[tannedNerd]

The key difference is that it’s not someone’s primary residence. Even I as a fairly libertarian person think it’s not a terrible policy to keep someone’s primary residence at a cheap tax level but increase the tax levels to prevent homes sitting empty for 50 out of the 52 weeks a year. Land is a finite resource. If we make the it more expensive to keep that house empty maybe it will be rented out to someone in which case you just increased the housing supply without having to build anything.

[seanmcdirmid]

If you go that route, people will game it by dividing it among family. Instead, an unoccupied housing tax might make more sense, which is what they do in Vancouver.

A real land/property tax that forces productive use of land is also needed, but repealing prop 13 is probably never going to happen.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> If you go that route, people will game it by dividing it among family

That's okay, because it is solving the problem

Either,

A) the family member had another primary residence that they're vacating to make this their primary residence, thus freeing up the old property for someone to buy, or

B) the family member didn't already have a home, and the number of people with a home increases by 1, which is what we're trying to do in the first place

[seanmcdirmid]

Most families have at least two people, so husband house and wife house is completely possible. You don't say anything about residing in it.

Anyways, this is a well studied problem in China where they tried this, and almost everyone successfully gamed the system that it was a no-op.

[ImPostingOnHN]

families would not have one of the spouses or one of their young children claim a separate home as their primary residence, because they would have to actually live there (thus separating them from the rest of the family) for it to be their primary residence

> You don't say anything about residing in it.

of course I did, that is what primary residence means: the place in which you primarily reside. Obviously you cannot legally claim a place as your primary residence if it isn't.

whatever laws and regulations China has around that, they aren't the ones in effect here

[seanmcdirmid]

> of course I did, that is what primary residence means: the place in which you primarily reside

There is no legal framework in the USA to determine a primary residence.

> whatever laws and regulations China has around that, they aren't the ones in effect here

China has a much stronger system in place for determining and enforcing residency than the USA, if they can't do it, then how will we?

[ImPostingOnHN]

> There is no legal framework in the USA to determine a primary residence.

This is false: you can almost never claim a place as your primary residence in the US if it is not.

The distinction carries tax implications, which is why there is indeed law around it in the US (and why you rarely see families doing it to take advantage of already-existing first time homeowner incentives, etc.). Here's another phrasing of this:

You must occupy your primary residence by a certain date after closing, often within 60 days. You must live within your primary residence for the majority of the year[0]

> China has a much stronger system in place for determining and enforcing residency than the USA, if they can't do it, then how will we?

Maybe they do, or can, or don't, or can't, it's totally irrelevant because China's laws don't apply in the example we're discussing.

[0]: https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/primary-residence-defin...