3 ms·
Anecdotal, but from a friend (not wealthy) who lived near Jackson as a young adult the largest, most extravagant homes would not be considered vacant. He intera
by generj 2y ago
Anecdotal, but from a friend (not wealthy) who lived near Jackson as a young adult the largest, most extravagant homes would not be considered vacant. He interacted with caretakers that lived permanently in one of the homes. This is especially important in the winter because temperatures can be so harsh in the Jackson / Teton / Yellowstone area. It was worth it to the owners to avoid any risk of a water pipe bursting. Apparently the caretakers told him utility costs alone for the McMansion were over $5,000 a month.
So clearly vacancy taxes can be gamed after a certain point of wealth. But I think they still would be effective at reducing the number of vacant properties because the bar to hire employees to exclusively live at your property to care for it is so high.
Incidentally my friend’s experiences in Jackson were influential in shifting him away from the libertarian mindset his parents raised him with. The realities of observing the wealth gap really troubled him.
- saulpw 2y agoSo, I like to divide things into orders of magnitude since that tends to produce meaningful qualitative differences between levels. And I think due to inflation, ^6 wealth is these days $3m-$30m, which would be considered "rich" (compared to ^5 "upper middle class" and ^7 "ultra-high-net-worth", and of course beyond). Do you think the people who own those McMansions are ^6, or are they in a higher wealth class? It seems weird that ^7 or higher would buy a McMansion but $5k/mo seems exorbitant for ^6. And yeah, I think that interacting with wealth more than 1 level above (or below) your own wealth class experience is really eye-opening. Most of us don't (because it's too uncomfortable for one or the other).