Property taxes on houses you don't live in

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 57
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,059
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
First corporations and foreigners shouldn't even be allowed to own houses

Next, to discourage rich people from hoarding property at the expense of others,  the second house they own should be taxed at 10 percent of the profits, third house at 20 percent profits, and so forth, up to 90 percent tax on 10th and all subsequent houses.

Apartment buildings should be taxed the same way, except it's not based on number of apartments but number of buildings. This would encourage efficiency in building and living

This all would lower house prices and encourage more home ownership

Why is this such a bad idea?
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,005
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@n8nrgim

Well stated.
#3
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,533
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Why shouldn't corporations and foreigners shouldn't even be allowed to own houses?
Land is land I would think?

I have a slight dislike of property tax, my land is my land,
Though there 'are problems with that view,
And if one believes in taxing land, then it 'does seem to make sense to limit people's holdings to prevent monopoly.
. . .
But some people move a lot, have a lot of business in various locations, easier to have secure extra houses with stuff you like, than to rent, is the thinking I imagine.
. . .

Also what about property size?
If one has a 3 tiny houses in various locations,
Vs 1 giant house,
Does taxing the tiny houses more, make sense?
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@n8nrgim
"Freedom in Capitalism today is no different from freedom in ancient Greece. It is freedom for slave owners."

- Lenin
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Nobody would build housing then. This seems like a California idea. 

And property taxes encourage a broken rent system, no matter how you implement it. Most people cant individually afford the capital expenses of both house construction AND the taxes. Especially  in California.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Well stated.

Thank you Gavin Newsom.

High holding costs through property taxes might slow down some speculative activity from California investors, but they won't eliminate it if the underlying market dynamics: scarcity, demand, and guaranteed profit remain unaddressed. Tackling those root issues is key to creating a housing market that prioritizes accessibility and affordability over speculation. When San Francisco had high property taxes, it didn't stop speculation because of the cancer of regulation boosting the value of property over time.
#7
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
This seems like a California idea
California is one of the safest states in USA.
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
It is very safe.
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It is very safe.
Sing us a song about fires in California.
#10
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
It is very safe.
Sing us a song about fires in California.
Only the singing and songs are dangerous.
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Red hot chili pepper song?
#12
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Red hot chili pepper song?
Is that a California special?
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
I had an epiphany why California government refuses to incentivize new housing.

If they did that, housing values would go down along with property tax revenue. The government is greedy more than caring.
#14
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
I had an epiphany why California government refuses to incentivize new housing.
Maybe they want the fires to end first.
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The government is greedy more than caring.
California has one of the lowest homicide rates in USA.

#16
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
California has one of the lowest homicide rates in USA.

California has the strongest gun laws in the country—along with some of the lowest rates of gun deaths and gun ownership. Thanks to strong leadership, California continues to innovate with its gun safety laws.
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, the cure for murder is homelessness.
#18
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, the cure for murder is homelessness.
It shows that government of California cares to reduce murder rates.

#19
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Yes, the cure for murder is homelessness.
California went for stricter gun laws to reduce homicide rates.
California has the strongest gun laws in the country—along with some of the lowest rates of gun deaths and gun ownership. Thanks to strong leadership, California continues to innovate with its gun safety laws.
#20
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,533
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I would think they would 'want more housing,
They still have a self created homeless problem in California, don't they?
. . . I have no sources for my two claims here.

Course if you're right about profit being their drive,
Even if someone has a house, doesn't mean they will pay taxes or contribute socially.
Though I still think it might be a positive step in said direction,
To get people back on their feet working jobs and paying taxes, if money is the governments concern.

Some people suggest tiny house communities
Inspired Self-Managed Tiny Home Village for Formerly Homeless

Though I'm a bit doubtful of such solutions myself.
I think many people (Not all) are homeless 'because of. . . Chronic issues they have.
. . . Course on another hand, it can be incredibly difficult to get out of being homeless, hard to get a good job, hard to have a secure base of operations.

But I think some people live such a lifestyle because of their incapability to respond to society as the majority of it's members, that such solutions would still require a large amount of 'Continual Community or Government oversight of such communities.

Personally I think population and density are often the problem, which is another reason I am not terribly Pro Immigration
Inside Hong Kong’s cage homes
Topic's author
#21
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,059
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Home developers would still build houses. That's their thing, so they'd just find a new equilibrium on the price point. Incomes r still high in the usa and some landlords would still own multiple properties. Instead of the the average house being 400k in the usa, which is self evidently absurd, maybe the new price point would be 200k. I doubt it'd go as low as 100k but I dunno. Plus there would still be upward pressure in housing prices not just from high incomes, but our embedded mortgage system. The bottom line is that there would just be a better price point and u r too critical to obvious solutions. If u lived when cars were made, u would be one of the people saying cars hurtling past each other at 55 mph is a disaster waiting to happen. 
#22
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Lemming
it can be incredibly difficult to get out of being homeless, hard to get a good job, hard to have a secure base of operations
I wish I was homeless. Having a home is such a burden. Gotta clean it all the time.
#23
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,986
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
First corporations and foreigners shouldn't even be allowed to own houses
Why not?
Next, to discourage rich people from hoarding property at the expense of others, 
Why is it that rich people hoarding property be at the expense of others, typically they rent them to people who don't yet have the means to buy a home.

the second house they own should be taxed at 10 percent of the profits, third house at 20 percent profits, and so forth, up to 90 percent tax on 10th and all subsequent houses.
How do you calculate profit on a house, if it's rented are you considering the rent to be profit?  If the owner took a mortgage, then is it the difference, and if there is a negative cash flow, should that be deducted from their taxes? How about price appreciation, how does that impact the profit calculation?
Apartment buildings should be taxed the same way, except it's not based on number of apartments but number of buildings. This would encourage efficiency in building and living
How would that encourage efficiency in building and living?  Almost all apartment buildings are owned by corporations, are you saying apartment ownership can't be incorporated.  
This all would lower house prices and encourage more home ownership

Why is this such a bad idea?
It's a terrible idea because it would not lower house prices and it would not encourage more home ownership.  It would devastate the housing market, and people who own just one house would lose their equity, the supply of homes would end up being reduced, there would be more people that want homes than there would be homes available, that makes the home price go up for first time home buyers, so pretty much everybody would be screwed.

If you fuck up the housing market, you fuck up the entire US economy, construction is the engine driving economic growth.

Other than all that, good idea.
#24
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,986
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
This seems like a California idea
California is one of the safest states in USA.
Not in Palisades.
#25
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,533
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Some people have unkept homes.

Still, I suppose to some frames of mind though, being homeless can be more familiar than some house situations.

#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
It shows that government of California cares to reduce murder rates.

Correct, because it is greedy and can get more money prioritizing murders over homes. Homelessness is a huge cash cow for the government.

#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
That's their thing...

Obviously not in California. It pays a person more to not build and instead invest in skyrocketing property values fueled by government policy.

and u r too critical to obvious solutions.
There's nothing obvious about California "solutions"
I believe you are too critical of the obvious results of taxation.

But the winds are changing slowly in California when basic needs stop getting delivered like firefighting and water.
#28
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,459
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Really, at this point, you have to question the sanity of Californians thinking more taxation is a solution to anything left to salvage there.
#29
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Lemming
Some people have unkept homes.
Sure, if you like living in dust and have spider webs everywhere.

Plus, I live in national socialist country. Its hard for me to become homeless because other people would be annoyed by such decision and wouldnt let me, and also its hard to keep house unkept for very much same reason. People interfere.

I am barely sustaining my jobless lifestyle because people make constant comments about it.

I always held an opinion that jobs are government's way to keep people stupid and to keep government rich.
#30
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,537
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
it is greedy and can get more money prioritizing murders over homes
California's government saves lives. Thats more important than building houses.