[vespa300]

Hey, why not. It's only a tax.

[Fai Mao]

This will ruin what’s left of California.

[Mr.Unique]

.

“It would be an additional income tax on the profit gain from a sale that occurred within three years of the previous sale,” said Ward.

Tell me you don't understand taxes without telling me you don't understand taxes.

[brianr10]

What will they put on HGTV?

[The Louiswu]

Lots of others states to flips houses in. Screw CA

[CodeToad]

Colorado already charges 2% on home profits for homes owned less than 2 years.

[Michael.SF.]

Flipping houses = Hard work and free enterprise.

No wonder Democrats hate it.

[SaxxonWoods]

Not everyone has the time, resources or ability to remodel a house. They want to buy a house that's ready for living. This will lower the number of good houses on the market and kill another entrepreneurial business. Democrats are the dumbest people on earth.

[Yo-Yo]

Attention California Lawmakers:

Here is what you think will happen with this tax: The tax will discourage flippers from buying up homes then flipping them for much higher prices, thus lowering overall home prices.

Here is what will happen: Flippers will take this 25% Gains tax into account when pricing their flips, and housing prices will raise even higher as a result.

Crack an Economics book once in a while, OK?

[skeeter]

I’m not endorsing any new taxes or additional government control, but I’ve wondered for a long time when the government would start putting itself in the middle of real estate transactions.

Prices in this state have gone up to ridiculous levels yet the percentage the agents and brokers get remained the same, 6%, so often they are making hundreds of thousands for doing the same amount of work that earned them tens of thousands a decade ago.

[escapefromboston]

Even if you think it’s a good idea 25% seems a tad excessive

[PeterPrinciple]

State wants their reward for creating the inflation......................

[Lockbox]

what about the poor person who lost his job and had to sell the house because they took a job out of that area?

or the poor person who became ill and had to sell the house because they needed the money to pay for medical treatment?

Libs are so cold hearted.......

[fhayek]

Isn’t buying a house, fixing it up, and selling it for a profit a good thing? What am I missing here?

[I want the USA back]

One more step towards the total control of private property by the government: the ultimate goal of communism.

[alternatives?]

That normally would be a capital gains tax. What is the state long term and short term capital gains rate?

In addition, if the flippers don’t exist, then homeowners will buy the house but fix it up slower reducing income for remodelers and property tax flows.

[Sooth2222]

A state law maker from San Diego says short-term investors are contributing to the housing crisis.

Maybe 0.1%. The other 99.9% of the housing crisis in California and other blue states is because of the laws that state law makers make, restricting the supply of housing.

Drying up the housing supply even more by causing flippers to bide their time, this is likely to make the housing crisis even worse.

[rey]

How do they determine who is a flipper? Is this gross or net profit? What about military people and the like buy and sell frequently? If you inherit a home and sell it that could well be under 3 years and called 100% profit.

[norwaypinesavage]

"You purchase a property, make necessary changes and then sell it for a profit."

There's a name for that. It's called Capitalism. Of course, the Democrats want to tax it out of existence.

[Political Junkie Too]

Aren't "house flippers" providing a service?

Aren't they buying distressed homes or foreclosed homes at auction and repairing them or modernizing them and then making housing available on the market that otherwise would not be there?

-PJ

[Michael.SF.]

Here in AZ, I was making small talk at my granddaughter's birthday party with the father of one of the kids. He is a developer and flips houses for a living. He mentioned that he bought a 1.5-acre lot in Phoenix, 18 months ago. In response to a question, he stated that he paid $390,000 for an empty lot with plans to build apartments. He later said he decided not to build but sold it recently for...................... $790,000. WOW!!!!

So, under this law (if AZ did the same) would the state rake in $100K (rounding off)?