This. I'm in a flood zone. The house has a cracked wall. It's a duplex, but the water line broke on the other side. Roots are fucking the foundation. And somehow this is valued at 350k.

• suddenly increased demand due to immigration.

You mean investors. Rich foreigners are called investors. Poor foreigners are called immigrants.
Get with the program.

When the mega corps own the legislature and the courts it’s pretty difficult,

Guillotine time!

See the problem with this, which is something on the ballot locally, is that people buy properties here to get tax exemptions and live elsewhere the majority of the time. Ironically the proposed homestead exemption will increase the amount of property tax I will pay compared to the current model; likely because they added extra fees.

buy properties here to get tax exemptions and live elsewhere the majority of the time.

Which is illegal, but hard to prove without tipping the hand of the surveillance state. They know who the cheaters are, but they don't want to say how they know.

the proposed homestead exemption will increase the amount of property tax I will pay

Any change to property taxes increases the amount some people pay because property tax base rates are adjusted to be "revenue neutral" - getting all the money they need to provide the services they have committed to. So, rule changes never lessen the total burden, only shift it around.

Floriduh made a big deal about lottery income paying for education, but in truth (the educated know that) only 5% of the schools' cost is paid by the lottery operations, the other 95% mostly comes from property taxes - so, thank a lottery player for reducing your property taxes by about 2%, 35-40% of an average property tax bill goes to education.

If you have someone leasing the house to live in it, then you should pay the same property taxes as if you were living in it yourself. Maybe a bit higher.

Wait why higher if you're renting or leasing it out? Shouldn't that be a reduction on taxes due to the home owner not using it for selfish reasons and/or being part of the problem of living in a single family house because owning a single family house is a greedy ass thing to do and makes you an awful person for taking up space that could be used for multi-dwelling apartment complexes.

Property tax should be like 1,800$ a year across the board, there should be a set rate by the federal banking system and it should go up and down based on income rates set by inflation.

I agree in principal, but it's impossible to implement it in this manner.

What you can do is establish an "owner-occupant" exemption to future tax hikes, then hike taxes through the fucking roof for everyone else.

Landlords will be fighting tooth and nail to convert tenants to buyers. They'll be issuing "land contracts" (which strongly favor the tenant/buyer) rather than rental agreements.

You can create a statute to target 85% owner occupancy. Any year the owner occupancy rate is lower than 80%, the property tax rate will be automatically hiked 2% (for non-owner occupied properties only). If the owner-occupancy rate exceeds 90%, the property tax rate is lowered by 1%.

Car washes are not houses.

I think that there should be an age cap for wealth earning and I think that there should be a cap on how many properties you can own in total, like globally.

I think that after 50 or 60 you shouldn't be able to accumulate more than 1mil a year.

You nailed it. Funny how easy you picked up on certain details.

I didn't know the lottery thing was that bad. The main issues with the proposed change is that they're closing schools down, so the funding will likely go to some bullshit. I mean they used 55 million on fixing the stupid stadium under the guise that insurance and FEMA will reimburse the costs only for them to move to Tampa anyway---good riddance. And another fun thing I saw is that Article 3 will add in funding to fix the sewer systems... which I already pay every month with the crazy water bill. And the cheater part, yeah they don't care. I fixed a machine downtown and the couple said oh yeah this place only cost 1.8 million. So of course the city is happy to turn a blind eye. So I'm okay with services being funded but not giving billionaires tax payer dollars for a stadium; that's dumb and really everyone should get a refund on this expense. I got a lot of down votes on reddit for this opinion but it's like if you love your baseball team so much, you go donate and leave me out of it.

Well of course. But they could have been houses or actual business. I mean there was a burger place, one of the only two left in the country, got torn down and a car wash replaced it. The area was big enough for two or three houses or another business(s). Instead it's a car wash that I never see anyone at. And this wasn't like a really great place per say but it was a third space for bike and car meetups. I was trying to reference that those spaces could easily provide housing instead of something useless.

You're talking about zoning strategies, it's a whole other subject.
This is about taxing houses (one type of zoning).

I've sadly seem the same in these parts... derelict houses demolished and replaced with hotels (after the mayor kindly changed the zoning of course).

I hear this argument all the time. I reject it. There are alternatives.

A "Land Contract" functions very similar to a rental, but it is a purchase agreement. You are a buyer, not a tenant. If you walk away in the first 3-5 years, it functions exactly as a rental agreement, with the only exception being that the monthly payment was fixed for the duration instead of hiked annually.

If you stay longer than this initial 3-5 year period, the agreement automatically converts to a 30 year mortgage with the same payment.

So, you take out a "land contract" on your college apartment instead of a rental agreement. You can return it to the landlord after you graduate, or stay put and gain some equity for a few years.

Why would landlords offer such an arrangement? Simple: we're providing owner-occupancy exemptions to property tax hikes. If you live in the house you are paying taxes on, you are entitled to the exemption, and pay a low rate. But If you don't live there, we're going to send your property tax rate through the fucking roof. You're going to be begging your tenants to take a land contract instead of a rental agreement.

When we do this, small-time landlords who live in one of the units of a duplex, triplex, or quadplex will be able to rent out the other units while retaining the owner-occupancy credit. They are occupying the taxed parcel; the additional units are not separately taxes. Corporate landlords won't have the same capability. Corporations may be people, but they don't have a "residence". You'll be able to rent one of these onsite-landlord units, if you really want to rent.

I see, I wonder how this would affect residential & commercial zoned properties. As in it's a house but it can also be commercial property. I get calls al the time from companies trying to buy my house because of it. The nursing home keeps sending offers two houses down, I'm sure they get the spam as well, to expand their facility.

Not sure how that's more sensible. A percentage of the value of the property is more reflective of what a person should pay. If I own an acre of undeveloped forest, that's worth much less than a condo in upper Manhattan, but under your proposal I'd be paying significantly more.

How many bananas is that?

Perhaps that undeveloped forest would do best without ownership

Edit: lots of downvotes lol, looks like we hate authority-free land

Some places do this. I have heard a few Welsh areas have gone for much higher council tax (approximate equivalent to a shitty property tax) on second homes. They are allowed to charge up to 4x the normal rate.

If you are renting it out as a holiday rental you can be exempt from the normal council tax but they are now requiring you to actually rent it out. It must be available for at least 252 days of the year and actually used for at least 182 days so you can't just set rent to unaffordable amounts.

Hearing the crying about it has been great.

It should be illegal to have dozen of houses to begin with and if you don't like this you can go fuck yourself because we live in a society

Publicly owned apartments you can rent. No need for a landlord who just takes money. That money could go to funding public services instead.

I agree with the sentiment but should scale more exponentially.

I feel like two houses is ok’ish but when you start buying three or more is when you cross into commercial purposes.

I should be cost prohibitive to own 4 single family houses.

Legitimate problem that isn't thaaat bad in my country. In Canada, corporate donations to election campaigns are either banned outright or severely restricted (different federal/provincial rules). But yes, corpos still exercise control through ownership over the media to influence campaigns. That being said, saying that they own the legislatures is a stretch.

No, I don't mean investors. Investors are too less for the amount of increase in housing costs.

In the period from the pandemic to 2025, the rise in immigration (note, the RISE in immigration , not immigration itself) accounted to about an 11% increase in the median house prices and rents (IRCC, 2025)

While other issues do exist, the biggest issue by far in terms of housing stock is the zoning laws that make the supply of new housing stock very very difficult. The increase in immigration simply showed how the market was failing to address this increased demand due to these laws.

I firmly believe every home after your second (let retired people have their cabins) should be taxed exponentially.

The third home should be taxed so heavily that it's prohibitive, and the fourth should be taxed so highly that it's impossible to profit off of.

My mayor lives off the rent of 8 houses. I don't think he'll do anything to fix it

Nice.
This gives me an idea.

Additional tax for rooms marked as "for rent", but going unrented for enough part of the year.
Calculation will also take into account recent evictions.

That is true, but not what was pointed out. Who rents out homes then, it not companies or landlords? I fully agree companies should not own homes. And also believe rent should be pinned to purchase price value +x% per year something. And landlords should not be able to own more than a certain number of dwelling units.

But then who rents out the temporary homes, or homes for people who just don't want to own for a reason

Oh, I like that a lot.

I've had a similar idea for a while. There should be a fine/tax for unrented properties proportional to the amount being asked for rent. Any money collected from this goes to housing support for low-income renters.

This creates a market incentive to lower rents if you can't get someone in a unit.

This is essentially a square increase. If one home is one dollar, two home would total $4, three homes would total $9, etc.

There are major tax breaks in at least the US for your first home. Yet companies don't already do this because it would be fraud. Too risky. If the expense of getting caught is high enough, then companies don't tend to break the law.

Make it a felony. Send an executive or two to jail. See how that shifts the behavior.

Should be the same concept with rental units. Taxes should go up exponentially for every unit you own over a certain limit. Of course if there's is a limit to how many homes or units a person can own, they will just create thousands of small corporations to own them.

Have to ban corporate ownership of residential property as well or some other fix.

they’re closing schools down, so the funding will likely go to some bullshit.

I think it's a split, likely 50/50 between "other alternate more cost effective school options" which amounts to paying parents to home school or paying private schools by the state, but at a lower rate than state schools and with even worse effectiveness assurances than the public schools if you can even imagine that to be possible. The other 50 is going to go to all kinds of grift while the property tax payers aren't looking at how the cost of schools (on their tax bills) is dropping.

Funny, a big problem we had in schools when I attended in the 70s/80s was sports sucking up all the funding, new money going to a football stadium instead of fixing the wet roof that filled the high school with mold spores - I had chronic bronchitis for 4 years, coincitentally only while school was in session, only while I was attending in that building - never in summers, off to college? Miracle cure.

In the US it doesn't seem to be a stretch at all. 50/50 dead heat races most places, and the big money backs both sides. No wonder that nothing changes for the big corps when "the other side" gets control.

I'd go further and cap the number of home one should be able to own, to like 2.

How is it not helpful to society to allow others to live in your house? And it's not landlords who are looking for tenants, it's the other way round.

Vacancy tax

Good luck

One heavily oversimplified answer, from the many possible ideas, is:

Nationally built cheap housing, with minimal or no rent. That means, housing as a public good, like nationally owned water and electricity companies.

Because companies shouldn’t be able to own homes.

exponentially

no. at 100% mil rate. ie: its value. every year.

if you can’t afford it, then sell it to someone who needs a home. :)

The problem is being a landlord as a job. The problem is rich people buying up housing (or land and building on it) they don't use, in order to rent for profit.

It's about everyone who has no house. All the people who have no alternative, apart from renting from some rich people.

If someone "allowed" others to live in his house, without demanding half their salary, you wouldn't see me complaining.

And the reason that buying or building a house is so expensive, is explicitly because rich people clamber over each other, to make the best investment of their lives: Housing.

1. there is zero need to own two homes.

Fucking disgusting parasite

the RISE in immigration , not immigration itself) accounted to about an 11% increase

I blame greed, not immigrants, but i see your point.

Yeah, I thought about that bit but deleted that because it only tangentially related to the topic.

Here's it again: a multiplier for land use. Farmland get like 0.1, residental 1.0. Also different multipliers for cities, suburbs and rural (to encourage development).

But there are companies that own farmland too, and they will try their best to find loopholes to exploit like they did to residential land. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of writing effective property law today so I stopped there 😆

When people think of two homes the second is usually a cottage or other seasonal property that you can't really live in while participating in society. So it's not really taking something away. Sure an argument could be made, but here in Canada if you put homeless people in cottages you'd just have a bunch of people frozen to death by spring.

Roughly 13,300 bananas, assuming very average bananas not too long and not too short, and a lot of patience laying them down on the floor.

no. “cant really live in” means “needs work to go from 3 seasons to 4.” and then be sold to someone who needs a home.

otherwise it’s a campsite not a “2nd home.”