Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#701

Post by kelnos »

Someone1234 wrote: post #421
rgmerk wrote: post #165

It will make very little difference in the end. Australia's land tax system makes it effectively impossible for large corporations to own large chunks of residential property, but our real estate is amongst the world's most expensive and landlords are still awful - it's just that the landlords are hundreds of thousands of dentists and, yes, software engineers rather than corporate entities. If you want housing to be…

The problem with "increase supply" is that existing property owners rarely want that. In almost all cities land has run out, so the only way to actually increase supply is to increase density. That means fewer single-family-homes, and more townhomes, multi-family, condos, and apartments. The "American Dream" is a single-family-home, surrounded by other single-family homes, but even with urban sprawl we simply run int…

> The problem with "increase supply" is that existing property owners rarely want that.

Yup. I'm a weirdo who owns his home but wants a shit-ton more housing built in his city, even if it means my home value goes down. I do know some like-minded folks here, but I would be very surprised if we weren't in the minority.

And it makes sense. We're taught (in the US) to treat our primary residence as an investment, and for most US homeowners it's the most expensive asset they'll ever own, and will be their main vehicle for maintaining their wealth through their later years, and for transferring the remainder of that wealth to their children.

Given that, you'd either have to be self-sabotaging-ly altruistic, or otherwise wealthy enough (outside of your home) that a significant dip in your property's value doesn't tank your finances. I expect that describes a small number of people.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#702

Post by crooked-v »

derangedHorse wrote: post #400
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #371

Wow this is exciting. I tend liberal, but I think this sounds like a bad policy lol. My understanding of the existing research is that rent control tends to decreases the motivation to increase supply, and I think this should do the same

Yeah if investors are no longer buying from home developers then it'll definitely limit the demand, the price homes sell for, and the motivation to build new homes. I believe that metropolitan areas are the problem and my unpopular opinion is that people have to get used to the idea of moving to sparser areas for affordable housing.

More specifically, the current zoning of metropolitan areas is the problem. US cities have plenty of potential for more housing, they just won't allow it to be built.

The most absurd example is here in SF, where... okay, context. A recently-passed state law overriding local zoning means that there's a high-rise building project in the Marina district (https://sfyimby.com/2025/12/preliminary-permits-filed-for-fo...) that will almost certainly get built, despite people endlessly protesting it. It will add 790 apartments, 86 of which will be required to be affordable housing.

Before this, in 2024, there were 7 net housing units added for the entire year in the Marina District. No typo there, literally just 7, in the most expensive neighborhood in the city, in the most expensive city in the country.

This one building, only possible because the state overrode local zoning, will be adding by itself more than 100 years worth of new housing to the neighborhood. That's how fucked the approval process is.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#703

Post by tpmoney »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #589
jazzyjackson wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically a maximum wage for landlords, bound to start a secret society. IMO it's a crooked notion that landlords are rent seeking and nothing else - they do create supply and maintain housing. Issue is when they want to politically and artificially raise the value of their property by preventing more housing from being built, so, if you're going to ban something, ban artificial regulations on construction! N…

> IMO it's a crooked notion that landlords are rent seeking and nothing else - they do create supply and maintain housing. They don’t create supply in any way, the only ones who do that are builders. But sure they maintain houses. Although just the bare minimum, they will never fix it nicely - just enough to rent it out.

How does one propose to supply the market for temporary housing without landlords? Students, travelers, new residents to an area, people early in their careers switching jobs frequently, all of these people have a need for temporary housing. If the only people who own buildings live in them, where do these people find their housing?

I spent over a decade living in various rentals after I moved to a new state. I didn't have the money to buy when I first moved, and even if I had, I didn't know the area well enough to know whether I would want to buy where I first lived. And having the ability to just pick up and move meant I had a lot of flexibility for chasing job opportunities. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to love about the home I own now, but it absolutely ties me down and anchors me in ways that renting never did. I for one am glad to have had people willing to rent property to me.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#704

Post by jjav »

kiba wrote: post #578
dheera wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you tax land the only thing you will end up with is higher rents. You are punishing the wrong people. Want to punish the right people? Cut taxes so that people can save cash faster, afford houses earlier and stop renting from their landlords. Build more actually-affordable housing, too. Not these blocks of luxury apartments with swimming pools that nobody uses. (See HDB, Singapore -- that’s what the US needs more…

Land is taxed but improvements are not. That tax is not passed down because landlords are already charging the highest price they can. The tax simply redirect the unearned income to the public coffer which are either spent on public investment that further increase land value or redistributed as citizen's dividend. Meanwhile landlords are free to construct as many buildings as they can without being penalized by high…

> Empty lot, parking lots, and self storage facilities would be penalized because they wouldn't generate enough income to cover taxes on land, leading to more efficient utilization of land

Right, so the city would be nothing but luxury (to maximize income to pay those taxes) high rise apartments packed tight every block.

No parks, no playgrounds, no soccer fields, no sports courts, no bike trails, no dog parks... none of the things that make living in an area pleasant. Also, no low income housing. Because none of those maximize "efficiency" (measured only in dollars) of every square inch of land.

Life is not pleasant if maximizing value extraction is the one and only #1 criteria. This is what land value tax misses.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#705

Post by kelnos »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #632
danny_codes wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In almost all cities land has run out, so the only way to actually increase supply is to increase density. That means fewer single-family-homes, and more townhomes, multi-family, condos, and apartments. Existing property owners can only afford to hold this opinion because land rents are insufficiently taxed. Through some sort of monumental stupidity we decided to tax labor instead of land. In this sense the SFH, “A…

> we decided to tax labor instead of land I live in Wyoming. We don't tax labor. Just extraction, consumption (sales), some investments and property. Our property is still expensive. > If homeowners were faced with the economic reality of their choices then markets would fix land use by themselves The problem begins and ends with supply restrictions.

More than 70% of the US population lives in a state with state income tax. So I think it's fair to say that "we" tax labor, in general, even if it's not universal.

And regardless, "we" also means the US federal government here, and everyone in the US is subject to US income tax, regardless of which state you live in.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#706

Post by Alive-in-2025 »

Goronmon wrote: post #13

It was not immediately clear what legal authority Trump would draw upon to impose such a ban on the private market purchases of houses. Trump did not detail the policy, the form it would take or the legal changes he was seeking from Congress. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. president was due to sign unspecified executive orders later on Wednesday. Anyways, I thought that…

It's extremely likely that the president doesn't have that power. He can disallow corporations from buying houses on a whim? I don't think so. But PR goodness has already been coming his way from the policy if there is any.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#707

Post by kalleboo »

Aurornis wrote: post #80
stocksinsmocks wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tariffs are a bit of a new phenomenon so I think that may be motivated reasoning. Construction productivity has also been stagnant for about 60 years. I think the most important factor is that housing prices, in the United States at least, are governed by how much a bank will lend. Very small but affordable houses will never be built because a bank will not finance a $10,000 loan over 30 years. In the same vein,…

> The tariffs are a bit of a new phenomenon so I think that may be motivated reasoning. Construction productivity has also been stagnant for about 60 years. If construction was stagnant for 60 years, adding 10-50% tariffs on lumber and building materials would only make it worse. Not motivated reasoning, just basic economics. The new tariffs went into effect January 1st, by the way. If you thought things were bad now…

> If this was true you'd see it in some other countries

The closest thing you have are Japanese Kei cars - you can get a brand-new Suzuki Alto for $6,600 before sales tax, but it would not pass crash US safety standards, it's built for slow city streets of Japan and not highway driving.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#708

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

crooked-v wrote: post #687
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two times I’ve stayed in an apartment complex, they had staff onsite and repairmen and someone on call. The individual landlord doing this on the side is likely undercapitalized and operating on thin margins and not budgeting for repairs

The difference here comes from the distinction between corporate landlords that actually want a sustainable business, and corporate landlords that know they will never make the money back for either rent control or market reasons and so only care about extracting as much money as possible before the building falls apart.

And that’s why rent control is bad. Why wouod I invest money to keep up a building where I knew I couldn’t get market rates for rent if I were a landlord?

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#709

Post by pixelatedindex »

tpmoney wrote: post #703
pixelatedindex wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO it's a crooked notion that landlords are rent seeking and nothing else - they do create supply and maintain housing. They don’t create supply in any way, the only ones who do that are builders. But sure they maintain houses. Although just the bare minimum, they will never fix it nicely - just enough to rent it out.

How does one propose to supply the market for temporary housing without landlords? Students, travelers, new residents to an area, people early in their careers switching jobs frequently, all of these people have a need for temporary housing. If the only people who own buildings live in them, where do these people find their housing? I spent over a decade living in various rentals after I moved to a new state. I didn'…

All fair and valid points. I agree. In today’s age with a career in the tech field and a newly first time home owner, I do feel the aspect of being tied down. But I never really got to avail of moving to chase job opportunities since the Bay Area is where they’re the densest. That being said during Covid times I had to move to the PNW due to layoffs (got a great offer, but I didn’t have to accept it and could afford to keep looking). So I really do understand the benefits of renting.

Like I said in another reply, I don’t consider landlords to be inherently bad. But there are a lot who will try to take advantage of you if you let them. You have to be lucky to get a good one - I only had a couple out of the dozen or so and I wish them the best.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#710

Post by alfiedotwtf »

Anyone want to bet that this will cause the Second Order effect of no more new single-family homes being built and instead move more and more future development into co-living dwellings.

Given this, it’s inevitable - the New American Dream will be communal living.

Post reply on HN