If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

Re:If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pens... by ryandrake on Wednesday June 09, 2021 @01:57PM (#27450992)

> Residence-first real estate policy needs to include tax that increases on the number of properties owned (and maybe even more steeply in a supply constrained market).

People might try to get around this by forming corporations or trusts that hold max one property each. There is really no need to count how many other properties someone holds. Just do a re-assessment every year and ratchet up the assessed value on all housing that the owner does not occupy, including vacant property and renter-occupied. Seems a lot simpler.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pens... by jedberg on Wednesday June 09, 2021 @02:10PM (#27451129)

It's pretty easy for the taxman to detect such shenanigans. There are a bunch of corporate laws that only apply when certain limits are met, like minimum revenue or 50 employees, etc. It's illegal to form extra corporations to get around those rules, and the regulators usually catch on.

I'd be especially easy in California because every foreign (out of state) corporation has to register with the state and tell them who the beneficial owners are. It would be fairly easy to trace it back to actual people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pens... by JAlexoid on Wednesday June 09, 2021 @02:46PM (#27451542)

If a corporation own a property - that it should pay the full tax, no exemptions. Primary residence clauses must never apply to corporations

[ Parent | on HN ]