Poor people can't buy homes and those investors are the same people who make everyone else poor.
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
392 points (99.5% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
14499 readers
379 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Eat the rich
This isn't the rich, that's what makes it so sad. These funds are managed by vultures, yes, but these portfolios are quickly bundled and turned into financial instruments, which in turn portions of them are rolled into other funds, which in turn are sold to groups like teachers pension funds, or fractions sold on Robinhood using fancy names that disguise what is in them. These funds are sold not to the rich but to those trying to stay ahead of the meat grinder that is the American capitalist economy. The rich get fees that are completely divorced from how well the funds perform, meanwhile working folk are inadvertently funding and fueling the machine that is making it impossible for them to afford to buy a home.
I don't think you understand.
EAT.
THE
RICH.
Yeah, that too, but my complaint is about the system that makes the rich while simultaneously convincing us to inadvertently participate in and strengthen our own economic slavery.
That's by design though. They get rich off selling us the promise of something being the next frontier of personal sovereignty.
💯
If repeating your meaningless slogan is the only response you can muster to someone actually trying to offer substantive explanation, you're the one that lacks understanding, whether willfully or not.
Writing it in all caps only further emphasizes this.
Should 10x property taxes on non-primary-residences, and split the proceeds between subsidizing construction of new housing and being distributed as a UBI. Would be better than trying to ban speculative investment in housing outright, because it would be attacking the underlying market factors instead of telling investors they can't try to make a profit.
not only that, place limits on how many properties they can own as well, plus also close loopholes like using LLC / some kind of other shady company to buy more houses.
place limits on how many properties they can own as well, plus also close loopholes like using LLC / some kind of other shady company to buy more houses.
This is a cat and mouse game that the law, glacially paced as it is, can never win. The tax strategy suggested would be much more effective.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I get letters from realtors asking me to sell mine to their “client”. I’m sure they are investors so they can fuck off. I’ll take less money to make sure a family gets my house when sell.
I get emails and scam phone calls asking me to sell the last house my parents owned when I lived there, they sold that property 4 years ago
Sell it to them lol
So can we stop this? Please?
Investors should NOT be allowed to own houses, period. People should own houses. I don't care if a few people have more than one house and rent that out, small time land lords are fine.
These investment companies are the worst and they destroy everything they touch, everything is immediately scorched earth. Meanwhile we're in a very preventable global housing crisis, but hey, let's sell homes to investment companies, because what could possibly go wrong?
Nah, all landlords are leeches. Rent-seeking is literally parasitic by nature.
So everyone who has enough money to rent, but not enough to own, should be homeless? That middle ground of renting has to exist, or we're overall in a much worse state of affairs. And you can't rent unless there is a homeowner to rent from.
Also, a lot of people deliberately choose renting over owning, because they value things like not having the financial burden of house maintenance/repairs, or it being orders of magnitude easier to relocate, for whatever reason, and so on.
So everyone who has enough money to rent, but not enough to own, should be homeless?
The concept of someone having enough money to rent but not enough to own is ghoulish in the first place. If my landlord can pay $<1,200 for this house's mortgage and upkeep, and I can pay $1,200 a month for the right to sleep in it, then we should simply cut out the middle man and have me pay that $<1,200 a month for mortgage and upkeep directly.
The concept of someone having enough money to rent but not enough to own is ghoulish in the first place.
Don't think you're being a little dramatic? There are many more costs involved in owning a house than the mortgage payment.
If my landlord can pay $<1,200 for this house’s mortgage and upkeep, and I can pay $1,200 a month for the right to sleep in it, then we should simply cut out the middle man and have me pay that $<1,200 a month for mortgage and upkeep directly.
You're paying for not having the responsibility to pay for any maintenance/repairs upfront, and for having the ability to easily pack up and move on short notice. If the roof suddenly needs replacing, that's $9500 on average that you have to pay right now.
Chances are, if you're financially stable enough that you'd be able to handle things like that without it being a financial catastrophe for you, then you do have enough money to own.
Don't think you're being a little dramatic? There are many more costs involved in owning a house than the mortgage payment.
Yes, and my rent covers literally all of them. Again, it has to, or else my landlord would be renting this house at a loss. I don't want the opportunity to pack up and move on short notice. I've lived in this city since I was born, and I intend to die here. I should not be forced to pay a premium for a feature I will never use.
Yes, and my rent covers literally all of them.
So, nothing's keeping you from buying a house then, since what you already pay in rent covers all of the cost. Right?
I should not be forced to pay a premium for a feature I will never use.
Why haven't you bought a house already, then? Could it be that it doesn't just cost what you pay in rent each month?
Do you reckon I'd qualify for a mortgage with my <$30,000/year income and my zero credit history? If you do, I might actually look into it
Could it be that it doesn't just cost what you pay in rent each month?
Do u reckon every landlord is renting out their houses for a loss??? You get that that's what you're implying, right? Like obviously my landlord is better equipped to handle a big expense all at once, but that's because the cost is amortized across many many months of my rent payments.
So everyone who has enough money to rent, but not enough to own, should be homeless?
Who said that? Other than you?
load more comments
(1 replies)
The entire concept of "rent" needs to die in a goddamn fire. There are much better arrangements to fill the niche you are talking about. What is lacking is a regulatory environment making those arrangements preferable to rent.
"Rent" is typically a year-to-year arrangement. Every year, the deal is renegotiated and the tenant ends up paying more.
A "Land Contract" is (initially) similar to rent, but it is negotiated only once, and the monthly fee is fixed for the life of the agreement, like a mortgage.
For the first three years of the agreement, you pay your monthly fee, and you live in the home. You are free to walk away at any time.
If you stay longer than three years, the entire agreement automatically converts to a private mortgage, with your first three years of payments considered the down payment. You continue to make the same payment, but now you are earning equity.
All that is well and good, but landlords won't offer land contracts, because land contracts favor the tenant/buyer.
Not to worry. We're going to restructure property taxes. We're going to have landlords begging tenants to switch to land contracts. The way we do it is by offering an owner-occupant exemption to property taxes. This is called a "homestead exemption" in some states. Basically, if you occupy a home, you pay a tiny fraction of the property taxes that you would owe if you didn't occupy that home. Or, more accurately, if you are an investor, your property tax rate is going to the moon.
Land Contract tenants/buyers are considered "owners". The property you are living in is owned by the occupants, and financed by the landlord/seller. The property taxes are at the owner-occupant rate, not the investor rate. Property taxes on "rentals" melt all the profits the landlord could be earning, so they are incentivized to switch to land contracts.
No, the system should be changed to not arbitrarily restrict people's access to necessities.
Housing, and other necessities, should be community property. If you don't live in the house, you forfeit ownership of that house so someone else who needs it can live in it. Fuck the exploitative system of private property ownership.
Renting is only necessitated because we live in a capitalist system. All your complaints only exist because of the capitalist system. It doesn't need to exist.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
We're chickens stuck inside investors slaughterhouse.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
This might be an unpopular opinion but housing should be classified as a human right.
you're right, whether it's popular or not
While these investors are absolutely soulless and deserve to be called out, there's another aspect of this problem that I feel doesn't get talked about enough.
If we just built enough housing this problem would go away. And it would be easy if we had a system that allowed people to build new things and undercut competition. But we can't because regulations make it nearly impossible to make anything other than houses.
People investing on houses are a symptom of the larger overall problem, of there not being enough fucking housing.
No. Nobody needs a Bitcoin to live, and Bitcoins are still expensive. We have more houses than we need, and housing is expensive. That's because they're both being used as ponzi schemes.
That's kinda exactly my point? If someone could print a fuckton of new bitcoins it's value would drop. The same is true for housing. We may have technically enough housing for everyone, but that means nothing if that housing is not also where people want to or need to live.
zoning laws, and NIMBYism by rich people are the problem. i think moreso with nimbyism.
If we just built enough housing this problem would go away.
Fun fact: there are more vacant homes than there are homeless. By a factor of 28. We have the homes, we just need to let people own them
Yes of course, but how do you propose we get that to happen?
Why are these homes empty in the first place? Are they in the same places where housing is needed?
And even if you could house all homeless people, that still leaves the problem of the crushing expense of housing in many places.
Government officials should not be allowed to own rental property.. problem solved.
This is absolutely terrible for working people and the economy as a whole. Gatekeeping which ultimately brings down everyone including the investors who hold it above the heads of others.
blow the bubble
Funny how housing prices are conveniently all falling
I hope they all get wrecked when it bursts. This is madness and literal biblical demon levels of evil.
view more: next ›