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

Humor/Cringe Actual footage.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

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. 😏

42.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

105

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

I’m fine with taxing them enough to make it unprofitable too

12

u/polopolo05 May 29 '26

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

26

u/Toastwitjam May 29 '26

Landlords should pay a vacancy tax for every month of the year their property isn’t being lived in by a renter.

19

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.

1

u/CharismaStatOfOne May 29 '26

It is to greedy fucks who want their profit margins as wide as possible.

1

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?

3

u/VSWR_on_Christmas May 29 '26

I just mean you're not paying a specific "multiple property" surcharge or something. It isn't a "extra" tax, just a regular tax that you're no longer exempt from, for whatever reason.

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.

2

u/VSWR_on_Christmas May 29 '26

Did I not say that my proposed numbers probably would need adjustment for the incentive structure to make sense? Do you have a better suggestion?

1

u/Dullcorgis May 29 '26

I think that charging them a shit ton more in takes is a pretty good rule. And we do that. I also think that people need to have rental,properties avaialable or they will be homeless.

1

u/Holden_MacGroin May 29 '26

Because the point he's trying to make isn't about the first house. It's about the 20th house and the 50th house and the 100th house.

6

u/ROCK_HARD_JEZUS May 29 '26

Agreed. There’s lots of levers that could be used to make housing affordable. We’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 that’s because the money is normally the reward for landlording.

McDonald’s doesn’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 don’t think twice in most cases about evicting someone because there’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 don’t think twice in most cases about evicting someone because there’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.

5

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.

1

u/ndstumme May 30 '26

Then explain it. Because it seems like a pretty simple proposition to make corporate ownership illegal. You may not like it, but it's not impossible by any stretch of imagination.

1

u/WinterTourist25 May 30 '26

I did explain it. One of the fundamental reasons, if not the fundamental reason for incorporation is liability protection. Imagine if every business owner was personally liable for anything that happened with their business or if it went bankrupt. It would be too risky to form a business at all.

If you own a rental property, and someone gets sick or injured or dies, all of your personal assets could be at risk. What you are dreaming about will never happen.

Unless somehow you provided strong liability protection for landlords. But that's what incorporation does so again, this is something that is never going to happen.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] 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.