8 ms·

Every time I hear this statistic it drives me insane. I really wish there was an exponential property tax based on the number of properties that someone or som

Every time I hear this statistic it drives me insane. I really wish there was an exponential property tax based on the number of properties that someone or some entity owns. I don’t think it would actually be feasible to implement, but I wish something like it existed. Owning one property? Reasonable/cheap property tax. Own two properties? Pretty expensive property taxes. Own three properties? Eye watering property taxes. Own more than three? Truly insane property taxes. Especially for vacant properties

refurb 4y ago
Or, stay with me here, you just build enough housing? I know it’s a crazy idea, so go easy on me.
- mordae 4y ago
  I've seen some calculations suggesting that the speculators will buy up anything at this point. It's impossible to build enough. Partly because buying up new houses protects the investment into the already owned. Also, what makes you think the market is not working and new houses are not being built at the highest possible pace? Given the prices, that would be a sensible assumption, no?
  - refurb 4y ago
    Houses aren't being build which is the reason we're in trouble. And no, investors won't buy up all the houses. Blackrock's massive home buying fund was <1% of the total value of the housing market.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > speculators will buy up anything at this point The headline says "Investor home purchases drop 30%". > Partly because buying up new houses protects the investment into the already owned. That doesn't work. See the latest news on cryptocurrencies.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - paulgb 4y ago
    I haven’t seen those calculations but I’m very skeptical. The reason people are profitably able to invest in housing is that it is scarce. If the supply increased, housing would no longer be a desirable investment. > what makes you think the market is not working and new houses are not being built at the highest possible pace There’s a lot of political pressure by existing homeowners not to green light additional housing in their neighborhoods, because it would bring the price of the homes they already own down. There are a number of high-density projects in NYC and SF that have been blocked by these efforts.
simon_000666 4y ago
I Wonder if there are some simple legal solutions to this. Like only individuals and non-profits are allowed to own houses or you can only own a property if you are registered as a resident of the city. I like the sliding scale tax idea but I think the firms would just find ways to continually invest in new properties and use that to dodge tax until a point where they offshore :(
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Aggressively tax vacant units is the simplest to implement, but there's a lot (lot) more that could be done.
  - yardstick 4y ago
    How does one determine if it’s vacant? I could just leave a PC on mining some random coin to ensure there was always a bit of power going on. Likewise leave a tap slowly going. Cheaper than any tax most likely.
    - jedberg 4y ago
      Usually it's based on where you file your taxes. You can only file taxes from one address.
      - yardstick 4y ago
        Would this mean an end to holiday homes and second homes?
        jedberg 4y ago
        No it would just mean paying higher taxes on second homes and vacation homes. Which feels like the right thing to do.
        yardstick 4y ago
ww520 4y ago
Who do you think own the rentals that people live in?
WalterBright 4y ago
> Every time I hear this statistic it drives me insane. It's because while the statistic may be correct, it is a misrepresentation, as a lot of those "empty" homes are awaiting a buyer.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  > it is a misrepresentation, as a lot of those "empty" homes are awaiting a buyer. Which means as a society we've chosen to value the liquidity of the housing market (something that I think is really good!) over the basic dignity and needs of human beings (something that I think is even more important!). That's a societal choice. In a society that absolutely has enough wealth to shelter and feed every person, the fact that we've chosen not to is simply a disgrace. That people die in the cold in America is a moral failing. If we were a poor nation, and couldn't afford otherwise that would be one thing. But we aren't, and it's simply a choice that we make to let people die in the cold.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Is it your proposal that any house going on the market should install a homeless person in it until it sells?
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      No. I made a proposal above (though, you’ll also not that I said I thought my proposal was unlikely to be workable in practice). But, if you review what I wrote, you’ll note I never proposed anything close to what you asked about. My actual proposal would be this: we should invest heavily in a housing first approach to homelessness at both the federal and state level. We should invest in this as a priority, as if it will save lives because it will. Along with that, we should invest in mental health and addiction treatment programs as a supplement. We should tax the fuck out of the rich to do so in a revenue neutral way.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
jasonkester 4y ago
Why? I have two houses: one in England, one in France. I live in one during the year and one in The summer. Neither one is an investment. They’re both our home. Combined, they would sell for less than a cheap house in Southern California. Why do you want me to pay extra property tax because my home is split in two? It sounds like hold this view that anybody who owns anything is necessarily evil. But most of us are just people living their lives as best we can.
- magicalist 4y ago
  Land is finite, desirable land even more so. You can summer in France but you can pay more to do so than if you lived there year round. Call it an incentive, not a punishment, if you want.
  - jasonkester 4y ago
    But I do pay more. I had to purchase an entire house and pay taxes on it. There is no shortage of houses here in farmland France or up in rural north England[1], which explains why houses are cheap enough that you can buy two of them. That’s the housing market working like it’s supposed to. Why does it need punishing or incentivising? [1] there are towns within a few miles with hundreds of boarded up row houses that you could get for a few thousand pounds if you like. Our village in France is surrounded by fields as far as you can see in two directions. If you want to come live here, you can (and people often do) buy a small piece of that land and build a house.
    - magicalist 4y ago
      > But I do pay more More per house. There's no natural law saying taxes need to be equal per house, or that they need to be commensurate with services consumed by those living in them. Taxes (and tax breaks) are also used to incentivize behavior, which is the answer to your original question of "why".
- taneq 4y ago
  Your home isn’t split in two. You have two homes, one of which stands empty at any given time. That’s what they’re arguing against, some people owning multiple houses while others are homeless. They’re not saying it should be impossible, just more expensive.
SpaghettiX 4y ago
This happens in the UK, to an extent. Council tax (For a 3 bed flat in a good location, £2000/year) goes up, though not exponentially. > You can be charged an extra amount of Council Tax (a ‘premium’) if your home has been empty for 2 years or more. > You can be charged up to 4 times your normal Council Tax bill if your home has been empty for 10 years or more.
_puk 4y ago
"I don’t think it would actually be feasible to implement, but I wish something like it existed." It's feasible (in some contexts), and has been implemented in Wales in recent years [0] (though not exponential, there's nothing stopping it from progressing that way). There used to be reduced taxes on second homes, recently changed to 100%, and now changing to max 300% (set by councils). They've also closed a number of loopholes to stop owners passing these homes off as dysfunctional businesses (listed to let without taking any lettings). There's a large disparity in wealth over a relatively short physical distance, resulting in a large number of homes in "idyllic" but poor areas being bought as second homes and spending the majority of the year empty. They've also moved to a land transaction tax that makes the second home purchase more expensive [1]. I'm not saying they are pulling the ladder up, and good to see these initiatives being put in place, but they don't necessarily solve the issue with existing vacant second houses which most likely have benefited from the lax taxation over the years combined with increasing property values. 0: https://gov.wales/new-tax-rules-second-homes https://gov.wales/new-tax-rules-second-homes 1: https://gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-guide https://gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-guide

refurb 4y ago

Or, stay with me here, you just build enough housing? I know it’s a crazy idea, so go easy on me.

mordae 4y ago
I've seen some calculations suggesting that the speculators will buy up anything at this point. It's impossible to build enough. Partly because buying up new houses protects the investment into the already owned. Also, what makes you think the market is not working and new houses are not being built at the highest possible pace? Given the prices, that would be a sensible assumption, no?
- refurb 4y ago
  Houses aren't being build which is the reason we're in trouble. And no, investors won't buy up all the houses. Blackrock's massive home buying fund was <1% of the total value of the housing market.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > speculators will buy up anything at this point The headline says "Investor home purchases drop 30%". > Partly because buying up new houses protects the investment into the already owned. That doesn't work. See the latest news on cryptocurrencies.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- paulgb 4y ago
  I haven’t seen those calculations but I’m very skeptical. The reason people are profitably able to invest in housing is that it is scarce. If the supply increased, housing would no longer be a desirable investment. > what makes you think the market is not working and new houses are not being built at the highest possible pace There’s a lot of political pressure by existing homeowners not to green light additional housing in their neighborhoods, because it would bring the price of the homes they already own down. There are a number of high-density projects in NYC and SF that have been blocked by these efforts.

simon_000666 4y ago

I Wonder if there are some simple legal solutions to this. Like only individuals and non-profits are allowed to own houses or you can only own a property if you are registered as a resident of the city. I like the sliding scale tax idea but I think the firms would just find ways to continually invest in new properties and use that to dodge tax until a point where they offshore :(

socialismisok 4y ago
Aggressively tax vacant units is the simplest to implement, but there's a lot (lot) more that could be done.
- yardstick 4y ago
  How does one determine if it’s vacant? I could just leave a PC on mining some random coin to ensure there was always a bit of power going on. Likewise leave a tap slowly going. Cheaper than any tax most likely.
  - jedberg 4y ago
    Usually it's based on where you file your taxes. You can only file taxes from one address.
    - yardstick 4y ago
      Would this mean an end to holiday homes and second homes?
      - jedberg 4y ago
        No it would just mean paying higher taxes on second homes and vacation homes. Which feels like the right thing to do.
        yardstick 4y ago

ww520 4y ago

Who do you think own the rentals that people live in?

WalterBright 4y ago

> Every time I hear this statistic it drives me insane. It's because while the statistic may be correct, it is a misrepresentation, as a lot of those "empty" homes are awaiting a buyer.

ncallaway 4y ago
> it is a misrepresentation, as a lot of those "empty" homes are awaiting a buyer. Which means as a society we've chosen to value the liquidity of the housing market (something that I think is really good!) over the basic dignity and needs of human beings (something that I think is even more important!). That's a societal choice. In a society that absolutely has enough wealth to shelter and feed every person, the fact that we've chosen not to is simply a disgrace. That people die in the cold in America is a moral failing. If we were a poor nation, and couldn't afford otherwise that would be one thing. But we aren't, and it's simply a choice that we make to let people die in the cold.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Is it your proposal that any house going on the market should install a homeless person in it until it sells?
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    No. I made a proposal above (though, you’ll also not that I said I thought my proposal was unlikely to be workable in practice). But, if you review what I wrote, you’ll note I never proposed anything close to what you asked about. My actual proposal would be this: we should invest heavily in a housing first approach to homelessness at both the federal and state level. We should invest in this as a priority, as if it will save lives because it will. Along with that, we should invest in mental health and addiction treatment programs as a supplement. We should tax the fuck out of the rich to do so in a revenue neutral way.
    - WalterBright 4y ago

jasonkester 4y ago

Why? I have two houses: one in England, one in France. I live in one during the year and one in The summer. Neither one is an investment. They’re both our home. Combined, they would sell for less than a cheap house in Southern California. Why do you want me to pay extra property tax because my home is split in two? It sounds like hold this view that anybody who owns anything is necessarily evil. But most of us are just people living their lives as best we can.

magicalist 4y ago
Land is finite, desirable land even more so. You can summer in France but you can pay more to do so than if you lived there year round. Call it an incentive, not a punishment, if you want.
- jasonkester 4y ago
  But I do pay more. I had to purchase an entire house and pay taxes on it. There is no shortage of houses here in farmland France or up in rural north England[1], which explains why houses are cheap enough that you can buy two of them. That’s the housing market working like it’s supposed to. Why does it need punishing or incentivising? [1] there are towns within a few miles with hundreds of boarded up row houses that you could get for a few thousand pounds if you like. Our village in France is surrounded by fields as far as you can see in two directions. If you want to come live here, you can (and people often do) buy a small piece of that land and build a house.
  - magicalist 4y ago
    > But I do pay more More per house. There's no natural law saying taxes need to be equal per house, or that they need to be commensurate with services consumed by those living in them. Taxes (and tax breaks) are also used to incentivize behavior, which is the answer to your original question of "why".
taneq 4y ago
Your home isn’t split in two. You have two homes, one of which stands empty at any given time. That’s what they’re arguing against, some people owning multiple houses while others are homeless. They’re not saying it should be impossible, just more expensive.

SpaghettiX 4y ago

This happens in the UK, to an extent. Council tax (For a 3 bed flat in a good location, £2000/year) goes up, though not exponentially. > You can be charged an extra amount of Council Tax (a ‘premium’) if your home has been empty for 2 years or more. > You can be charged up to 4 times your normal Council Tax bill if your home has been empty for 10 years or more.

_puk 4y ago

"I don’t think it would actually be feasible to implement, but I wish something like it existed." It's feasible (in some contexts), and has been implemented in Wales in recent years [0] (though not exponential, there's nothing stopping it from progressing that way). There used to be reduced taxes on second homes, recently changed to 100%, and now changing to max 300% (set by councils). They've also closed a number of loopholes to stop owners passing these homes off as dysfunctional businesses (listed to let without taking any lettings). There's a large disparity in wealth over a relatively short physical distance, resulting in a large number of homes in "idyllic" but poor areas being bought as second homes and spending the majority of the year empty. They've also moved to a land transaction tax that makes the second home purchase more expensive [1]. I'm not saying they are pulling the ladder up, and good to see these initiatives being put in place, but they don't necessarily solve the issue with existing vacant second houses which most likely have benefited from the lax taxation over the years combined with increasing property values. 0: https://gov.wales/new-tax-rules-second-homes https://gov.wales/new-tax-rules-second-homes 1: https://gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-guide https://gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-guide