[simon_000666]

I Wonder if there are some simple legal solutions to this. Like only individuals and non-profits are allowed to own houses or you can only own a property if you are registered as a resident of the city. I like the sliding scale tax idea but I think the firms would just find ways to continually invest in new properties and use that to dodge tax until a point where they offshore :(

[paulgb]

> Like only individuals and non-profits are allowed to own houses or you can only own a property if you are registered as a resident of the city.

As a renter, I’m not a fan of this. The worst landlords I’ve had have been local and the best has been a corporation based in another city.

The problem of vacant apartments is that as long as there’s a shortage of housing in places people want, housing that has been built will increase in value. If we reduce the artificial constraints on building more housing, it will also remove the incentive to leave housing vacant.

[snovv_crash]

People will just tear down the extra building rather than paying the tax.

This happened in Switzerland, where towns with more vacancies were assigned a higher number of refugees. In order to avoid this the towns demolished the empty buildings.

[deadbolt]

Well then I suppose we could write a better law than the one Switzerland created?

I don't think anyone is recommending we reimplement failed efforts, line for line.

[snovv_crash]

I don't think this is an issue that can be solved by authoritarian thinking. If politicians do something people don't like, people will vote them out next time around.

[kiba]

You don't need to overcomplicate things by draconianly taxing corporate entities if you implement the land value tax, which taxes land, but not property, and set the rate at a high appropriate level.

That's what the georgism advocate.

The problem of property as investment is not so new as a problem.

For my part, I am against the over ever evolving taxation schemes such as setting property tax sky high to deter speculators but not homeowners, without addressing the root cause of the current crisis.

First, homeowners are still incentivized to support housing supply restriction. Second, improvement on said properties are disincentivized. Which is why you want to tax land, but not property.

This is a systematic problem, not going to be solved by merely targeting a small part of the landowning population.

[socialismisok]

Aggressively tax vacant units is the simplest to implement, but there's a lot (lot) more that could be done.

[yardstick]

How does one determine if it’s vacant?

I could just leave a PC on mining some random coin to ensure there was always a bit of power going on. Likewise leave a tap slowly going. Cheaper than any tax most likely.

[socialismisok]

If it's not vacant, it's someone's primary residence which is recorded, but also the landlords will have receipts and be taxed. If there is a vacant unit, the landlord's income with be smaller than expected and can be used to ask the landlord to attest to the occupancy of their units.

[Ekaros]

Some level of registration of population. Have to have a legal resident residing in the home with the address or it is vacant.

[hugh-avherald]

What if you go on holiday?

[ilammy]

You can go wherever you want. The house isn’t going anywhere, it’s still registered as yours and you still pay taxes for it, with a discount if you designate it as your primary residence.

[Ekaros]

Residing meaning that your official address is there. If you go vacation for such long time that you move your address the home becomes vacant.

[true_religion]

The lowest rate of tax increase only happens after 2 years. Are people taking 24 month holidays normally?

[jedberg]

Usually it's based on where you file your taxes. You can only file taxes from one address.

[yardstick]

Would this mean an end to holiday homes and second homes?

[jedberg]

No it would just mean paying higher taxes on second homes and vacation homes. Which feels like the right thing to do.

[yardstick]

Well you either tax them such that the owners can still afford them, so no material change in ownership ratios, or you make them unaffordably high and you punish people for being successful in life.

[Ekaros]

Why not? Does anyone deserve such homes if there is people who could permanently live in them? Or maybe some reasonable cost involved let's say 20% a year.

[yardstick]

Slippery slope “deserve”.

Should I be able to get a free home if I refuse to pay rent? What if I can work, but refuse to, should I get a free home? Instead of taking my home, why not build them their own new home.

[aaronbrethorst]

Build more homes.