• Shazbot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s also an underlying layer to this problem with a specific type of home owner: the foreign investor. These individuals use American properties to hide their wealth from their home countries. Tax evasion, high ROI, and increased scarcity in every purchase. Homes often go months and years without occupancy, sometimes with minimal furnishings so as not to appear vacant.

    I’m not saying foreigners shouldn’t buy homes in America. However, if they do buy a home they should be required to occupy each individual property for a minimum of 6-9 months every year. Otherwise, a heavy tax that exceeds the property’s/ies annual appreciation to encourage occupancy or selling would be ideal.

    • willeypete23@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Georgia had this problem decades ago and fixed it by lowering adverse possession requirements down to 13 months of occupation. It’s back to over a decade now but I liked that approach.

      • Stumblinbear
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, if they lie about their primary residency, that’s a whole set of legal problems they’ve got themselves in

        • reallynotnick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if they lie requiring X months would at least put a cap on how many they could own since there are only 12 months in the year.

          • Stumblinbear
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Iirc primary residency is already living in a single home more than 6 months out of a year, or where you lived the majority of the time

            • reallynotnick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              True I guess I was reading more into the original comment on taxing more than appreciation and such. I know there are tax benefits to primary residence already, which maybe covers their original idea, but I figured it would be even higher taxes for foreigners for non-primary residence or something was what they were suggesting.

        • andrewta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically true but want to guess how many realtors buy a house , homestead the place for a couple of years then sell it?

          Hint: the number is a lot higher then people might think.

          There are a lot of ways to get around problems just by thinking outside of the box. Might it slow down the problem? Maybe.

          • Stumblinbear
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So they’re buying a new house every few years and selling the old one? If they have only one house at a time, I don’t really care much. The issue is when billion dollar corporations buy up single family homes to rent out, not an individual buying a house to live in and sell it in a few years

      • Muddobbers@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Utility usage? Pull up the last 6 months of, like, water use (since you need to have water so it’s a solid metric).