this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
1046 points (99.0% liked)

Work Reform

9976 readers
2 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Source: Oxfam

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 33 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Makes me wonder what the numbers would be if we did tax brackets for capital property.

Like with incomes there's might be a standard deviation curve but people are considered at least diet rich in this country if they can afford to own a second home for whatever purpose.

Going up to three properties I'm pretty sure makes viewing it based on percentile pointless.

[–] Alto@kbin.social 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Not directly related to income tax, but I'm a big believer in having property taxed on an exponential scale. Start off quite low for your first property, a vacation home is still reasonable, but by the time you're much past that it becomes completely unreasonable to keep buying properties. Add a hefty multiplier for empty units on top of that, and you'd go a long way to fixing the issue with property hoarding.

E: sp

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I believe a person/family should be allowed up to 3

  • live in

  • rent

  • bach.

Anything above that gets taxed in every way we can so you can and do make a profit, but its considered similar to other financial investments including risk.

Not sure how the loopholes would work if they own part with an ex, or kids, or single to relationship, but the general idea.

[–] Alto@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't really solve anything. As long as there is profit to be made, people will horrendously abuse it. That's not something we want when were in the middle of a homeless crisis yet we have more than enough empty housing for them.

Maybe once everyone's basic housing needs are met we can talk, but until then no.

[–] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Individuals owning a single rental property aren't really the problem here. Many individuals and small groups own dozens of LLCs and REITs each with their own residential properties. Many corporations own multiple thousands of residences.

Freeing the residences from the clutches of the corporate interests would make such a huge impact that the real estate prices would normalize. At least temporarily.

[–] Alto@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My point wasn't that you can't have a rental home, it's that you shouldn't stop the increase in tax rate at 3. If you want to try to have a 4th or 5th you can, you're just going to be paying an exorbitant property tax rate to the point where viewing real estate as an investment is moronic.

[–] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstood /u/HappyCamperNZ's comment

[–] Alto@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think you're misunderstanding my point. Frankly the terms "investment" and "housing" don't belong near each other in the first place. "Making it similar to other Investments" is still putting those two words way the fuck too close to each other.

Nobody cares if you're renting out Grandma's house to pay for her nursing home currently (even though that's an entirely separate problem that absolutely needs addressing). That's not what the majority of rentals are.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago

Phase in a significant increase in property taxes, with a commensurate owner-occupant credit against it for 1-4 unit homes.

You can own as many homes as you want. Occupants of your homes will have greater value to you as co-owners or buyers than as tenants. You can make money selling your homes under land contract ("rent to own") or by private mortgage. Traditional rental agreements on single family homes will be less feasible.

You can own a duplex, triplex, or quadplex and keep the owner-occupant credit so long as you or another owner maintains at least one of the units as a residence.

Basically, I think the property tax code should be used to motivate both landlords and tenants toward ownership rather than rental.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What's crazy is I pay around 45% income tax. And these people have their billions. How about anyone making less than 500k a year doesn't get taxed, and those fuckers pay.

[–] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

The billionaires could have their tax attorneys make them look like they have no net income. It's a complicated game. If you tax their wealth, they'll just shift the ownership to a trust or corporation that they technically don't control. And that's assuming you could even find most of their wealth!

Really I think the answer is we need to try them for crimes against humanity and forbid them from owning any assets.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Rich people don’t keep their money in cash. It’s in assets - land, houses, businesses… They pay someone to figure out what they can write off. They also will know to the dime what the maximum amount they can donate and write off, distribute the wealth among family, and have access to all kinds of exotic financial instruments.