3 ms·
> Whatever the city charges, the wealthy will pay. Just a thought... Make the annual penalties rise exponentially with each passing year for any home with sub-
by beambot 10y ago
> Whatever the city charges, the wealthy will pay.
Just a thought... Make the annual penalties rise exponentially with each passing year for any home with sub-50% annual occupancy. At the very least, the ratcheting will provide extremely high tax revenues after a few years, so that absentee owners can subsidize govt affordable housing efforts.
- colechristensen 10y agoTo the contrary, don't make it exponential, just allow it but make it extremely expensive. If the wealthy will pay whatever penalty tax for unoccupied homes you levy, then let them. Shift a meaningful amount of tax burden on to them and relieve taxes elsewhere. Make it expensive enough that there's at least some pressure against it and leave it be.
- tw04 10y agoThat would be way too easy to game. If I'm the rich owner, I rent it out for 51% every other year to reset the clock so I never end up paying a higher rate. Furthermore I could see the government getting drunk off the high taxes and the massive deficits that would ensue if and when the property is sold to someone who actually lives there.
- kspaans 10y agoThe renting out part seems like the goal of the rule, but I agree about the deficits part.
- beambot 10y agoAdd strong tenant protections to avoid 6-mo leases. Funnel all revenue from that tax into a special fund whose only use can be affordable housing - where all projects must be financed using existing funds rather that future tax revenues or borrowed debt (govt needn't do debt to finance all programs).
- tw04 10y agoSo then I just setup shell corporations to sell the property back and forth between every couple of years to reset the tax. The original idea was the correct one - just make them high by default. Exponentially raising would cause countless headaches and loopholes.