One issue with the holiday home thing, they tend to be in quite remote places where there are very few job opportunities, because that's where people go on holiday.

[–] basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.

This part applies. It's not about directly getting a house for the homeless in this case, it's the fact that they can CLEARLY afford to pay more tax.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

My extended family in Michigan keeps a hunting cabin that they split costs between 5 people on and can still barely make the mortage... Is that clearly able to afford more taxes?

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 35 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'd sacrifice your family's hunting cabin if it helps house more people. Find a sixth person or something.

It's an edge case that shouldn't hold up societal progress.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The added tax revenue would also make the rural places these vacation home are in more sustainable for regular residents. And probably keep local governments and even small hospitals solvent.

[–] AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

It might even alleviate the financial burdens that are making that situation almost untenable for them now as real estate markets are corrected and added tax revenue gets allocated into public benefits that could reduce the cost of living. They may benefit from the proposal even if tax rates get increased on subsequent properties.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

No, it shouldn't hold up societal progress. But not being aware of how your policies actually affect people is just plain bad. I agree with progressive taxes on multi house ownership, but you also need to understand that will mean people who are less rich than you think losing them, it's not just people that can afford them. And it's not as far an edge case as you think, I believe

[–] AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or does the correction in housing pricing lower their actual taxes paid in total on their main properties, granting them more breathing room, allowing them to comfortably afford the hunting lodge even if the rate itself has increased? You're expecting everything else to remain the same and just increased tax rates as a whole. Something like this would readjust the market values of properties and the subsequent tax being paid while making sure those corporations hoarding properties are taxed appropriately and providing inventory into a market that would bring pricing back down to earth. The rate could be increased but total paid could be lowered in these cases of second homes so long as tax increase is exponential and not flat on additional properties. The goal of measures like this would be to make companies hoarding thousands of properties an untenable option not to hurt every person who might look into having a second or third property.

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

Here's a thought, maybe instead of blindly following the original commenters idea and repeatedly posting the same thing, refine the idea to account for people the "fringe" case mentioned?

Maybe, in addition to the multiple house ownership and residence status conditions add one that factors in income/earnings (including any capital gains) and if you exceed a threshold then additional home taxes apply?

Maybe scale the additional taxes based on income/earnings so everyone is taxed but done so appropriately for their situation?

Or maybe adopt a system like some other countries have where the first house you own isn't taxed but additional homes are, then adjust other taxes in accordance? Under this system 5 families sharing a hunting cabin is not only easier for them but more economic and efficient than five families owning five separate cabins.

You'll never please everybody but laws and regulations should take into account all those they effect and serve the greatest number reasonably possible.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Not really, but it sounds like your family should rather sell that cabin and spend their money on more important things.

[–] chocrates@piefed.world 4 points 1 day ago

I know for the public good this is the right answer but this is not a winning strategy

[–] Phenomephrene@thebrainbin.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Hey you know that activity that you enjoy, that makes the tedium and tests of life a bit more bearable? The one that provides a hub to maintain familial bonds, and adds another source of food that isn't factory farmed or ultra-processed to your diet?

That isn't how you're supposed to spend your money, so stop it."

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The key point you're missing, I think, is that the tax would increase exponentially for each additional house owned. The first one could be, say, a 0.5% tax increase, and it could go up from there.

If you're in a position where paying 0.5% extra tax on your hunting cabin split 5 ways will bankrupt you, then I'd argue that it isn't how you're supposed to spend your money. That's "Skip eating out once a year" territory.

[–] Phenomephrene@thebrainbin.org 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Nah, I'm not opposed to the proposition, and understandably any such tax law (if legislated with due consideration) should take into account cases where the effect may be otherwise than intended (or be amended with further subsequent legislation). Corporate squatting is a literal travesty.

I was just a bit baffled at the gall of supposing that the cost/benefit calculation of this kind of lifestyle choice could be up for second-hand proscription.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

I certainly don't want to decide for your family how to live their lives, but five parties just so scraping by doing the payments on a hunting lodge seems miserable for everyone involved. Wouldn't it be possible to rent one instead / buy one in a cheaper area / rent out the lodge when not in use?

I also wouldn't consider a lodge in the middle of nowhere a residential building that should fall under those taxes when kept empty to drive up the rent.

[–] chocrates@piefed.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Same. We have to get private equity out of homes, but telling people on the edges that they will get caught up is going to make it a tough sell. Even if we account for the example above, another family that wasn't on the edge of affordability might be after the change.

With something like this we may need to offer buybacks or short loved exemptions of some sort.

[–] AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Eh I think most people are forgetting that for the average person something like this will most likely lower taxes in total for them as the market rate for the properties readjusts due to increased supply becoming available. What might be untenable now might become completely affordable after even with a scaling tax rate on additional properties.

[–] AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or if housing costs were reigned in via this measure would the costs they are burdened with that make it barely feasible for 5 families to split the mortgage cost on a hunting cabin in a remote rural area be alleviated. Granting them more financial freedom, benefiting society all while still keeping the place thats becoming nearly untenable for them due to outrageous real estate markets?

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They can barely split it because they're all broke af not because the house is expensive. The house and land are pretty cheap

[–] AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Yes and housing costs still take the largest chunk of low income people's income. This wouldnt only effect the costs associated with the cabin but also their main residence's taxes as well. Collected taxes might be used to improve public infrastructure and benefit programs which could also alleviate some of their expenses, giving them more ability to afford the cabin and have spending potential in other areas of their life. It's not a zero sum game.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Simply exempt small homes. For instance, those with less than 1,600 square feet or so.

[+] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl -9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most people aren't homeless because there is no house available no.

You want to tax just having that second home

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most people aren't homeless because there is no house available

It's amazing how I can add the word "affordable" to your statement and you're suddenly wrong.

You see this as wanting to tax second homes while ignoring that tons of people are homeless because they can't afford to live somewhere because of shitheads holding onto empty housing as an investment at the expense of the common person.

So yeah, let's tax any house left unoccupied for more than half the year. If you can afford to have 2 houses, you can afford to pay more for the one you don't live in so maybe we can free up some of them and lower the cost of housing.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl -1 points 1 day ago

There will still be a lot of people homeless even with affordable houses since they most likely cannot afford a house. Social housing doesn't have to be affordable, it just needs to be there, but that has little to do with the availability of houses and more the amount of people that can be processed by the system. At least in NL.

The issue all around the globe is people owning more than one house. You can only live in one so they rent them out. Generally asking way to much since they took a mortgage for it, costs are deductable against the profit. So you always end up paying the mortgage rate for the house you rent + a profit margin for the owner.

If you stop people having 2, 3 or more houses or at least make it a lot less likely for people to own more than one. In NL some people are also debating if we should remove the deductibility of mortgage rates.

Houses costing 1m or more being empty doesn't do anything for the homeless, they will not be able to afford that. A lot of the houses in the empty house statistics are include houses being built/renovated/destroyed etc. Heck in the US (and other countries) you have some ghost towns, are those counted as well? Or houses that are rented out for tourists? How many of them where empty for more than 6 months?

Taxing empty houses is fine, don't get me wrong, but the not building medium density houses, places where you can walk and/or bike and actually want to live, the lack of social security and people owning 2 or more houses are issues as well.