Sure. But to turn back the thread topic a bit, if Congress were to pass a law that says that no single entity can own more than 1,000 single-family homes (to pick a number), that law would certainly be found to be within Congress’ power under the Interstate Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.
Whether the Executive could find a way to do that within existing statutes is far more iffy…
I just had a contractor refinish the ceiling in a house I bought for my daughter. His first question was if I would pay in cash. I said sure. $3800. I didn’t ask what a paper trail bid would cost.
Why not the federal government? Land use rules can be very parochial when local government gets involved. Nobody wants high density housing near them, for example, yet it’s a way to get lots of housing faster than building an equivalent number of single family homes.
The Feds had to step in when HOAs and Condos started banning satellite dishes, saying “no, they’re allowed on all properties”. (Not the same, of course, but it shows how local governing boards can be influenced to shield current stakeholders against new ones (or new technologies.)
I will accede to Albaby’s point, however. 20 years ago only the most wealthy had “a second home” Now there’s nearly a dozen in my small neighborhood who do, but only use it as an AirBnB and for their own vacations, so it’s not really “housing”.
Did you ask if the contractor uses undocumented labor? How about permitting?
My impression is that you contracted with someone who may not pay taxes, who potentially uses undocumented labor, and who may be skirting permitting rules. If so, you’re definitely part of the problem…
I’m concerned about how it affects availability and costs (AirBnB). In Barcelona, it’s gotten so bad that residents are spraying water on tourists because the locals can’t afford rent (because there are so many AirBnBs).
I’m not sure to what extent that is happening here. Some areas will be more affected than others (e.g. places close to tourist locations). I do know that most of 1poorkid’s friends struggle to live on their own. Most either live at home, or have roommates. And it seems to be getting worse. The general approach of buying “investment properties” (whether AirBnB, or to flip them, or whatever) likely is driving some of this.
He was the owner of the business. He has a shop in town so I would imagine he pays taxes. I don’t know how many employees he has, but he was there every day working with one other person.
He came highly recommended. His workmanship was excellent.
Also, he does drywall finishing. No permits required for that in this part of the country.
Well, if you’re going to flip them then it’s going to be housing (mostly) so maybe it’s off the market for a few months for renovations, but I wouldn’t think that can bge the driver.
Heck, we owned a condo in Boston while we lived in Pittsburgh, Chicago, Tennessee but it was a rental so it was still “housing”. But enough of that and yeah, there’s a problem because nobody can buy. Eventually tho, it went on the market.
We just contracted for a cobblestone driveway and he didn’t ask for “cash” but said “paying by credit card I have to charge an extra 3%.” That would have cost over $1,000 so we were glad to write a check. (That’s “cash”, it’s just documentable, traceable.)
Experience is getting work inspected and approved w permit can be much more difficult some places than others. Common question is did you use union labor. And some places that implies payoffs to unnamed parties.
I recall visiting a Ford dealer in NJ which had a sign posted. No you could not pay cash for your new pick-up. Cash payment meant no record of the payment in bank etc.
It’s about buying low and selling high. You flip the house, not really living in it, and sell it for more. That drives the price up for any buyers. Sometimes to the point that younger buyers simply can’t afford it.
Cash payment for a new pickup would mean extra work and records at the bank. Cash deposits over 10K have to be recorded. Supposedly this reduces money laundering.
There’re also the security risks of handling large amounts of cash.
But it’s not about a lack of payment record at the bank.
More to the point, when the party says freedom from central planning, they mean control things entirely.
Sure. Businesses that take lots of cash often have armored car service to transport it. Dealership probably gets all checks and credit card.
Gray market businesses who want to avoid taxes probably do not bank their cash. Better in a safe some place or under a mattress. Once banked, IRS can put a name on it. So not accepting cash forces them to make arrangements. Bit coin?
I wonder if you could use cash to buy a money order somewhere.
Reverse direction you can use check cashing service to get cash. (I’m aware of a divorce where this method might have been used to deplete joint assets.)