You must log in or register to comment.
Almost helped an old lady across the street, but then she said “I need about tree fitty” and that’s when I realized that this old lady was 10 stories tall and a crustacean from the Paleozoic Era.
I gave him a dollar
damnit woman thats why he keeps comin back, you keep givin him treefitty!
She gave him a dollar
Grandma is not the problem. It’s the ~800 billionaires in the US controlling sizable portions of single-family residences through private equity, artificially controlling market prices for maximum profit per sale. Blackstone alone owns 300,000 residences.
Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide. That’s 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person.
I’ve said this before (and caught flak for it) but I think the solution to this is to apply a heavy additional tax to vacant homes (as defined as any home that isn’t occupied by a permanent resident for more than 6 months a year), and increase the tax exponentially for each residence beyond the first owned by the same company or individual.
At some point, you make it so expensive to keep unoccupied properties that they’re better off letting people live there for free than continuing to let them go unoccupied. Use all of the proceeds from this tax to assist homeless people or build new dense housing developments.
“But Kobold, what about soandso with their summer home?” If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.
“But Kobold, a lot of those homes that are vacant are run-down, or are in places nobody actually wants to live!” Doesn’t matter. If they’re vacant, tax them. Use the money to build dense housing in the places where people do want to live. If the place is too run-down to be occupied, the owner can tear it down and do something else with it.
my solution is to destroy all houses, then NO ONE gets a home!!
True equality!
Neither Republicans nor Democrats would do something like this. It would be siding with the people over the stockmarket/Billionaires.
One issue with the holiday home thing, they tend to be in quite remote places where there are very few job opportunities, because that’s where people go on holiday.
If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.
This part applies. It’s not about directly getting a house for the homeless in this case, it’s the fact that they can CLEARLY afford to pay more tax.
Simply exempt small homes. For instance, those with less than 1,600 square feet or so.
My extended family in Michigan keeps a hunting cabin that they split costs between 5 people on and can still barely make the mortage… Is that clearly able to afford more taxes?
I’d sacrifice your family’s hunting cabin if it helps house more people. Find a sixth person or something.
It’s an edge case that shouldn’t hold up societal progress.
The added tax revenue would also make the rural places these vacation home are in more sustainable for regular residents. And probably keep local governments and even small hospitals solvent.
It might even alleviate the financial burdens that are making that situation almost untenable for them now as real estate markets are corrected and added tax revenue gets allocated into public benefits that could reduce the cost of living. They may benefit from the proposal even if tax rates get increased on subsequent properties.
No, it shouldn’t hold up societal progress. But not being aware of how your policies actually affect people is just plain bad. I agree with progressive taxes on multi house ownership, but you also need to understand that will mean people who are less rich than you think losing them, it’s not just people that can afford them. And it’s not as far an edge case as you think, I believe
Or does the correction in housing pricing lower their actual taxes paid in total on their main properties, granting them more breathing room, allowing them to comfortably afford the hunting lodge even if the rate itself has increased? You’re expecting everything else to remain the same and just increased tax rates as a whole. Something like this would readjust the market values of properties and the subsequent tax being paid while making sure those corporations hoarding properties are taxed appropriately and providing inventory into a market that would bring pricing back down to earth. The rate could be increased but total paid could be lowered in these cases of second homes so long as tax increase is exponential and not flat on additional properties. The goal of measures like this would be to make companies hoarding thousands of properties an untenable option not to hurt every person who might look into having a second or third property.
Not really, but it sounds like your family should rather sell that cabin and spend their money on more important things.
I know for the public good this is the right answer but this is not a winning strategy
"Hey you know that activity that you enjoy, that makes the tedium and tests of life a bit more bearable? The one that provides a hub to maintain familial bonds, and adds another source of food that isn’t factory farmed or ultra-processed to your diet?
That isn’t how you’re supposed to spend your money, so stop it."
The key point you’re missing, I think, is that the tax would increase exponentially for each additional house owned. The first one could be, say, a 0.5% tax increase, and it could go up from there.
If you’re in a position where paying 0.5% extra tax on your hunting cabin split 5 ways will bankrupt you, then I’d argue that it isn’t how you’re supposed to spend your money. That’s “Skip eating out once a year” territory.
Or if housing costs were reigned in via this measure would the costs they are burdened with that make it barely feasible for 5 families to split the mortgage cost on a hunting cabin in a remote rural area be alleviated. Granting them more financial freedom, benefiting society all while still keeping the place thats becoming nearly untenable for them due to outrageous real estate markets?
They can barely split it because they’re all broke af not because the house is expensive. The house and land are pretty cheap
Yes and housing costs still take the largest chunk of low income people’s income. This wouldnt only effect the costs associated with the cabin but also their main residence’s taxes as well. Collected taxes might be used to improve public infrastructure and benefit programs which could also alleviate some of their expenses, giving them more ability to afford the cabin and have spending potential in other areas of their life. It’s not a zero sum game.
Most people aren’t homeless because there is no house available no.
You want to tax just having that second home
Most people aren’t homeless because there is no house available
It’s amazing how I can add the word “affordable” to your statement and you’re suddenly wrong.
You see this as wanting to tax second homes while ignoring that tons of people are homeless because they can’t afford to live somewhere because of shitheads holding onto empty housing as an investment at the expense of the common person.
So yeah, let’s tax any house left unoccupied for more than half the year. If you can afford to have 2 houses, you can afford to pay more for the one you don’t live in so maybe we can free up some of them and lower the cost of housing.
There will still be a lot of people homeless even with affordable houses since they most likely cannot afford a house. Social housing doesn’t have to be affordable, it just needs to be there, but that has little to do with the availability of houses and more the amount of people that can be processed by the system. At least in NL.
The issue all around the globe is people owning more than one house. You can only live in one so they rent them out. Generally asking way to much since they took a mortgage for it, costs are deductable against the profit. So you always end up paying the mortgage rate for the house you rent + a profit margin for the owner.
If you stop people having 2, 3 or more houses or at least make it a lot less likely for people to own more than one. In NL some people are also debating if we should remove the deductibility of mortgage rates.
Houses costing 1m or more being empty doesn’t do anything for the homeless, they will not be able to afford that. A lot of the houses in the empty house statistics are include houses being built/renovated/destroyed etc. Heck in the US (and other countries) you have some ghost towns, are those counted as well? Or houses that are rented out for tourists? How many of them where empty for more than 6 months?
Taxing empty houses is fine, don’t get me wrong, but the not building medium density houses, places where you can walk and/or bike and actually want to live, the lack of social security and people owning 2 or more houses are issues as well.
3 houses could be free (1 home, 1 for summer, 1 for winter)
Nah fam you got three homes you can pay up
Don’t forget how many people own three homes in the first place. You might need their votes.
Also, if one inherits their grandparents home and wants to give it their own children but must wait for 2-3 years, they might be forced to sell too.
The number of people who have three homes in this country I doubt is a huge number. And to be honest most of them are probably right-leaning anyway.
I have been trying to get a good grasp on how many people own second homes, and there seems to be some real uncertainty about this. About 6% of homes in the US are not the first deed to a home a person, or couple, owns. However, upwards of 40% of people report owning a second home. We aren’t really sure what is going on here. Clearly 40% of the population do not own more than one home, and considering that the really wealthy often own 5+ houses, there is just no way. However that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some problems with the data collection on how many homes are owned by people on multiple deeds.
From what I have found seems the most thrown around estimate is somewhere around 7-8% of homes are owned by people who own other homes, and that group like makes up around 8-10% of the population. But who knows, there are many people who are on deeds, but don’t truly own the home, and them being on it is a security/convenience measure. Bleh.
Shit good point. Through multiple deaths I am a fractional owner of 3 properties, and I can’t afford to be a homeowner
If you can afford 3 houses, you can afford the extra tax on 2 or all 3 of them. And if you can’t, maybe you don’t need that many fucking houses…
The problem that there are many homeless outweighs the problem that somebody wants to have a holiday home. Soliving the homeless problem by not solving the holiday home problem is valid.
I think many people (USians in particular) need to have it described to them this simply.
It’s just assumed in so many situations that somebody’s right to enjoy their legally-acquired property supercedes any concerns about the life or suffering of others living in the same system.
property rights do outweigh the suffering of cityfolk
This is true, but if I take the top comment, we have 28 houses/homes per homeless person - subtract the 2 holiday homes and you still got 25
Buy 25 homes, get a free homeless person.
Gotta catch them all
Been shouting this for fucking ages.
I say the local government gets eminent domain on any properties that aren’t primary residences staying vacant more than a year and/or vacant >75% of the time over 5 years. Make it the owners responsibility to keep someone living under the roof. There will be enough loopholes that it won’t be their second home, by maybe by the third and any corporately owned ones they’ll start to sweat.
seems terrible for people that buy houses that are classified as livable and repair them to the extent that they actually are livable.
Grandma is not the problem.
You can’t go blaming the institutions for the high cost of living when it is very clearly this one anonymous old person who isn’t giving this other anonymous young person a sweetheart deal out of misplaced nostalgia.
Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide.
Okay, but a bunch of them are in the Rust Belt, where de-industrialization eviscerated the economy and caused a mass exodus to the Gulf Coast and the Mountain West in pursuit of lower wage service sector and sales employment.
I suppose you’re going to claim that the wholesale restructuring of the manufacturing economy was the fault of a handful of 90s-era Wall Street bankers and Corporate Executives, rather than millions of Boomer-era suburbanites with pocket change in their retirement accounts 40 years ago?
Likely. Fucking. Story. This is just bigotry against the 1% is what it is.
Almost bit the bait lol
🏆
So you’re saying granny would be fine with a 100% return on her investment at $36 for an offer? No? Shocked I say, shocked.
Granny is part of the problem. Not the biggest part of the pie, but still guilty.
Inflation is a thing that exists. Saying that someone is bad simply because they want to update the value of their property is dumb. Also, let’s say granny wants to downisze. Should she sell her home for a value way below market and then be unable to buy a smaller home for herself?
You say this as if Granny doesn’t have tea and crumpets with the person who can sell her that tiny house every saturday. If she wants to downsize affordably, she should take it up with her ‘Golden Age Bookclub’ buddies who own all the other houses in town…
Yeah yeah I didn’t count inflation but there’s no way in fuck that poor old granny is just under the thumb of inflation.
The point is that everyone wants to fuck everyone, but they are the victim because everyone else wants to fuck them. It’s greed from all angles, plain and simple.
I think everyone should get fucked and the housing bubble burst harder than the 08 implosion, frankly. Who is holding the bag isn’t my problem, but the situation now where everyone fucking everyone else over isn’t sustainable and is disproportionately screwing over the lower class. It’s not my fault that granny was banking on screwing over the millenials to trade up to a beachfront property in the keys
The point is that everyone wants to fuck everyone, but they are the victim because everyone else wants to fuck them. It’s greed from all angles, plain and simple.
Not really, no. If you’re buying a house for yourself and after that you want to buy a bigger or smaller house, it’d be very dumb to sell waaaay under market when no one else will do that for you in return. You’d be either unable to find a home you can afford or you’d have to spend all of the money from a big house to buy a small apartment.
I think you have a lot of resentment built up and that’s bad for both objectivity and your own health.
It’s not my fault that granny was banking on screwing over the millenials to trade up to a beachfront property in the keys
You’re getting worked up over a fictional person that owns a fictional house and wants to sell it for a fictional price. On top of that, you’re making up a lot of details to get even more upset. Relax dude.
Yeah this is honestly just an incredibly short-sighted and stupid take on the issues. Granny is in the same bucket with the young man in that they are both getting played by billionaires. Being mad at her is an incredible waste of energy compared to campaigning for fair taxes on corporation and billionaires. Anyone with less than 10 million net worth isn’t really your enemy. Stay focused on winning the class Warfare and not dividing regular people.
If you can provide her with 1960s health care and living costs, she might be willing to sell you her house for 1960s real estate prices.
Would you be replacing her hip for an authentic 1973 mint edition Jefferson Nickel?
By remaining invisible, the billionaires avoid having the finger pointed at them. We only point at each other.
Guess what that generation bought into and voted for for decades.
Is one really real responsible or one’s choices of they were not aware of their consequences? (I personally do think so)
But what if they had wrong information?
And what if they were purposefully misinformed by a third party for that third party’s gain?
They should have researched things or at least not dismiss anyone who voices any skepticism. I had my free education wasted because no one wanted to take me seriously. At least I get to say I TOLD YOU SO. These people are more then just misinformed. They’re cult members who viciously protect their misinformation.
I’ve never subscribed to this generational hatred, as true as it is that the boomers voted for this shit, on account of it’s clearly a deliberate psyop “divide and conquer” campaign. It’s as obvious as the crack epidemic or redlining.
Gen X was a higher red percentage this time around, oddly.
It’s hard when you work with a guy like I do. He’s 65 and hates absolutely everybody, including his wife, but he’s a coward so he’s very polite. He requires so much coddling that he spends all day sucking up to everyone for whatever praise he can get then immediately turns around and complains about them. He’ll complain about everyone else to the point where they get their breaks and other privileges taken away. Those privileges are also taken from him, giving him more to complain about.
It gets worse, but I’m about to go to bed and don’t want to think about that.
That piece of fucking shit. Sorry about the rant. But guys like that ruin everything for everybody.
It seems like that is more of an asshole problem than an age problem
That generation was heavily exposed to leaded gasoline.
When you think about these problems, you have to separate your personal experience from what you observe happening to the whole system.
It only takes a few assholes to ruin the whole system
Nah, I’m happy to bag on anyone that benefits from a system and then pulls the ladder up behind them.
Oh yeah Granny’s really in control. It’s definitely not the billionaires and oligarchs that run everything.
If you were any smarter you wpuld inherit the house from your grandma and flip it yourself for big gains
Surprise surprise, you only inherit a bunch of debt because that generation lived by “you can’t take it with you”.
As someone who’s dealing with the estate process right now, I don’t think anyone inherits debt. It’s paid out of the estate and nobody else is responsible for those debts.
but if theres enough debt the other assets go towards that rather than the inheritors.
Smart and rich people get around inheritance taxes by systematically giving wealth to their families over time while they are still living.
That’s literally what I just said. Debts are paid out of the estate. The estate assets will always be used to pay off remaining debts before the inheritors get anything.
I’m not sure the whole “debts aren’t inherited” part applies everywhere.
Certainly does in my country. Although like in the rare instance there was something you absolutely wanted to inherit, but there was also a mountain of debt, you couldn’t decide to inherit without also taking on the debt. Even if that inherited thing was literally worthless and would not yield anything when sold.
Although such an object would probably be able to gifted, but like technically, that’s how it’d go.
But here’s the bit that actually made me write my comment:
https://youtube.com/shorts/_pkNndF6O_M
Idk how it works where that guy lives, but it’s clip from an American standup, talking about inherited debt. Might just be made up, obviously, but according to this article more than half the states still have “filial responsibility” laws.
These laws are holdovers from a time when debtors prisons existed, says McDowell, and are rarely enforced. Their use has faded since the 1965 creation of Medicare — the health coverage program for people 65 and over — and Medicaid, the health coverage program for the poor.
I suppose it’s possible but like the article says it’s not enforced.
Edit: I watched the clip: it’s a funny joke, but that’s it. Lots of implausible scenarios in there.
I don’t see how that explains the story in the clip?
I don’t think the article covers all the state-level filial responsibility laws. There’s a ton of state level legislation after all.
Or it might be that the debt the guy is talking about in the clip isn’t legally enforceable, but it sounds like debt to the state, which is why he seemed to inherit it in the first place, it wasn’t just like a regular credit line.
My point was that if you have too much debt your inheritors aren’t going to get anything when you die so just saying that debt doesn’t get passed on like it’s nothing is kind of disingenuous. I guess if you don’t care about leaving anything to your family you don’t need to worry about it but personally I want mine to get as much as possible.
It’s not disingenuous in the slightest. Debt does not get passed on, full stop. You cannot inherit debt except for a few niche scenarios.
I’m not saying it like it’s nothing, I’m saying it like the law is written. I am in the thick of the estate process right now.
You can inherit nothing because all the assets went to cover the debt though. That’s my point.
Not really, but there’s not much being left for the children of boomers to inherit.
edit: And in the broader sense, yes. Millennial and younger are inheriting the debt from Bush II’s wars. We didn’t have any vote on that matter, but we’re the ones who are paying that off. 2.8 trillion. After the shitshow of a covid response, I never want to hear someone mention the 3000 dead.
Child of a boomer here and honestly, the socioeconomic strata i grew up in? I never expected anything
I hear the opposite, boomer’s kids stand to inherit quite a bit. Anecdotally this seems true; granted I am an only child.
My father is likely to leave me with a few hundred thousand of his retirement account (he doesn’t know what to spend it on, his union pension is more than enough for his needs) and I’ll inherit both his house as well as my grandmothers house, which is now my uncle’s house. My mom’s house will be sold and split between my half brother and my cousin who my mother raised.
Bush’s war debts.
That is arguing semantics. When people inherit things it is their understanding that it is theirs. If my grandma left me the house but owed 1 million in unpaid debt, you effectively inherit the debt. Regardless of the fact that you could opt out of inheriting it.
People often go into personal debt to retain inheritance.
On a separate note inheritance/estate tax is robbery by the federal government.
That is incorrect. If your grandmother left you the house, as in she put your name on the deed as transfer on death, it is not part of the estate and you would get it outright. It would not be affected by the debt.
If you’re saying there’s a million dollars remaining on the mortgage on the property, of course she can’t just give it to you, it’s still collateral for that mortgage. It’s not hers to give.
If it was paid off, but part of the estate and subject to the rules of inheritance, then it would be affected by other non-mortgage debt.
US Federal estate tax does not count until it’s above $13.99 million per individual. In this example, unless it is a huge property, it would not be subject to inheritance tax.
I think I cut off of $13.99 million is more than adequate and only taxes those who can afford it.
I’m in the process of directly inheriting something like 200k in various savings and retirement accounts along with a half million dollar life insurance payout, and there are zero taxes on any of that.
I’m also taking over the deed on a house with $300k mortgage remaining - of course I have to keep paying that mortgage. That’s not inheriting debt. I could turn around and sell the property immediately and get paid the difference between the remaining mortgage balance and sale price.
All taxation is theft.
Inheritance/estate tax is one of the more ethical ones, though.
It’s actually expensive, and the property is taxed as usual. If you don’t monetise the area you’re going to lose. It depends.
What’s expensive, and what area are you referring to?
I was under the impression that was not the case. If the estate has no money to pay out, the collectors are gonna come knocking, no?
I don’t believe so. I was explicitly told by my lawyer not to pay any estate debts with my own money.
I believe there are a few niche scenarios where somebody else can be responsible for the debt (eg joint account, co-signed loan), but in general, you should never pay somebody else’s estate debts.
They can come knocking all they want, but you are not legally required as an heir to pay that debt. Surely there are a few exceptions like mortgage payments (if u wanna keep the house), but personal debts like credit cards? Not your problem.
Ngl, $950K for a house sounds like a steal. Can’t buy a tear-down starter home around here for that cheap…
The fuck is going on where you live?
My family and I bought a 250m² house for less than 50k. (2yrs ago)
Meanwhile, in the suburbs of DC/Baltimore you have 96m² for $414k: Local Listing
Sounds like the SF Bay Area, SoCal, NY, GTA, VAN, or London.
You can add Seattle to that list. I saw they passed up NYC on some metrics this year.
Ah of course. I think Boston as well and maybe that super federal (NOVA?) part around DC.
And I’m living in a metropolis of 750 souls in buttfuck France.
I’m currently living in a slightly smaller house that’s valued at 250k. The roof leaks and the porch is falling apart, but the town has doubled in size since COVID, and so has the cost of housing.
Where are you?
Seeing the prices I’d guess some 3rd tier city in the usa?
Rural west coast. It is more expensive here than the midwest states, but the state insurance is fantastic, so the access to medical care is worth it.
Edit: Population of 2k, for the record
I’m glad I don’t live in a federal country where rights vary by state.
I’m basically in France’s Midwest except it’s more left leaning.
deleted by creator
You shouldn’t help old ladies cross the street anyway
Did you do the right thing and put her down?
full throttle
TKO
Yeah let’s blame grondma it’s absolutely her fault we had inflation and rising house prices in the last 50 years. She did it all by herself!
This inter-generational strife nonsense is the greatest deflection the oligarchs have come up with to make people forget who their real enemies are.
Political polarization was the greatest deflection.
Exactly if we need to blame anyone, its fucking Wall Street and investment firms. Those are the people jacking up prices and reducing quality, they are also responsible for the entire outsourcing to China etc.
Some might suggest that most of the oligarchs are the boomers in these memes.
You can claim that all oligarchs are boomers (and that would not be close to true, a lot of the techbro oligarchs are a lot younger), but not all boomers are oligarchs. OP is inferring all boomers are oligarchs, so it is the textbook definition of intergenerational strife deflection.
I mean… All the oligarchs I can name are boomers or gen X.
Again, pretty irrelevant, considering oligarchs constitute a fraction of a fraction of a generation (and their wealth and oligarch status will be inherited by their gen a or z offspring anyway).
Overall gen x got shafted. But about a dozen of them won monopoly irl. We all pay rent to the landowners.
