If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
But like on ALL their properties not just the excess ones
They’d just make 2,000 shell companies, each with one house.
Perfectly legal.
Companies shouldn’t be allowed to own housing
because of that reading government anti-corruption investigations can cause vertigo - just getting through the tense web of shells and shells of shells and mothershells and whatnot - there was one case in which the company had like 50 entities removed from the culprit
They often do that already.
It reduces the liability when sued. If you do something dumb and owe someone $100,000,000. You just abandon that one property and make that company bankrupt, you don’t lose all your other properties too.
Every hurdle makes it more expensive to run and less profitable
Exponential*
If it were 2% on the first, it’d be 4% on the second, 8% on the third…
I think Ken Paxton, man of the people, family matters, wears $40K watches, has 15 homes on a 150K salary.
So 32,768% sounds fair for inhuman scum like him. That’s 14 more homes on the market hopefully.
I don’t even know what it would be for Blackrock, the largest homeowner in the market. They own more homes than individuals do in the country.
Looks like Ken’s love language is bribery with real estate .
This is why wealth tax is so elegant. It doesn’t matter if you own a bunch of houses personally, or you own shares of a company that own a bunch of houses, or you use the shares as collateral to borrow a bunch of money; your total wealth is the same. There is no way get around it :3
The real wealth are the NFTs we made along the way.
Wealth taxes are necessary, but with offshoring and hiding accounts, I’d say they’re bureaucratically complicated rather than elegant.
There is and there always will be as long as capitalist have the political control.
Everyone dances around the fact that the government should be building low income housing themselves. We should not be begging the for profit house building industry to fix the problem they’ve made.
I’m not watching YouTube shyte.
I love youtube and use it every day.
Even I refuse to watch a YT video as a source. It takes 50x longer than reading, that’s unacceptable.
Hear me out: we also count all the subsidiaries company as the same entity of the owner company, now we have less exploits too
We also need to outright oppress and exploit companies the way current government does with minority groups and poor people.
Otherwise they just use legal technicalities to get away with it.
“Nooooo we don’t own 2000 houses. You see, we are an investing firm, and we have 99.9% share in 2000 companies, and all of those companies own a house. It’s perfectly fine!”
If only the people that would make these laws were not the ones profiting from it.
This. Developers like to either get on city commissions or get their friends on them
Be careful who you vote for. And it ain’t always just one side screwing this up.
Ah but my company doesn’t own a home, my company manages other companies homes, each company own 5 homes each.
I firmly believe every home after your second (let retired people have their cabins) should be taxed exponentially.
The third home should be taxed so heavily that it’s prohibitive, and the fourth should be taxed so highly that it’s impossible to profit off of.
Should be the same concept with rental units. Taxes should go up exponentially for every unit you own over a certain limit. Of course if there’s is a limit to how many homes or units a person can own, they will just create thousands of small corporations to own them.
Have to ban corporate ownership of residential property as well or some other fix.
exponentially
no. at 100% mil rate. ie: its value. every year.
if you can’t afford it, then sell it to someone who needs a home. :)
It should be illegal to have dozen of houses to begin with and if you don’t like this you can go fuck yourself because we live in a society
My mayor lives off the rent of 8 houses. I don’t think he’ll do anything to fix it
Fucking disgusting parasite
I own two and I pay a percentage based off the property value.
You should be paying double the rate for both of them, since you have twice as many as you need
This is obviously a taunt but… Why?
Because you came out swinging with “I own two houses” Mr. Moneybags, lmao
One of which had been laying vacant for 30 years and the other for nearly 50.
It’s not like I had money gathering dust on the mantelpiece and bought mansions. I went out to buy what I nobody else would. Because it was too old, too shaby, too much of assle to fix.
If you’re buying up derelict properties, renovating them, and then selling them, you should get an exemption from property taxes entirely. Many communities already offer such exemptions, and even if they don’t, you’re getting a de facto exemption as it is because the houses aren’t worth shit until you fix them up.
I’m buying to live there and house my family and I get no exemption because the moment I declare the renovation it triggers a revaluation by the tax and income state department. And I should not get it. It is a property and it has intrinsic value. Deductions should apply if by some reason a person can’t pay the taxes - unemployment, sickness, low income - but never an exemption. Even less if we’re talking in flipping houses, where renovations can push up the value to ludicrous levels. Never. Ever. It’s unfair.
I think it’s controversial but I feel like retired people should be allowed to have their cabins.
So do I, if they want to pay double the property tax 😊
Some places do this. I have heard a few Welsh areas have gone for much higher council tax (approximate equivalent to a shitty property tax) on second homes. They are allowed to charge up to 4x the normal rate.
If you are renting it out as a holiday rental you can be exempt from the normal council tax but they are now requiring you to actually rent it out. It must be available for at least 252 days of the year and actually used for at least 182 days so you can’t just set rent to unaffordable amounts.
Hearing the crying about it has been great.
What if, instead of that, property tax was based on the assessed value of the property when assessed for its current use? But also by “current” we mean like 5-10 years ago and when we assess we don’t look at recent neighborhood comps, we look at the previously assessed value.
That’s exactly how it works in a lot of places.
(I think that was the joke)
why not just based on purchase price provided it was bought at market value. Still that should only apply to one primary residence. Oh and if it changes hands for any reason. like inheritance. it needs to use the value when the hands changed.
Where I live (relatively upscale Philly suburb) the absolute magnitudes of the assessments are irrelevant – all that matters is what your assessment is relative to everybody else. For example, my house is assessed at $93K, but I bought it three years ago for $142K and its current sale estimate is about $215K. Everybody’s assessment is way below market value, but what happens is the school board decides what their budget is going to be every year and then they set the millage rate to whatever it needs to be in order to generate that much property tax revenue (the school tax is about 85% of our total property taxes). So it doesn’t really matter how up-to-date the assessments are since it won’t affect your tax bill.
I’d go further and cap the number of home one should be able to own, to like 2.
- there is zero need to own two homes.
When people think of two homes the second is usually a cottage or other seasonal property that you can’t really live in while participating in society. So it’s not really taking something away. Sure an argument could be made, but here in Canada if you put homeless people in cottages you’d just have a bunch of people frozen to death by spring.
That’s a big thing at least in the US when people talk about occupancy rates for homes, they often are talking about vacation homes, which are seasonal in nature and in general wouldn’t be able to be lived in year round to begin with. I like the idea of simple higher taxes on assessed value for each additional home you own, with the highest assessed value home having the highest tax rates.
no. “cant really live in” means “needs work to go from 3 seasons to 4.” and then be sold to someone who needs a home.
otherwise it’s a campsite not a “2nd home.”
I assume they didn’t mean seasonal as in “can only be used in certain seasons”, rather that you occupy it for vacation or summer or whatever. Not sure if you are from a non-mountany or very populated country, but where I come from, mountain “hüttes” are a thing and do not contribute to the housing crisis - or at least not in the usual way I can think of. Some people choose to live in those areas, I am very envious of their courage and peace :) But 99% do not make this choice, just use it for winter/summer long get-aways.
again - a huttie or small camp site type thing is not a second home that im talking about. i would not consider that a 2nd home.
a place on the mountains in a vacation town on a culdesac with a hoa that you visit for a month each year is what im talking about. far far diff.
How would that work for apartment buildings or 4-plexes?
You usually just own a unit
