877

Harris to endorse protections for renters and removal of key tax benefits for Wall St. investors buying homes (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 1 month ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] rhythmisaprancer@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 1 month ago

Is rent to own that common? Is it a viable option? I have heard of owner financing situations, but they are generally looked down upon (risky).

[-] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

No. It's extremely uncommon but the comment that started this discussion mentioned forcing landlords to adopt rent to own programs. Got me thinking about how cool it would be if that was a viable option.

[-] rhythmisaprancer@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 1 month ago

That's a good point, having that option could be good if it was supported appropriately.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

have heard of owner financing situations, but they are generally looked down upon (risky).

Owner financing is far less risky than renting from that same owner. For both the seller/lender/landlord and the buyer/borrower/tenant.

[-] rhythmisaprancer@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 1 month ago

That could be, I'm only familiar with the negatives but in reality I know little about that option.

this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024

877 points (99.0% liked)

politics

18863 readers

5760 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News