this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
875 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4125 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Don't protect "renters". The entire concept of "renting" needs to die in a fucking fire.

Instead, we need to jack up taxes on residential properties. Send them to the moon. $2000/yr? Fuck that: $2000/month.

But nobody actually pays these exorbitant rates, because we create an "Owner Occupancy Credit". The tax rate is only high if the owner doesn't live in the home.

What happens to renters? Do landlords jack up their prices to cover the increased property taxes? Or do they offer their tenants a private mortgage or a land contract, so they don't have to pay the hiked taxes?

When they can make more money as a lender than as a landlord, they aren't going to be renting anymore. Establish an owner occupancy credit, and "landlords" will be fighting tooth and nail to convert tenants into buyers.

(The actual tax rate should target an 85% owner occupancy rate. When more than 20% of the population is renting, the non-occupant tax rate is increased 1% per year. When less than 10% is renting, the non-occupant tax rate is dropped 1% per year. )

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nah, nonprofit state-run landlords (in countries which have them) are great, and strong protections for renters are good. I don't want to buy a house, I move around a lot, don't wanna deal with lawyers every time I move, don't wanna be responsible for maintenance, I just want some basic level of security and not to be completely ripped off.

Why is 85% the magic number? Just because you say so? I do agree that increased property taxes are important, but there's no reason not to also make rental contracts less exploitative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Nah, nonprofit state-run landlords

We have those. They run "Section 8" housing, which, in my area at least, is substandard housing in high crime areas, because those areas have the cheapest housing, and that's what the state buys. They also currently have a 6-year wait-list in my area. You only have a fixed time you can live there. There is means testing, and strict rules on who can come and go.

The problem isn't actually the "state run" part, though. The problem is the market in which the state is operating. Whatever approach we take, we need to fix that market first, and that's what I'm talking about.

I don't want to buy a house, I move around a lot...

I don't think you understand what a "land contract" is. It gives you the flexibility you need from a rental agreement, without imposing rent on long-term residents of a property.

If you are only going to be living in the property for less than 3 years, it is a rental agreement. It is an agreement that happens to be recorded with the county, like a deed, which allows them to consider you an "owner occupant".

The real differences are if you decide to stay there longer than 3 years. Your monthly payment was calculated by assuming principal, interest, taxes, and insurance on a 30-year mortgage, which is usually what you're going to be paying in rent anyway.

If you stay at least three years, the agreement becomes a sale contract; you become the deeded owner; your equity becomes the down payment, and your former landlord becomes a private lender with those pre-existing terms.

If you leave before 3 years, you forfeit your equity, and the agreement functioned identically to a rental agreement.

You still get to live like a tenant, and move around as you like. You can unilaterally abandon the contract for any reason during that 3-year period. For you, nothing changes other than the words at the top of the agreement. Words that are important to your "landlord" as it saves him a lot on taxes, but that are completely irrelevant to you as a "tenant".

But, if you do change your mind during that three year period, and decide you do want to become a homeowner, you're already well on your way.

Alternatively, Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes are all single properties, where the owner of that property can live on site, making the property eligible for the owner occupant credit. The other 1-3 units on the property are available to rent out. If you really want an actual rental agreement instead of a land contract, that is one option.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

How would you handle apartment buildings?

Making them all Condo’s possible I suppose but, there’d be a lot of poorly maintained buildings no one would want to actually own part of

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

The owner of the building lives in the building and leases apartments to tenants who live in the same building as the owner.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes could all have an owner living in one of the units, making the whole property eligible for the owner occupant credit, while the other units remain available for rent.

Bringing this back to your comment, suppose instead of dividing a complex into individual units, we divided it into a "quadplex" condo. A single property consisting of 4 units. The owner of that property occupies the quadplex, making the quadplex-condo eligible for the owner-occupant credit. 3/4 of the apartments are still rentable.

there’d be a lot of poorly maintained buildings no one would want to actually own part of

Somebody is making money off of those poorly maintained apartment buildings now. Better that somebody be someone who is actually part of the community (and thus motivated to improve the property) than a hedge fund manager living on the other side of the country.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Landlord has to live on-site. In what I fondly call "face-punching distance." And can only collect a monthly salary equal to 3x the median rental price of all of the units in that building. Any surplus profit after paying utilities, taxes, and maintenance cost (to maintenance people who either also live on site or are at least paid 3x the rent of a median unit), gets refunded to the tenants.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I would strongly discourage landlording of more than 3 units by extending the owner occupancy credit only to 1-4 unit properties. Apartment complexes could be divided into multi-unit condos, with the extra units able to be rented out by the owner.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

NY has this. What you have described is the STAR tax credit. This credit only applies to school taxes (2-3k a year)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, many states have similar credits or exemptions for various purposes. From my brief research, it seems the STAR credit is not available to new homeowners. It's only available to people who are grandfathered in. But, it works much like I describe: a credit for owner occupants.

Ohio has a "Homestead Exemption" allowing disabled and elderly homeowners to deduct $25,000 of the market value of their residence.

We can do the same thing for purposes of discouraging corporate and investor ownership of residential property, and encouraging occupant ownership.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

it seems the STAR credit is not available to new homeowners. It's only available to people who are grandfathered in.

You might be looking at the enhancement STAR which has more complex requirements. Here is the PDF for new homeowners and here is the actual eligibility page.

edit: OH you are looking at the STAR exemption vs the STAR credit. Yeah it's basically the same thing. One is applied to your taxes before you receive your tax bill (and is being phased out since 2015) and the other is a direct deposit you receive. Same amount.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Ah, I see. Yes, I only did some very brief research to verify the concepts matched; I didn't delve into the specifics.