I don’t like the idea of US government taking the property at below market value, since that would violate the takings clause of the Constitution.
What I would be in favor of is a real estate tax that increases if a property isn’t permanently occupied. Something that would encourage people to either reduce rent or unload the property.
It should be a reasonably gradual increase so that landlords aren’t penalized if they can’t find a tenant in the first or second month the unit is vacant. However if it’s been a year they should be approaching the point of owing more in taxes than the property is worth.
Then you can take it for back taxes.
It would also discourage air b2b type arrangements, unless you own and live in the property. No more buying a house so you can rent it out for exorbitant rates.
There are specifically tax deductions for taxes paid on your primary residence, so theoretically there is a higher cost to owning multiple properties, however this cost is simply too low to be much of a deterrence
As in acrage? So if I was an independently wealthy birdwatcher that built a privately owned wilderness preserve I’d be taxed more than the local slumlord?
Couple the increasing property taxes on vacant homes with an agreement that there are no property taxes on properties leased for free to qualified individuals (people who would qualify for government housing anyway essentially) and the government will pay for repairs. The government gets a cheaper place to house the homeless, having only to pay for repairs, the landlord gets an appreciating asset with no repairs to worry about, and the homeless get a place to live. Seems like a win all around unless I’m missing something.
The only thing I can see that you’re missing is the requirement that poor people still suffer.
It’s bad enough to punish incident property hoarders for their hard work (inheriting wealth is hard work - you have to pretend to not be a piece of shit until Grandpa dies). You can’t also let poor people benefit from that at the same time!
Honestly I would be okay with giving them 6-12 months of leeway. There’s a ton of reasons why it could take 6 months or more to be able to find a tenant, especially if the previous tenant did significant damages or if there’s wider economic issues in the area.
Well, yeah you have a point. However, at this point I’d rather see people just knee-jerk obey the Constitution even if they don’t understand why, as opposed to the way everyone in this administration wipes their ass with it.
Whether a property is occupied seems too easy to game.
Currently many places already tax a “primary residence” differently. My town’s approach is all residences pay the same property tax rate but your primary residence has a significant value exemption so is effectively taxed less. This advantages people who own their own homes while giving some discouragement to people hoarding homes or having a vacation home or being a landlord. However the difference needs to be greater to have an a real effect. I’d argue the exemption for primary residence should be enough that lower income people be free of property tax on their own homes and the difference made up by higher rates on their own rest of us. It would be too expensive to hoard vacant properties, less profitable to airBnB
And there is already process and precedent for towns repossessing for unpaid property tax.
I don’t like the idea of US government taking the property at below market value, since that would violate the takings clause of the Constitution.
What I would be in favor of is a real estate tax that increases if a property isn’t permanently occupied. Something that would encourage people to either reduce rent or unload the property.
It should be a reasonably gradual increase so that landlords aren’t penalized if they can’t find a tenant in the first or second month the unit is vacant. However if it’s been a year they should be approaching the point of owing more in taxes than the property is worth.
Then you can take it for back taxes.
It would also discourage air b2b type arrangements, unless you own and live in the property. No more buying a house so you can rent it out for exorbitant rates.
Annual land tax. The more you hoard - the more you pay.
There are specifically tax deductions for taxes paid on your primary residence, so theoretically there is a higher cost to owning multiple properties, however this cost is simply too low to be much of a deterrence
As in acrage? So if I was an independently wealthy birdwatcher that built a privately owned wilderness preserve I’d be taxed more than the local slumlord?
Yes. The land is a finite resource.
That depends on how you measure it.
You can try and live in an infinite coastline house I have in my pocket.
Couple the increasing property taxes on vacant homes with an agreement that there are no property taxes on properties leased for free to qualified individuals (people who would qualify for government housing anyway essentially) and the government will pay for repairs. The government gets a cheaper place to house the homeless, having only to pay for repairs, the landlord gets an appreciating asset with no repairs to worry about, and the homeless get a place to live. Seems like a win all around unless I’m missing something.
The only thing I can see that you’re missing is the requirement that poor people still suffer.
It’s bad enough to punish incident property hoarders for their hard work (inheriting wealth is hard work - you have to pretend to not be a piece of shit until Grandpa dies). You can’t also let poor people benefit from that at the same time!
I like this idea.
Honestly I would be okay with giving them 6-12 months of leeway. There’s a ton of reasons why it could take 6 months or more to be able to find a tenant, especially if the previous tenant did significant damages or if there’s wider economic issues in the area.
I’d be ok with them being able to appeal the increased rate, but they’d need to show that they are actively working to make it ready to rent.
Okay yeah. That could be a fair compromise. I like that.
I don’t like this phrasing because it seems like you only care that there’s a rule against it, and have no opinion whether that rule is good or not.
Well, yeah you have a point. However, at this point I’d rather see people just knee-jerk obey the Constitution even if they don’t understand why, as opposed to the way everyone in this administration wipes their ass with it.
Good point.
Whether a property is occupied seems too easy to game.
Currently many places already tax a “primary residence” differently. My town’s approach is all residences pay the same property tax rate but your primary residence has a significant value exemption so is effectively taxed less. This advantages people who own their own homes while giving some discouragement to people hoarding homes or having a vacation home or being a landlord. However the difference needs to be greater to have an a real effect. I’d argue the exemption for primary residence should be enough that lower income people be free of property tax on their own homes and the difference made up by higher rates on their own rest of us. It would be too expensive to hoard vacant properties, less profitable to airBnB
And there is already process and precedent for towns repossessing for unpaid property tax.
This idea of yours exists here in Belgium. On top of that in personal income tax we pay as much on an empty 2nd house as one with renters in it.
There’s punishment on houses that are below standard for isolation. Forced to renovate.
Yes papa government, tax us hard.
Eminent domain in California… You get $0.00 for your contribution.