Charge a high tax penalty on home ownership if the home is fully functional and livable, but spends over a certain percentage of the year unoccupied by any person as their primary residence (and a steadily accumulating tax for any home that spends too many years in an unlivable state)

This might put pressure back on landlords to put their homes on market for reasonable prices, instead of inflating their rents based on MBA recommendations long past what people can pay simply to "keep the property value high". It would severely devalue the idea of owning homes the same way you would own piles of gold, as long-term investments people are hesitant to actually use.

[–] solstice@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would the tax be federal, state, or local level?

How does one prove occupancy to show they aren't subject to this tax?

How would the tax authority determine the same in order to prove noncompliance?

Does this effectively prohibit second and third homes? Am I allowed to put real property in a holding company?

I'm not trying to start a ruckus here, just asking questions. It's a big problem but I'm not sure if tax is the solution. Usually when people suggest solving problems with taxes it isn't fully thought through and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't claim to know the benefits of state, local, or fed taxes. Like a lot of things, I imagine it's better trialed on a local then state level, and might never reach federal.

Like a lot of tax claims, it may just be reliant on claims, and would not always require proof. You file for taxes, you report 3 homes, you state which one you occupied; or you state that you had a tenant in that home. If you're audited on your taxes, they may find you falsely reported a tenant, which would be tax fraud. The IRS could find reason to audit someone if, for instance, they're freely posting on Facebook "Yeah, just say you have tenants who do not wish to be named, they can't do anything about it". Many tax rules already work by self-reporting, and/or finding conflicts in prior documentation.

It would not prohibit third homes, but you'd have to pay a hefty property tax to hold onto an extra home and require it to stay empty while people are out there homeless. So, you'd have to be rich and not care that simply owning these properties bleeds you money (which is the opposite of how being rich usually works - your properties generate so much value by "existing" that you can simply persist a high quality of life just off residual income)

[–] solstice@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure a tax like that at the federal level would be unconstitutional. The 16th amendment authorizes an income tax, not a real estate tax on empty houses. State and local level attempts to do that would be a prieoners dilemma situation. Good for everyone overall if everybody cooperated, but too much incentive to be the one county or state that doesn't tax the shit out of rich people for their third home, thus attracting the wealthy there.

Again I agree in principle but idk if tax is a feasible solution. (I'm a cpa btw for whatever that's worth.)