5 ms·

> we ought not condone or enable this self-serving behavior. so what do you suggest? make it illegal to not live in your house ? Have a city inspector drive b

> we ought not condone or enable this self-serving behavior. so what do you suggest? make it illegal to not live in your house ? Have a city inspector drive by once a week and see if lights are on and cars are parked nearby ? Every homeowner has to show up every 90 days to get their property ownership license stamped ? sure, having vacant houses is a waste of resources. but having wealthy people actually use their money - even in a wasteful manner - can be a good thing. more money moving through the economy is better than less money moving through the economy.

fragmede 10y ago
You say that that like it's a crazy idea, but Vancouver's done just that, and enacted an empty house tax[1]. It took effect at the beginning of this year, and it's not a huge amount (~$7.5k) compared to the price of a house. What's interesting is the penalty for lying - $7.5k/day. How this works out remains to be see though. [1]http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/vancouver-vacant-property-tax-rentals/ http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/vancouver-vacant-property-tax-...
- digler999 10y ago
  did you read the comments yesterday about the traffic-ticket guy ? top comment was someone who was ticketed after he sold the car and SFO absolutely would not accept his indisputable proof of innocence. If SFO can't even apply a rule fairly with a $200 penalty, what do you think would happen if they were entrusted with meting out $7500/day penalties? I also have huge issues with the government deciding what you can do with your property after you've bought and paid for it. If they can change the terms of your contract, worth 6 and 7 figures, that not only erodes faith in the real estate market but it effectively means you never own it in the first place (inb4 the tax-protester argument of "you never owned it anyway because tax". yes I know that).
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    One part of my personal set of extreme political views is that private ownership of land should be impossible :)
    - digler999 10y ago
      I'd be for 99-year or lifetime leases. Just so that you can own your property for as long as you're alive, but not long enough to establish mini-dynasties where the only people who can own property are extremely wealthy (family becomes wealthy because they inherited a house and have no mortgage, supply of houses goes down, prices go up, gradually the only people who own them are those who inherited them).
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    It's only your property in so far as the government/society surrounding you says it is, unless you plan on defending it yourself, but that didn't work out so well for a certain group in Waco, TX.
state_less 10y ago
I'd suggest applying a tax proportional to the market increase in value on secondary homes. In other words, if you really want that second home, go for it, but you won't be making any money off it. Think a million dollars tax for some years on a pricey home. I'd also be sympathetic to people who would like to take it further and look at the negative externalities, so those could be included into the tax. All this happens when you go to fill out your taxes and declare your properties and primary residence. I don't want to tell people they can't do it, but they ought to pay the price for disallowing others to enjoy our most beautiful locations.
- digler999 10y ago
  how about an incentive instead of another tax? a tax break for people who rent out their homes at least 6 months a year?
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    I think increasing landlord's profits isn't the way to go here. That would further increase house prices.
    - digler999 10y ago
      not everyone who rents a property out "profits" over it. source: I own a property, and have not made any profit from rent.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - EliRivers 10y ago
        Harsh as it sounds, and without wishing to be personal (but of course, everything is personal to someone) that's good news. It should discourage you from doing more landlording. Maybe even encourage you to stop making this loss. I also want to discourage anyone else from doing more landlording, and a tax break for you and others like you would work against that.

fragmede 10y ago

You say that that like it's a crazy idea, but Vancouver's done just that, and enacted an empty house tax[1]. It took effect at the beginning of this year, and it's not a huge amount (~$7.5k) compared to the price of a house. What's interesting is the penalty for lying - $7.5k/day. How this works out remains to be see though. [1]http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/vancouver-vacant-property-tax-rentals/ http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/vancouver-vacant-property-tax-...

digler999 10y ago
did you read the comments yesterday about the traffic-ticket guy ? top comment was someone who was ticketed after he sold the car and SFO absolutely would not accept his indisputable proof of innocence. If SFO can't even apply a rule fairly with a $200 penalty, what do you think would happen if they were entrusted with meting out $7500/day penalties? I also have huge issues with the government deciding what you can do with your property after you've bought and paid for it. If they can change the terms of your contract, worth 6 and 7 figures, that not only erodes faith in the real estate market but it effectively means you never own it in the first place (inb4 the tax-protester argument of "you never owned it anyway because tax". yes I know that).
- EliRivers 10y ago
  One part of my personal set of extreme political views is that private ownership of land should be impossible :)
  - digler999 10y ago
    I'd be for 99-year or lifetime leases. Just so that you can own your property for as long as you're alive, but not long enough to establish mini-dynasties where the only people who can own property are extremely wealthy (family becomes wealthy because they inherited a house and have no mortgage, supply of houses goes down, prices go up, gradually the only people who own them are those who inherited them).
- infinite8s 10y ago
  It's only your property in so far as the government/society surrounding you says it is, unless you plan on defending it yourself, but that didn't work out so well for a certain group in Waco, TX.

state_less 10y ago

I'd suggest applying a tax proportional to the market increase in value on secondary homes. In other words, if you really want that second home, go for it, but you won't be making any money off it. Think a million dollars tax for some years on a pricey home. I'd also be sympathetic to people who would like to take it further and look at the negative externalities, so those could be included into the tax. All this happens when you go to fill out your taxes and declare your properties and primary residence. I don't want to tell people they can't do it, but they ought to pay the price for disallowing others to enjoy our most beautiful locations.

digler999 10y ago
how about an incentive instead of another tax? a tax break for people who rent out their homes at least 6 months a year?
- EliRivers 10y ago
  I think increasing landlord's profits isn't the way to go here. That would further increase house prices.
  - digler999 10y ago
    not everyone who rents a property out "profits" over it. source: I own a property, and have not made any profit from rent.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - EliRivers 10y ago
      Harsh as it sounds, and without wishing to be personal (but of course, everything is personal to someone) that's good news. It should discourage you from doing more landlording. Maybe even encourage you to stop making this loss. I also want to discourage anyone else from doing more landlording, and a tax break for you and others like you would work against that.