- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmings.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmings.world
The legislation, known as the Homes for American Families Act, would amend the landmark Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to make it illegal for investment funds with over $150 million in assets to buy single-family homes, condominiums or townhouses. It doesn’t apply to homebuilders that are constructing units for sale.
Only for over $150,000,000 companies? How about $5,000,000? No one should get to own 400 homes, either!
5 million? Why would it be cut off there?
Because that’s plenty to not be a large scale leach. It’s quite a few cheaper homes, but not a lot in places like San Francisco, and despite the massive amount of hate for all landlords, people do sometimes need to rent homes instead of own them. People who plan to move, for families that go around in contracted jobs that spend a year or so in one city, etc.
$5 million is four small, rotting old homes in California. Maybe eight in the middle of the desert.
I like this legislation, but I also think that all income from residential property the owner does not occupy should be over 100% and property taxes over 50% per year. Nobody needs more than one home, and if you have them, you should pay society dearly for each you keep out of the hands of those who need it.
Where are you thinking from my statement; that has two wildly different numbers in it for a monetary amount is leading you to think the 400 houses was in reference to the impossibly small amount of money for that many houses, and not the much larger amount of money that makes perfect sense to buy 400 houses with?
Because the rules of english heavily imply it.
Your first sentence is clearly rhetorical.
Your second sentence poses a questions as an alternative.
Your final sentence, not being a question, can be inferred to be an answer to the alternative question posed, reinforced by the fact that english includes a right-branching bias and “nearest noun” assumption.
This is also the internet, and people say mathematically and factually incorrect things constantly, so there is no reason for a casual reader to break the formal or informal rules of english to decide whether a rather straightforward comment is actually ambiguously misphrased rather than merely incorrect.
I hope this answers your question.
My answer wouldn’t make any sense as a response to the $5,000,000 though. So regardless of the ambiguity to which number I was referring to in the same paragraph, anyone with a small semblance of reasoning would be able to work out that I must have been referring to the former $ and not the latter. This would be even more enforced had the actual article been read.
Dunno where you’re buying $12,000 homes. I won’t argue with the point though, they really don’t need hundreds or thousands of single family homes for investments
What? $150,000,000 will get you about 400 $375,000 homes.
You said 5m…?
Y’all not read the article or something? The bill is for anyone over $150,000,000. I’m saying it should be more like 5,000,000, because no entity should get to own like 400 houses? There was never any ambiguity to my statement about thinking I was speaking of the $5,000,000 owning 400 houses unless you were a damned idiot at math.
It was pretty ambiguous, when you say ‘either’ at the end of your comparative statement, it implies that the latter is what you’re referring to.
Anyhow I get what you’re saying, no need to be rude
deleted by creator
Investment funds, not companies. A $150,000,000 fund sounds like a lot but it’s smaller than the pension fund of a mid-sized company (3,000 employees, $50k total contribution per employee on average).