national rent control

[Jay Hinrichs]

did anyone catch Prez Bidens comments on how he wants to pass a national rent control at 5% max rent raise ??

my worry is there will be other stips in that if it was to pass..

Or do you all think its just pandering to that base.. ? 

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because its a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

Equilibrium/balance and limits are essential. I strongly disagree with your that America and it’s people are there to be exploited by investors. 

I didn't create the history and values our country was founded on. They happened long before I was born, but that is what they are. Go read some history about how our country was founded and what the government's attitude was towards property rights and the government interfering in situations like this.

Distress is where much opportunity comes from. 

Those in distress had the same rights and opportunities to make life go as they wish as the rest of us. The government is only supposed to be the referee, not there to control who does well in the game.

 The government has an interest in ensuring its populace isn’t exploited and consumed. The constitution’s preamble begins with “we the people.” At the time that meant only white landed gentry, but after multiple constitutional amendments such as the 14th, those rights were extended to all humans. Later we defined those as protected classes for discrimination.

The challenge, then and now, is equilibrium and limits.The founding fathers, the federalists and anti federalists had to make many compromises to create and govern a country. Hence Madison’s addition of the bill of rights to protect the individual from government over reach. 

Later, in the early 1900’s, through child labor laws, anti-trust legislation and other regulations they recognized that allowing the richest minority to unfairly and unduly exploit the majority of the people is un-American. 

No one on this forum would even be in this category. Think robber barons and their decedents. This move from the executive branch again serves to support communities but the reason I support it is primarily it will reduce the pressure in HCOL areas to enact their own versions of rent control. 

Housing costs are a national issue and I’m glad the current administration is listening AND taking smart, narrow, action. 

No one is entitled to a tax break. That’s all that is happening here. I appreciate the encouragement to bring a historical perspective to the conversation. 

Wow.... Ok kid, if your gonna yap on historical precedence how about you actually READ the things your citing vs what someone TOLD YOU it says. 

All your doing is regurgitating propaganda BS! Your lying and misrepresenting the facts and reality to suit a narrative. 

Read the constitution, ACTUALLY read it and then tell me how "white" based it is. It literally specifically states to this and makes it crystal clear the thoughts on such, and it ain't what your selling buddy. 

FACT: Rent controls have FAILED in EVERY iteration over EVERY decade they've been attempted, to effect the stated goals. Rent Controls HAVE been EXCELLENT in degrading communities, creating generational POVERTY, DEPENDENCY and despair. 

FACTS. 

Rent Controls are to CONTROL, that is ALL, full-stop. 

If it were to actually REDUCE costs, than efforts would be focused to INPUTS, to LOWER costs which lowers price. It's just-not-complicated.

Raising minimum wage RAISES TAX's. Which REDUCES disposable income. It's literally taught in every Econ 201 course. For every dollar cost of inputs is raised output expense goes up $1.20. 

So, LOWER minimum wage, LOWER cost of input and LOWER output expense disproportionately. It's called DEFLATION. 

If want people to have more disposable income cause deflation.  

Your answer, your BIG GOV answer is MORE inflation, MORE middle persons, MORE expense, MORE POVERTY. 

The issue is NOT price. The issue is the disparity between incomes and prices. DEFLATION is the answer. But only talk is CONTROL measures not answers..... 

The function, by design, of the Federal Government is national Defense and to administrate interstate activities and commerce. 

Fed Gov is NOT designed to be ROME.... 

Cut Fed spending 50%, now not eventually, NOW, tomorrow. Cut 50% fed programs, offices, branches etc. NOW. Put power BACK to States. The more LOCAL power get's the more power resides in the hands of "we the people". 

Incentivize NOT control, that's how these issues get FIXED. Incentivize production of rental unit's NOT just concentrated rental colonies (apartments) but across the spectrum. 

Eliminate discrimination in property utilization. How many communities ban rentals? Declare it discrimination and mandate that rental density in individual communities must be allowed up to a minimum limiter of the state median % of renters vs home owners. 

Should I go on? 

If I, some yahoo from the frozen north can kick out a laundry list of NON-control SOLUTIONS off top of head, why in the hell should we allow CONTROL measures and accept any less capability from dip-sticks we employ to actually run this sh#t-show.... 

Control is not needed nor does it fix a dang thing. It only farms dependency. 

[Chris Mercer]

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because its a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

Equilibrium/balance and limits are essential. I strongly disagree with your that America and it’s people are there to be exploited by investors. 

I didn't create the history and values our country was founded on. They happened long before I was born, but that is what they are. Go read some history about how our country was founded and what the government's attitude was towards property rights and the government interfering in situations like this.

Distress is where much opportunity comes from. 

Those in distress had the same rights and opportunities to make life go as they wish as the rest of us. The government is only supposed to be the referee, not there to control who does well in the game.

 The government has an interest in ensuring its populace isn’t exploited and consumed. The constitution’s preamble begins with “we the people.” At the time that meant only white landed gentry, but after multiple constitutional amendments such as the 14th, those rights were extended to all humans. Later we defined those as protected classes for discrimination.

The challenge, then and now, is equilibrium and limits.The founding fathers, the federalists and anti federalists had to make many compromises to create and govern a country. Hence Madison’s addition of the bill of rights to protect the individual from government over reach. 

Later, in the early 1900’s, through child labor laws, anti-trust legislation and other regulations they recognized that allowing the richest minority to unfairly and unduly exploit the majority of the people is un-American. 

No one on this forum would even be in this category. Think robber barons and their decedents. This move from the executive branch again serves to support communities but the reason I support it is primarily it will reduce the pressure in HCOL areas to enact their own versions of rent control. 

Housing costs are a national issue and I’m glad the current administration is listening AND taking smart, narrow, action. 

No one is entitled to a tax break. That’s all that is happening here. I appreciate the encouragement to bring a historical perspective to the conversation. 

Wow.... Ok kid, if your gonna yap on historical precedence how about you actually READ the things your citing vs what someone TOLD YOU it says. 

All your doing is regurgitating propaganda BS! Your lying and misrepresenting the facts and reality to suit a narrative. 

Read the constitution, ACTUALLY read it and then tell me how "white" based it is. It literally specifically states to this and makes it crystal clear the thoughts on such, and it ain't what your selling buddy. 

FACT: Rent controls have FAILED in EVERY iteration over EVERY decade they've been attempted, to effect the stated goals. Rent Controls HAVE been EXCELLENT in degrading communities, creating generational POVERTY, DEPENDENCY and despair. 

FACTS. 

Rent Controls are to CONTROL, that is ALL, full-stop. 

If it were to actually REDUCE costs, than efforts would be focused to INPUTS, to LOWER costs which lowers price. It's just-not-complicated.

Raising minimum wage RAISES TAX's. Which REDUCES disposable income. It's literally taught in every Econ 201 course. For every dollar cost of inputs is raised output expense goes up $1.20. 

So, LOWER minimum wage, LOWER cost of input and LOWER output expense disproportionately. It's called DEFLATION. 

If want people to have more disposable income cause deflation.  

Your answer, your BIG GOV answer is MORE inflation, MORE middle persons, MORE expense, MORE POVERTY. 

The issue is NOT price. The issue is the disparity between incomes and prices. DEFLATION is the answer. But only talk is CONTROL measures not answers..... 

The function, by design, of the Federal Government is national Defense and to administrate interstate activities and commerce. 

Fed Gov is NOT designed to be ROME.... 

Cut Fed spending 50%, now not eventually, NOW, tomorrow. Cut 50% fed programs, offices, branches etc. NOW. Put power BACK to States. The more LOCAL power get's the more power resides in the hands of "we the people". 

Incentivize NOT control, that's how these issues get FIXED. Incentivize production of rental unit's NOT just concentrated rental colonies (apartments) but across the spectrum. 

Eliminate discrimination in property utilization. How many communities ban rentals? Declare it discrimination and mandate that rental density in individual communities must be allowed up to a minimum limiter of the state median % of renters vs home owners. 

Should I go on? 

If I, some yahoo from the frozen north can kick out a laundry list of NON-control SOLUTIONS off top of head, why in the hell should we allow CONTROL measures and accept any less capability from dip-sticks we employ to actually run this sh#t-show.... 

Control is not needed nor does it fix a dang thing. It only farms dependency. 

 A few things James, I am looking for a civil and fact based discussion. Not some all caps rant that uses pejoratives. I'm not sure why you're attacking my age, I believe I am older than you unless you're using a very, very old picture. Regardless, the constitution, was written by and for the people who wrote it (who were all, factually not pejoratively, white men). Even in regards to how you count population in the beginning, to get to a resolution, they had to create the 3/5ths clause so that they would count enslaved people, not as whole people, but partially to gain increased representation for the south. The 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights is forward looking. It recognizes that the constitution should evolve with the people it serves. This is why we have additional amendments 11-27 - including the 14th which extends equal protection under the law to all persons. 

To return to the issue of rent control and to clarify-I am opposed to rent control. What I appreciate about President Biden's proposal is that it reduces the pressure on local High Cost of Living (HCOL) governments to institute their own schemes. 

Rent control is bad for communities, the president's proposal appears narrow, measured, and effective. No one is entitled to tax write offs.

I absolutely agree that the root answer is increase supply through incentives. I appreciate the reduced pressure for locals to create and copy locality based rent controls because I do not support rent control schemes. 

Please, head outside and appreciate our shared humanity. We agree that rent control is not an effective tool. We agree that the government should incentivize increased supply (but would be challenging for federal gov to do since locals control most of the levers of supply).

I am new to this online community and this has been an enlightening discussion. You seem very angry and emotional and I honestly feel for you. I hope you feel better soon and I hope cooler heads prevail on other threads in this community.....

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because its a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

Equilibrium/balance and limits are essential. I strongly disagree with your that America and it’s people are there to be exploited by investors. 

I didn't create the history and values our country was founded on. They happened long before I was born, but that is what they are. Go read some history about how our country was founded and what the government's attitude was towards property rights and the government interfering in situations like this.

Distress is where much opportunity comes from. 

Those in distress had the same rights and opportunities to make life go as they wish as the rest of us. The government is only supposed to be the referee, not there to control who does well in the game.

 The government has an interest in ensuring its populace isn’t exploited and consumed. The constitution’s preamble begins with “we the people.” At the time that meant only white landed gentry, but after multiple constitutional amendments such as the 14th, those rights were extended to all humans. Later we defined those as protected classes for discrimination.

The challenge, then and now, is equilibrium and limits.The founding fathers, the federalists and anti federalists had to make many compromises to create and govern a country. Hence Madison’s addition of the bill of rights to protect the individual from government over reach. 

Later, in the early 1900’s, through child labor laws, anti-trust legislation and other regulations they recognized that allowing the richest minority to unfairly and unduly exploit the majority of the people is un-American. 

No one on this forum would even be in this category. Think robber barons and their decedents. This move from the executive branch again serves to support communities but the reason I support it is primarily it will reduce the pressure in HCOL areas to enact their own versions of rent control. 

Housing costs are a national issue and I’m glad the current administration is listening AND taking smart, narrow, action. 

No one is entitled to a tax break. That’s all that is happening here. I appreciate the encouragement to bring a historical perspective to the conversation. 

Wow.... Ok kid, if your gonna yap on historical precedence how about you actually READ the things your citing vs what someone TOLD YOU it says. 

All your doing is regurgitating propaganda BS! Your lying and misrepresenting the facts and reality to suit a narrative. 

Read the constitution, ACTUALLY read it and then tell me how "white" based it is. It literally specifically states to this and makes it crystal clear the thoughts on such, and it ain't what your selling buddy. 

FACT: Rent controls have FAILED in EVERY iteration over EVERY decade they've been attempted, to effect the stated goals. Rent Controls HAVE been EXCELLENT in degrading communities, creating generational POVERTY, DEPENDENCY and despair. 

FACTS. 

Rent Controls are to CONTROL, that is ALL, full-stop. 

If it were to actually REDUCE costs, than efforts would be focused to INPUTS, to LOWER costs which lowers price. It's just-not-complicated.

Raising minimum wage RAISES TAX's. Which REDUCES disposable income. It's literally taught in every Econ 201 course. For every dollar cost of inputs is raised output expense goes up $1.20. 

So, LOWER minimum wage, LOWER cost of input and LOWER output expense disproportionately. It's called DEFLATION. 

If want people to have more disposable income cause deflation.  

Your answer, your BIG GOV answer is MORE inflation, MORE middle persons, MORE expense, MORE POVERTY. 

The issue is NOT price. The issue is the disparity between incomes and prices. DEFLATION is the answer. But only talk is CONTROL measures not answers..... 

The function, by design, of the Federal Government is national Defense and to administrate interstate activities and commerce. 

Fed Gov is NOT designed to be ROME.... 

Cut Fed spending 50%, now not eventually, NOW, tomorrow. Cut 50% fed programs, offices, branches etc. NOW. Put power BACK to States. The more LOCAL power get's the more power resides in the hands of "we the people". 

Incentivize NOT control, that's how these issues get FIXED. Incentivize production of rental unit's NOT just concentrated rental colonies (apartments) but across the spectrum. 

Eliminate discrimination in property utilization. How many communities ban rentals? Declare it discrimination and mandate that rental density in individual communities must be allowed up to a minimum limiter of the state median % of renters vs home owners. 

Should I go on? 

If I, some yahoo from the frozen north can kick out a laundry list of NON-control SOLUTIONS off top of head, why in the hell should we allow CONTROL measures and accept any less capability from dip-sticks we employ to actually run this sh#t-show.... 

Control is not needed nor does it fix a dang thing. It only farms dependency. 

 A few things James, I am looking for a civil and fact based discussion. Not some all caps rant that uses pejoratives. I'm not sure why you're attacking my age, I believe I am older than you unless you're using a very, very old picture. Regardless, the constitution, was written by and for the people who wrote it (who were all, factually not pejoratively, white men). Even in regards to how you count population in the beginning, to get to a resolution, they had to create the 3/5ths clause so that they would count enslaved people, not as whole people, but partially to gain increased representation for the south. The 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights is forward looking. It recognizes that the constitution should evolve with the people it serves. This is why we have additional amendments 11-27 - including the 14th which extends equal protection under the law to all persons. 

To return to the issue of rent control and to clarify-I am opposed to rent control. What I appreciate about President Biden's proposal is that it reduces the pressure on local High Cost of Living (HCOL) governments to institute their own schemes. 

Rent control is bad for communities, the president's proposal appears narrow, measured, and effective. No one is entitled to tax write offs.

I absolutely agree that the root answer is increase supply through incentives. I appreciate the reduced pressure for locals to create and copy locality based rent controls because I do not support rent control schemes. 

Please, head outside and appreciate our shared humanity. We agree that rent control is not an effective tool. We agree that the government should incentivize increased supply (but would be challenging for federal gov to do since locals control most of the levers of supply).

I am new to this online community and this has been an enlightening discussion. You seem very angry and emotional and I honestly feel for you. I hope you feel better soon and I hope cooler heads prevail on other threads in this community.....

Your missing the whole point; Control fixes nothing in cost/price/expense. Nothing. 

So step back, maybe simply ask "why is the price what it is". 

Your applauding those ignoring any/all of the thinking, just blindly throwing out an action, which FYI can set a precedence that can than get used step by step to further controls, lesson freedoms etc.. 

Rent's reflect expense, it's just that simple. 

Lower expense, and you create vacuum by which rents can will in time move with. No control necessary just a free market. 

So, what are the inputs to housing costs. One of the biggest is labor expense. Are you familiar with just how much tax is gobbled up on labor? It's INSANE. That right there is a major driver to labor cost's, the multitude of tax's placed on skilled trade labors. 

Roofing for example pays nearly a 2:1 ratio of tax too wage. Yeah, get that, assorted tax's getting paid MORE than the actual person doing the dang work, WTF right. 

I know this because I was paying my 14, yes FOURTEEN tax's on my installers. Fourteen individual assorted tax's. What-in-the-hell! 

We have a nation where more than 50% live on some form of subsidy program and one of the primary reasons is the tax's being billed to pay for the stupid subsidies!!!! 

How does that make any sense....... 

Start eliminating that insanity and input costs come down, making output costs to come down. Again, SIMPLE. 

If you ADD more subsidies, you ADD MORE TAX!!!! Are you following the bouncing ball here? If you add more subsidies where does the $$$$ come from? US!

So you are saying it will make things "cheaper" to take more money from people...... More tax is NOT cheaper. 

Every time minimum wage goes up that is a hidden tax increase. Because tax's are charged on %. Make everything more expensive, raise the $ basis, tax revenues increase. 

A 15th employment tax is not the answer. Another subsidy on Mt Subsidy is not an answer. 

Control is not an answer. 

REDUCING input expense IS an answer. yet zero talk on this, not here, not in politics, nowhere except a very limited few. 

More government is NOT the answer. Name a time it was the answer, where it worked out well. 

Labor costs is the laser focus answer. Reduce labor expenses, you increase disposable incomes, reduce cost of goods, reducing cost of finished material goods, creating a compounding effect of savings that all culminate in a significant reduction in cost of housing production, increasing production capacity, increasing affordability, invigorating economic activity, raising tax revenues via the Walmart method of volume over profit margin..... 

But no, you applaud Control over tangible intelligent actions....... And unfortunately millions are right with ya, and that's why we never get solutions, we get can-kicking.... 

And damn right I get hot under the collar, everyone should, this is very serious stuff and it matters deeply. The whole PC shut your mouth, look away, pretend all is great has achieved the national decline. In every metric of value US is declining but hey, were super diverse, kids can identify as a furry and schools are putting litter boxs in bathrooms for em yeah-us right. 

It's a joke what US has become, literally, don't believe me just get outside the US and talk to people, the world is literally laughing at us and baffled how idiotic we have become. 

[Dan H.]

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because its a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

Equilibrium/balance and limits are essential. I strongly disagree with your that America and it’s people are there to be exploited by investors. 

I didn't create the history and values our country was founded on. They happened long before I was born, but that is what they are. Go read some history about how our country was founded and what the government's attitude was towards property rights and the government interfering in situations like this.

Distress is where much opportunity comes from. 

Those in distress had the same rights and opportunities to make life go as they wish as the rest of us. The government is only supposed to be the referee, not there to control who does well in the game.

 The government has an interest in ensuring its populace isn’t exploited and consumed. The constitution’s preamble begins with “we the people.” At the time that meant only white landed gentry, but after multiple constitutional amendments such as the 14th, those rights were extended to all humans. Later we defined those as protected classes for discrimination.

The challenge, then and now, is equilibrium and limits.The founding fathers, the federalists and anti federalists had to make many compromises to create and govern a country. Hence Madison’s addition of the bill of rights to protect the individual from government over reach. 

Later, in the early 1900’s, through child labor laws, anti-trust legislation and other regulations they recognized that allowing the richest minority to unfairly and unduly exploit the majority of the people is un-American. 

No one on this forum would even be in this category. Think robber barons and their decedents. This move from the executive branch again serves to support communities but the reason I support it is primarily it will reduce the pressure in HCOL areas to enact their own versions of rent control. 

Housing costs are a national issue and I’m glad the current administration is listening AND taking smart, narrow, action. 

No one is entitled to a tax break. That’s all that is happening here. I appreciate the encouragement to bring a historical perspective to the conversation. 

Wow.... Ok kid, if your gonna yap on historical precedence how about you actually READ the things your citing vs what someone TOLD YOU it says. 

All your doing is regurgitating propaganda BS! Your lying and misrepresenting the facts and reality to suit a narrative. 

Read the constitution, ACTUALLY read it and then tell me how "white" based it is. It literally specifically states to this and makes it crystal clear the thoughts on such, and it ain't what your selling buddy. 

FACT: Rent controls have FAILED in EVERY iteration over EVERY decade they've been attempted, to effect the stated goals. Rent Controls HAVE been EXCELLENT in degrading communities, creating generational POVERTY, DEPENDENCY and despair. 

FACTS. 

Rent Controls are to CONTROL, that is ALL, full-stop. 

If it were to actually REDUCE costs, than efforts would be focused to INPUTS, to LOWER costs which lowers price. It's just-not-complicated.

Raising minimum wage RAISES TAX's. Which REDUCES disposable income. It's literally taught in every Econ 201 course. For every dollar cost of inputs is raised output expense goes up $1.20. 

So, LOWER minimum wage, LOWER cost of input and LOWER output expense disproportionately. It's called DEFLATION. 

If want people to have more disposable income cause deflation.  

Your answer, your BIG GOV answer is MORE inflation, MORE middle persons, MORE expense, MORE POVERTY. 

The issue is NOT price. The issue is the disparity between incomes and prices. DEFLATION is the answer. But only talk is CONTROL measures not answers..... 

The function, by design, of the Federal Government is national Defense and to administrate interstate activities and commerce. 

Fed Gov is NOT designed to be ROME.... 

Cut Fed spending 50%, now not eventually, NOW, tomorrow. Cut 50% fed programs, offices, branches etc. NOW. Put power BACK to States. The more LOCAL power get's the more power resides in the hands of "we the people". 

Incentivize NOT control, that's how these issues get FIXED. Incentivize production of rental unit's NOT just concentrated rental colonies (apartments) but across the spectrum. 

Eliminate discrimination in property utilization. How many communities ban rentals? Declare it discrimination and mandate that rental density in individual communities must be allowed up to a minimum limiter of the state median % of renters vs home owners. 

Should I go on? 

If I, some yahoo from the frozen north can kick out a laundry list of NON-control SOLUTIONS off top of head, why in the hell should we allow CONTROL measures and accept any less capability from dip-sticks we employ to actually run this sh#t-show.... 

Control is not needed nor does it fix a dang thing. It only farms dependency. 

 A few things James, I am looking for a civil and fact based discussion. Not some all caps rant that uses pejoratives. I'm not sure why you're attacking my age, I believe I am older than you unless you're using a very, very old picture. Regardless, the constitution, was written by and for the people who wrote it (who were all, factually not pejoratively, white men). Even in regards to how you count population in the beginning, to get to a resolution, they had to create the 3/5ths clause so that they would count enslaved people, not as whole people, but partially to gain increased representation for the south. The 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights is forward looking. It recognizes that the constitution should evolve with the people it serves. This is why we have additional amendments 11-27 - including the 14th which extends equal protection under the law to all persons. 

To return to the issue of rent control and to clarify-I am opposed to rent control. What I appreciate about President Biden's proposal is that it reduces the pressure on local High Cost of Living (HCOL) governments to institute their own schemes. 

Rent control is bad for communities, the president's proposal appears narrow, measured, and effective. No one is entitled to tax write offs.

I absolutely agree that the root answer is increase supply through incentives. I appreciate the reduced pressure for locals to create and copy locality based rent controls because I do not support rent control schemes. 

Please, head outside and appreciate our shared humanity. We agree that rent control is not an effective tool. We agree that the government should incentivize increased supply (but would be challenging for federal gov to do since locals control most of the levers of supply).

I am new to this online community and this has been an enlightening discussion. You seem very angry and emotional and I honestly feel for you. I hope you feel better soon and I hope cooler heads prevail on other threads in this community.....

 Your reply seems well thought out but I hold the belief that the free market is more efficient than a market being meddle with.   I hold this belief on rent control, but further believe rent control leads to blight.  

However, I also believe this is true for increasing supply.  Why should the government incentivize increasing supply.   Supply, demand, and affordability should dictate increasing supply.   When new units can be added at a price competitive with existing units, there will be a market that justifies adding new units.  Government meddling in the market place usually has poor results. 

By the way I have this belief on many government supplied benefits to RE investors that I use to my advantage.   What is the benefit of being able o write off interest?   It results in the market price taking this into account which results in higher RE prices. Similar for property tax write off and depreciation.   Get rid of these and prices would fall and government would still end up with more income. 

I challenge someone to look at rent controlled areas and compare the rent increase in the first few years after incorporating rent control compared to surrounding areas pre rent controlled.  In general, rent control results in higher rent than without rent control.  This should be expected because difficulty to get rid of poor tenants has increased (likely vanished) resulting in higher risk.  This results in maximum allowed rent increases to existing tenants and significant market rent increases (result of unit turn over at increased risk).   It is easy to predict, yet rent control advocates somehow are surprised.   It is like not a single one of them had an elementary economics class.  

I believe government should regulate against possible fraud, corruption, etc but otherwise stay out of the market.  This includes new development and there should be no need to incentivize new development.  

[William Goodlett]

I believe he said 5% rate increases for corporate landlords. Not sure where you stand but most people on bigger pocket are not corporate land lords. Also I believe it’s capping rates for tenants that are living in the unit and want to renew. So if the tenat(s) are evicted or move out the landlords can raise rent

[James Wise]

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because it’s a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

It’s 100% a subjective thing, it runs contrary to your values not the country’s (I don’t know if you surveyed the country where the opinion would land).  You deem it wrong from your POV - which is fine, and part of what makes the country great that we can have a difference of opinions and debate the merits of various opinions/ideas.

I’ve experienced it both ways - as a landlord I can get more money in my pocket, always welcome - but I’m also not buying something if it’s not cash flowing.  As a prior renter I had a proposed rent raised from $2800 to $3500 (with no upgrades/changes to the unit or building), a 25% increase, which I definitely could not afford at the time, and forced me to spend a bunch of money moving.  That’s not a great experience, and just makes it harder on the little guy trying to get ahead in life.
 
I believe there’s a middle ground where both parties are satisfied.  That’s just my opinion though.

 Your rent was increased because the free market value of your apartment went up. That's economics 101 my man. I understand you didn't like it, but who cares? The market doesn't care. A couple years ago I bought a Denali, it was like $110,000....It would have been a better experience for me if it was $75,000 instead of $110,000. Doesn't mean the Government should go in & create legislation that essentially steals from GMC. I had two choices, pay the market value ($110,000) or go get a cheaper vehicle. Simple stuff.

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

 A few things James, I am looking for a civil and fact based discussion. Not some all caps rant that uses pejoratives. I'm not sure why you're attacking my age, I believe I am older than you unless you're using a very, very old picture. Regardless, the constitution, was written by and for the people who wrote it (who were all, factually not pejoratively, white men). Even in regards to how you count population in the beginning, to get to a resolution, they had to create the 3/5ths clause so that they would count enslaved people, not as whole people, but partially to gain increased representation for the south. The 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights is forward looking. It recognizes that the constitution should evolve with the people it serves. This is why we have additional amendments 11-27 - including the 14th which extends equal protection under the law to all persons. 

To return to the issue of rent control and to clarify-I am opposed to rent control. What I appreciate about President Biden's proposal is that it reduces the pressure on local High Cost of Living (HCOL) governments to institute their own schemes. 

Rent control is bad for communities, the president's proposal appears narrow, measured, and effective. No one is entitled to tax write offs.

I absolutely agree that the root answer is increase supply through incentives. I appreciate the reduced pressure for locals to create and copy locality based rent controls because I do not support rent control schemes. 

Please, head outside and appreciate our shared humanity. We agree that rent control is not an effective tool. We agree that the government should incentivize increased supply (but would be challenging for federal gov to do since locals control most of the levers of supply).

I am new to this online community and this has been an enlightening discussion. You seem very angry and emotional and I honestly feel for you. I hope you feel better soon and I hope cooler heads prevail on other threads in this community.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Preamble to the Declaration of Independence

You say they got it wrong Chris.... 

I say you have it wrong.... 

[Paul Sofia]

Welcome to the new America. We thought this was a FREE country.  That was the biggest lie we ever bought into.  Mind you, I'm a conservative but when they ushered in the covid con, I got out of the political realm. America took a 180 degree turn as we witnessed.  We were never free in this country.  We became slaves to the system.  We simply bought in.  Anyone think things are going to return to the norm we were used to are sadly mistaken

This is all being done by design.  Empires normally crash after 250 years.  The math ain't looking good for this country.  

[Eric Gerakos]

I just read that the 5% limit would only apply to corporate landlords with 50 or more units.

[Jay Hinrichs]

Quote from @Eric Gerakos:

I just read that the 5% limit would only apply to corporate landlords with 50 or more units.

 A Lot of folks own 50 plus units.. and almost all will be title in a corporate name.. IE a corp or LLC etc.. I guess there would be other ways for govmit to filter out those investors who have grown big fat rental portfolios over the years and TRUE Hedgefund types.. Can you imagine if they took the tax write offs away from investors who have 50 or more.. Ouch..

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Eric Gerakos:

I just read that the 5% limit would only apply to corporate landlords with 50 or more units.

 A Lot of folks own 50 plus units.. and almost all will be title in a corporate name.. IE a corp or LLC etc.. I guess there would be other ways for govmit to filter out those investors who have grown big fat rental portfolios over the years and TRUE Hedgefund types.. Can you imagine if they took the tax write offs away from investors who have 50 or more.. Ouch..

If on unit count, and at 50+, that's what 90%+ of MFH. 

And than ~35% of SFR inventory. Again, if by unit count, some quads, tri's, duplex's, 50 doors is rather low bar to hit.

So let's understand, INCREASING landlords expenses will lower rents....... Yeah, that sounds like political math for ya. 

[John Clark]

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Eric Gerakos:

I just read that the 5% limit would only apply to corporate landlords with 50 or more units.

 A Lot of folks own 50 plus units.. and almost all will be title in a corporate name.. IE a corp or LLC etc.. I guess there would be other ways for govmit to filter out those investors who have grown big fat rental portfolios over the years and TRUE Hedgefund types.. Can you imagine if they took the tax write offs away from investors who have 50 or more.. Ouch..

Aren’t tax breaks an interference with the free market?

[James Hamling]

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Eric Gerakos:

I just read that the 5% limit would only apply to corporate landlords with 50 or more units.

 A Lot of folks own 50 plus units.. and almost all will be title in a corporate name.. IE a corp or LLC etc.. I guess there would be other ways for govmit to filter out those investors who have grown big fat rental portfolios over the years and TRUE Hedgefund types.. Can you imagine if they took the tax write offs away from investors who have 50 or more.. Ouch..

Aren’t tax breaks an interference with the free market?

Tax's are an interference with free market enterprise. Much like placing a stop sign on a highway. 

So a tax break, is to mitigate the negative impact from placing such interference into the market flow. 

Where do you think we get the saying if it ain't broke, fix it until it is.... 

[Gino Barbaro]

@John Clark

Tax breaks are not an interference. They write tax code to stimulate behavior. The government can not provide housing. They have no shot, so they incentivize investors with tax breaks.

That's why entrepreneurs/business owners receive benefits because they are creating jobs, taking risk and investing in the economy, and employees are taxed the highest because they don't partake in this risk.

I'm not saying it's fair, it's just the game, and has been. And it isn't for everyone. Being a landlord has a ton of risk and it's a hard job.

If this law is passed, I guarantee you will see a lot of money flowing into this sector, flow to other investments, and if you think w've got an affordable housing shortage now, just wait.

[John Clark]

Quote from @Gino Barbaro:

@John Clark

Tax breaks are not an interference. They write tax code to stimulate behavior.

That’s an interference. The government is using a law to get the market to do something it otherwise wouldn’t do. The mechanism may be different (indirect via tax incentives vs. direct via law/regulation), but it is interference — getting the market to do something it otherwise would not do.

[John Clark]

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Eric Gerakos:

I just read that the 5% limit would only apply to corporate landlords with 50 or more units.

 A Lot of folks own 50 plus units.. and almost all will be title in a corporate name.. IE a corp or LLC etc.. I guess there would be other ways for govmit to filter out those investors who have grown big fat rental portfolios over the years and TRUE Hedgefund types.. Can you imagine if they took the tax write offs away from investors who have 50 or more.. Ouch..

Aren’t tax breaks an interference with the free market?

Tax's are an interference with free market enterprise. Much like placing a stop sign on a highway. 

So a tax break, is to mitigate the negative impact from placing such interference into the market flow. 

Where do you think we get the saying if it ain't broke, fix it until it is.... 

So, lemme get this straight: stop signs are interference with traffic, rather than a regulation that enables us to have traffic in the first place.

sounds like your definition of free market is “unfettered lawlessness.” Tell me, how many apartments would you rent out if you couldn’t go to court (government regulation) to enforce contracts? How many tenants would qualify for rentals if you couldn’t depend on them collecting minimum wage for their labor so they could pay rent? How many of your competitors would undercut your rents if they didn’t have to comply with building codes?  

The proper way to look at rent control is this: It doesn’t regulate expenses and therefore subsidizes tenants by private entities (landlords). It also deprives landlords of the ability to benefit from changed market conditions (gentrification).

Personally, my objection to rent control is the fact that it requires subsidizing tenants by private entities. Let society impose general taxes and then subsidize the necessary tenants. Government regulation, however, is not the per se problem.

[Bruce Woodruff]

Quote from @John Clark:

How about we just let the market take care of this. No need to get the Govt involved in the housing market IMO.... a) they do not have the necessary competence, and b) they F up everything they touch, and c) they get a little power and they will never give it back.....

[James Hamling]

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Eric Gerakos:

I just read that the 5% limit would only apply to corporate landlords with 50 or more units.

 A Lot of folks own 50 plus units.. and almost all will be title in a corporate name.. IE a corp or LLC etc.. I guess there would be other ways for govmit to filter out those investors who have grown big fat rental portfolios over the years and TRUE Hedgefund types.. Can you imagine if they took the tax write offs away from investors who have 50 or more.. Ouch..

Aren’t tax breaks an interference with the free market?

Tax's are an interference with free market enterprise. Much like placing a stop sign on a highway. 

So a tax break, is to mitigate the negative impact from placing such interference into the market flow. 

Where do you think we get the saying if it ain't broke, fix it until it is.... 

So, lemme get this straight: stop signs are interference with traffic, rather than a regulation that enables us to have traffic in the first place.

sounds like your definition of free market is “unfettered lawlessness.” Tell me, how many apartments would you rent out if you couldn’t go to court (government regulation) to enforce contracts? How many tenants would qualify for rentals if you couldn’t depend on them collecting minimum wage for their labor so they could pay rent? How many of your competitors would undercut your rents if they didn’t have to comply with building codes?  

The proper way to look at rent control is this: It doesn’t regulate expenses and therefore subsidizes tenants by private entities (landlords). It also deprives landlords of the ability to benefit from changed market conditions (gentrification).

Personally, my objection to rent control is the fact that it requires subsidizing tenants by private entities. Let society impose general taxes and then subsidize the necessary tenants. Government regulation, however, is not the per se problem.

Wow guy, take a gummy or something gheez. 

I was simply using a metaphor to help explain tax's impact on commerce, that's it. 

What next, if I say lizards are neat your gonna accuse me of being a Reptilian Overlord here to subjugate the human race....    

[John Clark]

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @John Clark:

How about we just let the market take care of this. No need to get the Govt involved in the housing market IMO.... a) they do not have the necessary competence, and b) they F up everything they touch, and c) they get a little power and they will never give it back.....

 The government already interfered: It offered financing on terms the market would not offer under unfettered conditions.

You and I can sing and dance all we want, but nobody put guns to our heads and forced us to take the financing that the government is now using as a club. Don’t like it? Don’t take Uncle Sam’s nickel.

[John Clark]

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Eric Gerakos:

I just read that the 5% limit would only apply to corporate landlords with 50 or more units.

 A Lot of folks own 50 plus units.. and almost all will be title in a corporate name.. IE a corp or LLC etc.. I guess there would be other ways for govmit to filter out those investors who have grown big fat rental portfolios over the years and TRUE Hedgefund types.. Can you imagine if they took the tax write offs away from investors who have 50 or more.. Ouch..

Aren’t tax breaks an interference with the free market?

Tax's are an interference with free market enterprise. Much like placing a stop sign on a highway. 

So a tax break, is to mitigate the negative impact from placing such interference into the market flow. 

Where do you think we get the saying if it ain't broke, fix it until it is.... 

So, lemme get this straight: stop signs are interference with traffic, rather than a regulation that enables us to have traffic in the first place.

sounds like your definition of free market is “unfettered lawlessness.” Tell me, how many apartments would you rent out if you couldn’t go to court (government regulation) to enforce contracts? How many tenants would qualify for rentals if you couldn’t depend on them collecting minimum wage for their labor so they could pay rent? How many of your competitors would undercut your rents if they didn’t have to comply with building codes?  

The proper way to look at rent control is this: It doesn’t regulate expenses and therefore subsidizes tenants by private entities (landlords). It also deprives landlords of the ability to benefit from changed market conditions (gentrification).

Personally, my objection to rent control is the fact that it requires subsidizing tenants by private entities. Let society impose general taxes and then subsidize the necessary tenants. Government regulation, however, is not the per se problem.

Wow guy, take a gummy or something gheez. 

I was simply using a metaphor to help explain tax's impact on commerce, that's it. 

What next, if I say lizards are neat your gonna accuse me of being a Reptilian Overlord here to subjugate the human race....    

 Perhaps you should have thought of the impact of stop signs on traffic.

[Dan H.]

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @John Clark:

How about we just let the market take care of this. No need to get the Govt involved in the housing market IMO.... a) they do not have the necessary competence, and b) they F up everything they touch, and c) they get a little power and they will never give it back.....

 The government already interfered: It offered financing on terms the market would not offer under unfettered conditions.

You and I can sing and dance all we want, but nobody put guns to our heads and forced us to take the financing that the government is now using as a club. Don’t like it? Don’t take Uncle Sam’s nickel.

I believe there is already a lot of Government interference in the RE market.   How much lower would home prices be without being able to write off interest, property taxes, or getting easy long term fixed financing.   I would not be opposed to a long term (maybe over 30 years) removal of this interference.  Do recognize this interference was to feed the RE market for risk and the benefits of providing housing.  

So your post basically by comparing it to other market interference is stating this is a new interference.  why add more interference?   My goal is less interference.  In addition, it is not a level playing field interference.   Let’s attack the big boys because they are not popular.   They can choose either a rent control or the loss of a tax break.  if you believe the big boys rent’s will not impact all rents then you are naive.  

there were 2 studies released recently comparing the initial cost of owning versus renting.  One study showed it was cheaper to rent than purchase in 97 of the largest 100 markets.  The other showed cheaper to rent in 95 of the largest 100 markets.  Note owner occupied has less costs than LL.  No vacancy, tenant turnover, PM, typically lower maintenance and cap ex costs, less book keeping.   The implication to the LL is that in virtually every market the average purchase is cash flow negative.  This implies rents are low, not high as some people push.  The market has set a price on residential units, and the renters are currently getting a deal like never before.   But government wants to pander to the tenants who falsely believe rents are too high and do not understand the risk increase that rent control impacts on the LL or the loss of incentive to well maintain the unit.  They do not understand why rent control decreases incentive to develop and as a result increases rents.  They basically lack minimal economics understanding.  It is also why virtually every economist states rent is undesired; economist understand the impacts of rent control.  

rent control is bad for everyone.  The economist Understand the cause and effect. 

Best wishes.  

[John Clark]

Quote from @Dan H.:

 I agree. Where I disagree with other posters is when they say that interference that they like isn’t interference, but when they dislike it it’s government over reach. Love me, love my dog.

[James Hamling]

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Eric Gerakos:

I just read that the 5% limit would only apply to corporate landlords with 50 or more units.

 A Lot of folks own 50 plus units.. and almost all will be title in a corporate name.. IE a corp or LLC etc.. I guess there would be other ways for govmit to filter out those investors who have grown big fat rental portfolios over the years and TRUE Hedgefund types.. Can you imagine if they took the tax write offs away from investors who have 50 or more.. Ouch..

Aren’t tax breaks an interference with the free market?

Tax's are an interference with free market enterprise. Much like placing a stop sign on a highway. 

So a tax break, is to mitigate the negative impact from placing such interference into the market flow. 

Where do you think we get the saying if it ain't broke, fix it until it is.... 

So, lemme get this straight: stop signs are interference with traffic, rather than a regulation that enables us to have traffic in the first place.

sounds like your definition of free market is “unfettered lawlessness.” Tell me, how many apartments would you rent out if you couldn’t go to court (government regulation) to enforce contracts? How many tenants would qualify for rentals if you couldn’t depend on them collecting minimum wage for their labor so they could pay rent? How many of your competitors would undercut your rents if they didn’t have to comply with building codes?  

The proper way to look at rent control is this: It doesn’t regulate expenses and therefore subsidizes tenants by private entities (landlords). It also deprives landlords of the ability to benefit from changed market conditions (gentrification).

Personally, my objection to rent control is the fact that it requires subsidizing tenants by private entities. Let society impose general taxes and then subsidize the necessary tenants. Government regulation, however, is not the per se problem.

Wow guy, take a gummy or something gheez. 

I was simply using a metaphor to help explain tax's impact on commerce, that's it. 

What next, if I say lizards are neat your gonna accuse me of being a Reptilian Overlord here to subjugate the human race....    

 Perhaps you should have thought of the impact of stop signs on traffic.

 Or perhaps you should have sought a proctologist to help dislodge your head from your.....

[James Hamling]

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Dan H.:

 I agree. Where I disagree with other posters is when they say that interference that they like isn’t interference, but when they dislike it it’s government over reach. Love me, love my dog.

Your saying it's literally ANYTHING or NOTHING. That there is no such thing as acceptable level and unacceptable. 

That if allow some than one must allow ANY and all.... 

Ok, so your all for allowing Police to just randomly crab anyone, walk in your home whenever for whatever, with or without reason, right?    What? No? OOOooohhh so your for ANARCHY and no police then?!     Well, by your logic, if your not a-ok to let Police do ANYTHING than you MUST be 100% against ANY Police then..... 

That is the single stupidest logic I've heard this week, and I've heard some dozes. 

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Dan H.:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @John Clark:

How about we just let the market take care of this. No need to get the Govt involved in the housing market IMO.... a) they do not have the necessary competence, and b) they F up everything they touch, and c) they get a little power and they will never give it back.....

 The government already interfered: It offered financing on terms the market would not offer under unfettered conditions.

You and I can sing and dance all we want, but nobody put guns to our heads and forced us to take the financing that the government is now using as a club. Don’t like it? Don’t take Uncle Sam’s nickel.

I believe there is already a lot of Government interference in the RE market.   How much lower would home prices be without being able to write off interest, property taxes, or getting easy long term fixed financing.   I would not be opposed to a long term (maybe over 30 years) removal of this interference.  Do recognize this interference was to feed the RE market for risk and the benefits of providing housing.  

So your post basically by comparing it to other market interference is stating this is a new interference.  why add more interference?   My goal is less interference.  In addition, it is not a level playing field interference.   Let’s attack the big boys because they are not popular.   They can choose either a rent control or the loss of a tax break.  if you believe the big boys rent’s will not impact all rents then you are naive.  

there were 2 studies released recently comparing the initial cost of owning versus renting.  One study showed it was cheaper to rent than purchase in 97 of the largest 100 markets.  The other showed cheaper to rent in 95 of the largest 100 markets.  Note owner occupied has less costs than LL.  No vacancy, tenant turnover, PM, typically lower maintenance and cap ex costs, less book keeping.   The implication to the LL is that in virtually every market the average purchase is cash flow negative.  This implies rents are low, not high as some people push.  The market has set a price on residential units, and the renters are currently getting a deal like never before.   But government wants to pander to the tenants who falsely believe rents are too high and do not understand the risk increase that rent control impacts on the LL or the loss of incentive to well maintain the unit.  They do not understand why rent control decreases incentive to develop and as a result increases rents.  They basically lack minimal economics understanding.  It is also why virtually every economist states rent is undesired; economist understand the impacts of rent control.  

rent control is bad for everyone.  The economist Understand the cause and effect. 

Best wishes.  

Imagine if Congress spent just 2 years where the only thing they were allowed to do is REMOVE laws/regulation, redact, streamline, simplify....