up property records to protest tax increases. You see a lot of llc’s and the people are just normal people
I'm sure there is some sort of tax break or revenue protection involved. A former employer of mine sold his successful welding business to a huge corp for somewhere north of 15 mil. Within a year he created an llc real estate company bought three properties a handful of high dollar vehicles and a boat, all registered to the newly formed llc. I wasn't told the ins and outs but he did tell me that everything can be written off on taxes because of the llc.
joe seems to be having a pretty good last few weeks.
i should be happier but i have been conditioned to be vigilant when something good happens. when something good happens some bullshit usually follows. i'm too busy waiting for the bullshit to happen to be too happy about any of the recent good news.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Gas prices dropped below $4.00 and July saw a 0% increase in inflation over June. What? No hate for Brandon? Get lost Brandon, you senile old man! We want strength, rationality and stability back in the WH!
Gas prices dropped below $4.00 and July saw a 0% increase in inflation over June. What? No hate for Brandon? Get lost Brandon, you senile old man! We want strength, rationality and stability back in the WH!
You talk a lot of different things in that and they shouldn’t be group together.
Biden is an old man…and while not senile, the job is taking it’s obvious toll.
Gas is still high (not sure how if you don’t blame president for gas you take credit for improvement)
It’ll be interesting to see what comes from what was passed. And I’m forever thankful the original Biden bill was not passed.
Gas prices dropped below $4.00 and July saw a 0% increase in inflation over June. What? No hate for Brandon? Get lost Brandon, you senile old man! We want strength, rationality and stability back in the WH!
You talk a lot of different things in that and they shouldn’t be group together.
Biden is an old man…and while not senile, the job is taking it’s obvious toll.
Gas is still high (not sure how if you don’t blame president for gas you take credit for improvement)
It’ll be interesting to see what comes from what was passed. And I’m forever thankful the original Biden bill was not passed.
Poking fun at the hypocrisy is all and Brandon’s accomplishments go far beyond the one bill you refer. All, remember, without one iota of repub support and only after they fully underestimated the backlash. He’s running circles around POOTWH’s party of NO accomplishments, except a tax break that didn’t pay for itself. The job ages everyone who fills it, regardless of their age upon occupying the oval.
what’s wrong with grouping all the hypocritical criticisms in one post?
Gas prices dropped below $4.00 and July saw a 0% increase in inflation over June. What? No hate for Brandon? Get lost Brandon, you senile old man! We want strength, rationality and stability back in the WH!
You talk a lot of different things in that and they shouldn’t be group together.
Biden is an old man…and while not senile, the job is taking it’s obvious toll.
Gas is still high (not sure how if you don’t blame president for gas you take credit for improvement)
It’ll be interesting to see what comes from what was passed. And I’m forever thankful the original Biden bill was not passed.
Poking fun at the hypocrisy is all and Brandon’s accomplishments go far beyond the one bill you refer. All, remember, without one iota of repub support and only after they fully underestimated the backlash. He’s running circles around POOTWH’s party of NO accomplishments, except a tax break that didn’t pay for itself. The job ages everyone who fills it, regardless of their age upon occupying the oval.
what’s wrong with grouping all the hypocritical criticisms in one post?
It certainly ages anyone trying to do the job. Hence - let’s stop electing people with 1 foot in the grave to lead us moving forward.
It’s been a good string for Biden, I’m wait and see on some things. But happy something is getting done and, yes you are correct, doing it without a GOP that is willing to play normal so it has been tough.
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
I think it's crazy that Biden or Trump would want to be president at their age. I'm 49 and I plan on retiring at 55. I don't want my kind of pressure today, let alone their kind of pressure.
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
I think it's crazy that Biden or Trump would want to be president at their age. I'm 49 and I plan on retiring at 55. I don't want my kind of pressure today, let alone their kind of pressure.
I agree. It takes a weird person. I suppose either power/vanity or duty of service. I fear the former for most
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
Anyone that old is by definition out of the norm.
when you are older than the US life expectancy you are pretty removed from policies that affect most people of working age. That goes for both Biden and Trump
based on the year they were born both have exceeded it
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
I think it's crazy that Biden or Trump would want to be president at their age. I'm 49 and I plan on retiring at 55. I don't want my kind of pressure today, let alone their kind of pressure.
I don't know that either does. Biden was told (probably correctly) that he was the only hope for beating Trump. And Trump? Well, he may have wanted the novelty of it in 2016 (though I sometimes think he was broke and Vlad strongly suggested it) but now, I don't really think he wants the job but either ego of needing the win or fear that it's his only way out of legal trouble is driving him.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
I think it's crazy that Biden or Trump would want to be president at their age. I'm 49 and I plan on retiring at 55. I don't want my kind of pressure today, let alone their kind of pressure.
I don't know that either does. Biden was told (probably correctly) that he was the only hope for beating Trump. And Trump? Well, he may have wanted the novelty of it in 2016 (though I sometimes think he was broke and Vlad strongly suggested it) but now, I don't really think he wants the job but either ego of needing the win or fear that it's his only way out of legal trouble is driving him.
Trump is ego. For Biden, I hope it was service, but certainly there is vanity too. You can't think you can be the leader of the free world without some narcissism.
I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.
I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.
This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.
What is the practice that should be outlawed? If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too. No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either. Probably too big for that. I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.
I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem. Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose. Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.
What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff. Houses, townhouses, condo's. All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.
Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim. So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations. This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.
I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada. The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff. One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.
He knows this already
You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine. My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs. But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest. I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is. This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents. It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades. But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.
Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund. Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.
Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate. Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership.
"Might the fact that corporate investors snapped up 15 percent of U.S. homes for sale in the first quarter of this year have something to do with it? The Wall Street Journalreported in April that an investment firm won a bidding war to purchase an entire neighborhood worth of single-family homes in Conroe, Texas—part of a cycle of stories drumming up panic over Wall Street’s increasing stake in residential real estate. "
"Let’s focus on Invitation Homes, a $21 billion publicly traded company that was spun off from Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity company, in 2017. Invitation Homes operates in 16 cities, with the biggest concentration in Atlanta, where it owns 12,556 houses. (Though that’s not much compared with the 80,000 homes sold in Atlanta each year, Invitation Homes bought 90 percent of the homes for sale in some ZIP codes in Atlanta in the early 2010s.) While normal people typically pay a mortgage interest rate between 2 percent and 4 percent these days, Invitation Homes can borrow money for far less: It’s getting billion-dollar loans at interest rates around 1.4 percent. In practice, this means that Invitation Homes can afford to tack on an extra $5,000 to $20,000 to the purchase price of every home, while getting the house at the same actual cost as a typical homeowner. While Invitation Homes uses a mixture of debt and cash from renters to buy houses, its offers are almost always all cash, which is a big leg up in a competitive market." https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.html
That 1% you speak of I am assuming is all residential property ownership in the US? I would like to see how that factors in if you look at that 1% of property in relation to available properties on the market and what percentage of available properties are being bought up. While a number like 1% seems miniscule by itself it could paint a different picture when taken in a different context. 15% of available homes being bought up by corporate investors in a quarter is a much different thing than, oh corporate investors only own .5 to 1% of all residential property in the US total.
I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.
I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.
This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.
What is the practice that should be outlawed? If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too. No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either. Probably too big for that. I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.
I think you are being purposefully obtuse. Private Equity and VC firms are buying up single family homes and rental properties in neighborhoods previously affordable to the average american (also happening globally in countries around the world) to artificially drive up costs with the goal of seemingly keeping people in a cycle of never being able to buy as they are caught up with ever increasing rents and rising costs of housing. So now in addition to competing with each other, would be homeowners are also competing with the industry forces of global capitalism and wealth extraction. See blackrock, I'm sure you have never heard of them before today.
The Idea that anyone could be in favor of a person or entity buying up property to drive up prices thus barring private ownership on a small level in the name of ever increasing rents is immoral. And before you start your next argument, yes I see a person that owns a few properties in which they charge other people rent differently than I do transnational corporations and investment firms, ffs a line has to be drawn somewhere.
But sure what we are talking about is too opaque to see through clearly.
mrussel1 said: Private equity is a much more specific term than "corporations" which was previously stated. So let's get that straight to start. And if you think Blackrocks raison d'etre for this strategy is to price rents so high that a person can never buy a home, well I disagree strenuously with that statement. Blackrock exists to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund. They are not conducting some long game to change the societal makeup of the United States, and make everyone renters beholden to them.
So I don't understand the law you are proposing. You are saying that no one that is back by private equity should be able to buy rental property. Yeah, good luck with your fantasy.
I am not saying anyone sat down in a room to come up with such a plan. Since the goal is to maximize profits for shareholders, if a side effect of the current trend is increasing rents and an endless debt cycle, a corporation or any other perfectly legal business venture has no reason to pump the brakes when it comes to the betterment and livelihood of non investors. Though corporations and private equity partners may be staffed with regular people just like me and you the bottom line doesn't care. When it comes to profits we have seen over and over in this country and around the world that the side effects of capital accumulation and how it affects communities, the environment etc. have little to no influence unless silly little laws are enacted.
To the second bolded, no corporation or private equity firm big time real estate mogul etc. should be able to buy a residential property with the specific goal of converting it to a rental property and thus shrinking the amount of available homes to actual families and homebuyers looking for an actual place to call their home, regardless of how perfectly legal it may be to do otherwise.
I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.
I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.
This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.
What is the practice that should be outlawed? If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too. No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either. Probably too big for that. I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.
I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem. Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose. Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.
What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff. Houses, townhouses, condo's. All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.
Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim. So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations. This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.
I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada. The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff. One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.
He knows this already
You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine. My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs. But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest. I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is. This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents. It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades. But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.
Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund. Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.
Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate. Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership.
I would not be opposed to a cap on real estate profit
Even on your house?
sucks If you want to sell to move to a more expensive market. Or even move up in your current city. You need all the profit you can get.
A lot of people cash out in California and retire in Montana. Their house is their 401k
If we're being serious here, you could legislate that LLCs, s corps, corps, etc. cannot profit. This would allow you to do so on your personal home. Although not sure what all the renters are going to do with no place to live.
True.
But a lot of people form a llc to buy their home. Helps shield your assets from lawsuits and stuff I think. Either that or have a giant umbrella policy. I know getting sued for something stupid is a valid concern
i notice it when we look up property records to protest tax increases. You see a lot of llc’s and the people are just normal people
I'm sure there is some sort of tax break or revenue protection involved. A former employer of mine sold his successful welding business to a huge corp for somewhere north of 15 mil. Within a year he created an llc real estate company bought three properties a handful of high dollar vehicles and a boat, all registered to the newly formed llc. I wasn't told the ins and outs but he did tell me that everything can be written off on taxes because of the llc.
He's full of shit. The LLC doesn't need to own those things in order to be written off. The assets just have to be utilized for business purposes.
The real estate is likely going to be rented. If it isn't he can't deduct any of it.
Not sure what he is doing with the boat and cars...if he is leasing them to customers he could write off the costs against rental income. Otherwise what business purpose would there be to owning a boat or a car in an LLC with rental real estate.
Some people say things like that and have no idea that their tax guy isn't writing the shit off. Sometimes CPAs have to protect a client from themselves.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
I think it's crazy that Biden or Trump would want to be president at their age. I'm 49 and I plan on retiring at 55. I don't want my kind of pressure today, let alone their kind of pressure.
Clearly, Biden is not as wealthy and needs to work.
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
He has the right, since he won 270 electoral votes.
Has he not signed several significant new laws, including an unprecedented climate bill, unprecedented minimum tax on profitable corporations, expansion to healthcare, unprecedented expansion of semiconductor domestic production, most expansive new gun safety laws in decades, and tons of other new laws?
Had he not moved immediately on actions to help with rising energy costs? Had he not moved immediately to organize an unprecedented alliance of nearly the entire free world against Russian aggression? Isn’t Biden the only reason Ukraine is still an independent country?
It’s one thing if Biden sat around like Obama waiting forever upon forever for the republicans to come to the table and negotiate, but this dude has been working tirelessly and successfully, and with his experience knew not to wait around for fake gop bipartisanship, and without question getting results.
So is this about anger regarding aging? Maybe the answers for you lie more in the mirror than Bidens age. Should Warren Buffet be forced to retire? That’s an extremely difficult job? Are you going to judge buffet strictly by his age? So what if buffet needs a nap every so often? Hell wake up in an hour and crush it. He has the skill and experience needed to get the job done, just like Biden. This post is not entirely in caps but should be.
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
He has the right, since he won 270 electoral votes.
Has he not signed several significant new laws, including an unprecedented climate bill, unprecedented minimum tax on profitable corporations, expansion to healthcare, unprecedented expansion of semiconductor domestic production, most expansive new gun safety laws in decades, and tons of other new laws?
Had he not moved immediately on actions to help with rising energy costs? Had he not moved immediately to organize an unprecedented alliance of nearly the entire free world against Russian aggression? Isn’t Biden the only reason Ukraine is still an independent country?
It’s one thing if Biden sat around like Obama waiting forever upon forever for the republicans to come to the table and negotiate, but this dude has been working tirelessly and successfully, and with his experience knew not to wait around for fake gop bipartisanship, and without question getting results.
So is this about anger regarding aging? Maybe the answers for you lie more in the mirror than Bidens age. Should Warren Buffet be forced to retire? That’s an extremely difficult job? Are you going to judge buffet strictly by his age? So what if buffet needs a nap every so often? Hell wake up in an hour and crush it. He has the skill and experience needed to get the job done, just like Biden. This post is not entirely in caps but should be.
Some people can’t handle all the winning. Or is it losing?
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
He has the right, since he won 270 electoral votes.
Has he not signed several significant new laws, including an unprecedented climate bill, unprecedented minimum tax on profitable corporations, expansion to healthcare, unprecedented expansion of semiconductor domestic production, most expansive new gun safety laws in decades, and tons of other new laws?
Had he not moved immediately on actions to help with rising energy costs? Had he not moved immediately to organize an unprecedented alliance of nearly the entire free world against Russian aggression? Isn’t Biden the only reason Ukraine is still an independent country?
It’s one thing if Biden sat around like Obama waiting forever upon forever for the republicans to come to the table and negotiate, but this dude has been working tirelessly and successfully, and with his experience knew not to wait around for fake gop bipartisanship, and without question getting results.
So is this about anger regarding aging? Maybe the answers for you lie more in the mirror than Bidens age. Should Warren Buffet be forced to retire? That’s an extremely difficult job? Are you going to judge buffet strictly by his age? So what if buffet needs a nap every so often? Hell wake up in an hour and crush it. He has the skill and experience needed to get the job done, just like Biden. This post is not entirely in caps but should be.
It’s a bit like when I have to explain the internet to my grandma.
Age isn’t a problem because of a number, it’s a problem because their frame of reference is a world that doesn’t exist anymore.
is that a generalisation? Sure and it’s not true of everyone
but I do think having a leader from that many generations removed from the country at large is a legitimate concern when the median age in the US is 38. Institutional knowledge is also important but Trump, Biden, Reagan were/are pushing it.
Biden was Obama's VP at the end of 2016. In 2020 he was elected POTUS. How far removed was he from "current" events, technology or any other frame of reference for those five years? Good lord, they didn't role him out of an old folks home for christ's sake. And based on his age, wisdom, time in the senate, law background, 8 years as VP and now POTUS, his life experience has served him well, both in the legislation passed, EOs executed, expanding NATO, supporting Ukraine, responding to Covid, dealing with the supply chain and inflation issues, etc. Is he perfect? No. Would someone younger do better? Maybe. Now, if he was advocating for a return to rotary dial phones and coal and wood to heat our homes and wanting cars made out of steel, you'd have a point.
Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.
Whatever. Dude is fucking old, has no business leading a country and neither do many of the senators, etc.
It’s a fucking taxing job. How many other jobs do we have 80 year olds doing? There is a reason. Should enjoy their lives and their families.
He has the right, since he won 270 electoral votes.
Has he not signed several significant new laws, including an unprecedented climate bill, unprecedented minimum tax on profitable corporations, expansion to healthcare, unprecedented expansion of semiconductor domestic production, most expansive new gun safety laws in decades, and tons of other new laws?
Had he not moved immediately on actions to help with rising energy costs? Had he not moved immediately to organize an unprecedented alliance of nearly the entire free world against Russian aggression? Isn’t Biden the only reason Ukraine is still an independent country?
It’s one thing if Biden sat around like Obama waiting forever upon forever for the republicans to come to the table and negotiate, but this dude has been working tirelessly and successfully, and with his experience knew not to wait around for fake gop bipartisanship, and without question getting results.
So is this about anger regarding aging? Maybe the answers for you lie more in the mirror than Bidens age. Should Warren Buffet be forced to retire? That’s an extremely difficult job? Are you going to judge buffet strictly by his age? So what if buffet needs a nap every so often? Hell wake up in an hour and crush it. He has the skill and experience needed to get the job done, just like Biden. This post is not entirely in caps but should be.
It’s a bit like when I have to explain the internet to my grandma.
Age isn’t a problem because of a number, it’s a problem because their frame of reference is a world that doesn’t exist anymore.
is that a generalisation? Sure and it’s not true of everyone
but I do think having a leader from that many generations removed from the country at large is a legitimate concern when the median age in the US is 38. Institutional knowledge is also important but Trump, Biden, Reagan were/are pushing it.
Party doesn’t matter. I like Biden plenty.
All due respect if you have the good fortune of still being in your 30s, I’d rather have Bidens experience in the oval over yours or anyone born in the year that you were. Or the decade. By a freaking mile.
the frame of reference to being president is 100% in Bidens wheelhouse. Its his experience. It’s his specialty, not yours. Not mine. Certainly not trumps, and we are all coming very close to paying the price for that. Rs voted for an amateur, and the foundation of the country is shaking as a result.(I admit slightly off topic, but experience matters, especially the right type). Nuclear documents. Hmmm.
If the story of nuclear documents is true, it shows the danger of Americans misunderstanding the qualifications of being president presents. Rs voted for someone completely unqualified in every sense of the word. Someone who wanted the power the people control all for himself. And we are spiraling towards civil war if Rs such as my in laws continue to make excuses for trump.
The last seven years is proof we should not vote for unqualified inexperienced candidates for president. If Biden needs a nap, let him take it. He’ll wake up and figure out what no one else in DC could, such as making a historic climate deal with Mr. Coal.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,323
edited August 2022
I think some of you have it all backwards. I don't think being an old president is a bad idea. I think it is what is expected of a president that is a bad idea. We would do so much better to pattern ourselves after native cultures such as many tribes of the American Indian and First Nations peoples in which a council did most of the work and sought an elder chief for wisdom and guidance. That makes far more sense than putting it all on the shoulders of one person. young or old. I think we are a very unwise people.
And frankly, I think what some of you are saying shows a great disrespect for elders. That is not cool.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I think some of you have it all backwards. I don't think being an old president is a bad idea. I think it is what is expected of a president that is a bad idea. We would do so much better to pattern ourselves after native cultures such as many tribes of the American Indian and First Nations peoples in which a council did most of the work and sought an elder chief for wisdom and guidance. That makes far more sense than putting it all on the shoulders of one person. young or old. I think we are a very unwise people.
And frankly, I think what some of you are saying shows a great disrespect for elders. That is not cool.
The older you are the less urgent you take issues like climate change. There are plenty of stats on that. The reasons may vary, but it’s there
if in fact that is the most pressing issue going forward the people leading us does matter. That’s not a Biden specific issue, look at congress, the Supreme Court etc. it’s over represented in several demographic areas. Statistics and statistical differences become more important when dealing with groups, not individuals.
you can look up a lot of stats on issues and you can see generational differences. That absolutely doesn’t mean a younger generation is right, it means their view is different . People moderate with age too generally but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing, it makes it different.
I fail to see how that’s disrespectful to anyone of any age. I don’t disrespect any elders. It kind of reminds me of when people say I can’t be anti Israel without being anti semitic. It’s two separate things
it’s well established people already tend to prefer people who they are aligned with politically (D or R) and surround themselves with those people because they can identify with them better/easier. It’s not that unreasonable to expect that people are also better able to identify with someone of a similar generation . Usually ageism goes in the opposite direction. The younger generations get dumped on a lot. I’m guilty too
millennials expect to be the butt of every joke and have been for a long time, the term “ok boomer” ruffled a lot of feathers though.
Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,323
I think some of you have it all backwards. I don't think being an old president is a bad idea. I think it is what is expected of a president that is a bad idea. We would do so much better to pattern ourselves after native cultures such as many tribes of the American Indian and First Nations peoples in which a council did most of the work and sought an elder chief for wisdom and guidance. That makes far more sense than putting it all on the shoulders of one person. young or old. I think we are a very unwise people.
And frankly, I think what some of you are saying shows a great disrespect for elders. That is not cool.
The older you are the less urgent you take issues like climate change. There are plenty of stats on that. The reasons may vary, but it’s there
if in fact that is the most pressing issue going forward the people leading us does matter. That’s not a Biden specific issue, look at congress, the Supreme Court etc. it’s over represented in several demographic areas. Statistics and statistical differences become more important when dealing with groups, not individuals.
you can look up a lot of stats on issues and you can see generational differences. That absolutely doesn’t mean a younger generation is right, it means their view is different . People moderate with age too generally but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing, it makes it different.
I fail to see how that’s disrespectful to anyone of any age. I don’t disrespect any elders. It kind of reminds me of when people say I can’t be anti Israel without being anti semitic. It’s two separate things
it’s well established people already tend to prefer people who they are aligned with politically (D or R) and surround themselves with those people because they can identify with them better/easier. It’s not that unreasonable to expect that people are also better able to identify with someone of a similar generation . Usually ageism goes in the opposite direction. The younger generations get dumped on a lot. I’m guilty too
millennials expect to be the butt of every joke and have been for a long time, the term “ok boomer” ruffled a lot of feathers though.
The older you are the less urgent you take issues like climate change.
That's a hugely generalized statement and I'd like to see those stats that bears it out. Most older people I know care about global warming very much. We have kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews, godchildren- all of whom will be affected by climate change in their lifetime, if not in ours. To suggest we don't care about that is hugely presumptuous and for me personally, in the context of this thread, it is insulting. I guess you haven't notices who started the climate change thread and has posted there frequently with major concern on this matter.
Just 45 minutes ago I woke up from having a very disturbing dream about climate change and how it will affect the world, especially younger people. Most of the people my age who I know well worry about climate change.
We're all in this together and anyone with a brain and a heart is very concerned. Making and age difference yet another form of division here is totally unhelpful and insulting. Please don't do that.
Post edited by brianlux on
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I think some of you have it all backwards. I don't think being an old president is a bad idea. I think it is what is expected of a president that is a bad idea. We would do so much better to pattern ourselves after native cultures such as many tribes of the American Indian and First Nations peoples in which a council did most of the work and sought an elder chief for wisdom and guidance. That makes far more sense than putting it all on the shoulders of one person. young or old. I think we are a very unwise people.
And frankly, I think what some of you are saying shows a great disrespect for elders. That is not cool.
The older you are the less urgent you take issues like climate change. There are plenty of stats on that. The reasons may vary, but it’s there
if in fact that is the most pressing issue going forward the people leading us does matter. That’s not a Biden specific issue, look at congress, the Supreme Court etc. it’s over represented in several demographic areas. Statistics and statistical differences become more important when dealing with groups, not individuals.
you can look up a lot of stats on issues and you can see generational differences. That absolutely doesn’t mean a younger generation is right, it means their view is different . People moderate with age too generally but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing, it makes it different.
I fail to see how that’s disrespectful to anyone of any age. I don’t disrespect any elders. It kind of reminds me of when people say I can’t be anti Israel without being anti semitic. It’s two separate things
it’s well established people already tend to prefer people who they are aligned with politically (D or R) and surround themselves with those people because they can identify with them better/easier. It’s not that unreasonable to expect that people are also better able to identify with someone of a similar generation . Usually ageism goes in the opposite direction. The younger generations get dumped on a lot. I’m guilty too
millennials expect to be the butt of every joke and have been for a long time, the term “ok boomer” ruffled a lot of feathers though.
The older you are the less urgent you take issues like climate change.
That's a hugely generalized statement and I'd like to see those stats that bears it out. Most older people I know care about global warming very much. We have kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews, godchildren- all of whom will be affected by climate change in their lifetime, if not in ours. To suggest we don't care about that is hugely presumptuous and for me personally, in the context of this thread, it is insulting. I guess you haven't notices who started this thread and has posted here frequently with major concern on this matter.
Just 45 minutes ago I woke up from having a very disturbing dream about climate change and how it will affect the world, especially younger people. Most of the people my age who I know well worry about climate change.
We're all in this together and anyone with a brain and a heart is very concerned. Making and age difference yet another form of division here is totally unhelpful and insulting. Please don't do that.
I think some of you have it all backwards. I don't think being an old president is a bad idea. I think it is what is expected of a president that is a bad idea. We would do so much better to pattern ourselves after native cultures such as many tribes of the American Indian and First Nations peoples in which a council did most of the work and sought an elder chief for wisdom and guidance. That makes far more sense than putting it all on the shoulders of one person. young or old. I think we are a very unwise people.
And frankly, I think what some of you are saying shows a great disrespect for elders. That is not cool.
The older you are the less urgent you take issues like climate change. There are plenty of stats on that. The reasons may vary, but it’s there
if in fact that is the most pressing issue going forward the people leading us does matter. That’s not a Biden specific issue, look at congress, the Supreme Court etc. it’s over represented in several demographic areas. Statistics and statistical differences become more important when dealing with groups, not individuals.
you can look up a lot of stats on issues and you can see generational differences. That absolutely doesn’t mean a younger generation is right, it means their view is different . People moderate with age too generally but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing, it makes it different.
I fail to see how that’s disrespectful to anyone of any age. I don’t disrespect any elders. It kind of reminds me of when people say I can’t be anti Israel without being anti semitic. It’s two separate things
it’s well established people already tend to prefer people who they are aligned with politically (D or R) and surround themselves with those people because they can identify with them better/easier. It’s not that unreasonable to expect that people are also better able to identify with someone of a similar generation . Usually ageism goes in the opposite direction. The younger generations get dumped on a lot. I’m guilty too
millennials expect to be the butt of every joke and have been for a long time, the term “ok boomer” ruffled a lot of feathers though.
The older you are the less urgent you take issues like climate change.
That's a hugely generalized statement and I'd like to see those stats that bears it out. Most older people I know care about global warming very much. We have kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews, godchildren- all of whom will be affected by climate change in their lifetime, if not in ours. To suggest we don't care about that is hugely presumptuous and for me personally, in the context of this thread, it is insulting. I guess you haven't notices who started this thread and has posted here frequently with major concern on this matter.
Just 45 minutes ago I woke up from having a very disturbing dream about climate change and how it will affect the world, especially younger people. Most of the people my age who I know well worry about climate change.
We're all in this together and anyone with a brain and a heart is very concerned. Making and age difference yet another form of division here is totally unhelpful and insulting. Please don't do that.
Sorry Brian, not trying to piss you off. you asked for stats so I provided them. the disparities of concern by age group aren't super significant, but there is a definite disparity.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,323
Sorry Brian, not trying to piss you off. you asked for stats so I provided them. the disparities of concern by age group aren't super significant, but there is a definite disparity.
Not pissed at you.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
I see it a lot. I really don’t know why properties are listed as llc owned. There has to be a reason though. I don’t think there is a tax benefit
"Let’s focus on Invitation Homes, a $21 billion publicly traded company that was spun off from Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity company, in 2017. Invitation Homes operates in 16 cities, with the biggest concentration in Atlanta, where it owns 12,556 houses. (Though that’s not much compared with the 80,000 homes sold in Atlanta each year, Invitation Homes bought 90 percent of the homes for sale in some ZIP codes in Atlanta in the early 2010s.) While normal people typically pay a mortgage interest rate between 2 percent and 4 percent these days, Invitation Homes can borrow money for far less: It’s getting billion-dollar loans at interest rates around 1.4 percent. In practice, this means that Invitation Homes can afford to tack on an extra $5,000 to $20,000 to the purchase price of every home, while getting the house at the same actual cost as a typical homeowner. While Invitation Homes uses a mixture of debt and cash from renters to buy houses, its offers are almost always all cash, which is a big leg up in a competitive market." https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.html
That 1% you speak of I am assuming is all residential property ownership in the US? I would like to see how that factors in if you look at that 1% of property in relation to available properties on the market and what percentage of available properties are being bought up. While a number like 1% seems miniscule by itself it could paint a different picture when taken in a different context. 15% of available homes being bought up by corporate investors in a quarter is a much different thing than, oh corporate investors only own .5 to 1% of all residential property in the US total. I am not saying anyone sat down in a room to come up with such a plan. Since the goal is to maximize profits for shareholders, if a side effect of the current trend is increasing rents and an endless debt cycle, a corporation or any other perfectly legal business venture has no reason to pump the brakes when it comes to the betterment and livelihood of non investors. Though corporations and private equity partners may be staffed with regular people just like me and you the bottom line doesn't care. When it comes to profits we have seen over and over in this country and around the world that the side effects of capital accumulation and how it affects communities, the environment etc. have little to no influence unless silly little laws are enacted.
To the second bolded, no corporation or private equity firm big time real estate mogul etc. should be able to buy a residential property with the specific goal of converting it to a rental property and thus shrinking the amount of available homes to actual families and homebuyers looking for an actual place to call their home, regardless of how perfectly legal it may be to do otherwise.
I'm sure there is some sort of tax break or revenue protection involved. A former employer of mine sold his successful welding business to a huge corp for somewhere north of 15 mil. Within a year he created an llc real estate company bought three properties a handful of high dollar vehicles and a boat, all registered to the newly formed llc. I wasn't told the ins and outs but he did tell me that everything can be written off on taxes because of the llc.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
i should be happier but i have been conditioned to be vigilant when something good happens. when something good happens some bullshit usually follows. i'm too busy waiting for the bullshit to happen to be too happy about any of the recent good news.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Gas is still high (not sure how if you don’t blame president for gas you take credit for improvement)
It’ll be interesting to see what comes from what was passed. And I’m forever thankful the original Biden bill was not passed.
what’s wrong with grouping all the hypocritical criticisms in one post?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
when you are older than the US life expectancy you are pretty removed from policies that affect most people of working age. That goes for both Biden and Trump
based on the year they were born both have exceeded it
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
The real estate is likely going to be rented. If it isn't he can't deduct any of it.
Not sure what he is doing with the boat and cars...if he is leasing them to customers he could write off the costs against rental income. Otherwise what business purpose would there be to owning a boat or a car in an LLC with rental real estate.
Some people say things like that and have no idea that their tax guy isn't writing the shit off. Sometimes CPAs have to protect a client from themselves.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Has he not signed several significant new laws, including an unprecedented climate bill, unprecedented minimum tax on profitable corporations, expansion to healthcare, unprecedented expansion of semiconductor domestic production, most expansive new gun safety laws in decades, and tons of other new laws?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
is that a generalisation? Sure and it’s not true of everyone
but I do think having a leader from that many generations removed from the country at large is a legitimate concern when the median age in the US is 38. Institutional knowledge is also important but Trump, Biden, Reagan were/are pushing it.
Maybe we can blame his speech impediment instead?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If the story of nuclear documents is true, it shows the danger of Americans misunderstanding the qualifications of being president presents. Rs voted for someone completely unqualified in every sense of the word. Someone who wanted the power the people control all for himself. And we are spiraling towards civil war if Rs such as my in laws continue to make excuses for trump.
The last seven years is proof we should not vote for unqualified inexperienced candidates for president. If Biden needs a nap, let him take it. He’ll wake up and figure out what no one else in DC could, such as making a historic climate deal with Mr. Coal.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
if in fact that is the most pressing issue going forward the people leading us does matter. That’s not a Biden specific issue, look at congress, the Supreme Court etc. it’s over represented in several demographic areas. Statistics and statistical differences become more important when dealing with groups, not individuals.
you can look up a lot of stats on issues and you can see generational differences. That absolutely doesn’t mean a younger generation is right, it means their view is different . People moderate with age too generally but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing, it makes it different.
it’s well established people already tend to prefer people who they are aligned with politically (D or R) and surround themselves with those people because they can identify with them better/easier. It’s not that unreasonable to expect that people are also better able to identify with someone of a similar generation . Usually ageism goes in the opposite direction. The younger generations get dumped on a lot. I’m guilty too
millennials expect to be the butt of every joke and have been for a long time, the term “ok boomer” ruffled a lot of feathers though.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-EV 8/14/93
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-EV 8/14/93
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"