20 ms·

The principle I've long held is that cities and towns should primarily be for those who reside in those towns. In this case, only residents should be voting on

by cletus 5y ago

The principle I've long held is that cities and towns should primarily be for those who reside in those towns. In this case, only residents should be voting on things like ballot measures. This article talks about a few towns, some where I'm sure there are a lot of residents with multiple homes, some of which I'm sure that isn't the case. But nonresident owners shouldn't be dictating public policy, period. So the first thing you do is you is put in a city income tax and make all homeowners residents for tax purposes. And that's tax on all your income. To those who say they'll just hide behind LLCs and trusts, you do two things: 1. You tax the beneficial owner of the property; 2. Properties with no clear beneficial owner are simply taxed punitively with property tax. This article is just further evidence that AirBnB is a cancer on housing, as if we needed further confirmation (which we didn't). At a higher level, we need to do something about the ultra-rich borrowing to avoid tax. A good starting point is that any borrowed funds, or at least any borrowed funds for certain purposes such as buying real estate, are treated as repatriated or realized income and taxed accordingly. And while we're at it, let's starting non-primary residences on unrealized capital gains unless it's a long term rental.

xrd 5y ago
I don't own a second home, for the record. I do think it would be difficult and have second order effects to ban AirBnB. But, what about a tax on vacancies, rather than on revenue you get when renting it out? Incentivize people to keep their places filled? I agree with the general sentiment that AirBnB has altered housing options for low income people for the worse. And, it seems inevitable. Maybe we need to alter our perceptions of what housing is for people as well? Meaning, people need to start thinking of housing as temporary and governments can force people to open their vacancies to people in need of housing. Perhaps a new law that makes it so empty vacant houses are available to house-less people? That would be interesting.
- cletus 5y ago
  This is what Vancouver has tried [1]. It doesn't seem to have worked. The problem here is that it's too easy to game. You can put in a token resident. The same can apply to having income limits on houses. You have a low income resident who just happens to have rich friends who visit. I think we need to attack the idea that rich people use real estate to park money and avoid taxes. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-16/taxing-the-rich-do-housing-prices-fall-when-empty-second-homes-are-taxed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-16/taxing-th...
  - xrd 5y ago
    It seemed too easy. Thanks, good link.
sokoloff 5y ago
> And that's tax on all your income. I (strongly) suspect that will not stand up to judicial review. Income that has no nexus in the state, let alone the municipality, is not going to be taxable for part-time visitors to the state. Here’s a research position paper prepared for one state that touches pretty squarely on the issues and the Constitutional barriers to enacting what is proposed above: https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssnonr.pdf https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssnonr.pdf
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Supreme Court denied hearing New Hampshire v Massachusetts on Jun 28, 2021, and basically told individual taxpayers to fight being taxes by states they have not set foot in. I know quite a few people who have not stepped foot in NY state for nearly 2 years now and have been paying NY state income taxes the whole time. https://www.sullivanlaw.com/news-The-Supreme-Court-Denies-Complaint-in-New-Hampshire-v-Massachusetts-Heightening-the-Importance-of-Individual-Refund-Claims.html https://www.sullivanlaw.com/news-The-Supreme-Court-Denies-Co...
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    In both of those cases, that income has substantial nexus in the state, though, with the employer generally being located in the taxing state.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      I suspect we haven't heard the last of these cases though. As I understand the NH and MA case, this is about continuing to collect state income tax from NH residents who are no longer commuting. Presumably, it does not apply to remote NH residents who never commuted to a MA location. (The situation of course gets even more complicated when a NH resident is remote to a company that has offices in many states. Why would MA have any particular right to state income tax just because an MA office is closer?) States are getting very grabby in this regard though. Quite a few are going after business travelers who may have spent as little as a day in the state.

by cletus 5y ago

xrd 5y ago

I don't own a second home, for the record. I do think it would be difficult and have second order effects to ban AirBnB. But, what about a tax on vacancies, rather than on revenue you get when renting it out? Incentivize people to keep their places filled? I agree with the general sentiment that AirBnB has altered housing options for low income people for the worse. And, it seems inevitable. Maybe we need to alter our perceptions of what housing is for people as well? Meaning, people need to start thinking of housing as temporary and governments can force people to open their vacancies to people in need of housing. Perhaps a new law that makes it so empty vacant houses are available to house-less people? That would be interesting.

cletus 5y ago
This is what Vancouver has tried [1]. It doesn't seem to have worked. The problem here is that it's too easy to game. You can put in a token resident. The same can apply to having income limits on houses. You have a low income resident who just happens to have rich friends who visit. I think we need to attack the idea that rich people use real estate to park money and avoid taxes. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-16/taxing-the-rich-do-housing-prices-fall-when-empty-second-homes-are-taxed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-16/taxing-th...
- xrd 5y ago
  It seemed too easy. Thanks, good link.

sokoloff 5y ago

> And that's tax on all your income. I (strongly) suspect that will not stand up to judicial review. Income that has no nexus in the state, let alone the municipality, is not going to be taxable for part-time visitors to the state. Here’s a research position paper prepared for one state that touches pretty squarely on the issues and the Constitutional barriers to enacting what is proposed above: https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssnonr.pdf https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssnonr.pdf

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Supreme Court denied hearing New Hampshire v Massachusetts on Jun 28, 2021, and basically told individual taxpayers to fight being taxes by states they have not set foot in. I know quite a few people who have not stepped foot in NY state for nearly 2 years now and have been paying NY state income taxes the whole time. https://www.sullivanlaw.com/news-The-Supreme-Court-Denies-Complaint-in-New-Hampshire-v-Massachusetts-Heightening-the-Importance-of-Individual-Refund-Claims.html https://www.sullivanlaw.com/news-The-Supreme-Court-Denies-Co...
- sokoloff 5y ago
  In both of those cases, that income has substantial nexus in the state, though, with the employer generally being located in the taxing state.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I suspect we haven't heard the last of these cases though. As I understand the NH and MA case, this is about continuing to collect state income tax from NH residents who are no longer commuting. Presumably, it does not apply to remote NH residents who never commuted to a MA location. (The situation of course gets even more complicated when a NH resident is remote to a company that has offices in many states. Why would MA have any particular right to state income tax just because an MA office is closer?) States are getting very grabby in this regard though. Quite a few are going after business travelers who may have spent as little as a day in the state.