3 ms·

"Alas, that would be a terribly idea, because all of a sudden you have the government snooping into your living arrangements. Especially for grey areas where pe

"Alas, that would be a terribly idea, because all of a sudden you have the government snooping into your living arrangements. Especially for grey areas where people share their time between multiple apartments. Way too complicated." ... not really. Most folks only own one house, so nothing complicated. A few folks own multiple houses. These folks already need to establish residency in one house for tax purposes in a lot of places: Taxes vary from city to city and state to state. It isn't a new grey area, and we can use this established system to tax. The folks can, in general, just use one house or apartment or pay more for more than one house.

eru 5y ago
There's still extra complexity for renting. (Unless you want to not give the discount to places that renters live in?)
- etripe 5y ago
  Would that not by definition be a place the owner doesn't live in?
  - eru 5y ago
    Yes. And I would suggest that we shouldn't tax renters more than owner-occupiers. Renters are already poorer on average.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    Yes, and some states already charge more property tax for rentals because the owner doesn't reside primarily at the address.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  Not really any more than you already have. In Indiana, they already tax folks higher for homes you don't personally live in (no discounts here). Not only that, but rental income is income: This is a business you are running, after all, and you already have to file taxes on that income (and expenses). It truly wouldn't be that difficult to register a house as a rental and giving it the discount if you think it should apply. I'd personally only give it out to folks with longer terms: The place should still be someone's primary residence, and only give a discount if it has been rented out x months out of the year. This would be to discourage airBNB units (for example) and encourage landlords to make their units affordable and attractive to the residents of the area.

eru 5y ago

There's still extra complexity for renting. (Unless you want to not give the discount to places that renters live in?)

etripe 5y ago
Would that not by definition be a place the owner doesn't live in?
- eru 5y ago
  Yes. And I would suggest that we shouldn't tax renters more than owner-occupiers. Renters are already poorer on average.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  Yes, and some states already charge more property tax for rentals because the owner doesn't reside primarily at the address.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
Not really any more than you already have. In Indiana, they already tax folks higher for homes you don't personally live in (no discounts here). Not only that, but rental income is income: This is a business you are running, after all, and you already have to file taxes on that income (and expenses). It truly wouldn't be that difficult to register a house as a rental and giving it the discount if you think it should apply. I'd personally only give it out to folks with longer terms: The place should still be someone's primary residence, and only give a discount if it has been rented out x months out of the year. This would be to discourage airBNB units (for example) and encourage landlords to make their units affordable and attractive to the residents of the area.