Hear me out: we also count all the subsidiaries company as the same entity of the owner company, now we have less exploits too
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
396 points (98.3% liked)
Showerthoughts
43585 readers
832 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
If only the people that would make these laws were not the ones profiting from it.
I own two and I pay a percentage based off the property value.
You should be paying double the rate for both of them, since you have twice as many as you need
This is obviously a taunt but... Why?
Because you came out swinging with "I own two houses" Mr. Moneybags, lmao
Make it progressive. First $x is untaxed, $x+y is taxed at some percent, the next $x+z is taxed higher, and so on.
Also build more housing in general.
Everyone is busy building more houses. People are buying them and renting them out and stupid high rates.
We have less of a housing shortage and more of a people buying houses as wealth vehicles problem.
Ah but my company doesn’t own a home, my company manages other companies homes, each company own 5 homes each.
I firmly believe every home after your second (let retired people have their cabins) should be taxed exponentially.
The third home should be taxed so heavily that it's prohibitive, and the fourth should be taxed so highly that it's impossible to profit off of.
exponentially
no. at 100% mil rate. ie: its value. every year.
if you can’t afford it, then sell it to someone who needs a home. :)
Should be the same concept with rental units. Taxes should go up exponentially for every unit you own over a certain limit. Of course if there's is a limit to how many homes or units a person can own, they will just create thousands of small corporations to own them.
Have to ban corporate ownership of residential property as well or some other fix.
I'd go further and cap the number of home one should be able to own, to like 2.
How would that work for apartment buildings or 4-plexes?
load more comments
(6 replies)
It should be illegal to have dozen of houses to begin with and if you don't like this you can go fuck yourself because we live in a society
My mayor lives off the rent of 8 houses. I don't think he'll do anything to fix it
Fucking disgusting parasite
Some places do this. I have heard a few Welsh areas have gone for much higher council tax (approximate equivalent to a shitty property tax) on second homes. They are allowed to charge up to 4x the normal rate.
If you are renting it out as a holiday rental you can be exempt from the normal council tax but they are now requiring you to actually rent it out. It must be available for at least 252 days of the year and actually used for at least 182 days so you can't just set rent to unaffordable amounts.
Hearing the crying about it has been great.
load more comments
(3 replies)
There is one huge flaw with the idea, whose aims I fully support: banks regularly own hundreds and thousands of homes through foreclosures. They need to be able to take back a home, because that is what makes it possible to have cheap mortgages. Banks are in fact some of the largest home owners in the country.
What might work better is a sales tax. Everybody pays some godawfully huge amount of money, like 10%, when they purchase a home. You add a 0% sales tax for a primary residence (which of course needs a resident, which is a physical person), maybe a 5% tax for a secondary.
The main goal is twofold: make homes artificially expensive when purchase is not tied to occupancy and discourage short-term speculation. This saves the ability of banks to repossess a home (there is no sale here), and it allows for expansion of rental housing, since the tax is one-time and not recurring, meaning its impact is minimized with prolonged ownership.
The UK has a sales tax like that on home purchases. The problem is that it prevents people from selling houses when their kids move out. It's too expensive to sell the house and buy a new one, so you have a lot of older couples living in five bedroom houses that are empty.
Still better than one corporation owning 500 houses and profiting from them.
Edit the UK has a vacancy rate of zero of about 73% of corporate landlords, so your older couple could rent rooms to 4 lodgers and come out ahead.
They won't, which is a lifestyle choice.
So, guy buys a 300 million dollar house, pays a million dollars a year in property tax, if he buys a second house for a friend for 60k, he now pays 2 million a year in property tax, basically making that 60k home cost a million dollars? And if he wants to buy a building for his business, that business basically costs him an extra million in property tax?
Well, usually commercial buildings are separate from residential.
But yes, I see the problem with the first example.
I don't see a problem with the first example.
If it's such a big deal why does he need a quarter billion house at all?
Consider somebody who escaped generational poverty through athletics, film, etc. One of the smartest ways for somebody without a wealthy support system to end the cycle of generational poverty is to own property. Now, say that the sports star or a film star wants to by a secondary house for a friend, a teacher, a family member who helped along the way to expand that cycle of breaking generational poverty. Or maybe they want to purchase their childhood home. Whatever the reason may be, they are now being penalized for helping others.
IMO it should be very low for 1 acre, but the amount of tax you pay per acre increases with every acre you own. Farmers would get an exemption for agricultural land, but only if they bring a crop to the market so it's designated as used farmland. This would prevent rich people with 1,000 acres from calling their private property a farm and paying next to nothing. Nope. Either grow a crop on it or pay uncle sam.
This doesn't make sense when you consider a lot of land isn't farmable. And if it's fixed per acre, then you aren't really taxing the value of the homes on the land either. The simpler solution is kind of what OP is saying, for each additional home you own there is a multiplier on its property taxes. Say your rate is 1% on your first home, it's now 2% for the second, 3% for the 3rd, ect. Have 100 homes/apartments, you will be paying 100% of it's assessed value in taxes each year. It would be interesting to see how that plays out and someone a lot smarter than me could run the simulations of how to disincentivize corporate land ownership without destroying people's abilities to own homes.
I strongly disagree. Lol. The number of homes doesn't matter. Land is land. Everyone should be able to own an acre at an affordable price. If greedy pigs want to gobble up all the land and keep it for themselves they should pay more. Only farmers should get an exemption for using land to grow food.
I don't get what you people are talking about. "but I own two house son my land" like you want special treatment because you own more than one house? If anything you should pay even more in taxes. I don't get it. So many rich people want special treatment for being rich.
view more: next ›