Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7pjrkv wrote

Just tax the shit out of second homes until they sell to locals. I couldn't figure out why people wouldn't support this, but that's because all the rich folk with their single family home vacation properties are on this sub.

21

-_Stove_- t1_j7qmkxp wrote

Or maybe because, while this sounds like a great idea, the implementation is a nightmare.

0

EscapedAlcatraz t1_j7qixqb wrote

Or maybe people still care about property rights, even in this Progressive utopia.

−3

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7qlcdk wrote

Second homes are already being taxed. Nothing to do with property rights. Why should we cater to wealthy outsiders and continue to shoot ourselves in the foot? Just use the money to fund universal childcare for Vermonters or something like that.

8

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7s8p51 wrote

This is where VT is at. We should not cater to wealthy outsiders and end up with no workforce as result of it.

4

mattgm1995 t1_j7qn25g wrote

You would shoot yourselves in the foot by losing all of the local tax revenue and tourism jobs if they leave

−3

EscapedAlcatraz t1_j7rb6ha wrote

You’re suggesting to raise the taxes until the owners surrender and sell. Don’t tell me what to do with my money. Don’t tell me what I can do with my property. Don’t tell me how to heat my house.

−8

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7rkjzs wrote

Yeah pretty much. Do what you want with your money, but you obviously have an entitled attitude that assumes your actions have no consequences.

7

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7s8rud wrote

We're not, we're just telling you how much you have to pay in taxes. If it's too much you'd be free to sell.

1

mattgm1995 t1_j7qmz3b wrote

As an outsider, you already “tax the shit” out of second homes, which, by the way, bring tens of thousands of jobs to the state, fund your schools, fund your police, etc

−5

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7qnxlb wrote

I am sick of this narrative that "Vermont needs the rich second home owners". It's straight up bullshit. We have cleaning businesses and property management because we are adaptable and resourceful people. If you left tomorrow we'd just shuffle our business model again. We don't need rich people, that's an elitist attitude. I'd love to see the statistic, by the way, on how second homes bring "tens of thousands of jobs to the state."

7

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rwefb wrote

It's total horseshit. We would have tourism without second homes. Maybe we'd lose some tourism but we'd be better off because we'd maybe gain workforce housing. Way back when I worked in a tourist industry in Burlington. 20 years ago. SO MANY QUEBECOIS. They're going to keep coming no matter what.

3

mattgm1995 t1_j7qp8le wrote

Let’s take Waitsfield. The schools are floated almost wholly by second home owners, the businesses as well. What do you tell a town like that? No one is stopping Vermonters from building factories in parts of the state and creating jobs

2

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7qrhr7 wrote

The resulting tax situation would be either the same or better in terms of revenue because some portion of the second homes would simply foot the bill for higher taxes while others would free up homes for locals. I for one will not be grateful to my rich, vacation home overlords. Fuck that

5

mattgm1995 t1_j7qvvlw wrote

How would the tax situation be better? The same number of homes would be taxed at a lower rate, also assuming they sold the vacation homes and left you’d lose a shit ton in vts 9% meals tax and 10% alcohol tax, not to mention gas tax.

0

GreenPL8 t1_j7rmkik wrote

Primary homeowners pay taxes too.

4

mattgm1995 t1_j7rn94a wrote

Of course! Just 1) at a lower rate and 2) ski towns, for instance, 2nd homeowners pay a significant amount of a local or regional schools budget

0

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rgmfp wrote

You're confusing tourism with second homes.

5

mattgm1995 t1_j7rgvqx wrote

Many people in tourist towns have second homes. There are tens of thousands of second homes and condos in ski towns, in hunting areas, around lakes. The two are related

−4

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rhs3w wrote

Any place that has an economy based on one industry is in bad shape. VT would do well to stop worrying about outside money and start worrying about its residents while it still has some left.

VT should be taxing second homes to the point where they are just not affordable and people are forced to sell. Way too many people here don't have one home. It's a bit greedy to have seconds while some people are still hungry.

4

mattgm1995 t1_j7rj9gw wrote

There’s plenty of empty land in VT. Why don’t you build more instead of punishing people who enjoy spending time in the state? Tourism supplies 10% of VTs jobs, skiing isn’t going away, and outsiders bring $3B into Vermont yearly. You want to lose that?

−1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rjqli wrote

I don't necessarily want to lose tourism. I'm fine with people not being able to afford a second home here. Most of the tourism in Burlington comes from Quebec. They aren't going to stop coming. If we lost the NJ/NYC/MA crowd and gained workforce housing, that would be a win for the state.

As an nonresident, you seem to be missing that VT does whatever it can to fight sprawl. That's why we have open land. Most of us want real jobs, not jobs waiting on rich people.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rk6wl wrote

Most of burlingtons tourism is from the rest of New England. And much of it is from people who have second homes and want to go out in Burlington. As a resident who is super entrenched in their position I think you’re missing the ramifications. Also, no one is stopping you from getting a good paying remote job. Major employers aren’t going to suddenly move campuses and jobs to Vermont because “housing is available”

0

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rkm2l wrote

Lol. OK. I have a job. I don't want a remote job, that sounds miserable. I'd rather live and work in my community.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rksv5 wrote

What do you expect these high paying jobs that suddenly flood the state when we all leave to be?

2

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rl77f wrote

I don't see the connection. Housing would be more attainable.

Tourism jobs don't pay livable wages anyway and soon there won't be anyone to fill them.

3

mattgm1995 t1_j7rlhnj wrote

You said “most of us want real jobs, not jobs waiting on rich people”. If you lose 30,000 jobs, what jobs do you think will suddenly appear?

2

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rm0hv wrote

30k seems very high, and pretty arbitrary and pretty pulled out of your ass.

I really don't care what you think, honestly.

If you think people are happy to work minimum wage jobs with no benefits, instead of having available housing that's great. Good for you.

Most people in VT don't work in tourism. We can't hire teachers at the moment because we don't have housing. If we lost second homes, people would still come. Not a problem.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rmd6n wrote

http://accd.vermont.gov/tourism/research before you go insulting me and since you clearly haven’t done one ounce of research, it’s from your own states website.

And I don’t think that. I’m just asking you, where do you expect jobs to appear from? What companies are moving 30k jobs to Vermont?

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rmsz7 wrote

Dude, seriously. I don't care. People who have enough money to have a second home in VT are a tiny percentage. The vast majority of tourists don't own second homes here. We would still have tourists without second homes, this argument is just stupid.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rn3hq wrote

Not going to address you insulted me despite the numbers coming from your own states website? I’d argue a significant amount of money comes from people who spend their weekends and vacations at second homes in Vermont, spending money in restaurants, gas stations, mom and pop stores, etc but it doesn’t affect me if you can’t understand how the world works. Because it’s going to keep working whether you’re onboard or not.

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rnlaw wrote

Jesus. It's reddit. Get over yourself for fucks sake.

"I'd argue a significant..." is not a meaningful statistic, and the state doesn't live to serve you and will be fine without you.

Good fucking christ rich people are the worst.

1

mattgm1995 t1_j7ro813 wrote

It’s Reddit. Okay. “Get over yourself for fucks sake” Here goes then. Save money and buy a house. If you can’t afford it, get a better job. If you can’t find a better job, move to a state with high paying jobs, and if you can’t change your living situation, grow up and look at the hand you’ve given yourself and deal with it.

1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7roi54 wrote

Lol. I have an advanced degree and a good job. The cost of housing in VT is completely divorced from wages in VT. We're trying to fix it. One of the fixes is making homes available for residents. Deal with it.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rot1k wrote

You think this is a uniquely Vermont problem? I live in Eastern MA and also can’t afford to live in a nice town. On a six figure salary. This is a New England problem. Vermont is in a better place than MA tho since they at least have land to build

2

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rpddn wrote

Maybe sell your other fucking house? Jesus.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rpzs5 wrote

It’s our family home, not mine. Point being, it’s not a Vermont issue. Kicking everyone out isn’t going to help you

2

hippiepotluck t1_j7samqi wrote

What are you talking about? Some Vermont towns even tax second homes at a lower rate than primary homes. Even those that do, it’s not punitively higher as you suggest. I know the rate in Manchester is only like 5% higher for second homeowners. I truly believe that that town is an example of where this is all leading and it’s not good. Second homeowners do not participate in the community and when there are too many vacant homes it becomes unsustainable. You can’t have a town that no one actually lives in no matter how much they pay in property tax.

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7sggl7 wrote

Manchester is like stowe. It's technically in Vermont but it in no way resembles Vermont. I went there for the first time recently (grew up in northern VT). Holy shit. Such a strange place. I absolutely do not see the attraction to places like that. The Lincoln stuff is cool, I guess. Otherwise, eww.

3

hippiepotluck t1_j7sifsj wrote

Exactly. And it’s a bummer. There’s still good things, but more and more of the town is meant for people who don’t live there so it feels phony somehow. Like Uncanny Valley.

3

mattgm1995 t1_j7sbbig wrote

Valid points, though I will also say outsiders use the roads the least, do not send their children to community schools, or take advantage of other town things so they get much less benefit for the tax they do pay. We can agree to disagree but some towns are just going to be that way. How would you change ski towns?

1

hippiepotluck t1_j7sf384 wrote

Honestly, I don’t think that matters. If you own x% of the value of a town you should pay at least that percent of the cost of running that town and educating its children. Whether you choose to use those services is not really relevant, if you live here you don’t get a tax break if you don’t have kids or don’t drive.

1

mattgm1995 t1_j7sfiui wrote

That’s fair! And I think the current system is plenty fair to the locals as is.

1

Syncope7 t1_j7ul5px wrote

Second homes that are empty for most of the year are a drain. You are a drain. Sell your second home.

−1

mattgm1995 t1_j7ur3cv wrote

You wanna defund your own schools, towns, states, leading to layoffs in the tourism industry?

1

Syncope7 t1_j7v0ske wrote

You act like your taxes save us. THANK YOU!!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!

I’d rather see a happy family all year round, rather thank your ungrateful ass for 2 weeks.

−1

mattgm1995 t1_j7v35yz wrote

And you act like we provide nothing! I spend well over 90 days a year in Vermont.

1

Syncope7 t1_j7vdlvm wrote

Woah, well over 90 days! Shoot, I didn’t know that I was in the presence of a partial-Vermonter!!?

Go to hell and take your money with you. Eat the rich.

−1

mattgm1995 t1_j7vg9o2 wrote

In your utopia then your taxes get raised significantly to make up for the shortfall of us subsidizing your communities. You’re fine with that I assume? Why can’t you just coexist with us? We love our time in vermont.

1