this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
2507 points (97.8% liked)

Memes

45895 readers
1311 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 46 points 11 months ago (5 children)

People who own second and third homes aren't even the issue. It's mega corps that literally own tens of thousands of homes each. A better way to go about it is to just progressively tax people more per home. That second home gets taxed at the same rate but any home after is taxed way way way more. If someone can still afford it then that's fine, just more tax money coming in. That and don't let corps own rental properties.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nope, I said what I said. No one needs a second home. Lots of people need a first.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

basically tax it so much that anything beyond a third home is impossible to generate income from.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In Texas, your property tax is already somewhat two tiered. Your first home is taxed as a homestead and you get an exemption on part of the property tax. If you own a second, third, etc you have to pay the full amount and the annual increases are not capped. Im not 100% sure on the specifics as I don't own more than 1 though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Your not homestead house will be ~$2,000 higher in taxes than if it were not homestead. Exemption is up to $100k I believe, so I'm going off roughly 2% of exemption for additional taxes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

And all that higher tax cost is passed directly on to tenants

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

At some point the taxes would be so high that nobody could afford to rent and the owners would lose money forcing them to sell. Which is fine. Just gotta make the taxes higher for more than x houses.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Bingo. Most of these tax schemes will hurt the renter, not the landlord.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Logarithmic scale of increasing property tax rate

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Not sure if you actually meant logarithmic or exponential. An exponential tax rate would mean that the more you own the next unit of value would be a lot more in tax, while a logarithmic tax rate would mean that the more you own the next unit of value would be a lot less in tax. See x^2^ versus log~2~(x) (or any logarithm base, really). The exponential (x^2^) would start slow and then increase fast, and the logarithmic one would start increasing fast and then go into increasing slowly.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7l1turktmc

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

We already do this with a homestead exemption in Texas. Problem is, all the rent houses don’t qualify for the tax break, so the tax burden is passed on to the renter market / the tenants.