If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
Make it progressive. First $x is untaxed, $x+y is taxed at some percent, the next $x+z is taxed higher, and so on.
Also build more housing in general.
Luckily for the billionaires they don’t own any homes, their homes are part of a complex companies, or some bullshit.
All too true - laws are for people who can’t afford lawyers.
Cool. Can I get a tax rebate for being too poor to own a home?
Just put in wealth caps
Nobody should be able to have of control over 10 million, for example
I’ve often thought that the taxes should relate to whether or not the home is occupied.
If you live in it as your primary dwelling, with more than 50% of your time there, then you should pay the normal amount.
If you have someone leasing the house to live in it, then you should pay the same property taxes as if you were living in it yourself. Maybe a bit higher.
If you’re using it as a full time Airbnb, the taxes should be much, much higher.
Unoccupied rental properties or vacation homes should be taxed at the much higher rate to encourage you to either lower the rent or sell it to someone who can live in it.
If you have someone leasing the house to live in it, then you should pay the same property taxes as if you were living in it yourself. Maybe a bit higher.
Wait why higher if you’re renting or leasing it out? Shouldn’t that be a reduction on taxes due to the home owner not using it for selfish reasons and/or being part of the problem of living in a single family house because owning a single family house is a greedy ass thing to do and makes you an awful person for taking up space that could be used for multi-dwelling apartment complexes.
Companies should pay 10x more.
I think this is the right idea but there should be focus on certain things. Like say car washes. At this point we know it’s a stake to flip the land as prices go up. I live in a place where it’s not uncommon to see a car wash within walking distance from another. May as well be the car wash capital of the world.
Car washes are not houses.
Well of course. But they could have been houses or actual business. I mean there was a burger place, one of the only two left in the country, got torn down and a car wash replaced it. The area was big enough for two or three houses or another business(s). Instead it’s a car wash that I never see anyone at. And this wasn’t like a really great place per say but it was a third space for bike and car meetups. I was trying to reference that those spaces could easily provide housing instead of something useless.
You’re talking about zoning strategies, it’s a whole other subject.
This is about taxing houses (one type of zoning).I’ve sadly seem the same in these parts… derelict houses demolished and replaced with hotels (after the mayor kindly changed the zoning of course).
I see, I wonder how this would affect residential & commercial zoned properties. As in it’s a house but it can also be commercial property. I get calls al the time from companies trying to buy my house because of it. The nursing home keeps sending offers two houses down, I’m sure they get the spam as well, to expand their facility.
First one should be free. Let the property investors pay the property taxes. Apparently they can afford them.
But like on ALL their properties not just the excess ones
To an extent “Homestead Exemption” can do this, if the exemption is a significant chunk of the taxable value - which it has been at some times (my first house’s HX was 50% of its taxable value), and not so much at other times (we’re at about 10% now)…
So, if you’ve got 50% homestead exemption, you only get that on your first home and you pay double taxes on others. But, if you’re playing in the 10% bracket that’s basically in the noise.
See the problem with this, which is something on the ballot locally, is that people buy properties here to get tax exemptions and live elsewhere the majority of the time. Ironically the proposed homestead exemption will increase the amount of property tax I will pay compared to the current model; likely because they added extra fees.
buy properties here to get tax exemptions and live elsewhere the majority of the time.
Which is illegal, but hard to prove without tipping the hand of the surveillance state. They know who the cheaters are, but they don’t want to say how they know.
the proposed homestead exemption will increase the amount of property tax I will pay
Any change to property taxes increases the amount some people pay because property tax base rates are adjusted to be “revenue neutral” - getting all the money they need to provide the services they have committed to. So, rule changes never lessen the total burden, only shift it around.
Floriduh made a big deal about lottery income paying for education, but in truth (the educated know that) only 5% of the schools’ cost is paid by the lottery operations, the other 95% mostly comes from property taxes - so, thank a lottery player for reducing your property taxes by about 2%, 35-40% of an average property tax bill goes to education.
You nailed it. Funny how easy you picked up on certain details.
I didn’t know the lottery thing was that bad. The main issues with the proposed change is that they’re closing schools down, so the funding will likely go to some bullshit. I mean they used 55 million on fixing the stupid stadium under the guise that insurance and FEMA will reimburse the costs only for them to move to Tampa anyway—good riddance. And another fun thing I saw is that Article 3 will add in funding to fix the sewer systems… which I already pay every month with the crazy water bill. And the cheater part, yeah they don’t care. I fixed a machine downtown and the couple said oh yeah this place only cost 1.8 million. So of course the city is happy to turn a blind eye. So I’m okay with services being funded but not giving billionaires tax payer dollars for a stadium; that’s dumb and really everyone should get a refund on this expense. I got a lot of down votes on reddit for this opinion but it’s like if you love your baseball team so much, you go donate and leave me out of it.
they’re closing schools down, so the funding will likely go to some bullshit.
I think it’s a split, likely 50/50 between “other alternate more cost effective school options” which amounts to paying parents to home school or paying private schools by the state, but at a lower rate than state schools and with even worse effectiveness assurances than the public schools if you can even imagine that to be possible. The other 50 is going to go to all kinds of grift while the property tax payers aren’t looking at how the cost of schools (on their tax bills) is dropping.
Funny, a big problem we had in schools when I attended in the 70s/80s was sports sucking up all the funding, new money going to a football stadium instead of fixing the wet roof that filled the high school with mold spores - I had chronic bronchitis for 4 years, coincitentally only while school was in session, only while I was attending in that building - never in summers, off to college? Miracle cure.
In my country, the primary residence is taxed way less.
In the US property taxes are paid to the county. Some if not most charge more in taxes if it’s rental income.
They’d just make 2,000 shell companies, each with one house.
Perfectly legal.
Companies shouldn’t be allowed to own housing
Or other companies.
I always thought “if corporations are people, then why can they own other corporations”
What about LLCs to represent polycules that can’t get married because for some reason Christianity norms are law?
No. Polycules should also be allowed to own homes. If we are changing the rules then let’s fix this as well
I’d add a couple short-term exceptions: Construction companies may own housing during construction and for the amount of time it takes for newly built homes to sell to resident owners. Banks, credit unions and such should be able to foreclose on defaulted mortgages and take possession of the property for a certain amount of time, if it’s not sold within that time it goes to government auction.
They should not be allowed to retain ownership over mass amounts of occupied dwellings.
Denser housing like apartment blocs may need to work like condos, residents either outright own their portion of the building or become stakeholders in the building’s corporation, how to do that without inventing the turbo HOA will require further research and development.
They often do that already.
It reduces the liability when sued. If you do something dumb and owe someone $100,000,000. You just abandon that one property and make that company bankrupt, you don’t lose all your other properties too.
because of that reading government anti-corruption investigations can cause vertigo - just getting through the tense web of shells and shells of shells and mothershells and whatnot - there was one case in which the company had like 50 entities removed from the culprit
Exponential*
If it were 2% on the first, it’d be 4% on the second, 8% on the third…
I think Ken Paxton, man of the people, family matters, wears $40K watches, has 15 homes on a 150K salary.
So 32,768% sounds fair for inhuman scum like him. That’s 14 more homes on the market hopefully.
I don’t even know what it would be for Blackrock, the largest homeowner in the market. They own more homes than individuals do in the country.
Looks like Ken’s love language is bribery with real estate .
Two policies would make a huge impact on this.
An additional tax on nonresident ownership and a punitive tax on vacancies based on occupancy rates.
Those two would be enough to discourage hoarding, scalping and ghost neighborhoods .
I agree in principal, but it’s impossible to implement it in this manner.
What you can do is establish an “owner-occupant” exemption to future tax hikes, then hike taxes through the fucking roof for everyone else.
Landlords will be fighting tooth and nail to convert tenants to buyers. They’ll be issuing “land contracts” (which strongly favor the tenant/buyer) rather than rental agreements.
You can create a statute to target 85% owner occupancy. Any year the owner occupancy rate is lower than 80%, the property tax rate will be automatically hiked 2% (for non-owner occupied properties only). If the owner-occupancy rate exceeds 90%, the property tax rate is lowered by 1%.
Oh, I like that a lot.
The idea of charging owner-occupants a different tax rate than an investor is fairly common. At least 28 states already have some sort of general “homestead exemption”, “second home tax”, or similar policy.
The changes that need to happen are 1. the exemption needs to be increased at the same rate that the tax is increased; 2. The exemption and tax rate increases need to be tied to a specifically targeted owner-occupancy rate; 3. Federal and state governments cannot be allowed to overrule local authorities on issues of property tax policies.
It’s not a complete cure, but it will convert investors from parasitic landlords to parasitic investors. They’re going to keep ripping us off as best they can. But no matter how badly they will be exploiting us, we will be gaining equity in the process. Going from “zero equity” to “any equity whatsoever” is an infinite improvement over the current degree of exploitation in the housing market.
This is why wealth tax is so elegant. It doesn’t matter if you own a bunch of houses personally, or you own shares of a company that own a bunch of houses, or you use the shares as collateral to borrow a bunch of money; your total wealth is the same. There is no way get around it :3
Wealth taxes are necessary, but with offshoring and hiding accounts, I’d say they’re bureaucratically complicated rather than elegant.
The real wealth are the NFTs we made along the way.
There is and there always will be as long as capitalist have the political control.
