Wall Street Landlords

A household with an annual income of $50,000 can only afford 8.7% of listings in the US, down from 9.4% last year.

Homes are becoming increasingly less affordable for Americans. We need to pass my bill, the Stop Wall Street Landlords Act, to help more American families own…

— Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) June 13, 2025

A breakdown of Congressman Ro Khanna’s Stop Wall Street Landlords Act and what he means by “Wall Street landlords”:

---

🏛️ What is the Stop Wall Street Landlords Act?

This proposed legislation (introduced in the 117ᵗʰ Congress as H.R. 9246 on October 28, 2022) aims to discourage large investors—those with over $100 million in assets—from purchasing and renting single-family homes (1–4 units). Its key provisions include:

1. Denying tax breaks:

   • Bars large investors from claiming deductions on mortgage interest, insurance, and depreciation tied to single-family homes (congress.gov, yieldpro.com).

2. Imposing a hefty excise tax:

   • On sale or transfer of these properties, matching the full sale price of the home (congress.gov).

3. Prohibiting access to government-backed financing:

   • Prevents Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from providing loans or guarantees for large investors to buy these homes (act.ourrevolution.com, billtrack50.com).

4. Introducing a “neighborhood homes tax credit”:

   • Offers tax credits to developers or local governments for building or rehabilitating owner-occupied housing in underserved communities (billtrack50.com, act.ourrevolution.com).

Status Update:

• Introduced in October 2022; referred to committees but died on January 3, 2023, at the end of the 117ᵗʰ Congress (billtrack50.com).

• Khanna has since reintroduced the bill multiple times and continues to push for its passage (khanna.house.gov).

---

🏦 Who are “Wall Street landlords”?

Khanna uses the term to describe large institutional investors—like private equity firms, hedge funds, and real estate investment trusts (REITs)—that:

• Buy up large blocks of single-family homes, often in bulk;

• Rent them out as investment properties;

• Leverage governmental tools such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac financing, using taxpayer-backed loans;

• Sometimes neglect property upkeep or drive up rents, putting ordinary buyers and tenants at a disadvantage (khanna.house.gov, vox.com).

In his words, these “landlords” are “scooping up housing in working-class neighborhoods and holding them for appreciation,” turning potential homeowner opportunities into rental investments (notus.org).

---

🎯 Why it matters

• Homeownership barriers: Khanna argues that institutional investors artificially inflate home prices, making it harder for first-time buyers to compete (vox.com).

• Policy shift: The bill aims to remove government support from corporate property speculation, while also encouraging owner-occupied construction in neglected areas (vox.com).

• Not a supply fix: Khanna acknowledges this measure alone won’t solve the housing crisis—but sees it as a necessary piece alongside boosting housing supply and down-payment aid (vox.com).

---

✍️ Summary

✅ Goal	⚙️ Mechanism
Reduce institutional buying	Deny tax breaks & impose full-price sales excise tax
Limit access to federal mortgage support	Bar Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie aid
Encourage owner-occupied housing	Create neighborhood tax credits

“Wall Street landlords” are large investors snapping up single-family homes, often with taxpayer-backed financing, making it more difficult for everyday Americans to buy homes or afford rising rents.

Khanna’s bill tackles this “financialization” of U.S. housing—removing incentives for these investors while promoting homeownership and community development.

It’s highly unlikely the Stop Wall Street Landlords Act will pass in 2026 even under full Democratic control—unless it's significantly modified. Here’s why and how it could be adjusted to win support:

---

🚧 1. Political Landscape & Opposition

• Republican resistance expected: The House’s flip back to Democrats helps proponents—but even within the party, there's hesitation to enact what critics call a blunt, punitive bill (businessinsider.com).

• Industry pushback: Groups like the American Investment Council argue the bill “won’t help address the real challenges” and could reduce rental housing supply (vox.com).

• Moderate Dem concerns: Experts, including Urban Institute leadership, have flagged Khanna’s approach as “punitive,” noting that institutional landlords can help finance repairs and fill market gaps (vox.com).

---

✨ 2. What Needs Modification

To garner unity within the Democratic Party, adjustments could include:

• Affordability and string requirements: Tie financial disincentives (taxes, deduction limits) to rent caps, tenant protections, or mandates for a % of homes to be kept affordable—this addresses both equity and housing supply.

• Portfolio caps over blanket bans: Instead of punishing any institutional investor above $100 M, set ownership limits (e.g., max 20 or 50 homes)—mirroring similar proposals in some states (wsj.com).

• Exempt or soften carve-outs: Create exemptions for mission-driven operators—like housing co‑ops or community lenders—or smaller investors who invest in low‑income areas.

• Boost supply-side incentives: Expand the current neighborhood homes tax credit into a larger, refundable credit or include direct grants to public/private developers building affordable owner-occupied units, complementing demand-side restrictions (vox.com).

• Phased/targeted rollout: Implement regulations gradually—first in markets with high displacement risk—making the act more politically viable and research-informed.

---

✅ 3. Why These Changes Matter

Problem	Proposed Fix	Why It Helps
Reduces supply risk	Portfolio caps + phase-in	Maintains investor participation where needed
Risk to renters	Affordability strings	Anchor regulations in benefits for tenants
Political buy-in	Exemptions + flexibility	Addresses moderate Dem and pro-housing concerns
Housing affordability	Boost supply credits	Aligns with wider party priorities—supply + cost relief

---

🧭 4. Likelihood of Passage

If passed, a retooled version could find allies in progressive and moderate Democrats by:

• Framing it as anti-greed + pro-homeownership.

• Balancing regulation with market solutions.

• Making it targeted, equitable, and constructive—not broad stroke punishment.

Without these changes, though, the act is still seen as a "warning shot" with a steep hillside to climb (wsj.com, commondreams.org, steinbridge.com, businessinsider.com).

---

✅ TL;DR

• Will it pass? Only if Democrats hold both chambers and reframe it to address housing supply, affordability, and investor incentives—for now, it remains stalled.

• Must-haves for passage: Rent/affordability conditions, ownership limits, gradual rollout, targeted scope, exemptions, and stronger supply-side support.

• Goal: Make the bill a balanced housing reform—not just a punitive tax—and it may become part of the 2025 housing agenda.

• wsj.com

Wall Street Landlords https://t.co/vGZxqZU7ho

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 13, 2025

Step By Step To Solving The Big Problems

I think it would be a good idea to start with basic accounting. This is very pro-market. This is pro-capitalism. And I don't think the Chinese have anything against basic bookkeeping. So accounting is ideology-free.

All wealth has to be put on the Blockchain. Everything every person on earth owns has to be put on the Blockchain. That is in the great interest of the property owners. That will secure property rights. It is said the biggest thing you can do for wealth creation in the poor countries is to secure as to which land plot belongs to who. Modern technology has now made that possible. Satellites can now put borders down to the inch. Once every person in the Global South knows exactly who owns what plot of land, suddenly they have all this collateral they can use to borrow money from banks and can invest in new businesses. The biggest risk-taking entrepreneurs are in the bottom billions. They will give immense growth.

There does not have to be a loss of privacy. Most people probably would not like the idea that now anyone with internet access can find out how much you are worth. For one, that might seriously jeopardize online dating! Privacy is important. Privacy is an important, fundamental human value. There is a way to put all property on the Blockchain and still preserve privacy. Maybe there can be an arrangement such that only authorized organizations, like the four layers of government - local, state, national, and world - should have access to your property records.

But we don't have a world government right now. Maybe we can start with a one percent wealth tax. Everything you own above a certain value (say a million dollars) should be subject to a wealth tax of one percent that you pay directly to the world government. To that every member country gets to pay one percent of its GDP every year. That would be the membership fee.

The super-rich should not be allowed to "hide" their money. A great tragedy of the 2008 Great Recession was that the world economy was staring at an abyss and there were trillions of dollars simply parked in so-called "safe havens."

This one percent wealth tax would work as a constant stimulus. If your wealth is not generating income, then that one percent tax might be a burden. And so there will be pressure on all wealth to grow.

It is high time we funded a UBI, which I have never defined as American Basic Income.

Too many people still don't have proper IDs. Well, now we can do that easily. All someone has to do is place their fingers on a touchscreen, and their unique fingerprint will give them a more secure ID than the US social security number. And every such biometric ID could have an instant online bank account. The UBI would be an automatic transfer of money into every bank account.

Poverty is a lack of cash. If we were to transfer something like $100 per month to every single human being every month, poverty is past tense.

Why should people who are not poor support something like that? Because UBI is infrastructure. What electricity was for the second industrial revolution and the internet was for the third, UBI (Universal Basic Income) is the same for the impending fourth industrial revolution. The fourth industrial revolution that will unleash tremendous wealth creation and usher an Age Of Abundance is not possible unless you put in place the UBI.

Everybody who can touch a touchscreen can get an ID, or look into a smart screen camera. And it does not even have to be a screen you own. And everyone can directly vote on those screens. We could have a directly elected President of the World.

There is the climate crisis. There is urbanization and the housing crisis. There is poverty. There is immigration. There is terrorism, a needle in a haystack problem. All these big problems are global in nature and scope. I am not saying the world government will solve them all. But only a world government can provide the framework in which the problems can be solved.

New Capitalism Is Techno Capitalism, Hello Marc
The Blockchain: Fundamental Like The Internet
Inequality And Climate Change Are Existential: A Blueprint For Survival
Towards A World Government
Universal Basic Income (aka Freedom Dividend) Is Not Free Money

Step By Step To Solving The Big Problems https://t.co/cCyzBgbcHb @PeteButtigieg @AOC @JassimAlseddiqi #UBI #universalbasicincome #urbanization #housing #wealthTax #blockchain #terrorism #Identity #biometricID #ClimateActionNow #ClimateCrisis #ClimateStrike #inequality

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) December 6, 2019