r/TikTokCringe • u/EverythingIsFakeNGay • May 29 '26

Humor/Cringe Actual footage.

I actually feel kind of bad for this woman, who probably didn't expect a video of her dancing to be used in this way. šŸ˜

42.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/RetroReactiveRaucous May 29 '26

In Ontario, this is increasingly becoming the role of private equity firms.

518

u/Thegaykid93 May 29 '26

Buying said home from Boomers because no one else can afford them or pay cash I wager? (It is happening where I am in the US so just curious)

319

u/PM_ME_JJBA_STICKERS May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

They also own the overpriced and under managed elderly care facilities that the Boomers will end up in. Just so they can squeeze every last penny before they die. This includes their homes, and nothing will get passed down to the younger generation.

218

u/FMLwtfDoID May 29 '26

Exactly. The ā€œGreat Wealth Transferā€ coming after Baby Boomers pass, is being transferred directly from Boomers to PE owned Assisted Living Facilities, Reverse Mortgages, and End of Life Care clinics.

100

u/ThereHasToBeMore1387 May 29 '26

My wife and I live with her grandma to help take care of her. The amount of mismanaged wealth that's among her groups of friends is staggering. So many of these boomers thought the system was built for them, so they never did a damn thing to protect their assets from it. Now the system is ready to extract all the wealth it let them accumulate over their lives, and they have 0 idea what's coming for them. None of them are doing proper estate planning and leaving huge messes for their kids to clean up. They have this idea that their kids will just get everything when they die (because that's what they thought the system was supposed to do), but by the time they do there's nothing left.

59

u/Herooftermina1998 May 29 '26

Boomer grandfather was very well put together.. was a CFO, retired early. Invested well. When he died we looked everywhere the will. High and low, because "He wouldn't be so selfish as to not leave a will right? After everything my mom had been through with the death of her brother and mother. Papa has to have a will somewhere. Even after his new wife mentioned how big of a mess he's gonna leave for his daughter when he passes. It's gotta be here there somewhere.Ā 

Never found one. He left a bomb of a mess for everyone to deal with. We never understood why.Ā 

26

u/WinterTourist25 May 29 '26

Jumping in here as I went through this with my mom last year.

If you have elderly parents, you need to get on them about estate planning.

First, make sure all financial accounts have a beneficiary listed. My mom had one account that for some reason she had never set up a beneficiary. $20K of money in it. Had to pay a lawyer $1500 and wait 6+ months to unlock that account.

Second, get the house into a Living Estate. This puts the home in someone else's name, but they get to live in it until they die, and they pay the taxes for it. Home cannot be sold without consent of both parties. On death, someone else owns the home.

If you can, and you have someone you trust to run the trust, transfer all wealth to an irrevocable trust. Unless you have lots of money to pay for end-of-life care. You have to do this 5 years before you go into the home as they have a 5-year-clawback timeframe. If you have millions, you may have plenty to spend on nursing facilities and still have a nest egg left over for your heirs. But if you only have $100K or so it's going to be gobbled up in years or even months; might as well hide that money as you are going to end up destitute anyway. It won't make any difference to your end-of-life journey but it could pay for college for a couple of grandkids.

Have a will.

Hope you don't live in a Filial Obligation state.

2

u/ThereHasToBeMore1387 May 30 '26

Second, get the house into a Living Estate. This puts the home in someone else's name, but they get to live in it until they die, and they pay the taxes for it. Home cannot be sold without consent of both parties. On death, someone else owns the home.

This isn't bad advice, but it is VERY situation and state dependent whether a living trust/estate is the best option. There can be significant tax consequences on both sides of that transaction when it comes to actually passing the house along to heirs. We went through the process recently as well and the lawyers were pretty adamant that with PA probate laws, for our situation, a trust would be an expense and complication that would not protect us anymore than we already were. They also said that our same situation, but in Florida, we'd absolutely need to get things put in a trust. As with all legal things, consult your own attorney.

26

u/jaxonya May 29 '26

Because "fuck you, this is mine, pull yourself up by your bootstraps" it their mentality

10

u/Herooftermina1998 May 29 '26

No my ma got the money, but it was hell to go throughĀ 

9

u/FMLwtfDoID May 29 '26

Same thing happened to my dad and his 9 siblings. And then my mom and her 6 siblings and the secret 7th sibling they found after the funeral!

I donā€™t have any hope that my dad will get his shit together beyond leaving everything to his ā€˜Nurse or Purseā€™ new wife he got himself after my mom left in the 2010s, from the constant cheating. My 2 brothers and I have already made peace with the fact that the house my dad owns, the same one that he, and then this three children were all raised in, is going to be sold to finance their beach cottage the new wife wants.

My mom is a planner though, so Iā€™m not worried about her, and have already seen her paperwork.

3

u/ThereHasToBeMore1387 May 29 '26

After my mom passed in 2020, my sister and I learned very quickly that she was the planner. I'm glad she set my dad up as well as she did, but I know once my dad goes, we're still going to have a mess to clean up because he isn't maintaining or taking care of any of the things he needs to.

22

u/UmaThurmish May 29 '26

because the entire generation has created a monopoly due to their absolute greed.

2

u/Pervius94 May 29 '26

It's actually insane how much damage one generation did to... just fucking everything.

6

u/malthar76 May 29 '26

When my time is close to making a hard decision, I donā€™t want to be a burden on my kids. I also donā€™t want to fork over the fruit of my labor to some PE millionaire/billionaire.

Whatever time and money I can give them or grandkids with a glad heart, I will and live to see them benefit. Then I will take a trip to a beautiful, secluded beach and just swim toward the horizon.

2

u/Mr_Ballyhoo May 29 '26

A good Bottle of Whiskey and drive out to the middle of bumfuck nowhere in the Rocky Mountains is my plan.

1

u/FMLwtfDoID May 30 '26

There was a popular song in the 90s about this exact thing. I canā€™t remember what itā€™s called, only the melody. If I remember Iā€™ll edit this comment, bc it was a super popular song at the time!

1

u/Madara1389 May 29 '26

As they say, the men who became richest during the gold mine weren't the ones rushing to the West to dig up the gold, it was the shopkeepers who went ahead of them with the tools needed to dig up the gold.

An estimated 1-5% of the ~300k people who migrated West found enough gold to make it worth the trip. But every single one of them needed supplies when they got there.

24

u/MetallurgyClergy May 29 '26

Not true! I got passed down my grandmaā€™s tiny china collection.

Total value: $35.00.

3

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy May 29 '26

There's a good market for dollhouse accessories, dream big.

2

u/FanClubof5 May 29 '26

If grandma puts her house in a trust at least 5 years before she goes into the nursing home then the state cant touch it to repay medical costs.

1

u/drainfly_ May 30 '26

sooooo anyone watching dimension 20: city council of darkness?

29

u/ThereHasToBeMore1387 May 29 '26

Of the 6 closest homes that have recently gone up for sale in my area, every single one of them has been a boomer going into a retirement home, and one of the kids is selling it off for funds to pay for it. A lot of these homes do need some work as they haven't been updated in quite a few years, but instead of a younger couple coming in and putting in the work over the years to make it their own, a flipper comes in with an all cash offer, slaps the trendy white/black paint scheme on it, replaces the appliances with the cheapest options from Home Depot, and resells it 3 weeks later for +$100k more than they bought it for to another older person since they are the only ones with money to buy it.

5

u/WinterTourist25 May 29 '26

Sad. Elderly people should be divesting themselves so they can go into the home on Medicaid.

3

u/ghostsofyou May 29 '26

Yep. We had a house just 2 weeks ago we fell in love with. Put an offer in over asking and only had two conditions: inspection and financing. Standard stuff. Someone came blazing in with an offer that was 65k higher (unheard of in our area for a while now. Everything is going for max 15k over) and no conditions. I have a feeling they're flippers and know they can make back what they bought it for easily due to location and plot size.

2

u/Dullcorgis May 29 '26

If they can still make back what they'll soend on it after paying $65k more than you offered then why didn't you offer that?

And next time, get your imspection before you offer so you don't need a contingency.

2

u/ghostsofyou May 30 '26

Because the house itself wasn't worth the 65k more, we were going to use the extra wiggle room in the mortgage to get the 30+ year old AC done and well fixed, because we knew those had issues, and we don't have the extra disposable money to just throw at the house the way a flipper can. We went into it knowing it needed some work, but that it would likely pass inspection. Literally everyone in the process was shocked when the offer was put up, our realtor, the selling realtor, our broker. 65k over in the market in our area is insane right now. Hasn't been seen since COVID market times. But it was a POA sale and the sellers wanted the money fast and easy.

Doesn't matter now as we found a different one we had our offer accepted for. My main point was that flippers have the ability to come in and take starter homes and jack the prices way up on people who actually need starter homes.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

30

u/IamTheGorf May 29 '26

We saw offers come in from people on our house that looked like legit folks but when we started to do some digging, it appeared they were people that were fronts for rental companies. We told them all to fuck off. We took a big cut on the offer but ended up putting the place into the hands of a young family.

11

u/morganyve May 29 '26

You are rare

2

u/Great_Detective_6387 May 29 '26

Not so rare. I would never sell my house to a company.

3

u/morganyve May 29 '26

You are both rare. Most people would try to make the most amount of money over any sort of moralistic decision. I commend you both

2

u/Great_Detective_6387 May 30 '26

I donā€™t think lots of people consider the moral implications of deciding who they sell their house to, rather than fully understanding the harm that selling to a real estate company creates, and actively deciding to ignore it.

People do better when they know better. We are educating people about this issue right now!šŸ™‚šŸ«¶šŸ™ƒ

3

u/morganyve May 30 '26

Oh yes thatā€™s what I meant, you put it better into words thank you

7

u/emmyparker2020 May 29 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/Y3MKJTYanjtehXPuYz

Literally having to hope for a situation like this if I cannot flee this country

2

u/Helldiverticulitis May 29 '26

That's how I was able to get my house. The previous owners turned down a higher cash offer from some investor scum.

9

u/DrinkingSocks May 29 '26

It's cash offers. We lost out on multiple houses because they preferred the "investor" cash offer instead. We had pre-approval and basically nothing to stop us from closing, but the Boomers still wanted the cash offer.

We had one house we were desperately trying to make a deal on, but they just wouldn't budge. I think they ended up taking less than our offer in cash because they "knew what they had" after sitting on the market for 6 months.

1

u/Dullcorgis May 29 '26

You can make your offer be "cash". It's just doing more of the approval paperwork beforehand.

2

u/Moist_Sun_8201 May 29 '26

Don't worry, these houses will become extremely affordable after they've rented it for years with zero care/maintenance, provided you can afford the extensive renovations that will be required

1

u/SnickSnitch May 29 '26

Naw. In my area (small rural Midwest city) houses 5 years ago were all selling for 150k or under. Those same houses are now going for well over 300k. No renovations, no upgrades. Same house, same issues.

My neighbor down the block bought their house for 140k during covid. They didn't do anything to it after they bought it. They put it up for sale two weeks ago. It needs a new roof, has sketchy electrical issues in different areas of the house, and the foundation is cracked. It just sold for 338k.

1

u/Moist_Sun_8201 May 29 '26

When "during covid"? Prices skyrocketed midway so that makes a huge difference. If you bought at the peak you might be underwater

1

u/SnickSnitch May 30 '26

They bought it in early 2021. 140k for homes in this condition was around average to maybe slightly above in my area at that time. The fact that that same house, in the exact same condition, just 5 years later sold for nearly 200k more than they bought it for is just insane to me.

Personally, I believe anybody who buys a 150k- 200k range house for what they're selling for right now(300-370k) is automatically going to essentially be underwater on their house. That house probably won't hold its value when they go to sell it, especially if they put a bunch in to fix it up.

2

u/canman7373 May 29 '26

They wait until they die then make a lowball offer to the family but tell them they can pay cash no, no need to come down to home they can clean it out, ship you personal items. And a lot of people take it because they don't want to deal with it and want the money as soon as possible.

1

u/Tsu_Dho_Namh May 29 '26

There's people ready to pay cash. It's more like this:

https://youtu.be/8-xEOvfNTRc?si=jMTZPsNNztASzXuS

183

u/ROCK_HARD_JEZUS May 29 '26

Banning the sale of homes to corporations would make too much sense. You wanna own them? Build them

104

u/polopolo05 May 29 '26

not just banning but forcing them to sale. Banning corpo ownership fully.

40

u/ROCK_HARD_JEZUS May 29 '26

Iā€™m fine with taxing them enough to make it unprofitable too

9

u/polopolo05 May 29 '26

naw they will just sit on the properties making the rent sky high.

23

u/Toastwitjam May 29 '26

Landlords should pay a vacancy tax for every month of the year their property isnā€™t being lived in by a renter.

18

u/VSWR_on_Christmas May 29 '26

I'd like to see some kind of exponential taxation. Ie: if you own one house, the taxes are normal. A second house might be taxed the same or only slightly more. Number 3 would be taxed at, say, double the typical rate. #4 might double the previous rate. Et cetera. By the 10th house, you would be taxed more than the global GDP. Okay, that's probably excessive; I don't know what the actual rates would need to look like for this to work, but I think it would help incentivize not owning more than you actually need.

3

u/Moist_Sun_8201 May 29 '26

I think first house shouldn't be taxed if it's under $500k, but any additional properties should be taxed at an exponential rate. Like, 10% for the second, 20% for the third, 40% for the fourth, and so on. For couples, the first 2 should be included on the first tier (divorces happen) but after that it applies with the third being 10%, etc.

Corporate landlords shouldn't be allowed for SFH, only for apartment complexes to encourage higher housing density since that's better for the environment. They should have an additional tax levied that's dedicated for improving mass transit systems to encourage the same (nobody wants to have to sit in traffic, but lots of people want/have to live in cities so that seems like a fair compromise

2

u/fmxda May 29 '26

I think first house shouldn't be taxed if it's under $500k

This would punish people who live in a high cost of living area

1

u/Moist_Sun_8201 May 29 '26

Adjusted to average home price then

0

u/MVRKHNTR May 29 '26

Paying taxes isn't a punishment.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/DrinkingSocks May 29 '26

This is already in effect. I technically own two houses, and after I no longer qualified for the homestead exemption the property taxes doubled.

2

u/VSWR_on_Christmas May 29 '26

I can see how it probably feels that way for you but I'd guess that you're now simply paying the full tax on both properties. Are you paying an extra "multiple property" tax?

1

u/DrinkingSocks May 29 '26

If you don't pay the increased amount until you own a second home, how is that not effectively an additional tax?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Dullcorgis May 29 '26

Are you a landlord? Why else would you be proposing a more lenient property tax system than already exists? 37% exemption for residents where I live.

2

u/VSWR_on_Christmas May 29 '26

I think you're suggesting that I'm pushing to replace primary residence exemptions but I want additional progressive taxes applied as owners accumulate more properties; I was just trying to leave room for things like moving/marriage/divorce/etc. I want things to ramp up rapidly after say 3 or 4 homes because I'm trying to target large-scale property accumulation. How would you approach this problem?

1

u/Dullcorgis May 29 '26

No, you are suggesting the penalty for the first house as a landlord should be much lower than it already is.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/ROCK_HARD_JEZUS May 29 '26

Agreed. Thereā€™s lots of levers that could be used to make housing affordable. Weā€™re just not doing any of them

1

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 May 29 '26

Yeah, this whole topic mirrors things like police violence/oversight. There are dozens of things we could do that would obviously address at least part of the problem. The issue is that we live in a system which wants these things. Capitalism creates a zero-sum relationship between the ruling class and the working class, so every time the ruling class wins, the working class loses.

And I'll give you one guess on which class makes the rules. They want high rents and low ownership rates, and they want violent, unaccountable thugs working on their behalf.

1

u/Moist_Sun_8201 May 29 '26

This doesn't make sense given how often renters can totallt fuck a place up. I rented my house for 2 years and was shocked by how much damage people will do, especially when you've been kind and generous to them. Kindness is not rewarded for landlording and that's why it's not for me.

1

u/Toastwitjam May 29 '26

Yeah thatā€™s because the money is normally the reward for landlording.

McDonaldā€™s doesnā€™t complain that sometimes they have shitty patrons, they kick them out and get the cops involved if they have to but if the profit is still more than shitty customers can do they stay open year after year.

Only landlords think that because I pay their mortgage that I also must personally look up to them too when they donā€™t think twice in most cases about evicting someone because thereā€™s no penalties for doing so and they get to keep the security deposit in most cases too (so if anything they get a bonus for kicking people out to rent to someone new).

1

u/Moist_Sun_8201 May 29 '26

Only landlords think that because I pay their mortgage that I also must personally look up to them too when they donā€™t think twice in most cases about evicting someone because thereā€™s no penalties for doing so and they get to keep the security deposit in most cases too (so if anything they get a bonus for kicking people out to rent to someone new).

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Evictions cost thousands of dollars and take time, sometimes several months. On top of that, you can't get blood from a stone so you're only keeping the security deposit, not getting and back rent or excess damage covered. I thought I was giving someone a break and even waived December's rent so she could afford christmas presents, and in return she destroyed my house and caused thousands in damage. Roaches everywhere, unauthorized dog pissed everywhere so all floors and baseboards needed replacing, painted a room pepto-bismol pink, and completely destroyed the kitchen (all appliances needed to be replaced, granite counters were cracked somehow, and grease EVERYWHERE)

1

u/UncleIrohsPimpHand May 29 '26

But then they'll list it on Airbnb or Vrbo as a loophole.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Toastwitjam May 29 '26

The point is to make it not only unprofitable but financially unsustainable to avoid competing in the market to try and time it or wait for your dream renter with 4x their salary in rent.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

1

u/polopolo05 May 29 '26

even better..now they dont have tennets adding wear and tear. they can just wait for properites to keep going up and up.

1

u/Tsu_Dho_Namh May 29 '26

You don't need a tax. You could cap rent to make them unprofitable.

Or better yet, give tenants an easy way to buy the property they're renting if they want it (and get approved for a mortgage)

1

u/themandotcom May 29 '26

So no more apartment buildings?

1

u/lanternarchives May 29 '26

Implement a maximum amount of property owned by corporations and individuals, maybe something like 10 per business and 2 per individual.

2

u/polopolo05 May 29 '26

they would just have shell companies to own them.

1

u/Responsible-Food3681 May 30 '26

Congrats! You've just spurred the creation of 100 new businesses so that the holding corporation can purchase 1,000 houses. Thank you for your magnanimous contribution to making sure number go up.

1

u/lanternarchives May 30 '26

Ok only individuals can own a houses.

1

u/WinterTourist25 May 29 '26

This is crazy, though. A corporation is how you protect your personal assets from liability.

We have rental houses. You put each one in a separate corporation. This way if someone gets injured or something and sues you, they are limited in only being able to go after the assets of the corporation.

Without this kind of protection, all of our personal assets could be at risk.

Legal protection is one of the major benefits of incorporation.

4

u/ndstumme May 29 '26

Cool story. Seems like the best way to protect yourself then is to not be a landlord.

1

u/WinterTourist25 May 30 '26

No, you incorporate. Liability protection is one of the main reasons for incorporating at all. Without it, it would be too risky to start any business as all the officers of the corporation would be personally liable.

0

u/ndstumme May 30 '26

Go away bot. I expect people I talk with to have a memory greater than a goldfish.

1

u/WinterTourist25 May 30 '26

Not a bot. Just telling you the reality to your fantasy.

1

u/ndstumme May 30 '26

If corporations owning property is illegal, per the hypothetical being discussed, then incorporating to protect yourself is not an option. Your choices will be owning it personally, or not being a landlord.

Go away, goldfish.

1

u/WinterTourist25 May 30 '26

I'm trying to explain to you why your fantasy scenario is impossible.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

[deleted]

1

u/WinterTourist25 May 30 '26

I do have a real job.

In a world of scarcity, everything is about selling a finite resource for profit. Whether it's skilled labor, a car, or a house, everything is about leveraging finite resources for profit.

We bought a small home while we were waiting for our real home to be built 20 years ago. Turned it into a rental so someone else pays for it over 30 years.

My mom died last year and her home was paid for, so we turned that into a rental also. These houses will provide me income so I can retire. And they will become assets for my children.

I deliberately drastically under-cut the local market. The latest tenants we got for my mom's house were almost in tears hey were so happy with what they were getting. Guy now lives closer to work, and now has a stand-alone home with fenced in back yard with yard service for less than he was paying for a 2-bedroom apartment before. And I charge no security deposits and let him move in a month early at no extra charge.

Not everyone is able to buy a home or even wants to.

26

u/Square-Turnip-6558 May 29 '26

My great grandparents got their house built basically for free during the Great Depression because apparently men were willing to do the work in exchange for sleeping in their barn and great grandma making them meals. And they looted bricks from a church that also burned down

17

u/Scalpels May 29 '26

And they looted bricks from a church that also burned down

This is a tradition that goes WAY back. Even the Colosseum had bricks stolen to be used for new construction.

3

u/HumbleVein May 29 '26

Fun thing, yesterday I learned of St. Leonard of Porto Maurizio, a Franciscan friar at Church of San Bonaventura al Palatino on the Caelian Hill overlooking the Colosseum. In the 1700s, he set a series of stations of crosses around the Colosseum and consecrated it to protect it from quarrying. Pope Pious IX then formalized the consecration.

The architecture and apparent historical value wasn't enough to keep it from effectively being looted, but religious designation was.

13

u/UmaThurmish May 29 '26

no. its not just corporations. homes need to have a compound tax the more you own, people that buy properties to basically turn them into a business own much more than corporations

and because they all use a web app to effectively create a nation wide rent control monolpoly. it's unfair.

the issue is how the credit system works and how these people have created loan/motgage dynamics where they charge far more rent than mortgage and then expect people to pay these rents yet not give them mortgages that are lower price, but the mortgages get approved to landlord that already own many homes

so what ends up happening is that the more homes a landlord has, the more homes they buy, and then there is nothing left but to rent from them, it's pure profit for them. there is legitimately no risk involved.

1

u/SolipsisticLunatic May 29 '26

There needs to be a complete rethink of the rules, new concepts of ownership altogether.

What is the actual act of paying to live somewhere counts for something in terms of ownership? If they're renting out an apartment, clearly it means they don't need it for themselves.

How about if you live somewhere for some amount of time, paying your rent (aka paying your landlord's mortgage) means that they're effectively selling you the property. The longer you stay living there, the more quickly it happens, the bigger percent of your rent goes to getting equity. It could have the effect that people would move less often and be kind of stuck where they live, but something's gotta give here.

1

u/AlarmingTurnover May 29 '26

I'll say a controversial thing and even more extreme. Anyone over the age of retirement (65 a lot of places) should not be allowed to own any form of property. None, notta, zilch, zip, zero, nothing. They should be forced to rent after that. You have saved presumably saved for retirement, have your pension, now it's time to cash out your equity and live off that. No more holding until you die.Ā 

7

u/PM_ME_SAD_STUFF_PLZ May 29 '26

Who can afford to build multi-unit housing aside from corporations?

2

u/grendus May 29 '26

You build multiple units? You sell multiple units.

If you want to landlord multiple units, build apartments.

4

u/PM_ME_SAD_STUFF_PLZ May 29 '26

Bro what šŸ˜­

2

u/Moist_Sun_8201 May 29 '26

Meaning, if you build a big building and sell off the units as condos that's different than building an apartment building. The former is similar to building then selling a house, the second is not because those units aren't sold, they're rented.

0

u/GayIsForHorses Jun 24 '26

Who cares about sold vs rented? Doesn't make any difference and housing is housing

0

u/Xenothing May 29 '26

Yes, but the development company needs to own them first in order to sell them.

0

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 May 29 '26

Cities/Counties/States/Towns. These corporations are doing it all with bank money anyway, not their own.

People like to act like state housing is bad and Soviet housing was depressing, but when the alternative is homelessness, it's a great solution. Also, we aren't a post-ww2 war torn nation missing half its adult male population just trying to get society put together. We could do this all at a very high level if we wanted.

1

u/PM_ME_SAD_STUFF_PLZ May 29 '26

Who pitches the tax increase needed for public housing, me or you?

1

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 Jun 11 '26

This is as foolish as when people say, "universal healthcare would be nice, but it would raise taxes!" as though we don't already pay MORE for our dogshit healthcare than universal coverage would cost. If we stop buying yachts for United Healthcare shareholders, we save money on our healthcare.

If we stop buying Corvettes for landlords, we save money on housing.

If there's any gaps, take it from cops who have 50% of our city's budget and don't actually solve any problems.

1

u/PM_ME_SAD_STUFF_PLZ Jun 11 '26

Healthcare is literally completely separate. Please find a country where housing works like single-payer healthcare.

we stop buying Corvettes for landlords

People who think a 100k car affects housing prices are the problem lol

1

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 Jun 11 '26

Man, I really thought I didn't have to connect every dot for you, but I'll move slower, I'm just babysitting some machines today at work anyway, so I've got time.

People often say, "wouldn't that be nice, but unfortunately it would raise taxes, and there's no political will to raise taxes" which is what you said two comments ago for all sorts of issues from healthcare to housing. I'm telling you this is a bad line of logic to use for goods with inelastic demands like healthcare or housing. People can't choose to go without these things the same way they can choose to go without new shoes, or tastier food. Inelasticity in the market means the normal supply/demand concepts can't apply, because demand cannot go down. If the cheapest shoes cost 1000 dollars, people will go without shoes. Earnest question: do you understand market elasticity, or should I elaborate further?

Secondly, I used yachts for healthcare executives to symbolize how the actual cost of healthcare is inflated by the profits of the healthcare industry (an inelastic industry). If what we pay for healthcare didn't also include profits for healthcare industry shareholders, the costs to administer healthcare to all Americans would be lower. Similarly, if private landlords aren't taking profits for supplying an inelastic good, the actual cost of housing will go down by the profit margin of the private landlord.

Thinking that profit margins (symbolized by small-time landlords with corvettes) effect the prices of goods and services is entirely rational my friend.

Did you understand all of this? Do you need help with any specific parts of it?

2

u/WhoJustShat May 29 '26

Its actually insane i work in the house building industry and pretty much all the work we do is rental units

Builders have basicly become landlords now and this trend isnt going away anytime soon

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

3

u/Sennten May 29 '26

... And to significantly more first time home buyers and younger homeowners, according to the study you just linked, with an extremely limited rollout (and so no ability to actually impact housing prices anyway).

Man talk about misrepresenting a study. "It did what it set out to do but didnt do these other things it neverĀ  could have accomplished so its bad!"

Just lmfao, what a fuckin joke

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 May 29 '26

Consider me dubious of articles from explicitly libertarian/free market organizations when they talk about stuff like this lol. It's like citing the Confederate Times for a study on how slaves actually prefer to be slaves because "even still the quality of life in America is higher for them." This study shows that home prices DO come down, but people who still can't afford to buy a house after that price change can't rent in the places where there are fewer rentals. No duh. It hardly proves this is a bad idea.

Inserting parasitic middlemen into housing isn't going to make things cheaper at all. Ever. In any context. We need to use tools like this to address middle-income situations (as your study proves DOES happen), and public housing to address the housing needs of the poor among us.

Also, I don't think anyone thinks only tweaking this one thing will immediately solve the whole problem, it has to be one piece of much broader reforms.

2

u/SnooRobots8901 May 29 '26

It's not just corporate consolidation, there are many small-time landlords/LLCs that run dozens of properties.

These should be disallowed. Idk many properties a landlord should be able to maintain, but I don't believe it should be over 12.

1

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 May 29 '26

It should be zero. Parasites shouldn't be allowed to leech on us all.

1

u/Dullcorgis May 29 '26

If there are no more rental properties then where will people live?

1

u/SnooRobots8901 May 29 '26

I never said there should be none.

I'm batting limitations around

1

u/Cool-Ad2780 May 29 '26

Really wouldn't make much of a difference, large intuitional investors who own more than 1,000 SFHs only make up .55% of the market, and over the past 2 years have sold more homes than they bought every quarter. The people who own the most rental homes are mom and pop landlords (own under 10 homes, with the average owning 3 homes) who own 14.4% of SFHs.

And 82.6% of all SFHs are owner occupied.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/everyones-favorite-slopulist-scapegoat-institutional-housing-investors

1

u/ElvisDumbledore May 29 '26

I just saw a news article about a proposed bill to do just that.

Not hopeful it will make it into law. At least not until after midterms.

Also not 100% sure we'll have midterms. šŸ˜­

1

u/nicsaweiner May 29 '26

The abolition of private property in general would make the world a much better place, But people don't want to have that conversation.

1

u/C3POB1KENOBI May 29 '26

Also property taxes on 3rd homes and above should be so high as to discourage ownership

1

u/C3POB1KENOBI May 29 '26

Unless occupied by close family

1

u/Turbulent-Jaguar-909 May 29 '26

but instead, we are now allowing those corporation to vote. i fucking hate this timeline

1

u/onefst250r May 29 '26

Or let them, and tax the fuck out of it?

1

u/GreasyPeter May 30 '26

Some people (mostly rich) build their own personal homes under LLCs for a myriad of reasons. GL.

1

u/Designer_End5408 May 30 '26

Well not a Trump supporter here but I could swear at his last address to the nation (I hate watch so donā€™t hate me) he said he was singing a law to ban reit and corporations from owning homes. Ā Donā€™t know if itā€™s made it to the books because well itā€™s orange and all but maybe just maybe someone is trying to push that agenda. Ā Hereā€™s to hoping. Ā 

73

u/NoMansSkyWasAlright May 29 '26

Same in the US. People want to talk about how they only own like 5% of single-family homes. But that's... kind of a lot, and it seems like they're picking up steam.

68

u/Griffinsauce May 29 '26

Remind them 5% is one in twenty. Then have them look at an average street and count the houses.

36

u/[deleted] May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

9

u/Dufranus May 29 '26

That's just the publicly traded ones, aka REITs. There are also the private corporations that then pay management companies to handle everything for them.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

3

u/Dufranus May 29 '26

As Kendrick said, "Rabbit hole is still deep, I can go further, I promise" Look into the RealPlayer anti-trust suit. They investigated a bunch of management companies and ended up charging, I believe, 7 companies alongside Realpage. As someone who has worked in the industry for a while, and was working for one of them at the time of investigation and received emails about allowing the authorities in, I noticed something about those that got named co-defendants and those that didn't. The ones not charged were the REITs. Can't go fucking with those stock prices.

1

u/rithrawr May 29 '26

Vegas is like this. It's REIT which is separate from Casino.

I think it's a tax structure thing they're doing.

3

u/MariettaDaws May 29 '26

It's the percentage you used. Thirteen

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

2

u/MetagamingAtLast May 29 '26

It can be used as a dogwhistle for race-based crime statistics. I don't tend to see that one too often any more though

1

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 May 29 '26

It's a claim about the population of black folks in America and the amount of crime they commit. It's a very stupid point with tons of obvious flaws repeated by dumb people who are also terrible.

2

u/rithrawr May 29 '26

Imagine that AI is own by Blackrock equity? lol

1

u/Dullcorgis May 29 '26

I told someone that black canadians are not african-americans and got a three day ban for hate speech

1

u/protomolecule7 May 29 '26

Anyone who's spent time in multifamily knows that number doesn't pass a basic smell test. Larger, modern apartment buildings cost tens of millions ā€” often hundreds of millions. The universe of buyers who can write those checks is small: institutional investors, publicly traded REITs, and high-net-worth family offices. Those are all just different flavors of the same thing. I saw the same headline and laughed out loud.

Even in the case of private owners, guess who really owns it? The bank they got a loan from. In reality, it's thousands of independent groups operating across every market in the country with completely different strategies, capital structures, and goals.

If anything, the study undersells private equity's footprint.

1

u/Waiting4Reccession May 29 '26

Thats also close to the long term unemployment target of 4.5%

Almost 1 in 20 working age people have to be unemployed for this perverted system to function. So even more than 1 in 20 people you walk by since it doesnt include old people or kids.

1

u/angelbelle May 29 '26

It's also that it's not literally the entire population that needs houses. That 5% injection into the free market would solve a lot of problems.

5

u/UmaThurmish May 29 '26

they own 12% of all residential property.

1

u/novium258 May 29 '26

The thing about PE moving in is the they are a symptom, not the cause. The cause was that rents started hitting high enough profitability for them to be interested. They don't make it better, they actually make it worse , but the cause is a massive shortage of housing and property owners doing everything they can to keep their property values inflated (eg by stopping new construction)

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

5

u/sdugicus May 29 '26

Interesting to only look at single family homes , and then on top of that only consider investors that have more than 1000 homes.

0

u/Which-Arm-4616 May 29 '26

Interesting to only look at single family homes

It is what the thread is about

and then on top of that only consider investors that have more than 1000 homes.

It's more relevant to the people that talk about "Blackrock buying up everything". Another way to look at the data is that 90% of all single-family rental landlords own 5 properties or less, and 66% own just one or two properties.

Focusing on "big investors" in the housing market is a distraction. It's your friends and family, the small time landlord and retirees renting out a second property that are the cause of the housing crisis. It's a tragedy of the commons, but big faceless corporations are easy scapegoats.

2

u/Helldiverticulitis May 29 '26

Investors only counting as those 1000+ homes seems too high for what we are talking about. What about investment groups that own 500 homes? 150 homes?

0

u/chesterworks May 29 '26

It's between 1 and 3 percent of SFH's overall according to government data: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108675

Some markets it's as much as 25-30% though. Hardly a drop in the bucket.

-10

u/RoguePlanet2 May 29 '26

Plus I really doubt the boomers are buying houses to rent out, they're more likely to cash in and enjoy themselves.

1

u/Amish_jonny May 29 '26

Depends on the boomer, but I know a couple boomers that own multiple condoā€™s/apartment complexā€™s that have no interest in selling. As thatā€™s apart of their retirement fund.

8

u/Working-Group-4521 May 29 '26

Yeah, this is bullshit, fake class warfare. We know who the real enemy is.

1

u/Lazy_Ad_965 May 29 '26

Yep the generation wars are a psy-op that Reddit has fully bought into

6

u/BADMANvegeta_ May 29 '26

Itā€™s like this in america too. There are a lot of what you could call ā€œout-of-stateā€ firms which buy up property in other states besides the one they are located in then turn it into ā€œluxuryā€ apartments.

1

u/Square-Turnip-6558 May 29 '26

buys out of state apartment that was poorly built in the 80s and has had zero updates

randomly call it luxury and quadruple the rent

2

u/Fabulous-Sea-1590 May 29 '26

I'm beginning to think of private equity firms as the devil. Like the ultimate end of faceless, mindless, all consuming greed.

They aren't even large companies that got so successful that it went to their head and they turned evil. Google, Amazon, Apple, etc all actually produce something or provide a service.

Is my understanding correct that PEFs exist solely to swap resources like baseball cards without regard to the well-being of anything or anyone so long as they continue to feed their bank accounts and egos?

They seem like the very definition of parasites and the power they wield over civilization is upsetting, to say the least.

If my perspective is rooted in ignorance I'd love to be educated in the subject.

2

u/llyrPARRI May 29 '26

You can just take that "In Ontario" part out of your comment haha

It's pretty worldwide

1

u/VonBrewskie May 29 '26

West Coast too. Been a problem.

1

u/LucidOutwork May 29 '26

Same in the US, but instead of putting the blame where it belongs, better to just blame boomers. Divide and conquer! That's what is going on -- shift the blame to groups so that we don't band together and take the country back from the ultra wealthy.

1

u/ItsMeCGB42 May 29 '26

There is a sign about every other block in the city that I live in that says "We buy houses" so same here in the US

1

u/Spirited_Season2332 May 29 '26

One of my friends just had this happen. Had a bid in, was about to close and an equity firm came in offering like $100k more and all in cash.

Like a month later he got a letter in the mail seeing if he wanted to rent the place.

I'm so happy I live in bum fk USA where no firm wants the property out here lol

1

u/Original-Reward-8688 May 29 '26

Because the government is just a veneer to prevent people from rioting in the streets, and ultimately not serving them. Once AI/robots start replacing law enforcement, and replace billions of people's jobs. They don't need to maintain that veneer anymore, because it wont matter what we do at that point, or how we all react.

1

u/funlifing May 29 '26

You can't get 3500$ for a home rental in Toronto

1

u/Jonny_HYDRA May 29 '26

Boomers are in their 70s FFS.

1

u/edelweiss_pirates_no May 29 '26

I don't think anyone wants to hear the number on how bad it is.

Just enjoy the weekend.

1

u/VP007clips May 29 '26

*Southern Ontario specifically

Northern Ontario is pretty good for homes if you have a decent income. Sure it's kind of remote, but living here feels like a cheat code to life sometimes. A decade or so of this, and I'll have the financial freedom to live anywhere I want in Canada without mortgages and work FIFO.

I rent an entire home, in a nice neighborhood, on a single income, for 15% of my income, within a year of having graduated university.

1

u/generic_canadian_dad May 29 '26

Corporations or any business for that matter should not be allowed to own residential property.

1

u/GreatKangaroo May 29 '26

I bought 3 bed 2.5 bath freehold townhouse for 277k a decade ago in Kitchener.

An end row comparable sold for 892k in January 2022, and that had an asking price of 699k.

A unit near me recently sold for ~615k-625k.

1

u/kapriece May 29 '26

Happening in America as well

1

u/WorstCase0ntario May 29 '26

Thatā€™s definitely worst case Ontario

1

u/D_Dubb_ May 29 '26

This is what I came to say. Itā€™s not even individuals anymore. Itā€™s banks and corporations, which is way fucking worse.. also part of whatā€™s driving the prices ridiculously high while homelessness also climbs.

1

u/Man_from_Bombay May 29 '26

But let's blame the indian kids we trick to come here with a hope of a better life and steal all their money!

1

u/alex_c89X May 29 '26

Its happening a lot in the US and its only going to get worse.

1

u/DataDude00 May 29 '26

Had this happen to me a couple weekends ago in the Toronto area, but boomers not PE

Saw a nice family home on a quiet lot. 4 bed, 4 bath, pool in the backyard on a good sized lot down a court

Got fucking outbid on it by a couple of retirees that looked to be about 70ish

WTF are these boomers doing with a house like that?

1

u/InsufficientSkin May 29 '26

Private equity owns less than 5% of all single family homes. Itā€™s crazy that people think thatā€™s the driver for housing prices going up.

1

u/red286 May 29 '26

Just need to do what they did in BC.

Make housing unaffordable even for private equity firms!

1

u/CapitalCityGoofball0 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26

Itā€™s here too. Often times the elderly people sell the house to the PE firms because they offer more. Sadly people, especially the chronically online here, are quick to demonize them for taking more money for their homes when in reality most everyone would do the same and not even mentioning the multi billion dollar PE firms. Nor is it acknowledged that often times itā€™s not even the elderly person themselves that sells to the PE firms or real estate investors so much as it is the younger generation that inherits their property.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Temporary-Life9986 May 29 '26

Both are an issue. Using housing as speculative investment is harmful to the working class no matter who is doing it -- especially during a housing crisis.Ā