• Bytemeister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    Ελληνικά
    arrow-up
    125
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Empty rental properties should be taxed at their rental rates, regardless of if there is a tenant in them or not. Wanna rent out slums for 1700 a month, well, you aren’t going to pay taxes on that property like the 90k shithole that it is.

    To go a little further, if you’re listing a house, you should pay taxes on it monthly based on the list price. Seen way too many shithole with a fresh coat of paint hiked 150k above their actual value.

    • Acters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I personally believe taxes should be a mechanism of negating bad behavior or preventing harm to communities/the people.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Ελληνικά
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t personally think taxes should be used for punishment, but I think the rules of a system should be setup to achieve the desired outcome. The rules right now are setup to benefit a few entities owning most of the real estate, and we need to build a system that makes it more expensive to own homes if you already own a home, and it should scale based on how many you already have. Also, there should be penalties for gouging people. All the pharma bros who have been hiking the price of medications through the roof have revealed that most of the people in the USA are vulnerable to captive markets.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The rules right now are setup to benefit a few entities owning most of the real estate

          Rules like what?

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          we need to build a system that makes it more expensive to own homes if you already own a home,

          I don’t know how most places work, but my state does this by assessing property at whatever rate, for everyone, but you get an exemption on part of the assessed value for your primary residence. My house is taxed as though it were worth $60k less because it’s where I live, not an investment or business . This seems like a good idea that would do exactly as you suggest (although that exemption should arguably be higher and should increase once in a while)

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Ελληνικά
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Taxed at whatever the adjustor lists as the price. So big corps can by up all the houses/apartments in the area really cheap, and then hike the price up in an inelastic market while pay taxes at a much lower rate.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks to prop 13, in California it’s not just corpos. It’s also Boomers who decided to buy a 3 bedroom house on a whim for $18 back in 1978.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is state by state. In some states you pay according to regular reappraisals and in some states (generally those with worse housing markets) you do not.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was also going to say this - assessors for my city increase the assessed value for taxing purposes independently of whether there is a recent sale

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You had me until the selling of the house. Plenty of normal people’s only path to any kind of wealth is selling their property. Hurting them more is not the way to go.

      Multi home owners, apartment rental owners, sure tax the shit out of them.

      • UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it more important that a tiny percentage of “normal people” get a chance to be millionaires just before they die, or that they all get to have a place to live without spending their entire lives scraping by?

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Ελληνικά
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Normal people selling their normal house at a normal price would not be affected. Only people trying to sell/rent trash for a premium would suffer, as they should, since they are gouging people and artificially inflating the market.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re including as people who should be punished:

          – people who have lived in the same place a long time

          – people who can no longer afford to live in gentrifying neighborhoods

          – elderly who need to downsize or move to a place with more accessibility or assistance

          While I understand the urge to punish with taxes people getting excessive profits from real estate, you need to be careful of potentially cruel side effects

          • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            Ελληνικά
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            people who have lived in the same place a long time

            Only a problem if they try to sell their house for much much more than it is worth.

            people who can no longer afford to live in gentrifying neighborhoods

            Only a problem if they try to sell their house for much much more than it is worth.

            elderly who need to downsize or move to a place with more accessibility or assistance

            Only a problem if they try to sell their house for much much more than it is worth.

            Noticing a trend here?

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, a lack of empathy? In all these cases and more, people may be selling for a large gain based simply on time, and yet it may not be a windfall but sorely needed to afford a place to live.

              You may gpfeel that it’s difficult for a young person to save up enough to buy a house, but do you really think its any different for someone a fixed income or whose income doesn’t keep up with neighborhood costs to not be able to afford to own, and to fall farther and farther behind? Lack of affordable housing hits in many stages of life and it’s not reasonable to help one group while making life harder for others

              • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                Ελληνικά
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hey, if the house is with what you are asking, you aren’t paying any additional tax. If you want to try and wait a little bit longer to get like 10, or 20k above market value, hey, thats a conversation you could have with the Realtor, but as someone who is actively house shopping with a very limited budget, I’ve come across many houses marked 30-40% above market value. Someone desperate to get out of the rent cycle is going to buy those and they are going to get fucked. The houses are marked up so high that the break point for holding that real estate and only getting half of the markup is 7-8 years down the line. So yeah, I’m the one missing empathy when I suggest that the people and corporations pricie gouging other people out of necessary housing, should probably get fucking fucked just a little bit.

        • madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it’s trash it won’t sell. Dictating how much people can ask for their own belongings is some authoritarian shit I want no part of.

          • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            Ελληνικά
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Property taxes are based on the value of the property right? I’m just saying we should update based on what the seller is asking for it. If it’s worth what you are asking, then this makes no difference. It only matters if you ask for more, and even then it would only matter if you were asking for a lot more.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Homes should not appreciate in value, and we need, as a society, to stop viewing home ownership as “nest eggs” and wealth-building tools.

        If housing value constantly goes up, housing prices are constantly going up. Homes cannot be a method of building wealth and also be affordable to people.

        Raising taxes on landlords raises the rent.