1065
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
1065 points (99.4% liked)
Uplifting News
19346 readers
914 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Frankly the limit should be 0 for private equity. The only exception should be for mortgage lenders (for obvious reasons) who should also not be ownable by PE or VC.
It should not be legal for corporations to own a residential property outside of the context of a mortgage. Any corporation (here, including banks) owning a residence for the purpose of rental income should be flat out illegal as well.
If it were me, I would have just passed a federal tax on property where whatever the local city, state, and county taxes are, there's also a federal levy of property taxes of the exact same amount multiplied by the number of properties each taxpaying owner owns - 1.
So if you own one home, you pay no additional taxes.
If you and your spouse own two homes, you pay no additional taxes.
But if you own five 1 million dollar properties as a single person and the property taxes on each of those properties is $5,000, then instead of paying a total of $25,000 in property taxes as a single homeowner, you would pay
$5,000 * 4 * 4 + $5,000, or $85,000/yr.
That $60,000 a year difference for being a multiple homeowner would go into a fund specifically to provide grants and assistance for low-income renters and first-time homebuyers.
This would make it so that owning multiple homes becomes a sign of affluence.
And it would put a steep price curve on going over the limit of even moderately reasonable amounts of homes to own as a person.
Adding one additional $1 million home with a $5,000 property tax annual on it would actually add another $45,000/yr to the taxes that you would pay compared to someone who only owns that single home, and doing it this way, make sure that the scale of increasing taxes that you would pay on home ownership would become exponentially prohibitive.
It would also ensure that at a very reasonable point, no matter how much you charged for rent, for any property you own, once you own more than four, it becomes impossible to actually profit off of multiple home ownership, because very quickly, no renter in the universe would pay what you need to earn in order to cover the taxes off of owning that property.
This is part of my pitch to become president in 2032 when I become eligible.
Oh, slight correction. Add the original taxes to the numbers I generated because the federal taxes are separate from the city, state, and local taxes.
So in the first example, $85,000 plus $25,000 equals $110,000 a year to own five $1 million properties at $5,000 a year property taxes.
And in the second example, $130,000 plus $30,000 equals $160,000 a year to own the sixth one.
A starter home where I live is almost 1 mil. The prices would go down if any real legislation passed but a 1 mil home isn't the end all be all.
You mean it's legal for mortgagerock?
How do you differentiate between private equity and regular corporate ownership though? Because building and operating apartment buildings takes a lot more money than the average individual has.
Yeah, so to me, that sounds like a great argument for public funding of housing.
We don’t have to make them like old Soviet-bloc mega apartment complexes (I admit I am fond of some of the exterior aesthetics and building arrangements the Soviets tended to do, but the insides were more or less concrete shoeboxes (“to each according to their needs”, ostensibly, but imo in practice it was often far too minimal, and often not even truly meeting a given family’s needs)).
And we don’t need and shouldn’t expect them to be massive profit generators (much like we don’t need and shouldn’t expect mass transit to be a massive profit generator). We could build quite comfortable public housing, pair it with substantially improved public physical and mental healthcare, and not only effectively solve homelessness overnight, but simultaneously make a long-term investment in the viability of American society (including but not limited to birth rates, happiness indices, GDP (more people doing well = more people able to contribute to the pool = gdp go up), education, residential ownership, diminishing crime… we can go on).
Oops, I slipped into “we should be more socialist” mode lol
I dunno this plan sounds like it opens up a whole lot more Individual Freedoms ©️™️ 🦅 🇺🇸 for more individual people!. . . As a group demographic comprised of individuals, of course. 😉
(Y'know, for your upcoming campaign. Rooting for you!)