399
Grandma is on her own
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
399 points (98.8% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
33450 readers
2025 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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?
Not really, but it sounds like your family should rather sell that cabin and spend their money on more important things.
"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.
Nah, I'm not opposed to the proposition, and understandably any such tax law (if legislated with due consideration) should take into account cases where the effect may be otherwise than intended (or be amended with further subsequent legislation). Corporate squatting is a literal travesty.
I was just a bit baffled at the gall of supposing that the cost/benefit calculation of this kind of lifestyle choice could be up for second-hand proscription.
I certainly don't want to decide for your family how to live their lives, but five parties just so scraping by doing the payments on a hunting lodge seems miserable for everyone involved. Wouldn't it be possible to rent one instead / buy one in a cheaper area / rent out the lodge when not in use?
I also wouldn't consider a lodge in the middle of nowhere a residential building that should fall under those taxes when kept empty to drive up the rent.
I know for the public good this is the right answer but this is not a winning strategy
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.
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.
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.
Here's a thought, maybe instead of blindly following the original commenters idea and repeatedly posting the same thing, refine the idea to account for people the "fringe" case mentioned?
Maybe, in addition to the multiple house ownership and residence status conditions add one that factors in income/earnings (including any capital gains) and if you exceed a threshold then additional home taxes apply?
Maybe scale the additional taxes based on income/earnings so everyone is taxed but done so appropriately for their situation?
Or maybe adopt a system like some other countries have where the first house you own isn't taxed but additional homes are, then adjust other taxes in accordance? Under this system 5 families sharing a hunting cabin is not only easier for them but more economic and efficient than five families owning five separate cabins.
You'll never please everybody but laws and regulations should take into account all those they effect and serve the greatest number reasonably possible.
Genuinely, I'm saying this to bring up that it's an ill effect that will come about, and to show OP that it isn't as clear cut and dry morally as rich get screwed, and houses get easier to buy. I don't especially think an exception clause is reasonable, I believe they will just be abused, and it's simply better to accept some level of negative consequences for the benefits.
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.
Most people aren't homeless because there is no house available no.
You want to tax just having that second home
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.
Simply exempt small homes. For instance, those with less than 1,600 square feet or so.
3 houses could be free (1 home, 1 for summer, 1 for winter)
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.
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....
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.
Shit good point. Through multiple deaths I am a fractional owner of 3 properties, and I can't afford to be a homeowner
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.
rural unregistered cabins could account for some of this discrepancy, renting a first home would probably be a bigger factors though.