• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem isn’t necessarily flipping houses, if the ones doing the flipping really are improving the property and are able to refurbish old properties to be more appealing. If they put in the work, they deserve to make money off of that - but they only make their money if they sell.

    The problem is corporations who buy up housing stock, with no immediate plans to resell. They view houses like a commodity, and if they constrain supply in certain areas they can artificially create profit. This profit, though, comes at the expense of everyone who is looking for a home at the time.

    I think the solution is for localities to step in and crank up property taxes for residential units that are not either occupied or actively on the market. Once a company keeps a property off the market for a year, make it much more painful for them to hold it for another year.

    • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      House flippers are incentivized not to make good, long term, sustainable, or efficient home improvements. Their only incentive is to make a house more sellable upon initial inspection, house flipping is a bad practice I would argue far more often than not.

      The problem is housing as an investment like a stock. They should be commodities.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        house flipping is a bad practice

        I spent the last year looking for a house to buy, and since it took me a year I got to see many of the shit-bucket houses I was looking at (since they were in my price range) get bought up and “flipped” - which usually amounted to just some paint slapped on everything and those fucking grey fake wood vinyl planks that everybody loves these days put down everywhere - and then resold for absurd prices. I respect people that do a good job of renovating houses, but most of these flippers aren’t doing that.

        • IonAddis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m in no position to buy a house, but I like to browse and dream, and my mindset at this point is basically–give me an honest old house that hasn’t been renovated since 1970…at least I can SEE the problem-spots (cracked this or that, stains, etc.) and make a plan on how to tackle them.

          Like, my gut feeling when I see that horrible silver-blue color scheme anything flipped/“renovated” in the past few years is to run as fast as I can. You can’t plan, you don’t know what you’ll have to tackle, it’s all hidden under fresh paint or flooring. Is there mold? Who knows. Water damage? Who knows. Old pipes/electrical/etc. that need fixing? Who knows, the signs that might have given you a clue were hidden or pulled out. It’s all a big mystery.

    • kemsat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Inherently, flipping houses is about increasing the price of the home. This directly relates to the article by making more houses further out of range of more people.

      • mke_geek
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Houses with issues might not be able to be financed by a mortgage. So a company/individuals will fix the issues, then resell the house to someone who can now get an FHA loan for it.

        FHA loans have strict requirements on the condition of the house in order to give funding.

        If someone does work on the house, they should get paid for their efforts.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Non-owner occupied properties already aren’t eligible for the capital gains exclusion. I guess we could make unoccupied houses subject to regular income tax instead of capital gains tax rates would further discourage empty houses. That, and higher property taxes would probably be enough.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      All agreed except the localities bit. These smaller cities councilmen are too cheap to bribe. A $1,000 check will have them hanging on your every word. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Probably best bumped up to state level.

      But yes, we should ban corporations at some well-defined point. I mean, what if I incorporate myself? Now I can’t buy another house?

    • Cheers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To add, the corps buying up housing are also the ones that have the most potential to back housing builders, but since they’re buying up stock to artificially decrease supply, then they’re deincentivized to support builders. I really wish these big corps had some sort of for each unit you buy, you must build a unit within the next 2 years.

    • Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Higher taxes is just a cost of doing business which is passed on to other tenants, be it long or short term rentals, even if housing stock is temporarily held - though I don’t disagree that such a vacancy tax is a good.

      GP was right - forbid corporations from owning any residential property if 4 or fewer units and greater than four unless the building is wholly owned.

      On the tax side, add a purchasing tax of 15-25%, 90% of which is rebated at closing for non-corporations who have not received the rebate in the previous 24 months. That targets flippers and property-bros willing to go naked on liability.

      • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We do need to have an exception for those who need to buy through a corporation in order to protect their privacy, especially with the rise of professions such as streaming.

        Those professions aren’t going to be going anywhere anytime soon.

      • mke_geek
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This would take all the single family and duplexes off the rental market and make a ton of people homeless. No thanks. There’s enough people homeless in this country due to drug and alcohol issues.