Especially when those 2nd, 3rd, + properties are being used as passive short term rentals. Observing the state of the housing situation “Hmm there aren’t enough homes for normal families to each have a chance, I should turn this extra property of mine into a vacation rental.” does this make said person a POS?

  • thisisbutaname
    link
    fedilink
    25 months ago

    I’d imagine those would be separate taxes. One is a property tax because you own that property, and then if you earn money from it via short or long term rentals you pay taxes on that.

    • @Cryophilia
      link
      35 months ago

      I mean someone who owns 4 houses just so he can visit them throughout the year should be paying a higher rate of property tax than someone who owns 4 houses but rents out 3 of them to long term tenants. Probably more in property tax than the landlord pays in property + rental income tax.

      • thisisbutaname
        link
        fedilink
        35 months ago

        I see what you mean, that makes sense.

        You could probably sell it as an incentive thing. Rent your property, pay less property tax on it.

        But I’d say the tax on rent should still be there, and be proportional to it. Since the property tax would also be dependent on the value of the property, what you say could still be true.

        • bizarroland
          link
          fedilink
          15 months ago

          The math I came up with to make multiple property ownership moral is that every homeowner should be charged a separate federal tax that is equal to their (city, state, county) property tax times the number of properties they own minus one.

          So for instance, if you are currently paying $5,000 a year in property taxes and you buy a second equally taxed home. Right now you would pay 5000 extra dollars for that second home.

          Under my scheme, you would pay $10,000 a year for that second home., or $15,000/year, $5,000 of which goes to the federal government as part of an anti-homelessness fund.

          And if you got a third one at the same price, you would now pay $15,000 for each of the two extra homes, and now $10,000 for the first one, or $45,000/year, $30,000 of which would go to the anti-homelessness fund.

          This would make it so that owning multiple homes would be something only the very wealthy or the very spendthrift could pull off, and it would disincentivize companies whose sole purpose is to profit off of making Americans homeless.