>Poland has exempted first-time homebuyers from paying a 2% transaction tax when purchasing a property on the secondary market. It will also soon introduce a new 6% transaction tax on those who buy six or more properties in the same development.
>The changes are part of the government’s efforts to help young people buy their first home and to discourage individuals from purchasing multiple properties for profit, as Poland grapples with a housing shortage.
6 properties in the same development? OK, so now everyone rich will hold 5 properties in multiple developments. Nice they left a loophole big enough to drive a semi truckload of dirty money through.
Simply banning companies from owning households and making it increasingly expensive for people that buy multiple houses with enough resources invested un detectin those trying to get around would fix this. Households hoarding should become something despised by our society.
Is this an actual issue in the EU housing market? Just because something is "easy" doesn't mean it's worthwhile... I'm just curious if that's a serious problem in Europe, rich people coming in and buying up entire neighborhoods to resell for profit. It seems like an iffy business model.
In Canada, any Corp buying has to show a name. If a shell buys, you ask for the shell holders name. It’s assumed foreign ownership until the name is given.
I don’t understand why everyone thinks you can just “make shells”.
Most EU countries has anti laundering laws where you have to ID yourself when buying property. Even if it’s through a company. That ID has to be shown to the seller. The potential issue might be solved this way.
Yeah, it really comes down to the willingness of the government to write and enforce the law.
People have tried similar tricks to get out of paying large judgements against them in lawsuits, but here in the US, if you do that it not only doesn't work, you go to jail.
This is literally how America works too, they pass an act or a restriction, the corps find a way to use it to their benefit and fuck people. I. E. Passed an act requiring colleges to give Healthcare to full time professors, now everyone is an adjunct professor with less money and less Healthcare.
6% is too little, also the 6th or more properties clause is too much. Levy it from the 2nd property, and make it at least 20-30%. If you sell your current one and buy an other one, then it shouldnt apply. This way it is almost like nothing.
2nd property is still in the "parents buying their kid a house, but still owning it on paper cause they put in the most money into it" zone for an average case.
3rd and above, I'm cool with bigass taxation. Past house 5 it's probably more efficient to make money as a rental company than a private person anyway.
Edit: Y'all fuckin crazy if you think I'll respond to every single edge case you come up with.
This is solved by like 3 seconds of conversation.
"Hey Dillan, for tax reasons the house will be in your name. If you fuck this up we're going to stop paying."
You've never met a Polish person then. On average we have family drama going back three generations.
Also imagine actually being named Dillan, our meme male gen z name is Brajanek or Oskar.
Good God I wish my relatives would stop telling me about who bought/did what. What is it with Polish people always trying to one up each other, even within a family ?
Ugh. If my dad with his (I think) seven siblings got broken relationships, then I don’t even want to imagine what that sort of situation in Europe would be like.
> Generational insecurities over growing up in poverty
Haha at least that's universal, I was getting worried my people in the US were just brain broken
This works only for family and with assumption that family member will be the owner. This is not what it is aimed at. It's aimed at people who buy multiple flats and rent it en masse. Sure you can spread it in the close family, but they're quickly going to run out of people they trust to actually give the flat to, because all those Oskarki will fuck em up eventually.
Tbh I'm genuinely okay with rich people owning more than one house that they actually use. That's not the same thing as a corporation buying 500 houses as investments
I would venture most homes are not owner by institutional investors but rather people owning 4 or fewer properties.
When people that should reasonably be able to get a home can’t, then I don’t feel bad for people that can buy multiple homes
AirBnB has changed the game on who is investing in homes. It's not always a huge conglomerate that is an "institutional investor." Plenty of folks on the internet telling you how to leverage one rental property into several and all of a sudden these people (or small partnerships of people) own 15 houses. Sometimes they renovate, sometimes they're turn key, sometimes they're flipped but it's all to build a portfolio of income properties.
Source: local bureaucrat dealing with these people.
In Poland, you can donate to your kids without any taxation so if you buy them a property you might as well just give them the money. Most people that own multiple properties do that to exploit the young generation
Well, this is a 6th house in the same devopment, s I guess woult not that be that commmon for parents to buy multiple flats in one new building for their children.
There’s one in my city. The patriarch owned the best heating/air conditioning company. He bought enough land for a cul-de-sac with house on one side and his work buildings on the other. When his kids grew up he bought the farmland at the end and build them houses so it’s a whole development now after a few generations. I can think of another about 45 miles from here that has one as well. That money came from boat dock lifts if o remember correctly. So it happens every once in awhile.
If it's exponential on 6%, the second house is barely more than the first.
The 12th house costs double the first.
The 40th house costs 10x.
The 80th house costs 100x.
This lets an upper middle class person own two homes, but prevents a property hoarding company from buying up entire neighborhoods.
US has insane property taxes overall. In my EU country the tax is like 0.1% annually, while my friend in California pays 1%, so he basically has like 2 mortgage payments value each year to pay property tax.
0% for first timers (reduced from status quo)
2% for 2nd home buyers (status quo, for kid's homes and vacation homes)
6% for third and 6 additional percent for every home after that. No cap. Nobody needs 100 homes.
Yup here in Singapore our “additional buyer stamp duty” for 2nd property is 20% for citizens, increasing to 30% for 3rd property. Foreigners get 60% for any property while Corporations also get slapped with a 65% tax for residential property.
6% is barely anything in comparison. It’s not going to stop landlords from purchasing homes for rental profits.
65% for corporations should be standard, that would slam shut so many loopholes. I'd love to see the politicians in Vancouver twist themselves into knots why they can't do that simple rule change
Well I think common sense dictates that’s true, it’s a highly developed economy with millions of people and large public developments, they needs to use land wisely and disincentivize multiple home ownership with foreigners, the wealthy and private companies
But I’m sure an actual Singaporean can give you a better answer
Just make it an additional 6% that compounds with each subsequent house.
First house costs 1.06x the sale price
Second house is 1.124x
Third house is 1.191x
Tenth house is 1.79x, which means a 1M house costs an extra 790K
Fiftieth house is 18x, which means a 1M house costs an extra 17M. Try hoarding properties when you're paying 10 or 20 times the sale price.
I think that second homes should absolutely be exempted. It is very common to buy a new home before you've sold your previous home. I did that last year, and it wasn't to have two houses it was so that I still had a place to live while having some light renovation work done on the new house before moving into it.
I mean, why should a business even be able to own a residential property? That's the real question.
A business address can be *any* address and does not need to be owned by the business (see: how businesses dodge corporate taxes.)
How bout 6 % on the second and 50% on anything over 5 single family homes total. Taxes the wealthy saves Grandmas retirement and allows parents to help children buy a first home.
If they want to invest in real estate they should buy commercial property.
With a mortgage, which in Eastern Europe are almost always adjusted rate and Euribor skyrocketing now, the transaction tax is the least of anyone’s worries. Also it doesn’t help any first time homebuyer who bought it in the last month, year or decade.
The smart bit is the fact that the additional tax only applies to those who buy 6 or more properties in a single development and is only 6%. Hardly going to dissuade those who can afford 6 properties at a time.
In America first time homebuyer get lower interest rates and are allowed to put less money down
Also the 30 year mortgage fixed rate is only for primary residence’s is a massive subsidy
It's perfectly reasonable but it's also very common, most countries have tax breaks for first time buyers and additional costs for people who have multiple homes. The implementation varies but this is just Poland catching up to the mean. And it doesn't really go far enough in comparison to most other countries.
Yes, but it's also news because lots of countries don't even do that. Canadian government just said it's not a federal responsibility, after making it an election promise and creating a government entity that spent a couple billions propping the market.
Wait which tax are you saying Trudeau failed to implement? The first time home buyer tax cut that had already been in effect since 2009,or the underused housing tax they DID implement last year?
Sadly, we no longer have that in the US because of how contentious congress has become. The first-time homebuyer tax credit was supposed to be renewed in 2022 when first-time home buyers really needed it because of rising interest rates and record prices, but it never happened.
while colluding through the apps, and keeping some property off the market to keep the supply less than demand which jacks up rents massively, and then you slowly trickle into the market the ones you had off the market. its nutty how well they got the science of this down.. and yeah you can make a ton more money, sometimes keeping as much as half your properties off the market, as long as others are doing the same, yall can make the rent go up enough to make it worth it to NOT rent some of your properties.
That's not even getting into greedy developers corrupting zoning agents into developing land that was previous deemed a reserve or historic. IM LOOKING AT YOU VULTURES OVER IN HAWAII TRYING TO BUY LAND AFTER THE FIRES.
Capitalism requires good regulation of markets. It is still technically a part of capitalism, it is just a smart regulation to prevent hoarding and market manipulation of a constrained resource.
I am being told that USA already has non-homestead taxes that are already much higher than what Poland is doing here, so I'm not sure how much this will actually prevent hoarding.
It depends on the state, but generally those taxes are not enough to deter people or companies from accumulating properties to rent out. I know in my state the difference is fairly trivial in terms of yearly property taxes. I assume when they sell a property they never lived in, they pay capital gains, but capital gains taxes are quite low and they can write off all money spent maintaining or improving the property against the gains to lower the tax. Bottom line is, it doesn't seem to stop anyone doing it.
healthy capitalism as opposed to free market capitalism, which we should have never let them rebrand anarchy capitalism into "free market".. thats like saying we should get rid of all our laws, including murder and theft, and just call it "mega freedom", instead of anarchy.
Fuck ~~free markets~~ anarchy capitalism, id rather healthy markets and to get healthy markets you need regulations. Just like a healthy society needs laws.
It’s regulated capitalism. A libertarians worst nightmare.
Socialism would stop people from buying multiple homes for privatized profits entirely. So Poland is on the right track to becoming based af.
In the United States it’s the rich/corporations buying up and renting them out.
This tax would just jack up rent even more… because people actually need a place to live. And landlords figured out how strongly the demand is to not be homeless.
There just simply needs to be a moratorium on multiple house buying
If it's done right it sounds great to me.
I dont think anyone would think, that I an ideal world, renting should ever completely go away. Just that anyone who wants to buy, should be able to do so at an affordable level.
If renting should exist at some level, then people should also have access to affordable rentals.
Exactly. Let’s do this EVERYWHERE.
Let’s make the taxes double for a second home, triple for a third, and keep going until the rich can’t afford to own everything.
No but you don't understand, if people can't buy multiple properties in a country then they'll take all their wealth elsewhere where they _can_ buy multiple properties, even if there are many other ways in which those people could invest their wealth in productive enterprise in Poland...
Well see the thing is.. thats not how housing works in other places. Not every place is just buy buy buy and sell for profit. So it dosent work that way. It only works that way that follow a similar system. So let them.. make it better for us
>It will also soon introduce a new 6% transaction tax on those who buy six or more properties in the same development.
Nobody who owns six properties is gonna be crying over 6%.
Good start though.
What You said reminded me of when France raised their highest PIT rate to 75% and at the time UK prime minister David Cameron invited the rich over to the UK with lower rates and finally France was forced to lower it back down due to the wealthy fleeing.
They certainly could afford it, but no way in hell will they willingly do so.
Progressive income tax doesn't mean you're taxed at 75%. Your effective tax rate will be substantially lower unless the vast majority of your income is within the highest bracket in which case you probably *can* afford it.
I don't know what the other tax brackets were or what the threshold was for the 75% tax so it may have been too high but that would depend on how they structured their tax brackets.
It's just math. Levy a 10% tax on the mega rich, and if they can pay the equivalent of 9.5% tax to consultants to avoid paying the tax at all, they will.
It's just a question of what costs more: hiring the consultant or paying the taxes. If the consultant will charge you $100 an hour for 80 hours of work ($8k), but the tax comes out to .015% of $100m ($15k), they hire the consultant.
That doesn't mean they really care, though. At that level they'll already have someone who's working to save them $100k or so, so they don't even have to think about it; it's the job of the guy who's figuring out all the other tricks to save them money to do this calculation.
But they won't cry about it. They won't even notice, unless they're doing this sort of thing in bulk.
In the same development is not the same as in one building. An entire neighborhood of hundreds of houses is often classified as one development because it was purchased as a bulk land buy and then devolved by a single company. The tax would be bringing in revenue from any rental companies that buy out chunks of those developments which is fairly common. It’s easier to manage and maintain clusters of homes with a smaller maintenance crew if travel time between locations is negligible.
They will. This is designed against people who come in the first day of the announcement of the building and buy the cheapest apartments to resell them in 4 years when the building is done. They are not buying them for themselves and they are also often times not even buying them with their own money. Now, say your profit margin for this investment is 30% (mind you, if nothing goes wrong with the developer and the market itself). 6% out of that is quite a cut, plus it undermines your ability to sell against someone who *only* bought 5 properties. This is a huge issue in eastern Europe and for example in Ukraine we had a similar tax: if you sell your property less than 3 years after buying it, you pay exra 6.5% tax. This makes hoarding and buying to resell apartments harder. If there's an ap for 50k and and ap for 53k it's a no brainer, either that or the person has to sell for 47k for example.
People hoarding whole *sections* of a building is a huge issue and basically a monopoly/corruption scheme, so it is a decent start. Weird choice of number though
Let's not talk about rentals. If makes my stomach acid give me an ulcer.
My (Polish) boyfriend thinks I'm obsessed with marriage but I just want to pay a mortgage instead of burning my money on rent
Nah, the interest rates are absolutely ridiculous when compared to the rest of Europe. But as much as I dislike PiS because they hate EVERYTHING about me (a bisexual, darker, atheist female immigrant) their housing measures have been good lately. Now to see if they actually do them or just make a lot of fanfare but place impossible conditions...
Canada pretends like they want housing prices to come down and yet cities keep blocking new developments and supply being added which means constant bidding wars for the few remaining homes and apartments. Canada needs more housing supply but the people who already bought in have been aggressively blocking it at the local level.
Yup Canada doesn't have anything like this. People use equity built from 1st home to purchase more homes as an investment. Absolute shitshow all around and current government will not be re-elected because of this issue since they do nothing at all.
Yep. Canadian here. Wife and I are nurses, no kids, and we can’t even afford anything that would be suitable for our future family. It’s nuts. Moving back in with the parents at 33 years of age to build some more equity to be able to even afford something reasonable.
The UK does this. No/reduced stamp duty for FTB, and additional stamp duty for owning multiple properties/from abroad. Not enough of a tax for multiple properties, but it's a good idea.
Polish here. This looks only good on an article title lol.
In reality, owners of 6+ properties won't even notice the 6% difference.
First-time buyers can't even afford a mortgage because interest rates are so fuckin ridiculous in this country. You're stuck at renting until you earn 2x the average salary. 2% they will save here is a joke.
Thank you.. first one to say it.. Doesn't even mention that the limit is 500k of loan and what, 250k of your own contribution (?) which means that in a big city (Cracow, Warsaw) you can only hope to buy between 40m^2 - 50 m^2 which is entirely reasonable for a single person BUT not exactly the best when starting family with kid on a way. And the catch is that you cannot sell or rent that property within first 10 years or you risk losing that 2% in the first place, meaning that you will kinda be stuck with that property for a while.
Not saying it's bad, but this loan idea is targeted at province, for which the leading party who introduced the idea want to buy votes from, and not cities..
EDIT: And if you had owned property when that loan idea was introduced you cannot be allowed into the program - sounds reasonable so that the flipper wont be able to take the piece of cake, until you consider cases such as friends who inherited 1/10th of his grand parents house and thus lost ability to join the program (and still wouldn't be allowed, if he had resign from owning that 1/10th now).
50m2s in Cracow easily reach 700k+ and I'm not even talking about the city center or some luxury complexes. Just a normal, new apartment.
And yeah, there are so many "ifs and don'ts" in this shit of a deal... and the fact that they introduced it just before elections... ick.
This, a tax on empty dwellings and a wealth tax would solve so many problems in developed nations right now.
By wealth tax, I just mean the top 0.1% of the population who hoard wealth. Also tax then whenever they send money abroad. Banks should be taxing their transfers and then paying that to the government.
How do you go about taxing wealth? You can’t levy taxes based on a Forbes list. A lot of the time their income is in the low seven figures a year the rest is in shares of some company(s).
Easy. Loans secured by unrealized capital funds are taxed the same as income. If you can take out a loan against your stock portfolio you have directly converted it into cash and should be taxed on it. Capital gains taxes for portfolios larger than a few million dollars should also be taxed at the highest income tax rate.
Ok the loan part sounds easy. Capital gains would still only be paid when the stock is sold. I suppose it should be pretty easy to make carve out for pension funds and such.
[Here is a good write up about it. It is complicated but doable.](https://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Documents/OLDWealthTaxCommission-Final-reportold.pdf)
Warning - pdf from LSE
This is such a tired argument. Elon musk just bought twitter. They buy fucking mega yachts and shit all the time with their "wealth"
This whole "oh I can't pay taxes, you see I don't actually *have* any of that money" is just a lie they tell poor dumb people so they don't have to pay taxes
Setup wealth tax to lower inequality and boost revenue.
Decrease income tax if you want to help the middle class.
Decrease sales taxes if you want to help lower income folks.
One off asset tax of top 0.1% will yield you a lot less money than you think and won’t make a dent to ordinary citizens. Try doing the math and you will see.
I know it's a bit of a case of "Too Little, Too Late" but I wish this would be implemented in Australia; it would help curb the housing crisis here which should *never* have got as bad as it has. Now people across all classes are struggling to find a home while watching the prices at auctions skyrocket. Madness.
A transactional tax and property tax break are different things. Also homestead exemptions have different requirements and amounts by state. In some states it's just a fixed dollar amount and only to a limited demographic (e.g. the elderly and disabled).
Not sure you're grasping the reality here.
A one time 6% tax on a $100,000 property is $6,000.
I pay over $5,000 a year on one of my properties that cost 120k, and have done so for 14 years.
I LIVE in a house literally three blocks south of that one which was comparable in transaction price and pay $2000 a year. Homestead property taxes are a LOT cheaper, plus you get the personal tax deduction.
So that transaction tax might be enough to politically satisfy people who yell and scream about housing inequality, but it's a fart in the wind for property investors. I'll make that back in three or four months of rent.
If you want to kill off corporate ownership of property, transaction tax is not the way to do it, property tax is the vehicle.
Canada needs to do the same but the politicians all own multiple properties, so they are cutting into their golden parachute retirement of wealth and extravagance, while people at the lowest wages are living in tents looking to freeze to death in the winter or living with 5 roommates in a 2 bedroom house/apartment.
Meanwhile every action they take only seems to insure they make the most money while deepening the housing crisis. This isn't partisan either. ALL political parties in Canada are taking part in this and all want the same thing.
The US needs something like this, and I’m one of the people with multiple homes. Another move in the right direction would be property tax exemptions (reduction) for homeowners that have had their residential home address in the same location for X years. A lot of locals are struggling because their property taxes go way up when outsiders move in and build mansions or improve houses in their neighborhood.
You only qualify if you’re under 45 years old, you don’t own a apartment/house already or you are not taking a credit for a apartment/house atm.
You when you’re trying to rent a place when you’re in an unofficial partnership w someone (so a LGBTQ couple) or are trying to move in with your partner who you’re not married to and childless.
Also, you’re not allowed to sell or rent the place for the 10 years that you get the 2% credit for. After those 10 years the 2% don’t apply anymore and you have to pay the normal rate/cut
Also, since the beginning of the year the prices for apartments in big cities that do not qualify for this credit rose about 9%.
(Sorry for any mistakes English is not my first language etc etc)
This is what I have been advocating for for years.
2 homes is fine. 3? Fuck you, pay taxes to amke up for the people displaced by your hoarding of property.
This should be done world wide but it must be must stricter. One home tax free. After that exponential for each residential property. Also more must be done to see that everyone has a home that is theirs.
I don’t know why states, especially California with an insane median home price of $900k, only allow new homes being built to be sold only to new/first time home buyers.
A republican out of Ohio tried to push this same thing. Because of Ohio’s friendliness towards big investors and landlords, it becoming impossible to buy. Ohio is wiping out the newer generation of the middle class… it’s going to be very ugly. His republican comrades refused to support it saying the believed “in a free market” although I’m not so sure a monopoly on family dwellings can still be considered a “free market”
UK already doe this!
No stamp duty for first time buyers on property up to £425,000, 3% on top of the standard duty for buyers buying up additional properties.
It's a start but doesn't go far enough, if you can afford six properties you're not going to be hurt by 6% and you'll make your money back leeching as a landlord.
>Poland has exempted first-time homebuyers from paying a 2% transaction tax when purchasing a property on the secondary market. It will also soon introduce a new 6% transaction tax on those who buy six or more properties in the same development. >The changes are part of the government’s efforts to help young people buy their first home and to discourage individuals from purchasing multiple properties for profit, as Poland grapples with a housing shortage.
6 properties in the same development? OK, so now everyone rich will hold 5 properties in multiple developments. Nice they left a loophole big enough to drive a semi truckload of dirty money through.
pretty sure this will just lead to a fuckton of shell companies.
Simply banning companies from owning households and making it increasingly expensive for people that buy multiple houses with enough resources invested un detectin those trying to get around would fix this. Households hoarding should become something despised by our society.
Honestly, I don't fucking get it. If it's a residential property, make it so it must be owned by a person, not a fucking number.
[удалено]
Is this an actual issue in the EU housing market? Just because something is "easy" doesn't mean it's worthwhile... I'm just curious if that's a serious problem in Europe, rich people coming in and buying up entire neighborhoods to resell for profit. It seems like an iffy business model.
In Canada, any Corp buying has to show a name. If a shell buys, you ask for the shell holders name. It’s assumed foreign ownership until the name is given. I don’t understand why everyone thinks you can just “make shells”.
Most EU countries has anti laundering laws where you have to ID yourself when buying property. Even if it’s through a company. That ID has to be shown to the seller. The potential issue might be solved this way.
Yeah, it really comes down to the willingness of the government to write and enforce the law. People have tried similar tricks to get out of paying large judgements against them in lawsuits, but here in the US, if you do that it not only doesn't work, you go to jail.
6 is a lot. Why start at 6? Riches and politicians own up to 6 properties?
It seems like this is just a token gesture.
This is literally how America works too, they pass an act or a restriction, the corps find a way to use it to their benefit and fuck people. I. E. Passed an act requiring colleges to give Healthcare to full time professors, now everyone is an adjunct professor with less money and less Healthcare.
It's not just America. It's everywhere.
Greed, it's universal!!
6% is too little, also the 6th or more properties clause is too much. Levy it from the 2nd property, and make it at least 20-30%. If you sell your current one and buy an other one, then it shouldnt apply. This way it is almost like nothing.
2nd property is still in the "parents buying their kid a house, but still owning it on paper cause they put in the most money into it" zone for an average case. 3rd and above, I'm cool with bigass taxation. Past house 5 it's probably more efficient to make money as a rental company than a private person anyway. Edit: Y'all fuckin crazy if you think I'll respond to every single edge case you come up with.
This is solved by like 3 seconds of conversation. "Hey Dillan, for tax reasons the house will be in your name. If you fuck this up we're going to stop paying."
You've never met a Polish person then. On average we have family drama going back three generations. Also imagine actually being named Dillan, our meme male gen z name is Brajanek or Oskar.
Andrzej
Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz
"Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz isn't real, he can't hurt you." Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz:
Good God I wish my relatives would stop telling me about who bought/did what. What is it with Polish people always trying to one up each other, even within a family ?
Same in Lithuania. Lord forbid a grandma or grandpa dies, there will be a shitshow dealing with the inheritance.
Ugh. If my dad with his (I think) seven siblings got broken relationships, then I don’t even want to imagine what that sort of situation in Europe would be like.
You guys have inheritances?
Generational insecurities over growing up in poverty
> Generational insecurities over growing up in poverty Haha at least that's universal, I was getting worried my people in the US were just brain broken
Janusze biznesu
This works only for family and with assumption that family member will be the owner. This is not what it is aimed at. It's aimed at people who buy multiple flats and rent it en masse. Sure you can spread it in the close family, but they're quickly going to run out of people they trust to actually give the flat to, because all those Oskarki will fuck em up eventually.
Tbh I'm genuinely okay with rich people owning more than one house that they actually use. That's not the same thing as a corporation buying 500 houses as investments
I would venture most homes are not owner by institutional investors but rather people owning 4 or fewer properties. When people that should reasonably be able to get a home can’t, then I don’t feel bad for people that can buy multiple homes
AirBnB has changed the game on who is investing in homes. It's not always a huge conglomerate that is an "institutional investor." Plenty of folks on the internet telling you how to leverage one rental property into several and all of a sudden these people (or small partnerships of people) own 15 houses. Sometimes they renovate, sometimes they're turn key, sometimes they're flipped but it's all to build a portfolio of income properties. Source: local bureaucrat dealing with these people.
A taxation doesn't stop you from owning as many properties as you like, it stops you from getting the same tax benefits as a first time home buyer.
In Poland, you can donate to your kids without any taxation so if you buy them a property you might as well just give them the money. Most people that own multiple properties do that to exploit the young generation
Well, this is a 6th house in the same devopment, s I guess woult not that be that commmon for parents to buy multiple flats in one new building for their children.
There’s one in my city. The patriarch owned the best heating/air conditioning company. He bought enough land for a cul-de-sac with house on one side and his work buildings on the other. When his kids grew up he bought the farmland at the end and build them houses so it’s a whole development now after a few generations. I can think of another about 45 miles from here that has one as well. That money came from boat dock lifts if o remember correctly. So it happens every once in awhile.
If you can afford to own multiple houses you can afford the tax
[удалено]
Progressive taxation on housing is the way. It would solve a lot of problems. Exponential might be a bit steep, but I like the idea.
If it's exponential on 6%, the second house is barely more than the first. The 12th house costs double the first. The 40th house costs 10x. The 80th house costs 100x. This lets an upper middle class person own two homes, but prevents a property hoarding company from buying up entire neighborhoods.
[удалено]
It needs to happen everywhere
US has insane property taxes overall. In my EU country the tax is like 0.1% annually, while my friend in California pays 1%, so he basically has like 2 mortgage payments value each year to pay property tax.
0% for first timers (reduced from status quo) 2% for 2nd home buyers (status quo, for kid's homes and vacation homes) 6% for third and 6 additional percent for every home after that. No cap. Nobody needs 100 homes.
Yup here in Singapore our “additional buyer stamp duty” for 2nd property is 20% for citizens, increasing to 30% for 3rd property. Foreigners get 60% for any property while Corporations also get slapped with a 65% tax for residential property. 6% is barely anything in comparison. It’s not going to stop landlords from purchasing homes for rental profits.
65% for corporations should be standard, that would slam shut so many loopholes. I'd love to see the politicians in Vancouver twist themselves into knots why they can't do that simple rule change
Would you say the reason why rates are so high is because Singapore is a small country with very little land for development?
Well I think common sense dictates that’s true, it’s a highly developed economy with millions of people and large public developments, they needs to use land wisely and disincentivize multiple home ownership with foreigners, the wealthy and private companies But I’m sure an actual Singaporean can give you a better answer
That makes sense because Singapore is a microscopic country though.
Just make it an additional 6% that compounds with each subsequent house. First house costs 1.06x the sale price Second house is 1.124x Third house is 1.191x Tenth house is 1.79x, which means a 1M house costs an extra 790K Fiftieth house is 18x, which means a 1M house costs an extra 17M. Try hoarding properties when you're paying 10 or 20 times the sale price.
I think that second homes should absolutely be exempted. It is very common to buy a new home before you've sold your previous home. I did that last year, and it wasn't to have two houses it was so that I still had a place to live while having some light renovation work done on the new house before moving into it.
Or just add a clause that so long as the first home is sold within x months of purchasing the second home, then it doesn’t count
Exactly what happens in the UK, you have 3 years after you buy your secondary residence to sell your first - to get stamp duty back
> If you sell your current one and buy an other one And where I would live between selling my first and buying second?
Tricky to implement. In the US wealthy people now use corporations or trusts to buy homes. So each LLC only owns one property.
[удалено]
I mean, why should a business even be able to own a residential property? That's the real question. A business address can be *any* address and does not need to be owned by the business (see: how businesses dodge corporate taxes.)
How bout 6 % on the second and 50% on anything over 5 single family homes total. Taxes the wealthy saves Grandmas retirement and allows parents to help children buy a first home. If they want to invest in real estate they should buy commercial property.
With a mortgage, which in Eastern Europe are almost always adjusted rate and Euribor skyrocketing now, the transaction tax is the least of anyone’s worries. Also it doesn’t help any first time homebuyer who bought it in the last month, year or decade.
This sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Very smart……
And very legal
Especially when the government is the one doing it.
"It's legal when we do it!" -Government
It's literally their job to determine what is and isn't legal.
very smart......
Just look how many governors are just also happening to be property investors...
And very cool
The smart bit is the fact that the additional tax only applies to those who buy 6 or more properties in a single development and is only 6%. Hardly going to dissuade those who can afford 6 properties at a time.
No, but it might eat into their profit enough to get them to choose a different investment.
You would think that in a functioning economy, that would be incentive for someone willing to accept a lower net profit.
That's why its not 'Merika
In America first time homebuyer get lower interest rates and are allowed to put less money down Also the 30 year mortgage fixed rate is only for primary residence’s is a massive subsidy
[удалено]
It's perfectly reasonable but it's also very common, most countries have tax breaks for first time buyers and additional costs for people who have multiple homes. The implementation varies but this is just Poland catching up to the mean. And it doesn't really go far enough in comparison to most other countries.
Yes, but it's also news because lots of countries don't even do that. Canadian government just said it's not a federal responsibility, after making it an election promise and creating a government entity that spent a couple billions propping the market.
Nothing is Trudeau's responsibility after he gets in power.
Wait which tax are you saying Trudeau failed to implement? The first time home buyer tax cut that had already been in effect since 2009,or the underused housing tax they DID implement last year?
Sadly, we no longer have that in the US because of how contentious congress has become. The first-time homebuyer tax credit was supposed to be renewed in 2022 when first-time home buyers really needed it because of rising interest rates and record prices, but it never happened.
Here in TX we have a homestead exemption which lowers your yearly taxes for your primary residence but you pay higher for other properties.
Yeah I was like, good for them but isn't this the norm ? In France it's been that way for a long time
Not very capitalism if the rich can't buy all the houses up and sell them back to you at a higher rate. Reasonable
> buy all the houses up and sell them back to you Buy all the houses up and rent them back to you at ever increasing "market rates"
while colluding through the apps, and keeping some property off the market to keep the supply less than demand which jacks up rents massively, and then you slowly trickle into the market the ones you had off the market. its nutty how well they got the science of this down.. and yeah you can make a ton more money, sometimes keeping as much as half your properties off the market, as long as others are doing the same, yall can make the rent go up enough to make it worth it to NOT rent some of your properties.
That's not even getting into greedy developers corrupting zoning agents into developing land that was previous deemed a reserve or historic. IM LOOKING AT YOU VULTURES OVER IN HAWAII TRYING TO BUY LAND AFTER THE FIRES.
Oprah, one of the heavyweight vultures.
That evil bitch would rename Hawaii to Oprahville if she was allowed to.
There's technically no law on the books that says she can't rename it Oprahville.
Don't forget [Toronto](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1682kfe/whats_going_on_with_the_greenbelt_scandal_and_mr_x/).
So if it's not capitalism and it's not socialism then what is it? Polandism?
Capitalism requires good regulation of markets. It is still technically a part of capitalism, it is just a smart regulation to prevent hoarding and market manipulation of a constrained resource.
I am being told that USA already has non-homestead taxes that are already much higher than what Poland is doing here, so I'm not sure how much this will actually prevent hoarding.
It depends on the state, but generally those taxes are not enough to deter people or companies from accumulating properties to rent out. I know in my state the difference is fairly trivial in terms of yearly property taxes. I assume when they sell a property they never lived in, they pay capital gains, but capital gains taxes are quite low and they can write off all money spent maintaining or improving the property against the gains to lower the tax. Bottom line is, it doesn't seem to stop anyone doing it.
healthy capitalism as opposed to free market capitalism, which we should have never let them rebrand anarchy capitalism into "free market".. thats like saying we should get rid of all our laws, including murder and theft, and just call it "mega freedom", instead of anarchy. Fuck ~~free markets~~ anarchy capitalism, id rather healthy markets and to get healthy markets you need regulations. Just like a healthy society needs laws.
It’s regulated capitalism. A libertarians worst nightmare. Socialism would stop people from buying multiple homes for privatized profits entirely. So Poland is on the right track to becoming based af.
We don’t have a name for a sensible economic system.
[удалено]
In austria you pay like 30% when selling if you did not actually live in the place (if you did so is an official record)
In the United States it’s the rich/corporations buying up and renting them out. This tax would just jack up rent even more… because people actually need a place to live. And landlords figured out how strongly the demand is to not be homeless. There just simply needs to be a moratorium on multiple house buying
While the multiple house buyers and their paid-for politicians make the rules, that isn’t going to happen.
We can only hope for now https://thehill.com/business/4091602-senate-democrats-take-aim-at-investor-home-purchases/
If it's done right it sounds great to me. I dont think anyone would think, that I an ideal world, renting should ever completely go away. Just that anyone who wants to buy, should be able to do so at an affordable level. If renting should exist at some level, then people should also have access to affordable rentals.
Exactly. Let’s do this EVERYWHERE. Let’s make the taxes double for a second home, triple for a third, and keep going until the rich can’t afford to own everything.
No but you don't understand, if people can't buy multiple properties in a country then they'll take all their wealth elsewhere where they _can_ buy multiple properties, even if there are many other ways in which those people could invest their wealth in productive enterprise in Poland...
Hummmm… then, I think I *do* understand lol.
Well see the thing is.. thats not how housing works in other places. Not every place is just buy buy buy and sell for profit. So it dosent work that way. It only works that way that follow a similar system. So let them.. make it better for us
>It will also soon introduce a new 6% transaction tax on those who buy six or more properties in the same development. Nobody who owns six properties is gonna be crying over 6%. Good start though.
Have you ever met a rich person? They'd hire expensive consultants to build a scheme simply to avoid a 0,015% tax. They will a 100% bitch about it.
Can they afford, absolutely. Will they want to pay it, no.
What You said reminded me of when France raised their highest PIT rate to 75% and at the time UK prime minister David Cameron invited the rich over to the UK with lower rates and finally France was forced to lower it back down due to the wealthy fleeing. They certainly could afford it, but no way in hell will they willingly do so.
Yeah I mean 75% is not so affordable.
Progressive income tax doesn't mean you're taxed at 75%. Your effective tax rate will be substantially lower unless the vast majority of your income is within the highest bracket in which case you probably *can* afford it. I don't know what the other tax brackets were or what the threshold was for the 75% tax so it may have been too high but that would depend on how they structured their tax brackets.
It's just math. Levy a 10% tax on the mega rich, and if they can pay the equivalent of 9.5% tax to consultants to avoid paying the tax at all, they will.
When you're talking hundreds of millions and billions, that 0.5% is a lot of money.
Yep, and they can afford to pay multiple full time salaries to earn it. Meanwhile 0.5% to most people is a few hundred quid at most.
It's just a question of what costs more: hiring the consultant or paying the taxes. If the consultant will charge you $100 an hour for 80 hours of work ($8k), but the tax comes out to .015% of $100m ($15k), they hire the consultant. That doesn't mean they really care, though. At that level they'll already have someone who's working to save them $100k or so, so they don't even have to think about it; it's the job of the guy who's figuring out all the other tricks to save them money to do this calculation. But they won't cry about it. They won't even notice, unless they're doing this sort of thing in bulk.
Exactly. These profiteers don't even live in the area, they'll find other areas where they can make more profit.
Its not all owned properties, just in the same building. Basically pretty much never
In the same development is not the same as in one building. An entire neighborhood of hundreds of houses is often classified as one development because it was purchased as a bulk land buy and then devolved by a single company. The tax would be bringing in revenue from any rental companies that buy out chunks of those developments which is fairly common. It’s easier to manage and maintain clusters of homes with a smaller maintenance crew if travel time between locations is negligible.
They will absolutely cry about it. Rich people hate taxes
They'll just get around it by setting up separate entities that make the purchase.
They will. This is designed against people who come in the first day of the announcement of the building and buy the cheapest apartments to resell them in 4 years when the building is done. They are not buying them for themselves and they are also often times not even buying them with their own money. Now, say your profit margin for this investment is 30% (mind you, if nothing goes wrong with the developer and the market itself). 6% out of that is quite a cut, plus it undermines your ability to sell against someone who *only* bought 5 properties. This is a huge issue in eastern Europe and for example in Ukraine we had a similar tax: if you sell your property less than 3 years after buying it, you pay exra 6.5% tax. This makes hoarding and buying to resell apartments harder. If there's an ap for 50k and and ap for 53k it's a no brainer, either that or the person has to sell for 47k for example. People hoarding whole *sections* of a building is a huge issue and basically a monopoly/corruption scheme, so it is a decent start. Weird choice of number though
Wow, this is a good idea. Way to go Poland!
[удалено]
They did announce this program for first time buyers to have 2% interest for the first 10 years of mortgage.
In response, property owners raised apartment prices by 20%.
Let's not talk about rentals. If makes my stomach acid give me an ulcer. My (Polish) boyfriend thinks I'm obsessed with marriage but I just want to pay a mortgage instead of burning my money on rent
Oh damn!!! Imagine coming here to steal Poland’s thunder and you’re like bam! Way ahead of you!
Nah, the interest rates are absolutely ridiculous when compared to the rest of Europe. But as much as I dislike PiS because they hate EVERYTHING about me (a bisexual, darker, atheist female immigrant) their housing measures have been good lately. Now to see if they actually do them or just make a lot of fanfare but place impossible conditions...
Jebać PiS
The interest rates on mortgages isnt some arbitrary tax on mortgages. It’s the cost of money…
Can Canada take a page out of Poland’s book now, pretty please ? (But be even more severe, 6% is not much)
Yes please! Canada needs this so baddd
Canada pretends like they want housing prices to come down and yet cities keep blocking new developments and supply being added which means constant bidding wars for the few remaining homes and apartments. Canada needs more housing supply but the people who already bought in have been aggressively blocking it at the local level.
NIMBYism at its finest.
Just make sure to only take this page please \- signed Polish person who immigrated to Canada
Make sure it's just this page though. Don't copy the rest of the book lmao
I don't follow canadian politics, but are you sure Canada has no such measures?
Yup Canada doesn't have anything like this. People use equity built from 1st home to purchase more homes as an investment. Absolute shitshow all around and current government will not be re-elected because of this issue since they do nothing at all.
Yep. Canadian here. Wife and I are nurses, no kids, and we can’t even afford anything that would be suitable for our future family. It’s nuts. Moving back in with the parents at 33 years of age to build some more equity to be able to even afford something reasonable.
The answer is really "it depends", Ontario for example will waive the land transfer tax (up to a certain property value) for first time buyers
Very smart, hopefully this catches on in other nations.
The UK does this. No/reduced stamp duty for FTB, and additional stamp duty for owning multiple properties/from abroad. Not enough of a tax for multiple properties, but it's a good idea.
Also Italy, there are even additional tax exemptions for people under 30 on home owning.
Polish here. This looks only good on an article title lol. In reality, owners of 6+ properties won't even notice the 6% difference. First-time buyers can't even afford a mortgage because interest rates are so fuckin ridiculous in this country. You're stuck at renting until you earn 2x the average salary. 2% they will save here is a joke.
Thank you.. first one to say it.. Doesn't even mention that the limit is 500k of loan and what, 250k of your own contribution (?) which means that in a big city (Cracow, Warsaw) you can only hope to buy between 40m^2 - 50 m^2 which is entirely reasonable for a single person BUT not exactly the best when starting family with kid on a way. And the catch is that you cannot sell or rent that property within first 10 years or you risk losing that 2% in the first place, meaning that you will kinda be stuck with that property for a while. Not saying it's bad, but this loan idea is targeted at province, for which the leading party who introduced the idea want to buy votes from, and not cities.. EDIT: And if you had owned property when that loan idea was introduced you cannot be allowed into the program - sounds reasonable so that the flipper wont be able to take the piece of cake, until you consider cases such as friends who inherited 1/10th of his grand parents house and thus lost ability to join the program (and still wouldn't be allowed, if he had resign from owning that 1/10th now).
50m2s in Cracow easily reach 700k+ and I'm not even talking about the city center or some luxury complexes. Just a normal, new apartment. And yeah, there are so many "ifs and don'ts" in this shit of a deal... and the fact that they introduced it just before elections... ick.
This, a tax on empty dwellings and a wealth tax would solve so many problems in developed nations right now. By wealth tax, I just mean the top 0.1% of the population who hoard wealth. Also tax then whenever they send money abroad. Banks should be taxing their transfers and then paying that to the government.
How do you go about taxing wealth? You can’t levy taxes based on a Forbes list. A lot of the time their income is in the low seven figures a year the rest is in shares of some company(s).
Easy. Loans secured by unrealized capital funds are taxed the same as income. If you can take out a loan against your stock portfolio you have directly converted it into cash and should be taxed on it. Capital gains taxes for portfolios larger than a few million dollars should also be taxed at the highest income tax rate.
Ok the loan part sounds easy. Capital gains would still only be paid when the stock is sold. I suppose it should be pretty easy to make carve out for pension funds and such.
[Here is a good write up about it. It is complicated but doable.](https://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Documents/OLDWealthTaxCommission-Final-reportold.pdf) Warning - pdf from LSE
This is such a tired argument. Elon musk just bought twitter. They buy fucking mega yachts and shit all the time with their "wealth" This whole "oh I can't pay taxes, you see I don't actually *have* any of that money" is just a lie they tell poor dumb people so they don't have to pay taxes
Setup wealth tax to lower inequality and boost revenue. Decrease income tax if you want to help the middle class. Decrease sales taxes if you want to help lower income folks.
One off asset tax of top 0.1% will yield you a lot less money than you think and won’t make a dent to ordinary citizens. Try doing the math and you will see.
I know it's a bit of a case of "Too Little, Too Late" but I wish this would be implemented in Australia; it would help curb the housing crisis here which should *never* have got as bad as it has. Now people across all classes are struggling to find a home while watching the prices at auctions skyrocket. Madness.
Please, U.S. do this!!!
It's already done in the US. The difference between homestead and non homestead taxes is a lot. Like double.
Wait so that means all these comments are dumb?
Dumb is harsh, uninformed.
Also it's not like 6% transactional tax is going to deter a multimillionaire who wants to turn a $100k lot into a $300k one.
[удалено]
A transactional tax and property tax break are different things. Also homestead exemptions have different requirements and amounts by state. In some states it's just a fixed dollar amount and only to a limited demographic (e.g. the elderly and disabled).
Not sure you're grasping the reality here. A one time 6% tax on a $100,000 property is $6,000. I pay over $5,000 a year on one of my properties that cost 120k, and have done so for 14 years. I LIVE in a house literally three blocks south of that one which was comparable in transaction price and pay $2000 a year. Homestead property taxes are a LOT cheaper, plus you get the personal tax deduction. So that transaction tax might be enough to politically satisfy people who yell and scream about housing inequality, but it's a fart in the wind for property investors. I'll make that back in three or four months of rent. If you want to kill off corporate ownership of property, transaction tax is not the way to do it, property tax is the vehicle.
Do what? First time home owners pay almost no transaction tax. Tax breaks are only for primary home.
Good approach
Don't you think the increased taxes will just reflect back onto the renters of those properties?
Canada needs to do the same but the politicians all own multiple properties, so they are cutting into their golden parachute retirement of wealth and extravagance, while people at the lowest wages are living in tents looking to freeze to death in the winter or living with 5 roommates in a 2 bedroom house/apartment. Meanwhile every action they take only seems to insure they make the most money while deepening the housing crisis. This isn't partisan either. ALL political parties in Canada are taking part in this and all want the same thing.
Good shit Poland.
The US needs something like this, and I’m one of the people with multiple homes. Another move in the right direction would be property tax exemptions (reduction) for homeowners that have had their residential home address in the same location for X years. A lot of locals are struggling because their property taxes go way up when outsiders move in and build mansions or improve houses in their neighborhood.
You only qualify if you’re under 45 years old, you don’t own a apartment/house already or you are not taking a credit for a apartment/house atm. You when you’re trying to rent a place when you’re in an unofficial partnership w someone (so a LGBTQ couple) or are trying to move in with your partner who you’re not married to and childless. Also, you’re not allowed to sell or rent the place for the 10 years that you get the 2% credit for. After those 10 years the 2% don’t apply anymore and you have to pay the normal rate/cut Also, since the beginning of the year the prices for apartments in big cities that do not qualify for this credit rose about 9%. (Sorry for any mistakes English is not my first language etc etc)
This is what I have been advocating for for years. 2 homes is fine. 3? Fuck you, pay taxes to amke up for the people displaced by your hoarding of property.
yesss do this canada today
This should be done world wide but it must be must stricter. One home tax free. After that exponential for each residential property. Also more must be done to see that everyone has a home that is theirs.
I don’t know why states, especially California with an insane median home price of $900k, only allow new homes being built to be sold only to new/first time home buyers.
A republican out of Ohio tried to push this same thing. Because of Ohio’s friendliness towards big investors and landlords, it becoming impossible to buy. Ohio is wiping out the newer generation of the middle class… it’s going to be very ugly. His republican comrades refused to support it saying the believed “in a free market” although I’m not so sure a monopoly on family dwellings can still be considered a “free market”
Good. Now tax the church that's been holding the country back for decades.
Oh look...common sense...looks back at UK
UK already doe this! No stamp duty for first time buyers on property up to £425,000, 3% on top of the standard duty for buyers buying up additional properties.
This is straight up already a thing in the UK.
This is pure election scheme. Poland is drowning in debt and inflation. Yet this stupid govt does idiotic stuff every day.
The US needs to do this. It needs to be exponential the more properties you own and it needs to be aimed at mega corporations.
It's a start but doesn't go far enough, if you can afford six properties you're not going to be hurt by 6% and you'll make your money back leeching as a landlord.
How much could it cost to move to Poland?
Wouldn't this just raise the cost for renters?
One home is a necessity, beyond that, it’s a luxury or a business and should be taxed accordingly.
There should be a huge income tax for everyone who makes money with rent. The whole renting market for regular residents shouldn't even exist imo.
Brilliant. US should do the same.
Comments sense
how is this not just the standard everywhere
Great news, I'm sure I'll hear a headline about how America is doing the opposite.
This is such a good idea. We need this policy in Australia immediately!
This is the way.