Yes, we can cover the resulting tax shortfall by increasing the tax on single mothers, first-generation low-income homebuyers, and renters.
Look at the result of California’s tax policy (which was designed with aims similar to yours): an entire generation of young people will never be able to afford a home in the place they grew up in, while millionaire retirees get a huge tax break while making thousands renting out spare rooms in their massive houses on AirBnB.
These kinds of special tax carve outs sound nice in theory, because it seems like you are just “not taking money from old and disabled people”, but that tax burden falls on everyone else, as does the massive distortion of the market. You are in fact taking more money from other people, who may be hurting even more.
And don’t tell me, “We’ll fund it by a tax on the rich”. If that’s your proposal, get that tax on the rich passed, and dole out the proceeds to elderly at risk of homelessness. Have it officially be budgeted, so that we can decide if keeping an elderly person in their $2.1m 5 bedroom home is worth cuts elsewhere. As of now, such policies are mostly robbing middle class young people blind.
Tax homes based on how many you own, and how many are vacant. Allow two homes at a regular rate; Enough for a summer and winter home. Then ratchet tax rates up as the person buys more.
And if the third, fourth, fifth, etc home sits vacant for more than a few months out of the year? The tax rate goes up even more, so giant corporations can’t just buy entire neighborhoods and sit on them to remove them from the market and increase property values for the other homes they own across town. Because that’s what’s happening now; Giant corps are buying homes and letting them sit vacant, just to remove them from the market so they can charge higher rates elsewhere. Allow a few months of grace for renovations and finding tenants… But after a ~3 month grace period, that tax rate skyrockets.
And then take the revenue from these increased taxes, and use them to fund First Time Homebuyer programs, so home ownership becomes more available to the people who are renting. Incentivize the corporations to actually flip the houses and resell or rent them, instead of just sitting on them.
I propose exempting high-density apartment and condo buildings from the taxes. Developers may be building those residences for their own cynical profit motives, but it does happen to greatly benefit society.
Alternate take: If we actually implemented my above plan, you wouldn’t need to be stupidly rich to own two homes. Home prices would be reasonable, because there wouldn’t be giant corporations hoarding all of the real estate.
We have over two vacant houses for every single homeless person in the country. We could give every single homeless person a house, and still have plenty to act as summer cabins. And that’s before you even factor in the fact that the market would be flooded with houses (at least in the short term) from corporations trying to avoid the increased taxes.
There’s a better special tax carve out: Don’t require tax for the primary residence. The owner MUST be registered as living at that address. Not a family member. The owner.
Okay if you have family you can have a few more homes, but realistically, if you own 10 or 20 homes, how many people can you REALLY trust to have full ownership of them instead of you? You’re going to have to start paying tax at some point.
at the primary residence up to .25 acres. Anything more than that should be taxed as normal. Credits should be non transferrable, as in if you’re renting your landlord shouldn’t be able to claim you for tax exempt status.
Land is land. We don’t get any more. Some land is inherently more valuable than other. We should be disincentivizing ownership of land unless it’s being cultivated or contributing in some way.
By saying that farms don’t pay property tax, we’re creating an avenue for billionaires to create “farms” and skirt taxes.
Instead what we should be doing is guaranteeing that crops will sell. Pay the property tax, use the land, and if your harvest fails at market, then the government covers the gap. But not before. I’m even cool with the government buying the seed and feed. That’s all renewable and contributes to a bountiful harvest. Having taxes to pay on the value of the land encourages it’s use, and pushes the wealthy billionaires away from wanting to own it just cuz. They’ll naturally look for the least valuable land if they just want a big ass estate. Who cares if they build a mansion on a pile of worthless rock?
Instead what we should be doing is guaranteeing that crops will sell. Pay the property tax, use the land, and if your harvest fails at market, then the government covers the gap.
.25 acres? Can we up that to at least an acre. I need a place for my chickens to roam and to plant my gardens, and I prefer to have a fire pit with outdoor patio furniture and a grill. Many places an acre is the standard plot size. Not good for everyone, but preferred by many
If that was satire, it was incredibly well done. If it’s red sincere, it’s a great example of why property taxes should still apply at a certain point, and that point should be very narrow.
That’s great and all, but you do realize that in the end that ends up being pro large corporations and limiting freedoms of the people. Cities and towns would be best built that way I agree but the chances that we can completely revoke capitalism is verryyy slim. In such every convenient/grocery store in those neighborhoods would be bought up by money and reduce prices to run out small owners. People not being able to grow their own food or raise their own chickens reduces ones ability to feed themselves independently. Communal neighborhood farms are an alternative which I have seen before, but they are rare and require space as well
I would be more okay with property tax, IF once you reached a certain age (or disabled), you were not required to pay property tax.
Yes, we can cover the resulting tax shortfall by increasing the tax on single mothers, first-generation low-income homebuyers, and renters.
Look at the result of California’s tax policy (which was designed with aims similar to yours): an entire generation of young people will never be able to afford a home in the place they grew up in, while millionaire retirees get a huge tax break while making thousands renting out spare rooms in their massive houses on AirBnB.
These kinds of special tax carve outs sound nice in theory, because it seems like you are just “not taking money from old and disabled people”, but that tax burden falls on everyone else, as does the massive distortion of the market. You are in fact taking more money from other people, who may be hurting even more.
And don’t tell me, “We’ll fund it by a tax on the rich”. If that’s your proposal, get that tax on the rich passed, and dole out the proceeds to elderly at risk of homelessness. Have it officially be budgeted, so that we can decide if keeping an elderly person in their $2.1m 5 bedroom home is worth cuts elsewhere. As of now, such policies are mostly robbing middle class young people blind.
Solution build excess housing at a loss, intentionally until real estate prices go down.
I like that idea, but it’d have to come with some mechanism to prevent parasites from buying a bunch of them up and renting them out.
fuck if I know what such a mechanism would look like though…
Severely impede sale of all houses purchased by people who cannot strongly demonstrate they intend to live in them.
Government Owned Social Housing Program
Tax homes based on how many you own, and how many are vacant. Allow two homes at a regular rate; Enough for a summer and winter home. Then ratchet tax rates up as the person buys more.
And if the third, fourth, fifth, etc home sits vacant for more than a few months out of the year? The tax rate goes up even more, so giant corporations can’t just buy entire neighborhoods and sit on them to remove them from the market and increase property values for the other homes they own across town. Because that’s what’s happening now; Giant corps are buying homes and letting them sit vacant, just to remove them from the market so they can charge higher rates elsewhere. Allow a few months of grace for renovations and finding tenants… But after a ~3 month grace period, that tax rate skyrockets.
And then take the revenue from these increased taxes, and use them to fund First Time Homebuyer programs, so home ownership becomes more available to the people who are renting. Incentivize the corporations to actually flip the houses and resell or rent them, instead of just sitting on them.
I propose exempting high-density apartment and condo buildings from the taxes. Developers may be building those residences for their own cynical profit motives, but it does happen to greatly benefit society.
Nobody needs a summer and winter home tax the living shit out of rich fuckers with 2
Alternate take: If we actually implemented my above plan, you wouldn’t need to be stupidly rich to own two homes. Home prices would be reasonable, because there wouldn’t be giant corporations hoarding all of the real estate.
We have over two vacant houses for every single homeless person in the country. We could give every single homeless person a house, and still have plenty to act as summer cabins. And that’s before you even factor in the fact that the market would be flooded with houses (at least in the short term) from corporations trying to avoid the increased taxes.
Rent control tied to bottom quintile income. Everyone should be able to afford a home. If construction companies can’t afford to build homes at that cost, look at their material and labor costs; in China they invest in education and have state-run steel and concrete companies to keep the private ones competitive. It costs them avg ~50K to make a 900 sqft 2bd house or apartment in the major cities. Much less elsewhere.
I’m gonna have to agree with you here.
There’s a better special tax carve out: Don’t require tax for the primary residence. The owner MUST be registered as living at that address. Not a family member. The owner.
Okay if you have family you can have a few more homes, but realistically, if you own 10 or 20 homes, how many people can you REALLY trust to have full ownership of them instead of you? You’re going to have to start paying tax at some point.
at the primary residence up to .25 acres. Anything more than that should be taxed as normal. Credits should be non transferrable, as in if you’re renting your landlord shouldn’t be able to claim you for tax exempt status.
Farms & ranches would have to be exempt. There are some cases where it’s legit important to have a large land area.
If you’re retired or disabled, you’re not working a farm.
If you are working a farm, then you should be paying taxes anyway.
Yeah but not the same level of taxes as some rich dude with a country estate. Farms serve an important function.
Land is land. We don’t get any more. Some land is inherently more valuable than other. We should be disincentivizing ownership of land unless it’s being cultivated or contributing in some way.
By saying that farms don’t pay property tax, we’re creating an avenue for billionaires to create “farms” and skirt taxes.
Instead what we should be doing is guaranteeing that crops will sell. Pay the property tax, use the land, and if your harvest fails at market, then the government covers the gap. But not before. I’m even cool with the government buying the seed and feed. That’s all renewable and contributes to a bountiful harvest. Having taxes to pay on the value of the land encourages it’s use, and pushes the wealthy billionaires away from wanting to own it just cuz. They’ll naturally look for the least valuable land if they just want a big ass estate. Who cares if they build a mansion on a pile of worthless rock?
That’s literally how it already works.
.25 acres? Can we up that to at least an acre. I need a place for my chickens to roam and to plant my gardens, and I prefer to have a fire pit with outdoor patio furniture and a grill. Many places an acre is the standard plot size. Not good for everyone, but preferred by many
Yes, at least an acre. .25 is nothing.
If that was satire, it was incredibly well done. If it’s red sincere, it’s a great example of why property taxes should still apply at a certain point, and that point should be very narrow.
Reject urb-spreading!
High density, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods for whoever wants to actually live a healthy urban life.
That’s great and all, but you do realize that in the end that ends up being pro large corporations and limiting freedoms of the people. Cities and towns would be best built that way I agree but the chances that we can completely revoke capitalism is verryyy slim. In such every convenient/grocery store in those neighborhoods would be bought up by money and reduce prices to run out small owners. People not being able to grow their own food or raise their own chickens reduces ones ability to feed themselves independently. Communal neighborhood farms are an alternative which I have seen before, but they are rare and require space as well
You realize there are literally dozens of examples of dense urban environments flooded with small private businesses right?
Is this a joke or did you just state these places exist without naming any?