Almost helped an old lady cross the street but then remembered she wants to flip her $18 home to me for $950,000 (TikTok screenshot)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 260 points 1 year ago (75 children)

Grandma is not the problem. It’s the ~800 billionaires in the US controlling sizable portions of single-family residences through private equity, artificially controlling market prices for maximum profit per sale. Blackstone alone owns 300,000 residences.

Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide. That’s 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person.

https://ips-dc.org/report-billionaire-blowback-on-housing/

  • source
  • hideshow 75 child comments
  • [–] 166 points 1 year ago (52 children)

    I've said this before (and caught flak for it) but I think the solution to this is to apply a heavy additional tax to vacant homes (as defined as any home that isn't occupied by a permanent resident for more than 6 months a year), and increase the tax exponentially for each residence beyond the first owned by the same company or individual.

    At some point, you make it so expensive to keep unoccupied properties that they're better off letting people live there for free than continuing to let them go unoccupied. Use all of the proceeds from this tax to assist homeless people or build new dense housing developments.

    "But Kobold, what about soandso with their summer home?" If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.

    "But Kobold, a lot of those homes that are vacant are run-down, or are in places nobody actually wants to live!" Doesn't matter. If they're vacant, tax them. Use the money to build dense housing in the places where people do want to live. If the place is too run-down to be occupied, the owner can tear it down and do something else with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (45 children)

    One issue with the holiday home thing, they tend to be in quite remote places where there are very few job opportunities, because that's where people go on holiday.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Nah fam you got three homes you can pay up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    The number of people who have three homes in this country I doubt is a huge number. And to be honest most of them are probably right-leaning anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I have been trying to get a good grasp on how many people own second homes, and there seems to be some real uncertainty about this. About 6% of homes in the US are not the first deed to a home a person, or couple, owns. However, upwards of 40% of people report owning a second home. We aren't really sure what is going on here. Clearly 40% of the population do not own more than one home, and considering that the really wealthy often own 5+ houses, there is just no way. However that doesn't mean that there aren't some problems with the data collection on how many homes are owned by people on multiple deeds.

    From what I have found seems the most thrown around estimate is somewhere around 7-8% of homes are owned by people who own other homes, and that group like makes up around 8-10% of the population. But who knows, there are many people who are on deeds, but don't truly own the home, and them being on it is a security/convenience measure. Bleh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The problem that there are many homeless outweighs the problem that somebody wants to have a holiday home. Soliving the homeless problem by not solving the holiday home problem is valid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think many people (USians in particular) need to have it described to them this simply.

    It’s just assumed in so many situations that somebody’s right to enjoy their legally-acquired property supercedes any concerns about the life or suffering of others living in the same system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (30 children)

    If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.

    This part applies. It's not about directly getting a house for the homeless in this case, it's the fact that they can CLEARLY afford to pay more tax.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Most people aren't homeless because there is no house available

    It's amazing how I can add the word "affordable" to your statement and you're suddenly wrong.

    You see this as wanting to tax second homes while ignoring that tons of people are homeless because they can't afford to live somewhere because of shitheads holding onto empty housing as an investment at the expense of the common person.

    So yeah, let's tax any house left unoccupied for more than half the year. If you can afford to have 2 houses, you can afford to pay more for the one you don't live in so maybe we can free up some of them and lower the cost of housing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    I'd sacrifice your family's hunting cabin if it helps house more people. Find a sixth person or something.

    It's an edge case that shouldn't hold up societal progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The added tax revenue would also make the rural places these vacation home are in more sustainable for regular residents. And probably keep local governments and even small hospitals solvent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    It might even alleviate the financial burdens that are making that situation almost untenable for them now as real estate markets are corrected and added tax revenue gets allocated into public benefits that could reduce the cost of living. They may benefit from the proposal even if tax rates get increased on subsequent properties.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Here's a thought, maybe instead of blindly following the original commenters idea and repeatedly posting the same thing, refine the idea to account for people the "fringe" case mentioned?

    Maybe, in addition to the multiple house ownership and residence status conditions add one that factors in income/earnings (including any capital gains) and if you exceed a threshold then additional home taxes apply?

    Maybe scale the additional taxes based on income/earnings so everyone is taxed but done so appropriately for their situation?

    Or maybe adopt a system like some other countries have where the first house you own isn't taxed but additional homes are, then adjust other taxes in accordance? Under this system 5 families sharing a hunting cabin is not only easier for them but more economic and efficient than five families owning five separate cabins.

    You'll never please everybody but laws and regulations should take into account all those they effect and serve the greatest number reasonably possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    I thought it was a serious suggestion but your solution is impractical and authoritarian.

    You're not who I replied to so none of what you said applies to my original comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    I didn't say progressive taxes are authoritarian. Your suggestion is. Applying a blanket tax without regard to impact or circumstance is authoritarian and the kind of thing a dictator would do.

    It's un-democratic.

    I don’t especially think an exception clause is reasonable, I believe they will just be abused.

    This is in effect no different than saying the tax shouldn't be implemented because it might unfairly impact certain people, like 5 families sharing a hunting cabin.

    If your goal is mental masturbation then it doesn't matter but if you are talking real world, practical solutions yours doesn't work.

    You're not who I replied to so none of what you said applies to my original comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't even know why I'm engaging with you. I just realized you're not who I responded to originally.

    If you post your anecdotal experience about a hunting cabin and then go on to argue against exemptions to a tax targeted at real estate hoarders you're as dumb as the person I did reply to originally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Not really, but it sounds like your family should rather sell that cabin and spend their money on more importsbt things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The key point you're missing, I think, is that the tax would increase exponentially for each additional house owned. The first one could be, say, a 0.5% tax increase, and it could go up from there.

    If you're in a position where paying 0.5% extra tax on your hunting cabin split 5 ways will bankrupt you, then I'd argue that it isn't how you're supposed to spend your money. That's "Skip eating out once a year" territory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I certainly don't want to decide for your family how to live their lives, but five parties just so scraping by doing the payments on a hunting lodge seems miserable for everyone involved. Wouldn't it be possible to rent one instead / buy one in a cheaper area / rent out the lodge when not in use?

    I also wouldn't consider a lodge in the middle of nowhere a residential building that should fall under those taxes when kept empty to drive up the rent.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So you're saying granny would be fine with a 100% return on her investment at $36 for an offer? No? Shocked I say, shocked.

    Granny is part of the problem. Not the biggest part of the pie, but still guilty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Guess what that generation bought into and voted for for decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    They should have researched things or at least not dismiss anyone who voices any skepticism. I had my free education wasted because no one wanted to take me seriously. At least I get to say I TOLD YOU SO. These people are more then just misinformed. They're cult members who viciously protect their misinformation.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I’ve never subscribed to this generational hatred, as true as it is that the boomers voted for this shit, on account of it’s clearly a deliberate psyop “divide and conquer” campaign. It’s as obvious as the crack epidemic or redlining.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    It's hard when you work with a guy like I do. He's 65 and hates absolutely everybody, including his wife, but he's a coward so he's very polite. He requires so much coddling that he spends all day sucking up to everyone for whatever praise he can get then immediately turns around and complains about them. He'll complain about everyone else to the point where they get their breaks and other privileges taken away. Those privileges are also taken from him, giving him more to complain about.

    It gets worse, but I'm about to go to bed and don't want to think about that.

    That piece of fucking shit. Sorry about the rant. But guys like that ruin everything for everybody.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)