You must log in or register to comment.
Hey, I got an even better idea:
- tax rates double for “investment properties” being rented out / not lived in by the owner. This can be ramped in somewhat gradually, but there won’t be any perpetual grandfathering of exceptions.
- corporate entities are not allowed to own residential properties. Banks can own residences transactionally in the event of a foreclosure, but any sales must be to a private party, with preference given to buyers who will actually live in the property.
Can’t we be happy they did a thing? Instead of bringing up a different thing?
FYI - to some extent …… in Massachusetts I pay a certain tax rate times the assessed value of my house MINUS an exemption for it being my primary home. So, yes, people buying a house in Massachusetts to live in do pay less taxes than people buying an investment property.
That exemption was always too small, and it’s a fixed amount, so the percentage has gotten smaller every year. But it does exist
That’s great and all, but you’re talking from the perspective of someone who owns a house. I’m talking about changing policy to help people who are effectively locked out of buying a house due to hypercapitalism and caustic corporate investment strategies.
No, I’m saying we already have part of what you’re asking for, but phrased oppositely
- “ tax rates double for “investment properties” being rented out / not lived in by the owner”
Similar to
- Tax rate is same for all, but those living in it are taxed on reduced assessed value
My towns website says this year the exemption is $285k, so for houses worth $570k, it’s exactly what you’re looking for: landlords taxed double… if there are any such houses. I know there are at least condos for less, so those people get an even bigger break on taxes than you’re asking, vs what a landlord would pay, and it’s theoretically possible some pay no tax at all for living in their own home. You could easily argue this approach is better than yours, since it works even better for low income, although that exemption should be even higher, given the high costs of houses here
While your complaint is valid in way too many places, you’re making it in a Massachusetts community where it’s just not.
I’d also like to point you to what could have a huge impact on new multi family housing across eastern MA, over time
We do have a huge housing affordability crisis here, but it’s not really the corporate investors. In general Massachusetts has a very high cost of living and decades of under building, too few housing units for needs. The residential exemption makes a difference to the extent local communities can, but it’s nowhere near enough. Encouraging development of more multi family housing (especially near transit) will make a bigger difference
Linking back to Boston, it’s not as clear since they talk about an amount of tax reduction, but I find it interesting there is a max discount of 90%. If there are houses that meet that criteria, a landlord would be taxed ten times what someone living there would
my area does have a significant discount if you reside in the property so that is something. Not sure how common that is.
deleted by creator
