Current Events > If you own more than one house, you should be taxed to hell and back for it

(+) Yeah! (+)

Non-primary residence. Any individual or entity that owns more than one building that is in a residential zone should have ONE primary residence and everything else should be marked as a non-primary residence. Property taxes on non-primary residences should be like 5000% or the primary residence (in other words, don't fucking do this).

Build all the homes you want, landlords and investers will just use them as investments and gobble them all up. The only way to free up the houses is to make owning multiple houses non-feasible as an investment.

SilvosForever posted...

Non-primary residence. Any individual or entity that owns more than one building that is in a residential zone should have ONE primary residence and everything else should be marked as a non-primary residence. Property taxes on non-primary residences should be like 5000% or the primary residence (in other words, don't fucking do this).

Build all the homes you want, landlords and investers will just use them as investments and gobble them all up. The only way to free up the houses is to make owning multiple houses non-feasible as an investment.

that's just going to piss off everyone with a dead relative and an inherited house. i support slapping down on slum lords but a move like that is going to generate more homeless as the rental market collapses.

you want to fix the housing problem you need to go after local governments and force them to change zoning laws. in city zoning for single family homes only is a major issue, most cities functionally outlaw new apartment and duplex development.

I would do some regulatory fine tuning. However, on the whole, I agree with this concept.

monkmith posted...

that's just going to piss off everyone with a dead relative and an inherited house. i support slapping down on slum lords but a move like that is going to generate more homeless as the rental market collapses.

you want to fix the housing problem you need to go after local governments and force them to change zoning laws. in city zoning for single family homes only is a major issue, most cities functionally outlaw new apartment and duplex development.

This outcome is intentional. Sell the spare house.

monkmith posted...

that's just going to piss off everyone with a dead relative and an inherited house.

So give them a grace period of, say, two years to sell it before the tax kicks in. But if they let it during that time, tax them to buggery on the rental income.

monkmith posted...

a move like that is going to generate more homeless as the rental market collapses.

It won't, though, because at the end of each chain of sale is either another landlord, in which case the number of rental properties has stayed the same, or someone who was previously renting, in which case the number has gone down by one but so has the number of households looking to rent.

Well, I close on my new house tomorrow, but will still own my current one until its ready to list and sell. Id rather not get taken to the cleaners for the overlap period.

monkmith posted...

that's just going to piss off everyone with a dead relative and an inherited house. i support slapping down on slum lords but a move like that is going to generate more homeless as the rental market collapses.

you want to fix the housing problem you need to go after local governments and force them to change zoning laws. in city zoning for single family homes only is a major issue, most cities functionally outlaw new apartment and duplex development.

I think a fair compromise would be that second homes only get a small tax bump, but every home after the 2nd exponentially adds to it.

More than one home? No. People have personal vacation homes or small cabins for personal use. Or the above-mentioned home inheritance.

But 3-4+ properties owned, sure. Or if they file rental income on their taxes then absolutely tax the shit out of that income

make it a progressive tax by the number of properties

So what you're saying is you want to make rent even higher than it already is.

Sephirothe posted...

More than one home? No. People have personal vacation homes or small cabins for personal use.

When everyone who wants to own a home has one, with prices no longer inflated by landlords' hoarding, then we can think about allowing people the luxury of a holiday home. No one gets seconds until everyone's got firsts.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

So what you're saying is you want to make rent even higher than it already is.

Er, no, this would have the exact opposite effect.

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

Er, no, this would have the exact opposite effect.

I'm listening.

myusernameislame posted...

I think a fair compromise would be that second homes only get a small tax bump, but every home after the 2nd exponentially adds to it.

CARRRNE_ASADA posted...

make it a progressive tax by the number of properties

This. Absurd taxation out of a second house is a good way to piss off relative and inheritance. Someone getting a small house from his parent as a bonus getting the same comeuppance of a slum lord or some billionaire is draconian.

If anything I expect people will just keep spreading the properties name through the family just to not sell it I guess.

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

When everyone who wants to own a home has one, with prices no longer inflated by landlords' hoarding, then we can think about allowing people the luxury of a holiday home. No one gets seconds until everyone's got firsts.

These arent homes that people live in full time lol. Im talking a 2-br, 1 bath, literal cabin in the woods. If its not someones second home then no one is going to even live there because its not near jobs/infrastructure/stores/etc

If CEmen wrote the laws the world would be ok.

But alas it's rich assholes with multiple vacation homes who would never ever do something like this.

Sephirothe posted...

These arent homes that people live in full time

Yes, that's the problem.

SilvosForever posted...

This outcome is intentional. Sell the spare house.

to who? a homeless person with no money? another landlord to continue the game of hot potato? the government?

did you know that the dairy market in times where the sale price of milk isn't high enough to make money by selling it just dump that shit on the ground? your suggestion is going to incentivize people just tearing down old homes and sitting on vacant lots.

No. It wont make housing prices cheaper because supply hasnt changed nor the demand and there are still plenty of cash buyers ready to swoop in, and buy if the prices ever fell.

Rental prices would also skyrocket since their inventory would plummet. So any regular would be renters will be SoL.

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

Yes, that's the problem.

i see you didnt read beyond that point in my post. Missed the part where I said they arent fit for full-time accommodation due to lack of nearby jobs/infrastructure/stores/etc?

Sephirothe posted...

These arent homes that people live in full time lol. Im talking a 2-br, 1 bath, literal cabin in the woods. If its not someones second home then no one is going to even live there because its not near jobs/infrastructure/stores/etc

Yep and many time Internet is spotty if it even has it.

Think of some of them as just slightly nicer than camping.

I sure wouldnt want one but some people love going almost every weekend.

What if I want to rent a home and not buy one. Who should I rent a home from?

emblem-man posted...

What if I want to rent a home and not buy one. Who should I rent a home from?

Don't worry. The landlord might be paying six digits a year for the house, but the renter will end up paying less for reasons I'm sure will be explained.

Was it intentional or an oversight that TC is fixated on "buildings" not "residences". I live in a 158-unit condo building (I own 0.8% of the entire building). How does that work? And wouldn't we want to encourage multi-family homes?

monkmith posted...

that's just going to piss off everyone with a dead relative and an inherited house. i support slapping down on slum lords but a move like that is going to generate more homeless as the rental market collapses.

you want to fix the housing problem you need to go after local governments and force them to change zoning laws. in city zoning for single family homes only is a major issue, most cities functionally outlaw new apartment and duplex development.

Yeah, agreed. The main focus should be on increasing the supply of housing in areas where people actually want to live. That's how you bring down housing costs.

UnsteadyOwl posted...

Yeah, agreed. The main focus should be on increasing the supply of housing in areas where people actually want to live. That's how you bring down housing costs.

You build a house. An investment firm buys the house immediately in full cash. You can never make more houses than the ultra wealthy and investors are willing to purchase immediately. This is not a supply/demand problem. This is an ownership laws problem.

SilvosForever posted...

You build a house. An investment firm buys the house immediately in full cash. You can never make more houses than the ultra wealthy and investors are willing to purchase immediately. This is not a supply/demand problem. This is an ownership laws problem.

again, you could stop building single family houses and instead build duplexes and apartments. that's an actual solution that doesn't destroy the rental market and make more homeless.

SilvosForever posted...

This is not a supply/demand problem

You're wrong.

Also, a good reminder that private equity investment is actually a very small percentage of home ownership.

We can and should regulate it, but it's not going to be the silver bullet many act as it will be.

Investors bought 1.2 million homes in 2024, up from an average of 1.1 million homes a year going back to 2020, according to BatchData.

Even so, investor-owned homes account for roughly 20% of the nation's 86 million single-family homes, the firm said.

Of those, mom-and-pop investors, or those who own between 1 and 5 homes, account for 85% of all investor-owned residential properties, while those with between 6 and 10 properties account for another 5%.

Institutional investors that own 1,000 or more homes account for only about 2.2% of all investor-owned homes, the firm said.

https://www.2news.com/news/national/investors-snap-up-growing-share-of-us-homes-as-traditional-buyers-struggle-to-afford-one/ article_e381f163-a84b-5faa-ac45-a4b24ab53e10.html

Remove the space before "article"

Not for nothing, but with how insanely easy it is set up LLCs, it's pretty easy to make it so that one person doesn't own any property legally but in reality owns loads of properties. To make this even remotely workable, you'd need pretty drastic changes to such laws nationwide.

Plus, property taxes are local, so it's not like if you own a property in one state and another property in a different state that they'd have any meaningful enforcement standards that impact one or the other.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I can't help but feel that part of it is that people want to find a way to blame the billionaires, first and foremost.

In the neighborhoods where I've lived, millionaires and billionaires aren't the ones upholding onerous zoning laws that make it impossible to build anything more than a generic single family home in an urban area. It's your fellow neighbors who do that because they oppose change and don't want to live next to an apartment or don't want a tall complex to block their views.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

I'm listening.

Taxation would make rental properties a less desirable investment, which would cause landlords to sell, which would mean house prices would go down, which would mean more people could afford to buy who previously couldn't, which means less demand for renting and those who are still demanding it have low incomes, which means they only way the remaining landlords could make any money on it at all is by reducing rent.

That's the sound of the construction industry instantaneously imploding

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

Taxation would make rental properties a less desirable investment, which would cause landlords to sell, which would mean house prices would go down, which would mean more people could afford to buy who previously couldn't, which means less demand for renting and those who are still demanding it have low incomes, which means they only way the remaining landlords could make any money on it at all is by reducing rent.

Well, I do find it likely that many would just list the house completely. But I think you misunderstand the margins on renting, or the figure of 5000%, if you think anyone is going to be renting at a lower figure if they're now paying $10,000 more per year minimum for the property.

Second edit: Wait no, I had it right the first time, lol.

tankboy posted...

Was it intentional or an oversight that TC is fixated on "buildings" not "residences". I live in a 158-unit condo building (I own 0.8% of the entire building). How does that work? And wouldn't we want to encourage multi-family homes?

Yeah that was my first thought. What about the landlords that own an apartment complex. Are they going to be taxed 5000% on those? I'm sure that will be great for rent prices

This would just lead to houses having no value when the occupants die because no one would want to take it on. Something like it happens in Japan, I believe.

The solution is social housing. Homes provided by the government at reasonable rents, with the profits used for maintenance, growth, and subsidy for those who need it.

emblem-man posted...

I can't help but feel that part of it is that people want to find a way to blame the billionaires, first and foremost.

CE hates billionaires.

Right up to the point where they are offered a hypothetical in which they can become one in exchange for a perpetual MAGA government and a girlfriend who is also a serial killer.

i believe there should be an escalating added tax or fee on home ownership beyond the first property, but not immediately "to hell and back" just on one additional one. a small percentage added for one bracket up, and increasing at larger rates in higher brackets.

ai123 posted...

The solution is social housing. Homes provided by the government at reasonable rents, with the profits used for maintenance, growth, and subsidy for those who need it

Yep.

And when it comes to building social housing quickly and cheaply, the question is, who holds us back? Yes we should increase taxes to get the money to build the social housing, but after that you actually have to physically build it.
That's the part where costs balloon and everything stalls.
And billionaires and millionaires are not the ones that create weird local ordnances or go to town hall meetings to stop social housing from being built in the neighborhood.

ai123 posted...

The solution is social housing. Homes provided by the government at reasonable rents, with the profits used for maintenance, growth, and subsidy for those who need it.

This. That's the only sort of residential letting that should be allowed. The only people who benefit from the existence of private landlords are private landlords.

How is this going to help? The problem isn't just that home prices are high, the problem is that there aren't enough houses (and apartments) being built. Do you think that homes are just sitting empty instead of being rented out to someone?

This dumb idea doesn't solve anything. So instead of renting the house, someone buys it. Except that doesn't help the thousands of other people that still need a house. You just shift renters into owners but there still aren't enough houses for everyone who wants one. And what if someone wants to rent a house instead of own one? Then what?

This reminds me of that stupid topic a few years ago where people argued that apartment complexes should get rid of landlords and instead have an elected group of apartment dwellers act as the landlord because it would be better. No one who was in favor of that idea could explain how it would work in the real world or why it would be better, just like people who want to tax a second home can't explain how the system would work or why it would be better.

ai123 posted...

This would just lead to houses having no value when the occupants die because no one would want to take it on. Something like it happens in Japan, I believe.

The solution is social housing. Homes provided by the government at reasonable rents, with the profits used for maintenance, growth, and subsidy for those who need it.

Ultimately, this is the best solution. It should be so that people can buy or rent a privately owned residence if they want (and can afford to) but also have social housing available to them, and enough of it to ensure that nobody's left being unable to afford a place to live.

Shamino posted...

How is this going to help? The problem isn't just that home prices are high, the problem is that there aren't enough houses (and apartments) being built. Do you think that homes are just sitting empty instead of being rented out to someone?

This dumb idea doesn't solve anything. So instead of renting the house, someone buys it. Except that doesn't help the thousands of other people that still need a house. You just shift renters into owners but there still aren't enough houses for everyone who wants one. And what if someone wants to rent a house instead of own one? Then what?

This reminds me of that stupid topic a few years ago where people argued that apartment complexes should get rid of landlords and instead have an elected group of apartment dwellers act as the landlord because it would be better. No one who was in favor of that idea could explain how it would work in the real world or why it would be better, just like people who want to tax a second home can't explain how the system would work or why it would be better.

I remember that topic! Sorry no comment/opinion, I just feel special!

Hey when you have memory loss you celibate remembering most anything.

taxation is theft

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

When everyone who wants to own a home has one, with prices no longer inflated by landlords' hoarding, then we can think about allowing people the luxury of a holiday home. No one gets seconds until everyone's got firsts.

So the people who own property with a secluded cabin they use for hunting or fishing or something should be reamed on taxes?

nesplayer posted...

taxation is theft

Go back to sleep, housecat.

nesplayer posted...

taxation is theft

the rich aren't actually going to pay you for that statement you know?

if taxation is the government committing theft against you, then you driving on public roads and sending your kids to public school and going to any kind of park or beach or public space is you committing theft against the government.