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
Luckily for the billionaires they don’t own any homes, their homes are part of a complex companies, or some bullshit.
A company would just fire up 2000 subsidiaries to own the homes.
Is it troubling that this was my first thought?
No, it shows you know how the world works
They’d just make 2,000 shell companies, each with one house.
Perfectly legal.
Companies shouldn’t be allowed to own housing
Or other companies.
I always thought “if corporations are people, then why can they own other corporations”
I’d add a couple short-term exceptions: Construction companies may own housing during construction and for the amount of time it takes for newly built homes to sell to resident owners. Banks, credit unions and such should be able to foreclose on defaulted mortgages and take possession of the property for a certain amount of time, if it’s not sold within that time it goes to government auction.
They should not be allowed to retain ownership over mass amounts of occupied dwellings.
Denser housing like apartment blocs may need to work like condos, residents either outright own their portion of the building or become stakeholders in the building’s corporation, how to do that without inventing the turbo HOA will require further research and development.
They often do that already.
It reduces the liability when sued. If you do something dumb and owe someone $100,000,000. You just abandon that one property and make that company bankrupt, you don’t lose all your other properties too.
because of that reading government anti-corruption investigations can cause vertigo - just getting through the tense web of shells and shells of shells and mothershells and whatnot - there was one case in which the company had like 50 entities removed from the culprit
Every hurdle makes it more expensive to run and less profitable
I firmly believe every home after your second (let retired people have their cabins) should be taxed exponentially.
The third home should be taxed so heavily that it’s prohibitive, and the fourth should be taxed so highly that it’s impossible to profit off of.
Should be the same concept with rental units. Taxes should go up exponentially for every unit you own over a certain limit. Of course if there’s is a limit to how many homes or units a person can own, they will just create thousands of small corporations to own them.
Have to ban corporate ownership of residential property as well or some other fix.
exponentially
no. at 100% mil rate. ie: its value. every year.
if you can’t afford it, then sell it to someone who needs a home. :)
Everyone dances around the fact that the government should be building low income housing themselves. We should not be begging the for profit house building industry to fix the problem they’ve made.
I’m not watching YouTube shyte.
I love youtube and use it every day.
Even I refuse to watch a YT video as a source. It takes 50x longer than reading, that’s unacceptable.
If only the people that would make these laws were not the ones profiting from it.
This. Developers like to either get on city commissions or get their friends on them
Be careful who you vote for. And it ain’t always just one side screwing this up.
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
And even that is small time compared to the corporate landlords who own hundreds/thousands of homes. AHhhhhhhhhhhh
Home owners would complain about property values because they care about unrealized gains more than a working economy.
Im a homeowner and I want my property value to plummet.
I have no intention of selling this place in the foreseeable future, so all those unrealized gains just makes my insurance and taxes cost more.
This. I’m in a flood zone. The house has a cracked wall. It’s a duplex, but the water line broke on the other side. Roots are fucking the foundation. And somehow this is valued at 350k.
Few random gun shots into the ground… Random grafetti… Invite some black/brown friends over…
Get creative and you can lower your property value
Um, no.
Exponential*
If it were 2% on the first, it’d be 4% on the second, 8% on the third…
I think Ken Paxton, man of the people, family matters, wears $40K watches, has 15 homes on a 150K salary.
So 32,768% sounds fair for inhuman scum like him. That’s 14 more homes on the market hopefully.
I don’t even know what it would be for Blackrock, the largest homeowner in the market. They own more homes than individuals do in the country.
Looks like Ken’s love language is bribery with real estate .
I agree in principal, but it’s impossible to implement it in this manner.
What you can do is establish an “owner-occupant” exemption to future tax hikes, then hike taxes through the fucking roof for everyone else.
Landlords will be fighting tooth and nail to convert tenants to buyers. They’ll be issuing “land contracts” (which strongly favor the tenant/buyer) rather than rental agreements.
You can create a statute to target 85% owner occupancy. Any year the owner occupancy rate is lower than 80%, the property tax rate will be automatically hiked 2% (for non-owner occupied properties only). If the owner-occupancy rate exceeds 90%, the property tax rate is lowered by 1%.
Oh, I like that a lot.
The idea of charging owner-occupants a different tax rate than an investor is fairly common. At least 28 states already have some sort of general “homestead exemption”, “second home tax”, or similar policy.
The changes that need to happen are 1. the exemption needs to be increased at the same rate that the tax is increased; 2. The exemption and tax rate increases need to be tied to a specifically targeted owner-occupancy rate; 3. Federal and state governments cannot be allowed to overrule local authorities on issues of property tax policies.
It’s not a complete cure, but it will convert investors from parasitic landlords to parasitic investors. They’re going to keep ripping us off as best they can. But no matter how badly they will be exploiting us, we will be gaining equity in the process. Going from “zero equity” to “any equity whatsoever” is an infinite improvement over the current degree of exploitation in the housing market.
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+
Two policies would make a huge impact on this.
An additional tax on nonresident ownership and a punitive tax on vacancies based on occupancy rates.
Those two would be enough to discourage hoarding, scalping and ghost neighborhoods .
No, it needs to multiply every time a new property is added
Agreed. And multiplied again for property owned by a corporation. Especially residential.
Bigger pockets = bigger taxes, proof. Every vent you have should go towards multiplying your liability.
And no loophole for multiple bank accounts, or offloading ownership into LLCs or some BS like that (no idea what the correct terms are for that, but I’m not an accountant). If you have any legal right to be able to touch money, that money counts.
Maybe separate personal and business accounts, since if you’re running a business correctly and aren’t getting obscene profits vs your workers, then having a big business shouldn’t necessarily increase your personal liability, but if you are hogging with profits, then it bleeds over. But tax the business more and more according to the money (in all accessible accounts (including savings) it has access to, same with people.
Also, we need to remove the possibility for money to make money. Maybe that would just be a side effect of making excess money too expensive to have, but if not it needs to be addressed too.
First one should be free. Let the property investors pay the property taxes. Apparently they can afford them.
Seems like the simple and logical conclusion to the homested exemption.
But like on ALL their properties not just the excess ones
