4 ms·

Lol what would you do if just nobody happens to want to rent your unit? You have to pay an increasing tax for the rest of time? You couldn't sell it because who

Lol what would you do if just nobody happens to want to rent your unit? You have to pay an increasing tax for the rest of time? You couldn't sell it because who would want to buy it. Not a sensible idea.

valine 5y ago
If no one wants to buy you drop the price until they do. Not saying it’s a good policy, but it would drive down real estate speculation and lower rent.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  What if you drop the price to zero and still nobody has any use for it at the moment?
  - valine 5y ago
    Presumably the vacancy tax would be tied to the value of the property. If the property really is worthless you won’t be paying taxes on it.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > Presumably the vacancy tax would be tied to the value of the property. > increases every month It can't be both things at the same time. And who's setting this land value? If it's on the market and nobody's buying then we don't know the value.
      - robinson7d 5y ago
        Why can’t it be both? Could have a logarithmic scale, could have it increase by a fraction of a % of $(value - currentTax) so that it increases more slowly over time. Not saying I agree with the underlying idea, just confused about why “increases ever month” necessarily means it cannot be “tied to the value of the property” in a `calculateTax(propValue, timeEmpty)` sort of way.
  - datastoat 5y ago
    How about making the tax increase each month the unit is unoccupied, but also making it proportional to the asking rent? No one has any use for it, high asking rent => high tax. No one has any use for it, very low asking rent => low tax.
  - ectopod 5y ago
    If nobody will buy the property for $1 then it's worthless. Gift it the local authority and then you won't have to pay the tax.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      People won't buy it because it comes with a tax burden. They might buy it to redevelop it if it didn't.
      - ectopod 5y ago
        So over time the vacancy tax is increasing and the sale price is going down. Obviously the vendor needs to sell or redevelop before the price hits zero. If they fail to do so then they lose the property. Speculation sometimes fails. What's the problem?
      - effingwewt 5y ago
        Good, then it will go to someone who needs a house, not another rent-seeking parasite.
      - dwater 5y ago
        That does not seem like a realistic problem for very many places. If a jurisdiction contains land with so little value that it won't support the taxes required for upkeep of the jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction could dissolve. Which is what happens to a ghost town I would imagine. That is not likely to happen to New York City.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    That would require that nobody has any extra use for free/cheap space. It would mean that nobody needs additional storage space, nobody needs space for a studio or an office. This would essentially only happen if you rented in a mega high crime area, which means landlords would be incentivized to do something about crime.
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    Then you use a percent of asking rent
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
dukeyukey 5y ago
Tie it to a percentage of the land value. So, units in areas of high land value get taxed more and more, incentivising either using the lot for something people want, or selling it to someone who will. Whereas units in areas of low land value get taxed much less, reflecting the higher difficulty in getting good value from it.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Who's assessing the land value? Can I assess the value of your house at $5, and then tax you for not selling it to me at that price? Bizarre.
  - dukeyukey 5y ago
    > Who's assessing the land value? Presumably the local government, they already do this to calculate property tax across North America, and getting only the value of the land is easier than the value of the land plus property on top of it. It really isn't changing much in this regard.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      >> Who's assessing the land value? > Presumably the local government Actually it's an independent agency of the provincial government: > The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) administers property assessments and appeals of assessment in the province of Ontario, Canada.[2][3][4] MPAC determines the assessed value for all properties across Ontario. This is provided in the form of an Assessment Roll, which is delivered to municipalities throughout the province on the second Tuesday in December. Municipalities then take the assessment roll, and calculate property taxes for each individual property in their jurisdiction. MPAC complains that taxpayers often confuse MPAC's role as an assessment agency for taxes; MPAC responds that it only provides assessments. Municipalities set the tax rates and distribute the tax burden based on the assessed values provided by MPAC. […] > Every municipality in Ontario is a member of MPAC, which is governed by a board of directors composed of taxpayer, municipal, and provincial representatives.[6] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Property_Assessment_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Property_Assessment_...
shadowgovt 5y ago
You would eventually render it to the state. There are pros and cons to this idea.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Why would the state want it? Wouldn't they have to pay the same tax as other people?
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Pay tax to whom? The state? If the state owns the property, they lose the opportunity cost of taxes paid by a private owner. So, they're heavily incentivized to return it to private ownership as soon as possible... Or to consolidate several such properties into something that is sellable, or to repurpose the property into something people need, like more housing.
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
If the value of the property is so low that I you can find no one to rent it at or above your costs, there is always the option to abandon it. At least in the US, you don't have obligations toward property you have abandoned.
rdtwo 5y ago
Then you need to donate the space to a community organization or pay taxes. The donation can come in yearly increments until you fill it.
partomniscient 5y ago
Eventually you'd have to sell it cheap enough that someone would buy it, or, rent it cheap enough so that someone will use it preventing your tax. It doesn't seem totally unreasonable. Is there an equivalent of adverse posession (squatters rights) for retail?
hellbannedguy 5y ago
Just fill out a "No interest" form with the county. Penalty for lying would be steep. I don't think lack of interest would be a big problem in most areas. Yes--there will be skirters of the tax, but would it be worth a big fine?
- jl2718 5y ago
  For every solution, there are 10 new problems created that require new solutions. It never ends. It never goes backwards. Bureaucratic parkour. Software engineers should understand this. Imagine if it was 10x harder to delete a line than write a new one. Also, no forking and no starting over.
tenebrisalietum 5y ago
Then the unit is in a bad place and shouldn't be there. It should be demolished and turned into a park, surrounding social issues addressed, or maybe combined with an adjacent unit.

valine 5y ago

If no one wants to buy you drop the price until they do. Not saying it’s a good policy, but it would drive down real estate speculation and lower rent.

chrisseaton 5y ago
What if you drop the price to zero and still nobody has any use for it at the moment?
- valine 5y ago
  Presumably the vacancy tax would be tied to the value of the property. If the property really is worthless you won’t be paying taxes on it.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Presumably the vacancy tax would be tied to the value of the property. > increases every month It can't be both things at the same time. And who's setting this land value? If it's on the market and nobody's buying then we don't know the value.
    - robinson7d 5y ago
      Why can’t it be both? Could have a logarithmic scale, could have it increase by a fraction of a % of $(value - currentTax) so that it increases more slowly over time. Not saying I agree with the underlying idea, just confused about why “increases ever month” necessarily means it cannot be “tied to the value of the property” in a `calculateTax(propValue, timeEmpty)` sort of way.
- datastoat 5y ago
  How about making the tax increase each month the unit is unoccupied, but also making it proportional to the asking rent? No one has any use for it, high asking rent => high tax. No one has any use for it, very low asking rent => low tax.
- ectopod 5y ago
  If nobody will buy the property for $1 then it's worthless. Gift it the local authority and then you won't have to pay the tax.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    People won't buy it because it comes with a tax burden. They might buy it to redevelop it if it didn't.
    - ectopod 5y ago
      So over time the vacancy tax is increasing and the sale price is going down. Obviously the vendor needs to sell or redevelop before the price hits zero. If they fail to do so then they lose the property. Speculation sometimes fails. What's the problem?
    - effingwewt 5y ago
      Good, then it will go to someone who needs a house, not another rent-seeking parasite.
    - dwater 5y ago
      That does not seem like a realistic problem for very many places. If a jurisdiction contains land with so little value that it won't support the taxes required for upkeep of the jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction could dissolve. Which is what happens to a ghost town I would imagine. That is not likely to happen to New York City.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  That would require that nobody has any extra use for free/cheap space. It would mean that nobody needs additional storage space, nobody needs space for a studio or an office. This would essentially only happen if you rented in a mega high crime area, which means landlords would be incentivized to do something about crime.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Then you use a percent of asking rent
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

dukeyukey 5y ago

Tie it to a percentage of the land value. So, units in areas of high land value get taxed more and more, incentivising either using the lot for something people want, or selling it to someone who will. Whereas units in areas of low land value get taxed much less, reflecting the higher difficulty in getting good value from it.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Who's assessing the land value? Can I assess the value of your house at $5, and then tax you for not selling it to me at that price? Bizarre.
- dukeyukey 5y ago
  > Who's assessing the land value? Presumably the local government, they already do this to calculate property tax across North America, and getting only the value of the land is easier than the value of the land plus property on top of it. It really isn't changing much in this regard.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    >> Who's assessing the land value? > Presumably the local government Actually it's an independent agency of the provincial government: > The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) administers property assessments and appeals of assessment in the province of Ontario, Canada.[2][3][4] MPAC determines the assessed value for all properties across Ontario. This is provided in the form of an Assessment Roll, which is delivered to municipalities throughout the province on the second Tuesday in December. Municipalities then take the assessment roll, and calculate property taxes for each individual property in their jurisdiction. MPAC complains that taxpayers often confuse MPAC's role as an assessment agency for taxes; MPAC responds that it only provides assessments. Municipalities set the tax rates and distribute the tax burden based on the assessed values provided by MPAC. […] > Every municipality in Ontario is a member of MPAC, which is governed by a board of directors composed of taxpayer, municipal, and provincial representatives.[6] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Property_Assessment_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Property_Assessment_...

shadowgovt 5y ago

You would eventually render it to the state. There are pros and cons to this idea.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Why would the state want it? Wouldn't they have to pay the same tax as other people?
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Pay tax to whom? The state? If the state owns the property, they lose the opportunity cost of taxes paid by a private owner. So, they're heavily incentivized to return it to private ownership as soon as possible... Or to consolidate several such properties into something that is sellable, or to repurpose the property into something people need, like more housing.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

If the value of the property is so low that I you can find no one to rent it at or above your costs, there is always the option to abandon it. At least in the US, you don't have obligations toward property you have abandoned.

rdtwo 5y ago

Then you need to donate the space to a community organization or pay taxes. The donation can come in yearly increments until you fill it.

partomniscient 5y ago

Eventually you'd have to sell it cheap enough that someone would buy it, or, rent it cheap enough so that someone will use it preventing your tax. It doesn't seem totally unreasonable. Is there an equivalent of adverse posession (squatters rights) for retail?

hellbannedguy 5y ago

Just fill out a "No interest" form with the county. Penalty for lying would be steep. I don't think lack of interest would be a big problem in most areas. Yes--there will be skirters of the tax, but would it be worth a big fine?

jl2718 5y ago
For every solution, there are 10 new problems created that require new solutions. It never ends. It never goes backwards. Bureaucratic parkour. Software engineers should understand this. Imagine if it was 10x harder to delete a line than write a new one. Also, no forking and no starting over.

tenebrisalietum 5y ago

Then the unit is in a bad place and shouldn't be there. It should be demolished and turned into a park, surrounding social issues addressed, or maybe combined with an adjacent unit.