It isn't a hypothesis. It is a well known fact. The more expensive a property is the more time it will be spent vacant because a lot of the very expensive properties are just uses as investments.
> why doesn't someone introduce a legislation to tax vacant second homes at astronomical rates
They tried this in China. People would just get divorced so each partner had their own home. It turns out you can easily find someone in your family to "buy" a house as well.
if someone shows up there 3-4 days a week, how would you know? Even China doesn't have the surveillance setup to tell if someone is living in a house or not (well, they can check to see if it is renovated, and can check to see if the lights turn on at night). It isn't really a rule of law society, so you can't use "the trust but sometimes verify system" they used in Vancouver, and it is definitely not like Switzerland where your neighbors are constantly spying on you. It is a bit counter intuitive, but checking on these things is harder in China than in the west.
We did that long ago - well the rates are not astronomical, but taxes are higher. Some states (probably all but I don't know how to look this up) have a homestead credit, and they date back to the 1800s.
One thing missing - renters cannot homestead their apartment and so the funds that own the apartment have to charge more rent to cover taxes on those apartments.
Do you know who owns most real estate either directly or indirectly? Pension funds. And who wants to shake up their pension? Nobody. It's the most democratized form of asset ownership, literally everybody is going to get angry.
And secondly... Are the second vacation homes really the problem? I'd guess the problem begins around 3rd or 5th, not the second one, which is a fairly common and usually also a good thing to have - for both the owner and the society.
Second vacation homes (plus Airbnb) become a problem for locals of that area. The young ones can't survive there and eventually have to rent (or provided as comp package) from established businesses (B&B/hotel).
> And secondly... Are the second vacation homes really the problem? I'd guess the problem begins around 3rd or 5th, not the second one, which is a fairly common and usually also a good thing to have - for both the owner and the society.
I'm not sure if you mean owning one primary home and two vacation homes, or one primary home and one vacation home when you mention a "second vacation home," but either way this strikes me as out of touch.
4.6% of 65.6% is 3%, meaning at most 3% of Americans own a second home (but this doesn't account for citizens that own 3 or more homes, so the actual percentage is even lower.)
I don't consider that to be common. I also wonder: why is it a good thing for society (or even most homeowners?)
Why? Because politicians aren't generally in the habit of introducing legislation that pisses in the face of the folks that fund their election campaigns. Oligarchy's a bitch.
Do you like all your Capital fleeing to other countries? Because that's how you enrich Canada, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Lichenstein, etc at the USA's expense.
