Posted on 08/30/2025 11:17:27 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Taylor Swift’s $17 million Rhode Island mansion isn’t just a star-studded backdrop anymore—it’s ground zero for a growing tax revolt aimed at the wealthy.
Starting next summer, the state will slap a new surcharge on vacation homes worth $1 million or more, a move already dubbed the “Taylor Swift Tax.” The goal: Make deep-pocketed second-home owners pay more, and set the stage for a wave of similar crackdowns from Montana’s mountains to Connecticut’s suburbs.
And yet, at the very top of the market, wealthy buyers are still scooping up real estate. As of April 2025, the $1 million-plus category has been the fastest-growing real estate sales segment for 21 months straight, according to data from the National Association of Realtors®.
Next summer, Rhode Island will roll out the “Taylor Swift Tax,” a new levy on non-primary residences worth $1 million or more. The math is simple and punishing: $2.50 for every $500 of assessed value above that first million.
For a coastal trophy home like Swift’s $17 million Watch Hill estate, that’s an extra $136,000 a year in property taxes—enough to make even the ultrawealthy take notice.
The state’s pitch is blunt: Wealthy absentee owners should contribute more to local revenue, especially in luxury markets that have exploded in value.
For high-end buyers and sellers, the move could chill demand for second homes and push some to list sooner than planned. And for year-round residents, it’s proof that lawmakers are more than willing to balance the books by going straight for the top of the housing ladder.
If the past few years have been about identifying the problem—the widening gap between luxury buyers and everyone else—the next few will be about how far lawmakers are willing to go to close it. Once considered political third rails, targeted taxes on second homes, ultraluxury properties, and inherited real estate are now gaining traction in both liberal enclaves and fiscally conservative states looking for new revenue streams.
And then there’s the wildcard: migration. If enough deep-pocketed owners vote with their feet, states may find themselves rethinking just how hard they can squeeze without pushing wealth and the tax base it provides across their borders. The “Taylor Swift Tax” may have started as a headline-ready nickname, but it could end up being shorthand for a broader turning point in how America decides who pays for the privilege of owning a piece of it.
It's a communist mind set.
Now back to my usual posts of Swift delenda est.
I understand. They did it in VT as well.
My family home was along the shores of a lake. It had been in our family since the 1870’s.
When my mom went into a nursing home, her senior, resident tax rate was about $1,700. As soon as her primary residence changed (she moved closer to us in MA) the annual tax rate went up to about $13k. There was no way we could maintain the home.
So we sold it, and it became a “seasonal vacation” home for some rich folks.
It is a money grab, pure and simple.
Meet your pimp called government. You better pay the man.
Very sad.
Does Taylor come with it?
Not a fan of Swift but this is a financial bill of atainder. If they can target her, they can target me and you.
I am an old guy and I don’t get emotional often. But I was very angry having to sell that house. And they say the extra tax income goes to the schools up there. Well, its another case of “money doesn’t translate into education” because their test scores in that part of the state are still mediocre at best.
If they call it the “Taylor Swift Tax” it seems like targeting.
Yep. And Swift herself is a voting resident in the state of Tennessee, with it's zero state income tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.