• HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I like this idea. It would be good if two was a very slight increase because of buying and then having to sell. Also long ago having a vacation home was something obtainable by relatively common folk. Would like to see that again but wealth disparity would have to come way down for that to happen.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      In my magical Christmasland hypothetical scenario, it would be something like $10 ^ [number of qualifying properties] per year, for each property.

      Mom and pop have a vacation home, or a property on the market? $10 / year. No problem. Got 5 vacant homes? That’ll be an extra $500,000 per year. Get a tenant or sell.

      Would need some sort of limit such that the tax ceased when homelessness reached, say, 0.01% of the population or less, because right now there’s about 26 vacant homes in the US per homeless person; the point is to reduce homelessness, not to bankrupt everyone, of course.

      • Best_Jeanist@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Nah, keep it going even when homelessness is low. If you own three vacant properties, you’re paying 3,000 a year. It would be cheaper to give one of your homes away to a poor person who only has one, so they get to have a vacation home too. The poor person only has to pay 10 dollars a year.