4 ms·

> But long term it seems to me that there's no downside to this being punished. It would punish people who need/want to move now, but don't want to sell their

> But long term it seems to me that there's no downside to this being punished. It would punish people who need/want to move now, but don't want to sell their current home at a loss or can't sell their home due to market conditions, etc. Landlord(s)-by-necessity, if you will.

nicoburns 4y ago
You could potentially not apply the punitive taxation so long as only one house is owned, regardless of whether they are actually living in it (so renting one property while renting another one would be fine).
ericmay 4y ago
You can avoid elements of the proposal by the OP by selling and moving and then claiming the new primary residence like you do now. I don't think we should care if someone has to sell their current home at a loss due to market conditions because taken to its logical conclusion you're saying people shouldn't lose money which to have a functioning economy you have to reject.
- tzs 4y ago
  > I don't think we should care if someone has to sell their current home at a loss due to market conditions But they are only selling at a loss because under the proposal they would be heavily taxed if they wanted to hold on to the house and rent it out while they wait for the market to get better. > taken to its logical conclusion you're saying people shouldn't lose money which to have a functioning economy you have to reject No, they are saying that you should let people decide when they want to sell instead of making them sell when they will take a loss. That doesn't mean they won't lose money when they sell. It just means they can decide based on market conditions when to sell--which is what you want if you want a well functioning economy.
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    A Well Functioning economy is the last thing that the people proposing punitive rental taxes want.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > But they are only selling at a loss because under the proposal they would be heavily taxed if they wanted to hold on to the house and rent it out while they wait for the market to get better. Then don't sell, or don't rent it out, or just deal with it? I'm not sure why we should further subsidize homeowners. > No, they are saying that you should let people decide when they want to sell instead of making them sell when they will take a loss. That doesn't mean they won't lose money when they sell. It just means they can decide based on market conditions when to sell--which is what you want if you want a well functioning economy. Apply this same reasoning to stocks and let me know if you still agree with it.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
This would be easy to make exceptions for. Say a year to sell your previous home before the extra tax rate kicks in. But you can't stack them and do it again and have two homes you just moved out of, then three and four. Just one.

nicoburns 4y ago

You could potentially not apply the punitive taxation so long as only one house is owned, regardless of whether they are actually living in it (so renting one property while renting another one would be fine).

ericmay 4y ago

You can avoid elements of the proposal by the OP by selling and moving and then claiming the new primary residence like you do now. I don't think we should care if someone has to sell their current home at a loss due to market conditions because taken to its logical conclusion you're saying people shouldn't lose money which to have a functioning economy you have to reject.

tzs 4y ago
> I don't think we should care if someone has to sell their current home at a loss due to market conditions But they are only selling at a loss because under the proposal they would be heavily taxed if they wanted to hold on to the house and rent it out while they wait for the market to get better. > taken to its logical conclusion you're saying people shouldn't lose money which to have a functioning economy you have to reject No, they are saying that you should let people decide when they want to sell instead of making them sell when they will take a loss. That doesn't mean they won't lose money when they sell. It just means they can decide based on market conditions when to sell--which is what you want if you want a well functioning economy.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  A Well Functioning economy is the last thing that the people proposing punitive rental taxes want.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > But they are only selling at a loss because under the proposal they would be heavily taxed if they wanted to hold on to the house and rent it out while they wait for the market to get better. Then don't sell, or don't rent it out, or just deal with it? I'm not sure why we should further subsidize homeowners. > No, they are saying that you should let people decide when they want to sell instead of making them sell when they will take a loss. That doesn't mean they won't lose money when they sell. It just means they can decide based on market conditions when to sell--which is what you want if you want a well functioning economy. Apply this same reasoning to stocks and let me know if you still agree with it.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

This would be easy to make exceptions for. Say a year to sell your previous home before the extra tax rate kicks in. But you can't stack them and do it again and have two homes you just moved out of, then three and four. Just one.