this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
95 points (85.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26896 readers
1926 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

progressively higher property taxes for every additional one (probably with an upper limit)

I agree in principle but I think we should clarify whether that additional house is intended for short term rental, lomg term rental, or an additional "vacation" house. I think all 3 should have different taxation schemes.

[–] thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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@fedia.io 1 points 3 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.