Posted on 09/05/2024 4:47:36 PM PDT by Twotone
Yes, I’m willing to bet good ole Uncle Sammy owns a great deal of the land.
MINIMUM WAGES FOR levels of work that DO NOT WARRANT SUCH ==BITE EVERYONE IN THE BUTT.
In town worker = kids = high education cost..."
It never worked like that for me. I live in NW Illinois, and I owned another home in Wisconsin for 60 years. I paid public school taxes in Illinois and catholic school tuition. That was my choice so no complaints there.
I also paid public school taxes in Wisconsin every year, as is the case in Illinois, that I had that house.
As far as I can tell, if you own a home you pay school taxes.
FF-50 years on the Wisconsin house.
There is an ongoing tussle over short term rentals in Woodland Park
I miss Colorado and the nountains. But I don’t miss the taxes.
I bailed out in 1993 and paid the tuition for my daughter’s 8 through 12 years at a Prep School with the money saved from CO taxes.
CO state taxes were, “ send us 6% of Line 37 of your Federal return. does not sound bad but add property taxes and it stings/Stinks to pay tens of thousands, over time. I don’t care what the CO income tax rate is now, I’m in a no income state.
This is a good example why Magpul (firearm parts) left CO, besides the anti-gun attitudes.
You don’t. You keep building more until supply slightly exceeds demand. It’s not like there’s a scarcity of land out there. But if you build moderate size and moderate price homes the wealthy won’t want that.
As for rental investors, I’m coming to a new belief. I have always opposed the idea of property tax, at least nobody should ever lose their home for inability to pay it - but now I’m evolving. I think people or investors who own multiple homes should pay more and more for each additional home they own. If you have one home little or no tax. Second home in the state, pay more. Third home, pay a hell of a lot more and so on. That would be one way to dislodge hoarding of homes, end corporate/hedge fund ownership of homes, and put more supply on the market.
Details can be worked out but that’s the general idea I’m coming too. We can’t seem to get government to make it easier and cheaper to build new homes so one way is to discourage investors from holding a huge portfolio of residences.
“CAST hopes a vacancy tax would incentivize homeowners to rent to full-time residents “
Good luck with that after government took away property and contract rights with eviction moratoriums. And having been a rental property owner I’d rather pay the tax then stick some seasonal employee.
Born and raised in t mountain resort. The ski bums aren’t known for keeping a place clean and the restaurants and house keepers came and went with the seasons. And just about every seasonal house had 15 people living in them. The property managers turned a blind eye.
But this is really about CAST (basically Powdercorp) trying to get cheap labor for the resorts. They could pay a “living wage” but why do that when you could have the government force someone else to pay the way?
But then who is supposed to work in the businesses that attract the vacation home owners and STR visitors?
I have a house in the mountains here and a condo at the beach. There used to be a mix of full time residents and part timers like me, and it was nice. Now there are so many STRs and it’s a bit of a nightmare at times. I don’t even get STRs - who wants to go on vacation and make their own beds, clean up and cook? I like hotels.
Was supposed to be a ping to george76
“I don’t know how they can charge extra for a vacant house.”
By the end of 2020, you should’ve stopped expecting anything the government says or does to make sense.
*raises hand* -- & we've stayed in some wonderful places... a quirky "museum" tucked into a alleyway in one of those hippy-vibe artsy towns (with a sauna!) -- a house that looked like a ship ready to sail somewhere off Norway (we discovered a bald eagle nest along the river there) -- a tiny home perched on a cliff -- an apartment 2 stories above a pedestrian square where all the restaurants put out umbrellaed tables -- a chalet where we heard foxes calling while we were sitting on the deck at night and watched bobolinks frolicking in the grass fields the next morning (plus a hot tub!) - an industrial loft overlooking downtown Pittsburgh -- a cabin right at the edge of a lazy river that bordered the Appalachian trail -- a restored tavern with creaky floors and a resident ghost ... I could go on & on ...
Besides, I make my bed and keep the bathroom cleaned up even if I'm in a hotel ... & I prefer to cook or enjoy someone staying with us cooking, rather than overpriced, uninspired "Cisco" food
“if you own a home you pay school taxes.”
You pay taxes.
Your kids do not go to school there.
That is a big win for the local community.
That is my point.
Absentee owners are a win for the local community.
As I pointed out many lefty “community leaders” are bad at math.
More homes would be built but the democrats are in the way. In Los Angeles a new home cost is over $150,000 for fees, kickbacks etc. before the foundation is even built.
That’s an interesting proposal. I think it has merit, in principle.
I remember when Conservatives were against raising taxes.
Land cost is so high that development costs make it unaffordable to people making under $150K/year.
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.