This bill denies taxpayers owning 50 or more single family properties any tax deduction for interest paid or accrued in connection with any single family residential rental property. It also disallows depreciation of residential rental property owned by such taxpayers.
The largest owner of this asset class in the U.S. is Invitation Homes Inc. (NYSE: INVH), a real estate investment trust (REIT) with a portfolio of about 83,000 single-family rental homes as of the end of the first quarter this year.
I hope her endorsement will raise the profile of this bill. Invitation Homes Inc. gets the first 50 free, but the next 82,950 homes lose tax advantages.
More than fair. That much greed should be a little bit less profitable.
Owning rental real estate is like owning any other business.
Expenses re not profits and should to be taxed as if they were.
You gross $100
You pay $1k for employees, $1k for stuff and $20k interest, none of which you kept, all of which you gave to someone else.
What is the profit on which you should be taxed?
If investors owning too many single-family homes is a problem (and I doubt it truly is) then let the free market handle it. Make the government smaller. Get the Fed out of the business of buying/subsidizing their mortgages.
Kamala:
*“We need a really big government. We should subsidize property investors and then we should tax them. We should tax and subsidize the same things at the same time.”
Free market: “That’s really really dumb. Are you speaking without a teleprompter again?”
So what? That doesn’t change the dynamics. Not only that, but why would you assume the people getting deductions are not going to raise their prices to match what those without the deductions are getting?
Imagine all of the “single family” homes these evil nasty rotten corporations provide.
Supply of housing is a good thing right?
Imagine what would happen to housing prices if these rotten evil corporations stop building and owning these things.
N addition to this stupid stupid bill ending new acquisitions and new construction, what happens to rent if the cost of owning these currently-owned units when the cost of owning them suddenly skyrockets?
.
.
. Having thought about I have now decided calling Kamala Harris a Marxist is an insult to Karl Marx. At least he never said we should raise landlord expenses to bring down rents.
Rents will only rise if these large landlords are big enough to distort the market. That’s a regulation issue. The principle of the bill is sound if conditions are fair.
Q1
Who do you think built the condos pictured above?
20 young couples came together and formed a hippy commune and all decided to build their condos touching each other and looking identical.
a big evil corporation adding supply and thus . . . lowering prices?
Q2
At what point does raising taxes on landlord, lower rents charged to tenants
As the government takes an increasing share 20%, 5% 90% rents charge to tenants. In fact, if you raise taxes to 99.999% landlords will slash their rents.
It does not. Raising taxes on landlords does not lower rents. Duh!!
Wrong. If you are renting a house for 2,000.00 per month but found out your neighbor is renting comparable for 3,000.00 a month, you’d raise your price to 2,800.00 a month.
Downward pricing would only work with a surplus of supply, which isn’t the current state of the market.
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘single family residential rental property’ means—
“(i) any residential rental property (as defined in section 168(e)(2)(A)(i)) which contains 4 or fewer dwelling units (as defined in section 168(e)(2)(A)(ii)(I)), and
“(ii) improvements to real property directly related to such dwelling units located on the site of such dwelling units.
For purposes of clause (i), each townhouse or rowhouse shall be treated as a separate building.
the article is deceiving you. Nowhere does it read detached single family homes.
If your family owns a condo unit that is a single family home, it just is not detached.
Same deal with those nasty evil corporations.
Meanwhile what tax rate on landlords results in them charging the lowest rent? 1% 10% or 99.999%?
Please answer and explain why you think this is a good bill?
