8 ms·

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distribut

• markus_zhang 2y ago
  Because people making laws are not going to tax themselves and their friends. You need a populist leader to achieve that, but, well, no one wants one I guess.
• charlie0 2y ago
  Trusts. It's relatively easy to hide who owns what.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • jeffparsons 2y ago
    This is solvable. If a trust owns the property, default to the highest tax rate. The trustee is then responsible for providing proof of the beneficial owner(s) if they want the "discount" rate.
    • georgeburdell 2y ago
      This is basically how income tax law works for trusts. The highest tax bracket is reached very quickly to quash the first order shenanigans that might result from more preferential treatment
  • popol12 2y ago
    you skimmed over this part of his message: > automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons
• kredd 2y ago
  Not sure how it's down there, but my understanding is even if we have housing crisis, legislations that would actually bring down the housing prices is also bad for us. RE market is about 10%+ of the entire GDP, so we want individuals to park their money and use it as an investment vehicle as a part of the consumption cycle. Combine it with "i'll just buy it for my child/spouse/mom/dad" and so on, it's not really that easy to implement either.
  • t-writescode 2y ago
    > legislations that would actually bring down the housing prices is also bad for us Then perhaps we should make a 20 year rollout plan to help us adjust; but, individuals being able to live in a location for a consistent price and other improved social safety nets are a net positive for society and government is supposed to work *for* society as a whole, not just the elites
    • kredd 2y ago
      I’m a renter, and I would love that. That being said, majority of people in North America own their homes. Since looking at your property as an investment has been normalized, those voters wouldn’t really like that. Something similar is happening in China, where MoM the average housing is depreciating, and they’re trying hard to balance out the economy with incredible investments into manufacturing and tech. I’m not entirely sure how that would pan out in the west.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > RE market is about 10%+ of the entire GDP Source? Construction, commissions, renovations and lending maybe. But all that keeps happening in a constant real-price model.
    • kredd 2y ago
• ehfeng 2y ago
  I disagree with your "natural" person qualification. "Non-natural persons" includes anyone with a work visa or green card. It's hard enough for most people to get these, much less become fully naturalized citizens. Plus, the waiting time isn't guaranteed in length: it's variable based on the political climate. It's hard enough for immigrants today. Making the viability of home ownership based on political whims only worsens it. Shouldn't we prefer these immigrants become homeowners, increasing their "investment" in their local communities?
  • eurleif 2y ago
    "Natural" and "naturalized" do not refer to the same concept. "Natural person" includes those with work visas or green cards. >A natural person is a living human being. Legal systems can attach rights and duties to natural persons without their express consent. >The concept of a natural person appears in business law and bankruptcy law, where it provides a contrast with an artificial person or a legal person which is an entity that is treated as a person for legal purposes. While natural person describes an actual human being, artificial person describes a partnership, corporation, or some other entity that has been provided with legal personhood by statute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_person https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_person
    • ehfeng 2y ago
      Got it thanks
  • gardnr 2y ago
    Parent were referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person It's legalese for a "human being".
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property Trivially worked around. Use an LLC. Have it bought in a relative’s name. Have it bought in a rando’s name with a bulletproof lease with a $1 rent-to-own option at its termination. Essentially, the property registry system becomes a farce. (You see this, for example, in India.) Simpler: a straight wealth tax that funds first time homebuyer incentives.
  • lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I don’t see how those are trivially worked around in a country with a half decent government. People are not just going to give their relatives title to their property. LLC’s can be required to name the beneficial owner. The rent-to-own lease farce can also be trivially uncovered by requiring rents to be public, like real estate sales are in most jurisdictions.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > don’t see how those are trivially worked around in a country with a half decent government Look at how people abuse rent controlled apartments. (All the way up to the current mayor.) > People are not just going to give their relatives title to their property This is literally what happens in places with such taxes. I wouldn’t bat an eye buying a house in my partner or a parent’s name if it saved 3x property taxes.
      • pixelatedindex 2y ago
        I’m sick of rent control being vilified. If you’re not going to build more then you definitely need it. I’ve had my rent go up as much as 20%, forcing me to move on more than one occasion. If Prop 13 keeps the grandma in their home, then why can’t I have rent control that lets me stay put and provide stability? Landlords will do the absolute minimum for repairs anyway, rent control or not.
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
• acchow 2y ago
  “Why can’t we” I wish the system actually tried to solve problems with well thought out solutions. To answer your question: politicians don’t want to piss off the wealthy class. Americans at large are skeptical of taxes because they don’t see it being used for anything useful.
• BenFranklin100 2y ago
  There’s nothing inherently wrong with people owning multiple properties. It’s not even a significant driver of the housing shortage. The main driver of the housing shortage is local zoning codes that forbid the construction of new homes, especially multi-family housing.
• bongodongobob 2y ago
  The real, genuine answer is that the rich run the world and don't want that so they'll convince poor people it's actually bad for them. This works for any issue. It ensures that completely sound ideas get shot down. See "muh freedom", "it's bad for the economy", "communism", "taxing the rich hurts job growth", "this will just make rent go up" etc.
• onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  This isn't a distribution problem. We don't have enough pie (houses). We need more houses. Not a campaign to distribute a massive shortage slightly more evenly.
  • majormajor 2y ago
    What's the reason that, with office occupancies down in so many places, there isn't a big push for conversion of commercial zoning to residential multi-family? Incentive programs to reward converting vacant spaces? Penalty taxes for holding vacant office space instead of selling it to someone who will figure out something to do with it?
    • onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
      Because most skyscrapers can't be converted to housing efficiently. It would cost more to convert them then you could sell the units for. The people who own those buildings are desperate to fill them. They'd convert if it made sense. They aren't part of some evil cabal to have commercial buildings sit empty to push up residential property prices.
      • leehuffman 2y ago
        Why is everyone (ok, fine, mostly economics & tech people) convinced this is such a wildly viable slam dunk of an idea? Have y'all ever opened up a wall before and seen the electrical, plumbing, etc mechanical bits that make up a home? Any idea of what it'd cost to chop up that office space and feed every individual piece the necessary bits? It's outrageous that we're even talking about this idea still. It'd require wildddddd tax advantages & federal spends in order to execute on it in any sense of the overarching idea.
        • HPsquared 2y ago
          Houses are like a million dollars. Some plumbing is maybe 10k?
• panick21_ 2y ago
  Because it doesn't solve any actual problems. People owning more then 1 property simply aren't the primary issue. People can politically fuck around with occupancy laws and all this other stuff, non of it solves the problem. We know how to solve the problem, there is no mystery. Its simply a political problem to implement it.
• electriclove 2y ago
  People want to come up with all kinds of reasons to poo poo this… but it really is what needs to be done to start improving things. In CA, owner occupied homes get a minuscule reduction in their property tax. Same mechanism can be used
• leehuffman 2y ago
  > Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important) I am that person. I own two duplexes in addition to my primary residence, for a total of four residential rental units – all 2/1s made up of ~750 sq ft each. Those additional properties that I own provide housing to 6 humans who can't purchase, or just prefer not to. What you're proposing would result in one of two moves from my end: 1. I sell both properties and let someone/some entity (who doesn't work and/or manage the properties themselves, have any relationship with the tenants, will push rents to market prices immediately, etc etc) deal with it. 2. I scrape the lots, stand up single family homes, take my gains and walk inside ~18 months. That puts the 6 humans mentioned above out into a (very tight, <= 1% vacancy rate) rental market that'll bump their monthly rent expense by ~25% minimum and, overall, very likely reduce the headcount of humans housed. Either way, it's a high level hit to individuals, the market, whatever. It doesn't result in any gains or economic corrections to the RE market. > (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important) That's already happening in my scenario. I own & operate a General Contractor LLC entity that issues invoices to me, the property owner. The local city, county, and state are paid B&O, sales, etc taxes on those GC LLC invoices out of my personal pocket. Separately, my personal rental income is taxed appropriately at the federal level. > I think this would just price in the externalities of corporate versus natural person living in a property for a locality. You know what else can be priced in? Or wildly swing a market into affordability, normality, etc? Letting people build things. My lots are massive, but they consist of sheds and lawns instead of multiplying my units and housing more people. It's impossible in my local market, and that's why it's carrying the <= 1% residential vacancy rate it has for 15+ years, and why rents are increasing at wild rates that no industry/job market inside 80 miles can support. Economics 101 says supply vs demand etc etc. Easy layups for anyone with half a brain. We don't have to modify anything outside of city/county zoning & the ability to infill everywhere.
  • dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
    > Those additional properties that I own provide housing to 6 humans who can't purchase, or just prefer not to. Of course you just ignore the fact that one of the reasons they can't purchase is because you're hoarding the damn houses. You can't buy what isn't for sale.
• rcpt 2y ago
  Federal government can't levy any property tax unless we amend the constitution.
• Aunche 2y ago
  Not everyone wants to be a homeowner or will have the means to purchase one even with additional incentives, and the increased property taxes are going to be passed to renters. Also, if you intend on purchasing a place to live, you're unlikely to purchase a place that requires a lot of renovations. Disincentivizing investors means fewer of these homes will be our purchased and some will even degrade to an unrepairable state, which further reduces housing supply, which makes it more expensive in the long run.
• doctorpangloss 2y ago
  If you raise taxes on property, rents will rise. Is that the goal?
• slavik81 2y ago
  It would be simpler to charge a property tax on every property and provide a tax credit to every individual based on the average property tax collected. I think it would be more robust against people trying to find loopholes. That would also be more fair to renters. Much of the tax charged to commercial landlords would likely be passed on to their tenants. Providing renters with the same tax credit as home owners will offset that effect.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• dheera 2y ago
  You know who would pay those property taxes? The renters. Not the owners. The owners just pass those taxes onto the renters. What would actually help is the reverse, i.e. abolish property taxes and reduce rents by that much. If that was done I'd save money faster and be able to buy 1 house for myself sooner.
• Narhem 2y ago
  Because if we limit each individual to have only one home it could cause traffic issues in certain cities. Something like 60% of the homes in my area don't have people living in them and the traffic can be as bad as 25 minutes for 1 mile of driving. This would have to be a state/city level decision. Personally it seems like the decision of an officer for how many homes a single person can manage. IE if you are getting hired for a specific salary they already know how many homes you are going to own over your lifetime.
• pxmpxm 2y ago
  And you suppose this will solve, what, exactly - besides destryong the rental market and new construction?