a property tax proposal for corporate owned single family houses

[moonshinegnomie]

If a corporation owns more the lets say 5 single family houses they get taxed at 2x the rate as for a owner occupied house.

[Think. Again.]

1. Maybe we should keep it simple...

If a house isn't the primary residence of the owner, it gets a federal tax on top of the standard local property tax.

This way, high-earners who can afford vacation homes can join the fun.

[Wonder Why]

8. I like your idea better. Even individuals who have second homes in a state

with an income tax but live in one without the tax are getting a free ride because they don't pay for state services funded by such taxes. Like them infestations from Florida and Texas e.g.

[LisaM]

9. It's not always that simple.

My BF's family has a cabin that has been in the family since 1938. It's now set up in a trust. All of his siblings, their kids, and now some cousins use it. They are a long time member of the community and have ties going back to the 1850s.

It's not technically a first residence, but the biggest cost by far is the property taxes and if they were even doubled, the property might have to go out of the family. This would not be a benefit to anyone, including the community. It's used much of the year. If it went out of the family, it would most likely become an Airbnb or VRBO.

Any law like this needs to be very carefully examined so that there aren't unintended consequences.

[lastlib]

10. Only problem is the tax gets passed on to the renter.

makes housing even more expensive.

There has to be a better way. Maybe charging extra tax on rental above the amount of the mortgage payment.

[Think. Again.]

15. makes RENTING more expensive...

....and if it discourages corporate buyers, more individuals can buy their own home.

[flvegan]

2. I would expect they'd just raise the rent to compensate for the higher tax.

They aren't going to take the penalty, they're just going to pass it on.

[Zeitghost]

3. That's one way

To dramatically increase the cost of a rental.

[moonshinegnomie]

5. i dont think it would

for instance here in the austin area lets say a home has a property tax of 6k (typical). if they double it thats an extra 500/month in expenses. since it would only apply to corporate owned houses that would make them uncompetitive as opposed to houses that the tax doesnt apply to. so the corporation would more than likely just sell the house

[SWBTATTReg]

4. Well, I think that this threat of corporate ownership (sure there might be individuals who incorporated to get

into the housing market, rental markets) is abating somewhat. W/ the minor downturn that some states have had (Florida, others), the corporate big boys have suffered losses and are scrambling to get out of real estate markets as fast as they can, since they burned their fingers. Good!

[WarGamer]

6. I like it.

[jimfields33]

7. I think it'd have to be up to localities.

Federal and even states are not too involved in property taxes unless like California they put it up for a vote during an election.

[mopinko]

11. i think a lot of places have a homeowner exemption.

cook co does. it doesnt amount to much, tho. if there was other revenue, it cd b significant.

[dobleremolque]

12. Complicated, but there are ways to structure it.

Dwellings owned by corporations or trusts composed of [x number of] stockholders or trustees related by consanguinity or marriage could be exempted. It could be structured like a windfall profits tax imposed specifically on corporations like private equity funds that derive [x%] of their revenue from their ownership of single family dwellings that are not owner-occupied. It could apply to corporate ownership of detached homes, patio homes, town homes, condominiums but not to apartment buildings that are specifically designed to be occupied by rent-paying tenants.

Lots of ways to creatively discourage vulture capital from making the housing crunch worse.

Isn't going to happen, but it's a good speculative exercise in taxation policy.

[ForgedCrank]

13. Taxes aren't

an answer to the problem of high housing costs. Regardless of how you structure such a plan, it is the end consumer who will ultimately pay for it. A so-called tax on wealthy corporations will simply come out of the pockets of renters. It's the same as if you decide to triple the taxes for a drug company or food company. In the end, the people who need the assist are the ones who wind up with the bill.
A better answer is not allowing any LLC or corp to own single family dwellings.

[moonshinegnomie]

14. They already own them

It would be very hard to force them to sell
As to renters paying it they would have to be competitive with non corporate owned houses which wouldn’t have to pay the tax. Where I live taxes run 6k or so a year on average. That’s 500 a month. It would be hard to raise rents to cover that if non corporate homes don’t have the added expense