this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
1103 points (99.0% liked)

Work Reform

10141 readers
1110 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Source: Oxfam

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HappycamperNZ 4 points 11 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstood /u/HappyCamperNZ's comment

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 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.