127 points

How about this: crank up the taxes on houses people don’t live in. Make owning empty real estate so unprofitable that it’s better to rent it out cheap than to try to screw renters.

Make it a crime to own an empty house.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Fwiw in Florida we have what’s called a homestead exemption. You get a big slice of your property value axed for taxation purposes if you live in the home. You have to pay full tax on any other properties. I believe tax rate increases are capped for homes with the exemption as well, but that might be for all homes. I don’t remember exactly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

How do they verify you live there?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

You can have 1 homestead. So you either live there or are paying full taxes elsewhere.

It also has to be your legal registered address.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

You can only list one home as your permanent residence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s 50k it’s pretty much a joke based on property values. They could increase property tax and increase the exemption but it’s not going to happen

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I want to see an exponential property tax so you could have a house and something like a small cabin somewhere but anything more and then your tax multiplier is based on how many properties you own, you’d have to control for businesses trying to own property in an employee’s name, this might even help with large chain businesses not becoming a monopoly but hard to say if that’s a huge benefit or a monkey paw type thing

permalink
report
parent
reply
93 points

That’s a terrible idea. The real life effect is that prices will simply go up. You need to force down real estate prices in general, and offer very low interest rates for first time buyers.

permalink
report
reply
30 points
*

They did this in 2008-09 with an 8k payment to homebuyers that wasn’t a loan and didn’t have to be repaid. This enabled me to but a foreclosed house and make it livable, and I’ve been living in it since then. It didn’t raise prices in my area, because no one was buying houses anyway because regular possible couldn’t afford it.

I don’t know if I would have been able to get so financially situated if that payment wasn’t there. I could’ve bought the house, but I would not have been able to fix it enough to ever stay on top of the maintenance and bills.

Would this be exactly the same situation? I dunno. But I know a similar push sure worked in the past.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Different situation, as that was after the market crash.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The argument isn’t that this payment won’t help people in the short term, it will. The problem is that if you have an extra 25k to spend and it’s given to every first time buyer, they’ll just shop in a 25k higher price range. And if the sellers know this, they’ll adjust the market for what everyone can afford now.

This is basic economics, you lower the quantity of available housing by allowing more people to afford it and the price will go up. There’s a reason our solution to every affordability problem works this way and breaks things. For student loans for instance, sure we can pay them off for you, but does that bring down the cost? No. It just means the government pays universities. Same thing here, the government is just letting you use your taxes to give to a real estate agent instead of addressing housing costs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And didn’t advertise it well. I bought my house then and didn’t know I had this until it was too late.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points
*

It does rather sound like proposing an immediate 25k hike in house prices, yeah.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s not. First time buyers are a small portion of the market.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

The fact that it’s limited to first-time house buyers will at least help mitigate some of the advantage that commercial real estate buyers have over ordinary folks that are just trying to get a roof over their heads.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

At worst, youre partially right. Maybe they’d go up 10K, but certainly not 25K. That’s just not how markets work. It’s the same argument as saying UBI will increase prices - yes, it will, but not by more than or as much as the UBI is. If everybody else sells their home at $25K more, you can sell yours in a month by going down to $15K more than before.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I agree, and i didn’t say it will increase prices by 25k. Still think this can be tackled in better ways. Low interest rates over a 20-25 year loan can save you much more than 25k. Edit: let’s ban corporate from buying up blocks of residential areas. It won’t cost you any tax money and will immediately drop the prices

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah, that’s the real solution. We have to ban any one entity owning more than 2-3 residential properties. The $25K is simply a decent stop gap until we can actually make that law happen, because our capitalist overlords would never allow it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Yeah a similar policy in the UK (from 10ish years ago) is one of the biggest reasons for hugely inflated prices among small properties.

Obviously, the only real solution is to work to lower real-estate prices, but that would be unpopular with most home owners (who are a majority in the US).

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Require that homes that are not homesteads be sold within 6 months as a homestead or they’re auctioned off to the highest bidder that will take it as a homestead.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Most of the housing price increases are driven by investors, not first time home buyers. This will have its intended effect. Obviously we still have to build, but this is like claiming minimum wage causes inflation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
64 points

Having experienced this kind of policy in Australia; it’s great in theory - but the issue is that builders/sellers just ended up jacking up the prices of their homes to absorb the grant.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

It’s the reason colleges here are stupid expensive as well. Greed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

It still shifts the balance of power in favour of first time home buyers. Landlord fucks have to pay extra.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Watched the same thing happen on a smaller scale back when analog TV broadcasting was phased out and we got vouchers for digital TV tuners in America. They all cost around $25 or less. As soon as the vouchers were given out, the prices doubled to $50

Surely this is a well studied phenomenon with a name, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Pretty sure this is inflation

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

No. Inflation is a general increase in price/decrease in buying power per dollar. This is specifically about one class of item increasing in cost to absorb a government subsidy, especially when that subsidy was meant to alleviate a cost to the citizen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yup, this is just going to put an extra $25k from every sale into the builders’ pockets.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Ya’ll are getting newly built homes?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I don’t think this is possible. First time home buyers aren’t buying in cash. They have to get bank loans and banks won’t loan if the appraisal doesn’t match the buying price.

Obviously I don’t know Australian law but at least in Texas this would prevent the house from closing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

What’s the exact policy in Australia?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It varies a bit by state, but it usually only applies to new builds now: https://firsthome.gov.au/

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Well there’s the issue. Builders can control the amount of new builds to max out that $25k. They can’t control the number of first time buyers though

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

can’t wait for all homes to go up 25k in response. Without purchase control this is useless

permalink
report
reply
7 points

I don’t think this will happen so literally but to your point this is a supply issue. All this does is increase effective demand (i.e. the number of people able to purchase a home). This is a band-aid over a hole in a sinking ship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Well, its only for first time buyers, so that will temper things. I predict homes will only go up about $23k.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

more like 60-125k since people will have more for a down payment

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

“Can’t wait for burgers to cost $25 because the minimum wage went up”

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I mean we are almost there tbh, it’s not due to min wage though it’s due to producer greed. Super high cost for producers means super high ingredient cost, plus the shops greed means burgers are now over 4$ for fast food and > 12$ for actual burgers. 16$ for 2 burgers and a thing of fries at McDonald’s.

The reason I know it’s not the wage but greed, if that was the case the price would be stagnant in states closer to federal min wage, but those states are the similar pricing as well. For example, currently for 2 bacon mcdoubles a large fry and a large lemonade at mcdonalds Huston texas; min wage $7.25; order cost: 12.56 Maine: min wage: $14.25; order cost: $15.76

Yes there is a difference in price but, the fact that one order makes up almost the difference in pay for a single employee at the establishment. The price is marked way higher than wage markup, it’s companies using it as an excuse to raise prices

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

This would be great but you know centrists will fuck it up and it’ll be like, “You can get up to $25,000 as a tax credit if you’re a veteran who owns a small business in an opportunity zone and have a low income but also somehow have a spouse who is a lawyer and can spend 30h finding and filling out the paperwork and tracking down bank statements from when you both were 19.”

permalink
report
reply
24 points

On top of that just pumping support money into real estate doesn’t fix either of the core problems: people aren’t being paid enough to afford homes and we’re not building enough homes to keep prices reasonable. The end result of this is that home prices inflate even further. If we treated houses as housing rather than investment vehicles we could actually do something about our housing crisis.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This dude bureaucracys

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.4K

    Posts

  • 110K

    Comments