11 ms·

all states need to start differentiating property taxes for primary residential house vs 8th investment property. Property Taxes should be something like this:

all states need to start differentiating property taxes for primary residential house vs 8th investment property. Property Taxes should be something like this: Primary residential house : 1% Secondary residential house : 3% 3rd investment house: 8% .. 30th investment house: 60% The housing shouldn't be used as investment vehicles and speculative assets. Too critical to COL and Economy.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
Countries that do this have a curious tendency for everyone in the family, from the kids to the dog, to have a primary residence. Those houses then sit empty instead of being rented as the latter clearly identifies it as an investment property.
- lifeplusplus 5y ago
  even with that loophole the trend of buying 20 units will evaporate
Dracophoenix 5y ago
1) States do not currently levy property taxes. Localities do. 2) It's unconstitutional for states to tax property directly without federal apportionment.
- lifeplusplus 5y ago
  semantics, point is taxes should be harsh to disincentivize buying/holding housing as an investment than residence. Which governing body should do it is not the point. Let me bid 150% on all 50 units of housing this year but no problem, I'll just rent it at 200% more so that will cover the increased mortgage payments, as long as I can hold it for the next 10 years, and given govt has decided inflation is always a good thing prices will definitely 2x in a decade. It's a fail-safe strategy to get rich while partaking in vicious decentralized grand scheme that robs the poorest. Imagine a city with 1000 families and 1000 housing units, investors come in bid against each other, buy up all properties at inflated prices then rent it out at inflated rent. Now all 1000 population is paying 50% of salary in rent, banks are richer, investors also make few bucks along the way. People who actually live on the land and work, end up as biggest losers. Sure their house prices also appreciated, but they can't sell house they live in? If they do sell where would they move? prices have increased everywhere else too? The population isn't growing fast enough or housing supplying isn't short enough to cause such inflation adjusted increase in value as we have seen in last 10 years. It's all driven by 'investors' retail and institutional. Why worry about the cost when it can be offloaded to renters? What are the renters gonna do? Leave? Go where? it's same story in every city! This has detrimental effect on health, education, mental well being, economic prosperity, quality of life, economic mobility, and everything that is affected by money... like the entire economy.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
annexrichmond 5y ago
How do you differentiate between retail and commercial investors in this case? I understand the sentiment of suggestions like these but it often neglects this difference. It sounds like this would largely cut out individuals from being landlords.
- lifeplusplus 5y ago
  I don't think it's ethical to own 10 units and milk renters to pay inflated housing prices which are inflated due to the very fact that this is possible. The progressive increase in taxation allows for small time retail landlords to exist but really breaks the ROI when you are managing 20 units. Housing just isn't the commodity that should be investment, or speculation. Housing is for living, people who live in a place, work there, shop there, etc should be the ones owning the houses there and should be the one to benefit from economic activity they are generating in their neighbors.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

Countries that do this have a curious tendency for everyone in the family, from the kids to the dog, to have a primary residence. Those houses then sit empty instead of being rented as the latter clearly identifies it as an investment property.

lifeplusplus 5y ago
even with that loophole the trend of buying 20 units will evaporate

Dracophoenix 5y ago

1) States do not currently levy property taxes. Localities do. 2) It's unconstitutional for states to tax property directly without federal apportionment.

lifeplusplus 5y ago
semantics, point is taxes should be harsh to disincentivize buying/holding housing as an investment than residence. Which governing body should do it is not the point. Let me bid 150% on all 50 units of housing this year but no problem, I'll just rent it at 200% more so that will cover the increased mortgage payments, as long as I can hold it for the next 10 years, and given govt has decided inflation is always a good thing prices will definitely 2x in a decade. It's a fail-safe strategy to get rich while partaking in vicious decentralized grand scheme that robs the poorest. Imagine a city with 1000 families and 1000 housing units, investors come in bid against each other, buy up all properties at inflated prices then rent it out at inflated rent. Now all 1000 population is paying 50% of salary in rent, banks are richer, investors also make few bucks along the way. People who actually live on the land and work, end up as biggest losers. Sure their house prices also appreciated, but they can't sell house they live in? If they do sell where would they move? prices have increased everywhere else too? The population isn't growing fast enough or housing supplying isn't short enough to cause such inflation adjusted increase in value as we have seen in last 10 years. It's all driven by 'investors' retail and institutional. Why worry about the cost when it can be offloaded to renters? What are the renters gonna do? Leave? Go where? it's same story in every city! This has detrimental effect on health, education, mental well being, economic prosperity, quality of life, economic mobility, and everything that is affected by money... like the entire economy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

annexrichmond 5y ago

How do you differentiate between retail and commercial investors in this case? I understand the sentiment of suggestions like these but it often neglects this difference. It sounds like this would largely cut out individuals from being landlords.

lifeplusplus 5y ago
I don't think it's ethical to own 10 units and milk renters to pay inflated housing prices which are inflated due to the very fact that this is possible. The progressive increase in taxation allows for small time retail landlords to exist but really breaks the ROI when you are managing 20 units. Housing just isn't the commodity that should be investment, or speculation. Housing is for living, people who live in a place, work there, shop there, etc should be the ones owning the houses there and should be the one to benefit from economic activity they are generating in their neighbors.