Why would people violently protest against taxing empty real-estate that's not occupied by locals?
I'm not French but IMHO, Airbnb style short term renting for tourst purposes should come with hefty taxes because housing should always prioritize the locals who live, work, have families and pay taxes there, not wealthy foreigners on vacation.
Because it's the locals who own it, even if they live elsewhere in the city. It's probably their pension income. Flats are usually owned personally by small scale owners in Europe, it's not like the huge funds and corporations in US. They are not poor but also not rich, it's work even if it's rented long term, and a lot of work if short term.
It's quite likely not ex-locals who own it, and in any case if they no longer live locally, they're not paying local taxes, or supporting local business.
I agree, income from property should be heavily taxed, it's essentially private profit from the land value, and that value derives directly from it's location and the strength of the local economy, rather than any effort or contribution from the owner.
I am not French but I live a country or two over. Here it's mostly people who own 1-5 apartments in the city they live in, they definitely pay taxes there. And short term rentals are definitely not as simple as "profiting from land value".
Anyways I don't have an opinion about this, just wanted to answer why would people protest - because it's not some faceless corporation but them directly you're taxing.
>it's mostly people who own 1-5 apartments in the city they live in
Owning 1 apartment is completely different than owing 5 apartments in the same city. You can live in 1 apartment but you can't live in 5 at the same time. You're profiting off the other 4 ,so you should pay tax for it.
Yeah, sure. As I said, I don't agree nor disagree. As far as I know, rental income is taxed everywhere in EU. I just answered why the people would revolt or vote against it - because they're probably still right there in that same city or nearby, and you're touching their personal assets, not some faceless corporation/fund.
Sucks for them I guess. Maybe they should have diversified and invested in stocks or bonds instead of going all-in in housing-for-rent "investment" and complaining it doesn't turn up to be a huge profit making scheme like they expected, and expect the government to cover their losses.
Someone's housing shouldn't be someone else's for-profit side-hustle gamble. It's why housing is such a mess in the first place.
You can't have housing be affordable AND provide hefty profit returns in private pockets at the same time. Those will always be in contradiction at odds with each other in capitalism.
Honestly, I expected better from the socialist French, that they would have solved affordable housing for the masses.
BTW one more point... Publicly traded companies in Europe are not as usual as in the US. It's mostly private equity here. You can't just buy stocks or bonds, it's either very high risk or very low yield.
Your mistake is assuming France is socialist just because of its relatively generous welfare. It's actually neoliberal capitalism with strong preference for large corporations. And that's why this would lead to a protest or at least voting preference shift - it'd be taking one of the last remaining assets in the hands of the middle class.
