6 ms·

Triple or quadruple property taxes after the 10th purchased residence in the state. Encourage tax breaks through high density development of condos with coop pr

by tomrod 5y ago

Triple or quadruple property taxes after the 10th purchased residence in the state. Encourage tax breaks through high density development of condos with coop property management firms.

rch 5y ago
Why not progressively increment after the second? (not mutually exclusive with other measures)
- tomrod 5y ago
  Local small-time property ownership encourages land liquidity (that isn't our current issue, but is an issue). That model currently looks good up to a 4plex.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Plus you want to encourage models like a housing co-op - they're pretty good for keeping people's housing costs down and building community relations.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  I would guess that tomrod owns 9 houses.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    LOL! Nah, I was looking for a simple, reasonable bound was all.
- franciscop 5y ago
  I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think to promote everyone's owning a house, and even small-size investments, but to avoid megacorps the ideal would be something like: 1 house - tax breaks 2 houses - same taxes as currently for 2 houses 3+ houses - incrementally more expensive with each extra house Also there's a really nice law in Spain, born for the wrong reasons, that makes you pay more taxes if the house is empty vs if someone lives there.
  - Aunche 5y ago
    Why should I, a small time REIT holder, pay more proportionately in property taxes than a celebrity in a Beverly Hills mansion, or even my landlord who only rents out a few, million-dollar units for that matter? I think every individual should be entitled to 500k in preferential property tax (1 million for couples), and every dollar above that should be taxed a lot higher. In places where there is high demand, new housing can also be taxed at the preferential rate some number of years to incentivize development.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      > Why should I, a small time REIT holder pay more proportionately in property taxes than a celebrity in a Beverly Hills mansion, or even my landlord who only rents a few million-dollae units for that matter? To decrease the return on holding property indefinitely, which prevents renters from building equity to the benefit of small-time REIT holders. The outcome of this is an increase in home ownership which has a host of benefits to society. It also helps economic benefits to stay in the local area. Basically, Georgism tax policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism. What benefits do you see REITs provide to a community, beyond increasing your personal wealth? Also, a hard cap of, say, 10 homes without increase would still allow REITs to exist depending on implementation. What is _not_ desirable is a large financial firm like Blackrock or JPMC siphoning off the liquidity of the housing market.
      - Aunche 5y ago
        What's better for the housing market: someone who buys a $10 million home for themselves, or someone who buys 10, $1 million dollar apartments and rents them out? If anything, the former should be paying a higher property tax because they're constraining the supply buyer and renter markets. >Basically, Georgism tax policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism. Yes, I largely agree with Georgism, but I don't think incentivizing rich people to buy the largest home possible is within the spirit of Georgism. You'd also run into the problem of people pretending their apartment complex is really just a large mansion. They'd likely spend money on renovations that make the units less desirable to make it classify as a single home. >What benefits do you see REITs provide to a community, beyond increasing your personal wealth? What benefit does my landlord provide that a REIT doesn't? REITs allow me to be invested in real estate without exposing me to too much risk associated with a single location. >Also, a hard cap of, say, 10 homes without increase would still allow REITs to exist depending on implementation. No REIT can exist with 10 homes. That's way too much money proportionally spent on administrating it.
Wohlf 5y ago
Pretty sure this would just drive up rental costs.
- WithinReason 5y ago
  How?
- tomrod 5y ago
  In a partial equilibrium I could see this, due to management company inefficiencies to scale for small clients versus massive corporate clients. But it would likely be offset by general equilibrium factors pushing down housing prices (demand limiting) which translates to decreased rental pricing (as well as potential for limiting rental supply). I'm not sure how it would qualitatively affect the builder's market.
joejerryronnie 5y ago
This would simply drive rents up across the board. Unintended consequences are the primary result of punitive tax measures.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Would you mind walking through your analysis?
  - Drew_ 5y ago
    They think these taxes will simply be passed onto renters just like the nominal taxes landlords already pay now. The reality is that there is no market for renters that could actually afford these supposed monumental price hikes. So instead landlords would simply be forced to sell their houses, increasing the market supply and decreasing the cost of houses.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      That's the general equilibrium effect I am shooting for -- make it unprofitable for landlords beyond a certain size in an area.

by tomrod 5y ago

Triple or quadruple property taxes after the 10th purchased residence in the state. Encourage tax breaks through high density development of condos with coop property management firms.

rch 5y ago

Why not progressively increment after the second? (not mutually exclusive with other measures)

tomrod 5y ago
Local small-time property ownership encourages land liquidity (that isn't our current issue, but is an issue). That model currently looks good up to a 4plex.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Plus you want to encourage models like a housing co-op - they're pretty good for keeping people's housing costs down and building community relations.
hotpotamus 5y ago
I would guess that tomrod owns 9 houses.
- tomrod 5y ago
  LOL! Nah, I was looking for a simple, reasonable bound was all.
franciscop 5y ago
I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think to promote everyone's owning a house, and even small-size investments, but to avoid megacorps the ideal would be something like: 1 house - tax breaks 2 houses - same taxes as currently for 2 houses 3+ houses - incrementally more expensive with each extra house Also there's a really nice law in Spain, born for the wrong reasons, that makes you pay more taxes if the house is empty vs if someone lives there.
- Aunche 5y ago
  Why should I, a small time REIT holder, pay more proportionately in property taxes than a celebrity in a Beverly Hills mansion, or even my landlord who only rents out a few, million-dollar units for that matter? I think every individual should be entitled to 500k in preferential property tax (1 million for couples), and every dollar above that should be taxed a lot higher. In places where there is high demand, new housing can also be taxed at the preferential rate some number of years to incentivize development.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    > Why should I, a small time REIT holder pay more proportionately in property taxes than a celebrity in a Beverly Hills mansion, or even my landlord who only rents a few million-dollae units for that matter? To decrease the return on holding property indefinitely, which prevents renters from building equity to the benefit of small-time REIT holders. The outcome of this is an increase in home ownership which has a host of benefits to society. It also helps economic benefits to stay in the local area. Basically, Georgism tax policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism. What benefits do you see REITs provide to a community, beyond increasing your personal wealth? Also, a hard cap of, say, 10 homes without increase would still allow REITs to exist depending on implementation. What is _not_ desirable is a large financial firm like Blackrock or JPMC siphoning off the liquidity of the housing market.
    - Aunche 5y ago
      What's better for the housing market: someone who buys a $10 million home for themselves, or someone who buys 10, $1 million dollar apartments and rents them out? If anything, the former should be paying a higher property tax because they're constraining the supply buyer and renter markets. >Basically, Georgism tax policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism. Yes, I largely agree with Georgism, but I don't think incentivizing rich people to buy the largest home possible is within the spirit of Georgism. You'd also run into the problem of people pretending their apartment complex is really just a large mansion. They'd likely spend money on renovations that make the units less desirable to make it classify as a single home. >What benefits do you see REITs provide to a community, beyond increasing your personal wealth? What benefit does my landlord provide that a REIT doesn't? REITs allow me to be invested in real estate without exposing me to too much risk associated with a single location. >Also, a hard cap of, say, 10 homes without increase would still allow REITs to exist depending on implementation. No REIT can exist with 10 homes. That's way too much money proportionally spent on administrating it.

Wohlf 5y ago

Pretty sure this would just drive up rental costs.

WithinReason 5y ago
How?
tomrod 5y ago
In a partial equilibrium I could see this, due to management company inefficiencies to scale for small clients versus massive corporate clients. But it would likely be offset by general equilibrium factors pushing down housing prices (demand limiting) which translates to decreased rental pricing (as well as potential for limiting rental supply). I'm not sure how it would qualitatively affect the builder's market.

joejerryronnie 5y ago

This would simply drive rents up across the board. Unintended consequences are the primary result of punitive tax measures.

tomrod 5y ago
Would you mind walking through your analysis?
- Drew_ 5y ago
  They think these taxes will simply be passed onto renters just like the nominal taxes landlords already pay now. The reality is that there is no market for renters that could actually afford these supposed monumental price hikes. So instead landlords would simply be forced to sell their houses, increasing the market supply and decreasing the cost of houses.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    That's the general equilibrium effect I am shooting for -- make it unprofitable for landlords beyond a certain size in an area.