Real estate investors, both individual and institutional, bought one-third of all single-family residential properties sold in the second quarter of 2025.
Real estate taxes are usually done at the town level.
Who gets the money? Where does it go to?
I’m on board…don’t get me wrong…but I think shouldn’t be prohibitively expensive for the upper middle class to have a cabin in the woods or some such.
I think it should also have a bit to do with the market of the area where the home(s) are located.
If the market is hot because people want to live there, then yeah, they shouldn’t be letting it sit vacant, and shouldn’t be making a living off landlording (supplemental income I could forgive…there needs to be private leasing of homes/apartments at some level…not every body wants or needs to buy a house, and the alternative would be corporate landlords which brings us right back to square one).
But if you’ve got a cabin in BFE Utah? Go you. Get out of here and enjoy some quiet time.
The cabin thing can be fixed by proper zoning and regulations. Zone for “recreational use”, meaning it can’t be your primary residence (totaling an absolute maximum usage of, say, 6 months out of the calendar year). Enforce it with regulations and regular audits for such things as propane/electricity, mail activity (some have mail service), and maybe even vehicle permit activity.
This could grant lower taxes than the hypothetical you replied to, but proof of compliance would be required. Wealthy people should be able to facilitate that without a problem.
Get a third property? Tax it heavily. Register it to an LLC? Tax it heavily. No residence should ever be under an LLC, that is an obvious tax loophole that needs to be closed up. Trusts need to be audited as well.
Fourth property? 100% tax. End of the story, no loopholes, no exceptions, no further questions your honor.
Since I’m on this tangent, the same should apply to cars. Work vehicles should be subject to far higher scrutiny as far as compliance goes, and no, Kyle, your brand new Dodge 3500 on 22" wheels and 12" lift with pristine bedliner and a shitty smoke tune does not count as a work vehicle just because you haphazardly slapped a shitty magnetic company logo on the door.
Since I’m on this tangent, the same should apply to cars. Work vehicles should be subject to far higher scrutiny as far as compliance goes, and no, Kyle, your brand new Dodge 3500 on 22" wheels and 12" lift with pristine bedliner and a shitty smoke tune does not count as a work vehicle just because you haphazardly slapped a shitty magnetic company logo on the door.
This is funny because in my country we actually have a system that you can use your company car for personal use only if you pay an extra tax, based on the power rating. This makes for two sorts of people who use company cars for personal usage: Those who get small economical company cars so the tax is as low as possible… And those whose Lamborghini Urus is registered for company use only (Yeah right, I saw you use it on a fucking Saturday).
Technically the tax authority should occasionally investigate these, but unless you really stick out, they don’t have the bandwidth.
I assume it would be the same in the US: Those who want big powerful trucks for personal use with less tax paid, will just lie. All you have to do is make up stories about your miles. IRS don’t have time to check.
What could actually be done? Just tax all cars, company car or not, based on weight. Oh there will be a LOT of whining. But heavy trucks do more damage to the roads, and it’s not linear or even quadratic. And just allow personal usage, because it’s difficult to enforce rules about that. People would be less incentivized to get heavy work trucks. Fuck it, get a luxury car for your company car, at least that is way less dangerous to pedestrians + way less wear to the roads compared to a truck.
I absolutely would not want this government in charge of my housing.
Adequate public housing as part of this would be a pipe dream that would require a completely different form of governance. Otherwise it will be used to contro; and it would probably be means tested, resulting in another welfare cliff for people to be scared of.
Have you seen current housing projects?
I’d rather there be guaranteed minimum housing. Essentially hostels on transit routes where there’s a bed, showers, a locker, etc. No means testing. At most, require an ID so it’s at least known who is inside. Not glamorous, but not sleeping on the street.
Real estate taxes are usually done at the town level.
Who gets the money? Where does it go to?
I’m on board…don’t get me wrong…but I think shouldn’t be prohibitively expensive for the upper middle class to have a cabin in the woods or some such.
I think it should also have a bit to do with the market of the area where the home(s) are located.
If the market is hot because people want to live there, then yeah, they shouldn’t be letting it sit vacant, and shouldn’t be making a living off landlording (supplemental income I could forgive…there needs to be private leasing of homes/apartments at some level…not every body wants or needs to buy a house, and the alternative would be corporate landlords which brings us right back to square one).
But if you’ve got a cabin in BFE Utah? Go you. Get out of here and enjoy some quiet time.
The cabin thing can be fixed by proper zoning and regulations. Zone for “recreational use”, meaning it can’t be your primary residence (totaling an absolute maximum usage of, say, 6 months out of the calendar year). Enforce it with regulations and regular audits for such things as propane/electricity, mail activity (some have mail service), and maybe even vehicle permit activity.
This could grant lower taxes than the hypothetical you replied to, but proof of compliance would be required. Wealthy people should be able to facilitate that without a problem.
Get a third property? Tax it heavily. Register it to an LLC? Tax it heavily. No residence should ever be under an LLC, that is an obvious tax loophole that needs to be closed up. Trusts need to be audited as well.
Fourth property? 100% tax. End of the story, no loopholes, no exceptions, no further questions your honor.
Since I’m on this tangent, the same should apply to cars. Work vehicles should be subject to far higher scrutiny as far as compliance goes, and no, Kyle, your brand new Dodge 3500 on 22" wheels and 12" lift with pristine bedliner and a shitty smoke tune does not count as a work vehicle just because you haphazardly slapped a shitty magnetic company logo on the door.
This is funny because in my country we actually have a system that you can use your company car for personal use only if you pay an extra tax, based on the power rating. This makes for two sorts of people who use company cars for personal usage: Those who get small economical company cars so the tax is as low as possible… And those whose Lamborghini Urus is registered for company use only (Yeah right, I saw you use it on a fucking Saturday).
Technically the tax authority should occasionally investigate these, but unless you really stick out, they don’t have the bandwidth.
I assume it would be the same in the US: Those who want big powerful trucks for personal use with less tax paid, will just lie. All you have to do is make up stories about your miles. IRS don’t have time to check.
What could actually be done? Just tax all cars, company car or not, based on weight. Oh there will be a LOT of whining. But heavy trucks do more damage to the roads, and it’s not linear or even quadratic. And just allow personal usage, because it’s difficult to enforce rules about that. People would be less incentivized to get heavy work trucks. Fuck it, get a luxury car for your company car, at least that is way less dangerous to pedestrians + way less wear to the roads compared to a truck.
You completely ignored the public housing approach. Did you realize that? It kinda undercuts the second half of your comment.
I absolutely would not want this government in charge of my housing.
Adequate public housing as part of this would be a pipe dream that would require a completely different form of governance. Otherwise it will be used to contro; and it would probably be means tested, resulting in another welfare cliff for people to be scared of.
Have you seen current housing projects?
I’d rather there be guaranteed minimum housing. Essentially hostels on transit routes where there’s a bed, showers, a locker, etc. No means testing. At most, require an ID so it’s at least known who is inside. Not glamorous, but not sleeping on the street.