Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer

An increasing trend in 2025 is the purchase of single-family homes by investors. While this trend has been prevalent for quite some time, 2025 has ushered in record highs. However, before exploring the effect of heightened investor purchases, it is essential to first understand the current housing market. 

As it stands, the price of houses are continuing to climb while interest rates remain relatively stuck. These unfavorable conditions have prevented many who formerly would have been in a position to buy a first time home from making this large purchase. Buying a home is simply not affordable for the young adults of today as it once was. These conditions have prompted houses to remain on the market for longer, creating conditions that are not only unfortunate for the buyer but also for the seller, leading to homes sitting empty for much longer than is typical as inventory builds up. 

While this is a concerning development for would-be homebuyers, it also serves as an opportunity for investors hoping to purchase properties. According to a report by BatchData as reported by CBS, “As traditional buyers struggle with affordability, investors with cash and financing advantages are stepping in to maintain transaction volume.” These investors are able to pay in cash or through tapping home equity gains, avoiding the high mortgage rates first time homebuyers face. 

With these statistics in mind, it can be simple to understand how investor purchases have increased; the conditions are not favorable (or affordable) for many would-be homebuyers. In fact, this trend has spiked dramatically since the 2020 pandemic. Per Fortune, between 2020 and 2023, the percentage of homes bought by investors averaged to 18.5%. In quarter 1 of 2025, nearly 27% of the homes sold in this time period were bought by investors. This statistic was only topped by data that surfaced after quarter 2. Per PR Newswire, real estate investors bought 33% of homes sold within this quarter. This indicates that the problem is continuing to grow as the percentages continue to climb. 

BatchData Co-Founder and Chief Innovation Officer Ivo Draginov addressed the statistics with PR Newswire when he stated, “Interestingly, while the percentage of single-family homes purchased by investors rose to a five-year high, the actual number of homes purchased during the second quarter of 2025 was 16,000 fewer than a year ago. So this relatively high percentage of home purchases by investors is at least partially due to overall home sales being weaker in Q2 2025 than they were in Q2 2024.” This statement indicates that while the percentage of homes purchased by investors continues to grow, this is in part due to typical homeowners buying less. If the traditional home owner buys less because it is not affordable and the investors buy at the same rate, the percentage of homes bought by investors would increase. While this is a plausible explanation for some of the variance in percentage, it is not enough to indicate the sharp increase of investor owned homes in its entirety. This indicates that as traditional buyers are unable to purchase homes, some (although not all) of this slack is picked up by investors with the chance to avoid high mortgage rates. 

For young adults, this message is certainly concerning. As young professionals face these increasing costs, high interest rates and increased investor purchasing, it makes the ability to purchase a home a goal that for many is not affordable or feasible. This has led to an increase in young professionals renting houses or apartments with roommates or significant others as opposed to purchasing a house as their parents or grandparents might have. For those who are lucky enough to be able to purchase a house, the age at which this becomes affordable is much later than in previous generations.

Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer 

On July 3, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill was passed and with it came provisions that sparked interest among tipped and overtime workers. President Trump largely ran on a platform that advocated for no tax on tips and with the passage of the bill, it would seem that this concept came to fruition. However, the policies are not quite as simple as no tax on tips or overtime. 

Before explaining the inner workings of the no tax on tips policy, it is essential to establish a core understanding of how taxes work. When filing taxes, the taxpayer can choose either the standard deduction (the same for everyone in the same filing status, such as single or those who are married and filing jointly) or the itemized deduction (becoming more rare as the standard deduction is raised). For instance, if the standard deduction for a single taxpayer is $15,750 and this is higher than the itemized deduction, this number would be deducted before computing taxable income (which is then charged progressively at the tax rate). If they made $60,000, they would only pay tax on $44,250. The no tax on tips policy also works as a deduction reducing the amount of taxable income. 

For those who are making less than $150,000 a year filing single or less than $300,000 a year filing jointly, the taxpayer is entitled to a tax deduction of up to $25,000 if their tips exceed this amount. For instance, if the above worker made $30,000 of their income from tips, they could take the full tip deduction of $25,000 from the already reduced $44,250. This would mean they would only pay tax on $19,250, potentially saving quite a bit of money. 

However, there are a few caveats to this deduction. To begin, this is only eligible for those making under $150,000 filing single or $300,000 filing jointly. Per New Way Accounting, for those above this bracket, the deduction phases out until $400,000 for filing single and $550,000 for filing jointly. In addition, to qualify, the taxpayers must work in a field which customarily and regularly receives tips as defined by the Treasury Department. This income must be claimed before this deduction can be taken. While this does reduce the federal tax liability, workers are still responsible for local and state taxes. Finally, this provision is only in place until 2028, although this could be extended. 

While this does seem like a massive advantage that could help large numbers of Americans save  on their taxes, it is also important to acknowledge the scope of the population influenced by this policy. Per Fortune, only about 2.5% of Americans fall in the category of tipped workers. Further, of these workers, about 40% of tipped workers already don’t pay federal taxes on their tips per Meg Wheeler, certified public accountant and founder of the Equitable Money Project. The reason many of these workers do not pay federal tax on tips is that their income is below the standard deduction, meaning they should not have to pay federal income tax. 

In regard to no tax on overtime, this comes with a deduction of up to $12,500 for a single filer or up to $25,000 for those filing jointly. According to Forbes, for overtime to qualify, it must align with the standards explained under the Fair Labor Standards Act, one of which includes employees being paid time and a half for work exceeding 40 hours in a week. In addition, the deduction can only be claimed for the pay that is above the typical rate. For instance, if a worker makes $20 an hour typically and $30 an hour for overtime (time and a half), the deduction could only count for $10, the amount paid in excess of the typical wage. 

The above policies spark questions about if companies will adjust their compensation structures to better take advantage of the deductions (especially if they are extended beyond 2028). For instance, companies that traditionally pay a salary may instead pay low hourly base pay with significant overtime. In addition, this could cause a further shift towards tipping as companies and workers take advantage of these benefits. If new workers are driven into tip fields, the companies may lower base hourly salaries even further, relying on the tips (and the reduction in taxes the worker would have to pay) to cover the difference. 

Overall, the no tax on tips and overtime policies are much more complex than simply not paying any taxes on these types of income. Instead, these deductions depend on income earned, as well as if the income source is qualified and are still subject to taxes other than federal income tax. This article provides only a surface level introduction of some of these complex topics and the influence they could have in the compensation structures of the future.

Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer 

On Apr. 15, 2025, the Trump Media and Technology Group, the social media company President Trump founded following his first four years in office, announced the decision to join with Yorkville American Equities and Index Technologies Group to launch Truth Social advertised as Separately Managed Accounts. This choice to join two investment banks in selling investment accounts under the Truth Social name has been heavily scrutinized. While some, such as the CEO of Yorkville American Equities and a managing partner of ITG praised the move, others criticized it and cited a conflict of interest. 

Nevertheless, before reviewing the arguments for and against the investment accounts, it is essential to understand what they are. As stated by Barrons, these investment accounts are focused on, “Offering investors access to curated, thematic investment strategies rooted in American values and priorities.” Some of these priorities include faith and values, liberty and security, energy independence and made in America. Per Barrons, the Trump Media and Technology Group’s CEO Devin Nunes stated, “We’re moving forward with a series of America First investment products that meet investors’ demand to support a wide range of outstanding, non-woke, and innovative companies across sectors of the U.S. economy.” 

Further, the executives at Yorkville American Equities and Index Technology Group weighed in on the proposed investment accounts. As reported by Markets Insider, the CEO of Yorkville American Equities, Troy Rillo, said of the launch, “Yorkville American Equities, TMTG, and ITG bring together deep expertise in asset management, media and technology to develop a distinctive investment offering that meets the evolving needs of today’s investors. These investment strategies are designed to provide exclusive access to American innovation, aligning capital with companies that reflect the values and future of this country.” 

John DuPrau, managing partner at ITG, echoes this sentiment. Newsweek reports that DuPrau made a statement addressing the shift which is as follows: “At a time when the foundations of American prosperity are shifting, it’s critical that our investment strategies reflect the values that define us. Made in America is more than just a theme – it’s a declaration of support for businesses essential to our economy, national security and enduring freedoms. These strategies allow investors to align their portfolios with patriotic and ethical convictions.” 
However, not everyone agrees with the assessment that these new investment accounts will prompt positive, ethical action. The key argument against these accounts is that President Trump owns over 50% of the Trump Media and Technology Group. In selling these investment accounts, a tremendous conflict of interest is encountered; the president is encouraged to use private information and/or make economic decisions in our government that align with these investment accounts in an endeavor to maximize profit. More importantly, as the president, he has the power to do so, a feat illustrated by the recent tariffs. A quote that keenly sums up the stance that these investment accounts are morally bankrupt is found in Raw Story. As reported, independent journalist Judd Legum postulated, “Trump, as President, will also be able to significantly influence the performance of these assets through tariffs and other policies. It is a jaw-dropping conflict of interest for actively managed investment accounts to be marketed under the president’s name through a company that is majority-owned by the president.”

Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer 

During a joint session of Congress in March, President Trump emphasized his desire to prioritize tariffs in the coming months. He explained that April would be a key time, with many new tariffs implemented with the goal of bringing jobs back to America. Jesting that the media would criticize his efforts if made on April Fool’s Day, the president elected to announce the tariffs on Apr. 2, 2025, a day he deemed “Liberation Day.” During his speech, Trump focused on how he feels America has been taken advantage of, and how the nation must shift manufacturing to be done more domestically. According to CBS News, the president said, “Trade deficits are no longer merely an economic problem. They are a national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life. It’s a very great threat to our country. For these reasons, starting tomorrow, the United States will implement reciprocal tariffs on other nations.” 

To begin, the president announced a universal 10% tariff on all goods imported into the United States. In addition, higher reciprocal tariffs were declared for certain nations as a means of “penalizing them for their trade barriers,” as reported by NPR. Some key reciprocal tariffs announced throughout the speech are 34% tariffs in China (plus the 20% tariff already in place), 24% tariffs in Japan and 20% tariffs on the European Union.

However, instituting tariffs is not without risk. Consumers often face higher prices as the tariff costs are passed to consumers, the stock market may fare poorly due to uncertainty and reciprocal tariffs may be announced by countries upset with the new policy. For example, China responded to the 34% tariff by announcing a reciprocal tariff on the US of 34%. In response to this, President Trump indicated his willingness to substantially increase the tariffs on China. He threatened an extra 50% tariff which, when combined with the recently declared 34% tariff and already in place 20% tariff, leads to a 104% tariff to be implemented against China beginning on Apr. 9, 2025. As reported by USA Today, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Apr. 8, 2025, “It was a mistake for China to retaliate. When America is punched, (Trump) punches back harder, and that’s why there will be 104% tariffs going into effect on China tonight at midnight.” 

The stock market also responded poorly to the initial tariff announcement with the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping by more than 1,600 points on Apr. 3, 2025, according to AP News. As reported by USA Today, the market began turning around on Apr. 8, 2025, only for a sharp reversal of fortunes to occur after the additional 50% tariff on China. Yet, the president remains relatively unconcerned about the present state of the market. When asked about the market’s reaction, according to yahoo!news, President Trump stated, “What’s going to happen with the market, I can’t tell you. But I can tell you, our country has gotten a lot stronger. And eventually it will be a country like no other. It will be the most dominant country, economically in the world. I think your question is so stupid, I don’t want anything to go down, but sometimes you have to take the medicine to fix something.” 

Many question how the current tariffs could potentially influence the 2026 midterm elections. When speaking at the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner on Wednesday, Apr. 8, 2025, only hours before many import duties are set to take effect, NBC News states that the president believes the Republicans will win the 2026 midterm elections in a “thundering landslide.” He elaborated, “I really think we’re helped a lot by the tariff situation that’s going on, which is a good situation. It’s great. It’s going to be legendary.” 
As to what the president is planning for the future, the answer remains: more tariffs. He plans to begin adding tariffs to pharmaceutical products in the near future. The Wall Street Journal features a quote by President Trump which states, “We’re going to tariff our pharmaceuticals and once we do that, they’re going to come rushing back into our country because we’re the big market. So we’re going to be announcing very shortly a major tariff on pharmaceuticals and when they hear that, they will leave China, they will leave other places because they have to – most of their product is sold here and they’re going to be opening up their plants all over our country.”

Note: this article was written on Apr. 8 and may not contain the most up to date information on tariffs

Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer 

On Feb. 10, 2025, President Trump signed a pair of executive orders to impose 25% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. As stated in the Washington Post, White House senior counselor for trade and manufacturing Peter Navarro said of the orders, “This isn’t just about trade. It’s about ensuring that America never has to rely on foreign nations for critical industries like steel and aluminum.” On an earnings call the next day, Coca-Cola CEO James Quincy weighed in on his perspective of how this order could impact Coca-Cola. 

Quincy elucidated that the company’s reliance on importing aluminum from Canada could pose a problem, leading to the packaging for canned soda to become more expensive. In response to this price spike, the CEO contemplated a shift to packaging that relies primarily on plastic bottles despite the negative environmental effects. According to CBS, Quincy said on the earnings call, “as it relates to our strategies around ensuring affordability and ensuring consumer demand, if one package suffers some increase in input costs, we continue to have other packaging offerings that will allow us to compete in the affordability space. For example, if aluminum cans become more expensive, we can put more emphasis on PET [plastic] bottles, et cetera.” 

However, this shift to increased plastic use does not work well for environmentalists. As mentioned in the Washington Post, a study carried out in April revealed that Coca-Cola accounts for 11% of branded plastic pollution in the world. Further, in December, Coca-Cola retracted many of its goals towards plastic reduction, instead prioritizing using recycled materials. This deviation, coupled with the company’s new stance towards increasing plastic bottle production, was met with distaste from environmentalists such as Emma Priestland, the global corporate campaigns coordinator for the advocacy group Break Free from Plastic. As reported in the Washington Post, she announced, “Any increase in Coca-Cola’s plastic bottle use will directly harm the environment – as well as the health of their customers.” 

Due to these concerns, Priestland encourages Coca-Cola to focus their efforts on reusable glass bottles to combat increased aluminum costs, stating as said in the Washington Post, “Coca-Cola operates successful reusable packaging systems around the world – this is what they should be doubling down on, not expanding plastic use.” 

Nevertheless, Quincy attempted to calm concerns about the impact the tariffs could have. Fortune reports Quincy stating, “I think we’re in danger of exaggerating the impact of the 25% increase in the aluminum price relative to the total system. It’s not insignificant, but it’s not going to radically change a multi-billion dollar US business.” Despite these comments, the tariffs are likely to increase prices for aluminum, shifting Coca-Cola’s packaging process to cope with these increasing costs while attempting to stabilize prices. As stated in the Washington Post, Quincy said, “Between mitigation of supply chain, sourcing, weights of cans, price increase of the cans at some level potentially, a switch to PET, it’s a manageable problem in the context of the total US business. It’s a cost. It will have to be managed.”