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
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.
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.”
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
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.
First one should be free. Let the property investors pay the property taxes. Apparently they can afford them.
I agree with the sentiment but should scale more exponentially.
I feel like two houses is ok’ish but when you start buying three or more is when you cross into commercial purposes.
I should be cost prohibitive to own 4 single family houses.
A company would just fire up 2000 subsidiaries to own the homes.
Maybe companies shouldn’t be able to own companies. It just allows to much fuckery. Maybe only real human beings should be able to have ownership stakes in companies, llcs, etc.
Companies shouldn’t be able to own homes.
Why should a landlord be prevented from registering his property under his company?
Landlords shouldn’t be able to own homes.
Why not?
That was a kind of aggressive way for me to express that, but, in all seriousness, the reason is that:
Being a “landlord”, that is, very specifically, an “owner of houses you don’t live in, but rent to people for profit”, is a way to live that is inherently abusive to the people you rent to.
You have ownership of a basic good people need to survive (housing), which is effectively scarce (because it’s not allowed for just anyone to build a house without incredible amounts of money, even homelessness is fairly illegal in many places), and you say to people:
“Either give me a monthly fee for me to allow you to have a roof over your head, or I’m calling the police (the only people allowed to be violent in the country) to kick you out”
It’s a way of making money, where the owner doesn’t do anything helpful to society, except find people who are desperate to survive, and milk them of what they make.
How is it not helpful to society to allow others to live in your house? And it’s not landlords who are looking for tenants, it’s the other way round.
deleted by creator
Landlords should be prevented from breathing.
Good luck
Is it troubling that this was my first thought?
I’ve often thought that the taxes should relate to whether or not the home is occupied.
If you live in it as your primary dwelling, with more than 50% of your time there, then you should pay the normal amount.
If you have someone leasing the house to live in it, then you should pay the same property taxes as if you were living in it yourself. Maybe a bit higher.
If you’re using it as a full time Airbnb, the taxes should be much, much higher.
Unoccupied rental properties or vacation homes should be taxed at the much higher rate to encourage you to either lower the rent or sell it to someone who can live in it.
If you have someone leasing the house to live in it, then you should pay the same property taxes as if you were living in it yourself. Maybe a bit higher.
Wait why higher if you’re renting or leasing it out? Shouldn’t that be a reduction on taxes due to the home owner not using it for selfish reasons and/or being part of the problem of living in a single family house because owning a single family house is a greedy ass thing to do and makes you an awful person for taking up space that could be used for multi-dwelling apartment complexes.
No way, it needs to go exponential.
This is essentially a square increase. If one home is one dollar, two home would total $4, three homes would total $9, etc.
Property tax should be like 1,800$ a year across the board, there should be a set rate by the federal banking system and it should go up and down based on income rates set by inflation.
Companies that own homes should pay a higher rate per house in general.
Also, I’m voting to raise my property taxes this year. I get the benefit of living in a house AND making sure that public schools can keep feeding and helping kids. Fucking yes please.
I’d go further (current flat rate)^(number of houses owned -1)
Meh I wouldn’t go exponentially. I would go 1=1. 2=5-7 depending on size and availability, 3 = 20-150. 4=1500+
we should break out the guillotine while we’re at it and solve the rich cunt problem
To an extent “Homestead Exemption” can do this, if the exemption is a significant chunk of the taxable value - which it has been at some times (my first house’s HX was 50% of its taxable value), and not so much at other times (we’re at about 10% now)…
So, if you’ve got 50% homestead exemption, you only get that on your first home and you pay double taxes on others. But, if you’re playing in the 10% bracket that’s basically in the noise.
See the problem with this, which is something on the ballot locally, is that people buy properties here to get tax exemptions and live elsewhere the majority of the time. Ironically the proposed homestead exemption will increase the amount of property tax I will pay compared to the current model; likely because they added extra fees.
buy properties here to get tax exemptions and live elsewhere the majority of the time.
Which is illegal, but hard to prove without tipping the hand of the surveillance state. They know who the cheaters are, but they don’t want to say how they know.
the proposed homestead exemption will increase the amount of property tax I will pay
Any change to property taxes increases the amount some people pay because property tax base rates are adjusted to be “revenue neutral” - getting all the money they need to provide the services they have committed to. So, rule changes never lessen the total burden, only shift it around.
Floriduh made a big deal about lottery income paying for education, but in truth (the educated know that) only 5% of the schools’ cost is paid by the lottery operations, the other 95% mostly comes from property taxes - so, thank a lottery player for reducing your property taxes by about 2%, 35-40% of an average property tax bill goes to education.
You nailed it. Funny how easy you picked up on certain details.
I didn’t know the lottery thing was that bad. The main issues with the proposed change is that they’re closing schools down, so the funding will likely go to some bullshit. I mean they used 55 million on fixing the stupid stadium under the guise that insurance and FEMA will reimburse the costs only for them to move to Tampa anyway—good riddance. And another fun thing I saw is that Article 3 will add in funding to fix the sewer systems… which I already pay every month with the crazy water bill. And the cheater part, yeah they don’t care. I fixed a machine downtown and the couple said oh yeah this place only cost 1.8 million. So of course the city is happy to turn a blind eye. So I’m okay with services being funded but not giving billionaires tax payer dollars for a stadium; that’s dumb and really everyone should get a refund on this expense. I got a lot of down votes on reddit for this opinion but it’s like if you love your baseball team so much, you go donate and leave me out of it.
they’re closing schools down, so the funding will likely go to some bullshit.
I think it’s a split, likely 50/50 between “other alternate more cost effective school options” which amounts to paying parents to home school or paying private schools by the state, but at a lower rate than state schools and with even worse effectiveness assurances than the public schools if you can even imagine that to be possible. The other 50 is going to go to all kinds of grift while the property tax payers aren’t looking at how the cost of schools (on their tax bills) is dropping.
Funny, a big problem we had in schools when I attended in the 70s/80s was sports sucking up all the funding, new money going to a football stadium instead of fixing the wet roof that filled the high school with mold spores - I had chronic bronchitis for 4 years, coincitentally only while school was in session, only while I was attending in that building - never in summers, off to college? Miracle cure.
