I can't disagree. - eviltoast
  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    Texas is that way to a point. Your primary residence gets enormous tax breaks. Any property after that, fuck you, pay up. The downside to that is that it contributes to the high cost of rent as the owner passes it along to the tenant.

    • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Does it increase per property owned though? They can’t keep passing on the tax increase to the tenant if at a certain point they own 1000 houses and now their tax on the last one is 7 times higher than the rent on it.

      That’s what we should be doing any house after your second gets increased a ton per house. Make it untenable for people to own rental properties. I don’t mind someone having a vacation house or two if they can afford it. But nobody needs 10 vacation houses, they’re rental or investment properties at that point so fuck them.

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Are you talking about a homestead exemption? I think most places have something like that but it’s just a discount on the house you live in so not an increase on the other properties. They would just get normal tax rates for any additional properties. I think making it an exponential tax would make a huge difference.

      • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes homestead. I’m not sure how other states do it.

        Texas increased from ten thousand to twenty five thousand to forty thousand to a hundred thousand in a short period.

        So semantics. I say increase for other houses, you say discount for primary house. Either way you choose to phrase it, you pay less for your primary residence and more for other properties.