Yes and no
I have a tenant and I don’t overcharge, they are a good tenant
But if Vermont wants to raise the taxes more , which is asinine, then I’ll have to raise the tenants rent to cover it.
Blindly raising taxes like this is not the answer
They to need to investigate the school districts and systems and their obvious spending problems
Why do you think his tenants are less fortunate and in a weaker position? Many landlords the real estate is their retirement and it’s not always profitable. Tenants could be trust funders.
Yes, if you inherited your childhood VT home, and turn your childhood home into an income property, then you should pay double property taxes.
And even IF you were one of the "good ones", as far as landlords, then thats rough but you are the minority. This problem needs addressing and its the obvious solution.
But for the record, I highly doubt your high and mighty story. You're making profit off the renting the home.
That’s not the solution to any of the problems Vermont has.
I already have to pay income taxes on the amount above the expenses of the home, so I’m paying into your state income taxes at a high rate on top of property taxes
Let’s not get into other expenses and hiring local labor.
Vermonts got a spending problem and misallocation of funds problem
Yea, I, Like the majority of VT arent buying your sob stories.
We are thankful if this comes down to a vote, none of you out of state landlords will get a say.
And worst case? It doesn't fix the problem immediately, but gives us a HUGE cash infusion, which will help with what you said, expense's.
Best case? You all sell and we get back to Vermonters owning Vermont, housing shortage eased, with full time family's, living and raising kids here and building equity for Vermonters. Trust me, they are 100x better for our local economy snd staffing shortage than the pitiful amount in comparison that out if state owners actually contribute to Vermont economically.
It’s the truth that extra taxation isn’t going to fix what’s wrong in Vermont. Oh more cash for the scam artists running the state to siphon off more money.
Nowhere is perfect, that’s for sure.
I’m very happy not raising my child there.
Vermont is near and dear to me, but what the school system has become, what Burlington has become, it is not a healthy place.
I think it's funny you also deleted your next reply. But Ill answer it anyway.
You are 100 percent right I am not a landlord. And never strive to be one.
As for your "go buy a house" comment. No need thank-you. I inherited a less than ideal property and home here in Vermont, moved in and set up roots. And started a business right here. Ill never leave, the 20 acres of basically unusable mountain, valley, and a home thats shit, but its mine and I love it here. :)
I want to double your property taxes so you actually pay your fair share, and they dont have to raise mine and my neighbors again this year by double digits.
If you can't deal with tenants, sounds like you shouldn't be a landlord. In my experience shitty landlords attract shitty tenants so 90% of the time that's on the landlords.
The obvious option if you don't wanna deal with tenants because they're so bad, sell the property to someone who wants to live in it . Plus side is they pay less property taxes.
The problem with landlords is that they are so deep in the delusion of individual ownership that they actually think part of God’s Earth outside of their own bodies is something to be owned.
All of this belongs to our Divine Mother — we own nothing but our own souls. Hell awaits those who would lord basic necessities over their neighbor. Terrible ignorance sows terrible karmas.
Then sell it instead of slumlording and use the money to do something more productive for society rather than just charging someone for a place to live.
Projecting what? I'm not hiding anything behind my words - the world would be better without lazy landlords that squeeze their living out of less fortunate folks.
There should be a carve out for Vermont residents who Airbnb a room in their home to make enough income to be able to afford five figure property taxes on single family homes in Burlington. These folks aren't the problem.
For sure. There are plenty of people who bought reasonable homes in places that have since skyrocketed in price (with tax rates and valuations that have also skyrocketed).
I was checking out real estate in Burlington out of curiosity recently and was shocked at the taxes on some of them. Totally reasonable homes, not even ridiculously priced, but the taxes would add nearly $1k/month (or more in some cases) to the mortgage payments. And that's for like a 1200 square foot, 2-3 bed, 1 bath older home near downtown...definitely something that should be a "starter home" but the taxes make it unaffordable for most.
Yes, but that’s also capped by income, and the income limits have been mostly going down over the past decade (it’s $115,400 for 2025). Two people earning $60k per year each won’t get any credit. And in Burlington, that’s a relatively low household income. Retirees are more likely to qualify, sure, but anyone trying to get into a house isn’t going to be able to get by with taxes that high, even if they take a higher debt to income ratio than is recommended.
There are carve outs for Owner Occupied properties, as well as property's with ADUs where the landowner still lives there. As well as if an landowner wants to build an ADU on their property to airbnb. Thats fine, no problems there with anyone.
Your problem should be with the law makers in Burlington and Montpelier who keep coming up with the "solutions", let me know how that is working out for Vermont.
VT needs more affordable housing, but it needs more mid-priced housing as well. If enough mid-priced housing exists, it removes some of the pressure on affordable housing.
Missing middle housing is a concept that needs to be adopted widely, across every town. A couple years ago laws were introduced to allow for relaxation of Act 250 restrictions, creating growth areas where missing middle housing could be built, but were too narrow and too easily rejected the NIMBY'ers.
Even without Act 250, you still have to deal with wetlands, stormwater, wastewater, and local permitting which again to bring in wildlife, forest, stream and other impacts that Act 250 regulates, but local zoning now also requires these to be addressed which adds more cost to anybody looking to build or permit anything.
And lest we forget, VT is the most "mountainous"(large steep hills) state in the country. There is not alot of places to build as there is because of it.
This is also what contributes to NH having more population, they have more actual buildable land.
Won't SOMEBODY think of the poor penny pinching, second home owning, adversity overcoming, retired "biglaw" lawyers from New Jersey?! If it weren't for them gracing us with their presence here a few weeks of the year, tipping 5% at local restaurants and giving nickels to the unwashed children on the street, we might not have anyone to tell us how uneducated and backwards we all are!
Non-owner occupied homes already are taxed at a much higher rate, as any home the owner does not live in is ineligible for the homestead deduction which most homeowners get. So essentially second home owners are paying for you kids to go to school while not putting any pressure on the school system.
The practical answer to this is that non-resident vacation homeowners do not send their kids to VT schools. They do not avail themselves of most of the services that property taxes pay for. Instead they come from neighboring States and pump money into VT's economy.
It isn't as though the State is trying to be "nice" or "fair". It's because they want to keep the State attractive to these kinds of homeowners. Those same people could buy a second house on the other side of Lake Champlain, or in NH, or Western MA. Then VT gets no property tax from them. At some point, the expense makes moving here unappealing.
I am not a shill for the tax dept. I fully recognize the economic situation and the housing shortage. I'd like to see taxes on vacation homes raise as much as possible. But "as much as possible" is a real number. I don't want them to go so far that Massholes stop coming up and dropping thousands of dollars into the economy and then go the fuck back to Mass. Tourism is Vermont's largest industry. The State must keep itself a viable contender for out-of-towners to come and leave their money.
There is a lot of nuance required in making decisions like these. You can't have the free money from vacationers if you drive them all away.
A good analogy would be the federal immigration “system.” So many insane rules and regulations add up to render it de facto illegal to immigrate legally unless you (somehow) have access to a lawyer to navigate the system.
Similarly, Vermonts overburdening regulatory scheme makes it almost illegal to develop in the state
It might as well be. Building affordable housing means building lots of housing units at once, in the form of apartments, townhouses or subdivisions. Just building one unique house on an individual lot can never really be affordable, even if the house is small. Try and get approval from the town, county and state to build a subdivision in Vermont and see how far you get.
Just unprofitable. I was in talks with CVOEO/ Champlain Housing Trust 20 years ago about building a smaller homes ( not tiny house) development with community heat.
It would have been about 20 homes on CVOEO land. They sold it to the state for a medical complex and an unnecessary new VSP barracks.
If we had gone forward with my proposal, I would have made a lot less money than my staff. Kinda makes the risk/ reward a little hard to swallow.
At least ones in residential zoning. I feel like there’s room for some second home preferences, like condo complexes next to ski areas. But what we have now leaves town planners handicapped because people are buying homes in residential zones and turning them into businesses (short term rentals).
I feel like even those have a trickle down effect on the prices on the surrounding towns driving their homes values up while their income remains stagnant meaning local youth cannot afford to live in their hometowns when they grow up. This would only compound the exodus of young adults from the already skewed population.
My family has a "camp" home up in the islands. My late father built it himself and it's filled with childhood memories. We can't afford the taxes and upkeep anymore, especially if it becomes taxed into oblivion. Personally heartbreaking but there are worse problems right now. I just hope it isn't converted into a rental.
We currently own a 2nd home in VT (will likely become primary in a couple years). I’d be totally ok with a higher tax rate. We don’t spend as much in state as we would if were full time; this would help state revenues a bit. I’m not sitting on piles of cash, but we could manage.
My town Dorset already does this and it works out fine for everyone. Second home owners aren’t taxed so much more that they need to sell and our kids have great schools. On the flip side of the problem, the town is looking to develop affordable housing. This is the way to go.
Thank you Phil Scott and Act 73 for finally separating non-homestead properties in seasonal camps, second homes and STRs allowing for differentiating tax rates. Now if the legislature would shift the homestead portion to a 2% income tax we may just make education more affordable for Vermonters.
This state is great for non working wealthy people. You can have a million dollar home, millions more in the bank and get a income sensitivity break on property taxes, dr dynasaur for your kids and even medical coverage for yourself just as long as you limit your earnings and capital gains. Its soooo nice being middle income and getting to support these people.
They get breaks now…. But those that do earn more will pay more and those that pay less will pay less. This idea we have to throw out the good because it’s not perfect is such a ridiculous perspective. We don’t tax them now and we really can’t tax them anyways so why are they the reason we shouldn’t make it more affordable for the rest of us?
Well because this only applies to the homestead tax so it’s only their primary residence. Those that own a lot of land are already protected most likely by current use, so using income would be a net positive. Those that are income poor but have a lot of “wealth” in the form of unrealized gains already don’t pay any property taxes because of the prebate, so there is no loss. In the end, someone making a million dollars is paying $20k / year which is almost assuredly more than their educational homestead tax. So I don’t see how it’s a giveaway to “wealthy homeowners.” I’d love you hear your perspective though if you’d care to actually explain.
People are having kids and using the school resource when they’re young too. It really doesn’t matter either way. This isn’t an age thing. It’s not a fucking boomer v whiney generations thing.
The people that already benefit from current use and prebates? They don’t contribute now and NOT enacting reforms while you figure out how to tax “wealth” is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Grow up.
Its not even about taxing wealth, its about not giving people with ample resources subsidies. I don’t see any policy case for having working people subsidize people who are by most objective standards, wealthy.
This needs to be seperated from consolidation and just happen. Properties should be classified as homestead, long term rental , short term rental, secondary homestead, comercial, and camp/land or some variation of this. What really pisses me off with act 73 is when i look at the spending per pupil, its the largest districts with the highest per pupil costs. Why are we pushing to close the schools with lower spending so that the higher spending schools can keep spending more? Its so damn stupid.
These are 2 different issues and we should talk about them independently. Simply finding a new source of money is not a reason to spend unnecessarily anywhere including education.
Absolutely, and Ed funding definitely needs to be addressed, and figure out how to bring down per pupil spending, while increasing results. Right now the models of declining results while costs continue rise, is un-sustainable. And Healthcare needs to be addressed in these budgets as well.
I think healthcare for staff is a big problem in per pupil funding. Some people seek school jobs like secretary or custodian just to carry family insurance so the spouse can do a job without benefits. If people know the job has solid insurance, high insurance users go after those jobs.
It’s an issue many schools are facing. People are taking pay cuts to get jobs with better insurance knowing someone in their family needs significant medical attention.
Special education funding also is incredibly costly. I’m curious what the per cost spending is if you exclude insurance and special education costs. 2-3 students needing residential care or very intensive specialized schools can cause a huge increase in the average spending per student. This cost is even higher in small rural schools. You have a bus driver and aide sometimes just transporting one student to a school with a special education placement.
And on both issues, who put us into these situations, the legislature. They won't address rampant health insurance costs, they are ones who shifted funding of special ed from state funds to local school budgets.
Exactly. It pisses me off so much to see SO MANY homes in my small town that sit empty most of the year just so some rich person can stop by for a week in July.
Great, it’s bad enough I can’t get a decent piece of pizza in this state, now I’m going to have to pay MORE taxes on my mountain home? I think I’ll just stay at my Massachusetts home( and Florida and Arizona). /s
I always enjoy visiting Vermont but I have to wonder what the voter base actually wants. From the outside it looks like an extremely old population hell bent on stifling any and all growth and quashing anything that might pull the state forward in any way. It's basically an above-ground cemetery outside of a few urban centers like Burlington.
“The Vermont proposal is tied to sweeping education reforms and a contingency that lawmakers need to create and vote on larger, consolidated school districts this year. Otherwise, the new tax on second homes will not move forward.”
Terrible idea. You can’t fund schools based on a single demographic of people, who just so happen to be the most mobile. What you tax you get less of, and what you subsidize you get more of.
If enough people exit, then their revenue assumptions collapse, then you’re right back at square one.
The only way out of this is to structurally control education costs. This legislation does nothing to address that.
Unlikely. If second home owners sell and leave, someone WILL buy in their place. In the scenario that no one buys, real estate values tank and houses become affordable within reason again for locals. Win win.
My husband and I managed to buy a house in our little NEK town in 2024. I say managed because we seriously got lucky. There were 3 other homes for sale in town at the time that we considered, and I’m not kidding, they were sold and SAT EMPTY ever since. One was already a short term rental and still is. If we had not gotten the home we did we’d still be renting.
That assumes a deep buyer pool and zero downside risk. Vermont doesn’t have that.
If higher taxes push second home owners out, you don’t automatically get a local buyer waiting in line. In thin markets, prices drop, assessments fall, and the tax base shrinks; unless mill rates rise and locals pick up the tab.
Or are you suggesting that the behavior of wealthy people owning second homes in VT, many of whom live out of State, is somehow different due to the population of VT?
I’ll completely leave out the fact that the MA economy is materially different than VT.
Massachusetts is fucking beautiful; VT has nothing that comes close to the cape. We attract a certain type of wealthy; but honestly, if you’re not a ski bum, you can get the same beauty VT offers anywhere in the northeast.
That wasn’t just for Vermonters. Folks came from all over. I fielded quite a few calls from out of state folks looking for services and frustrated because they didn’t understand what they had signed up for.
What happens when a percentage of the grand list goes from higher taxed second homes to lower taxed owner occupied? Who will be covering the shortfall?
Second home owners are already being taxed for services they don't use. They pay school taxes even though they don't use the schools.
Also consider that depressing the prices of second homes will NOT create new affordable housing. What working class Vermonter is going to buy a condo in Stowe or a house on a lake?
If you want more affordable housing, address the root causes that make building difficult or being a landlord a money-losing proposition.
Okay, and who's going to buy those houses? Again not working Vermonters as they don't live where tourists do. This will only decrease the prices, which ultimately lowers the tax base.
And again, second homeowners help contribute to school taxes without benefiting. If they leave, parents will have to pay more for schools (or more likely, schools will close)
They'll sell at a lower price. There's always a Bostonian or New Yorker willing to pay taxes on a cheap property in Vermont. But with a lower sales price one can make the case the grand list value is overstated, and get their taxes reduced.
Long term:
- the tax income to the state will not increase by much
- politicians will find a way to spend any increase- just not on schools or roads
- no affordable housing will be created
- no new jobs will be created (many will be lost if you drive tourists out)
It will be interesting to see how much other people’s money Vermont can squeeze out of this idea. It’s generally not an effective strategy, you will get less second home ownership but Vermont has one of the lowest economic growth rates in the country so it alone cannot support its bloated educational system, which by the way second home owners don’t use. This sub lives to ‘tax the rich’ but the actual rich don’t ski in Vermont for the most part anymore, it’s kind of a mid upper middle income crowd. Good luck with this plan, I’m sure it will work as well as every other scheme coming out of Montpelier.
This won’t to much, the fundamental issue is lack of supply. Second homes and vacation rentals don’t make up that large a segment of the market and population growth continues to out pace bew construction.
The solution is to gut classist zoning regulation and encourage density.
"Dont make up that large of a segment of the housing market"- thats blatantly untrue
By capita, we are number 2 in the entire country with number of vacation homes. Up to 17 percent of our entire housing market is second homes. Or around 58,000 homes.
And that was back in 2019. Since covid its only gone up with all the rich people who wanted a place to run to.
Even if the words "Up to" aren't doing a lot of heavy lifting (look up what happened with Toronto's Vacancy tax) that's still not that much in comparison to the size of the shortage. Even if all of that housing goes up for sale it would be filled almost instantly and any reduction in housing prices will be short term. to say nothing off the issues of zoning keeping those property expensive. A large single family home on a giant lot in the exurbs is not a viable living situation for most people.
the only real solution to the housing crisis to bring the rate of new construction back in line with population growth, and to make up for lost time. We need to subdivide those oversized lots and make it legal to turn all those McMansions into fourplexes and other types of high density housing.
If all the tourists and summer people get taxed away, won't that make rough for everyone who owns a restaurant, u-pick apple orchard, souvenir shop or other business that relies on tourists? I'm not fond of tourists either, but unless Vermont develops a new source of revenue, we need them to survive. Half the restaurants in the NEK are closed for the winter right now. If there aren't any tourists in the summer, how many of them will be able to stay in business at all?
If you honestly don’t think that mom and pop landlords aren’t better than Black rock you have zero understanding of what’s happening to real estate right now in the rest of the country. Spoiler alert. It doesn’t make housing more affordable LOL
How about being in good paying jobs - that will increase ur middle class which ends up paying a lot proportionate. I'm finding this constant " affordable housing thing ridiculous.. work rent get roommates etc save ur $ and go after the corporations that are ripping u off re food prices etc.
I’m not saying you are or aren’t supposed to sympathize with anyone. I don’t have a second home. You asked a question about what the specific argument would be and I answered it.
It's amazing that people who worked hard got educated dumbell got a good job and invested in a 2nd home in VT are being looked at as the villains. They pay property taxes and don't use of the infrastructure- schools. Vermont has always had from inception out of states coming here and if possible retiring here or having vacation homes. That they should "give up the 2nd home" is ridiculous. You all are obviously jealous as shit. Get a life and be hapoy people still want to come here!
Wah wah, Stop crying about your second home. Nobody cares. If you cant afford new taxes, then it sounds like you did not do to well with your "education", and actually cant afford it. Maybe you are not as well off as you think.
We dont care you dont use the infrastructure. You know what else you dont do? Contribute to local economy, buy things here in Vermont all year paying sales tax, and you certainly dont add anything of value to the community you dont even live in.
You deserve to pay double taxes to cover all of that. You did well. You can afford it.
If not, I hear property in Ohio and Mississippi is super cheap for a second home. You should try there, you could likely afford that.
Inflation is the lowest weve seen in the last 4 years.
If you think theres ten of millions of dollars of inflation soley driving the school budgets up,
You must me tens of millions of dollars of crack every year.
Stowe is actually one of the towns where the crazy funding formula leads to homesteaders paying a higher tax rate than non-homesteaders. Which is ridiculous
I agree. Don’t own. Visit a lot. Went to school there and feel it’s my “home”. But agree, if you can afford a 2nd house you can and should pay more in taxes. Shit in New Jersey my property tax is out for residential….
They can and I owed 2nd house my answer would be same, no question
The Beautiful people need to pay more because things are now slanted their way ….and I make good money but not fuck yiu money. They should pay, why simple because they can. Yiu want to enjoy then pay. And no they aren’t going to new ham-hire or upstate ny. If yiu love Vermont a little more isn’t going to change that. Plus if they want to sell and buy in 2nd state massive costs to it; sale in property, moving costs etc. They will complain about that extra 5m 10, maybe 15k but in the end they will pay, they willl just bitch and moan for a while so people might need to let them complain and eventually tune them out as you sip your bee or whatever
Shit if I sat next to someone and they asked I would tell them, yeah you should and tell them all the reasons. If they wanna argue with me for an hour I workday and I wouldn’t change my view. You wanted the beauty and peace of Vermont as 2nd home owner, well guess what yiu gotta pay a big (aka fee term going back to bookie days) for that privilege. Don’t like it, move.
We are already running out of people to tax, so lets tax the people with the money, oh they might move, making more housing available to residents, who will pay taxes, oh darn. Yes Education Spending needs to be fixed but we also need to fund the Ed fund with or without Education spending reform.
You are going to buy some guy’s $1MM second home after he says fuck Vermont and gets a place in Utah or Cape Cod instead? And pick up his $15k a year in property taxes too, I assume? I don’t think this is going to work out well for you, but good luck.
add short term rentals to boot!!!!!
Absolutely.
This proposal will include Airbnbs. It also includes full time apartments. So get ready for your rent to go up.
Rent was going up anyway. They will charge as much as the tenant can bear. That's capitalism, baby.
Yes and no I have a tenant and I don’t overcharge, they are a good tenant But if Vermont wants to raise the taxes more , which is asinine, then I’ll have to raise the tenants rent to cover it.
Blindly raising taxes like this is not the answer
They to need to investigate the school districts and systems and their obvious spending problems
Why do you insist that the party in the weaker position aught to be the one shoulder the full weight of higher taxation?
Is there no scenario where you take a financial hit and don't try to roll it down to your (less fortunate) neighbors?
No wonder things are the way they are. And you think you're being civil about it.
Why do you think his tenants are less fortunate and in a weaker position? Many landlords the real estate is their retirement and it’s not always profitable. Tenants could be trust funders.
Wait
Who’s the weaker party My tenant? Why do you assume this?
I must be in a better financial position as I own a home in Vermont I don’t occupy?
Why should I be fiscally punished for this?
And because I inherited my childhood home, I caused all the problems in Vermont. Amazing
Yes, if you inherited your childhood VT home, and turn your childhood home into an income property, then you should pay double property taxes.
And even IF you were one of the "good ones", as far as landlords, then thats rough but you are the minority. This problem needs addressing and its the obvious solution.
But for the record, I highly doubt your high and mighty story. You're making profit off the renting the home.
Double taxes really.
That’s not the solution to any of the problems Vermont has.
I already have to pay income taxes on the amount above the expenses of the home, so I’m paying into your state income taxes at a high rate on top of property taxes
Let’s not get into other expenses and hiring local labor.
Vermonts got a spending problem and misallocation of funds problem
You can tax things into fixing them
Yea, I, Like the majority of VT arent buying your sob stories.
We are thankful if this comes down to a vote, none of you out of state landlords will get a say.
And worst case? It doesn't fix the problem immediately, but gives us a HUGE cash infusion, which will help with what you said, expense's.
Best case? You all sell and we get back to Vermonters owning Vermont, housing shortage eased, with full time family's, living and raising kids here and building equity for Vermonters. Trust me, they are 100x better for our local economy snd staffing shortage than the pitiful amount in comparison that out if state owners actually contribute to Vermont economically.
Worst case is mom and pop landlords sell and Black rock takes over. Honestly be careful what you wish for.
Isn’t any sob story here dude
It’s the truth that extra taxation isn’t going to fix what’s wrong in Vermont. Oh more cash for the scam artists running the state to siphon off more money.
Nowhere is perfect, that’s for sure.
I’m very happy not raising my child there. Vermont is near and dear to me, but what the school system has become, what Burlington has become, it is not a healthy place.
And that is a problem why? It's there property! Renters can be shots- don't pay- mess damage the property etc. Please get yourself a violin
https://preview.redd.it/q52fve0f329g1.jpeg?width=1320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90fc501934fc3546715fa6f9bdb0cbce8f9a3c43
I think it's funny you also deleted your next reply. But Ill answer it anyway.
You are 100 percent right I am not a landlord. And never strive to be one.
As for your "go buy a house" comment. No need thank-you. I inherited a less than ideal property and home here in Vermont, moved in and set up roots. And started a business right here. Ill never leave, the 20 acres of basically unusable mountain, valley, and a home thats shit, but its mine and I love it here. :)
I want to double your property taxes so you actually pay your fair share, and they dont have to raise mine and my neighbors again this year by double digits.
I’m curious
How is double property taxes on non owner occupy units equivalent to fair share?
Why or how is that a fair share?
For example My home there, if it were mortgaged in the current market Plus the cost of taxes and insurance is more than the rent I charge
So if owning my home with a mortgage on 80% of the value Plus taxes and insurance is $2k And I rent it out for 1800
How is it fair that my taxes should be higher than yours if you owned it and lived in it full time?
That just doesn’t compute for me. Please enlighten me
If you can't deal with tenants, sounds like you shouldn't be a landlord. In my experience shitty landlords attract shitty tenants so 90% of the time that's on the landlords.
The obvious option if you don't wanna deal with tenants because they're so bad, sell the property to someone who wants to live in it . Plus side is they pay less property taxes.
That is really bad statement Good landlords also get bad tenants
Bad people exist all around.
Wow
The problem with landlords is that they are so deep in the delusion of individual ownership that they actually think part of God’s Earth outside of their own bodies is something to be owned.
All of this belongs to our Divine Mother — we own nothing but our own souls. Hell awaits those who would lord basic necessities over their neighbor. Terrible ignorance sows terrible karmas.
Your neighbors are for loving, never for profit.
Then sell it instead of slumlording and use the money to do something more productive for society rather than just charging someone for a place to live.
🤣 Merry Christmas
So you want zero supply of rental housing in the state? That doesn't sound... helpful.
Slumlording? That quite the projection.
Projecting what? I'm not hiding anything behind my words - the world would be better without lazy landlords that squeeze their living out of less fortunate folks.
I’m ready to leave the state
100%
Hear hear!
Triple on STR
STR are already ridiculously expensive in VT
And they should be taxed even more.
There should be a carve out for Vermont residents who Airbnb a room in their home to make enough income to be able to afford five figure property taxes on single family homes in Burlington. These folks aren't the problem.
Those homes still qualify as homesteads as long as they’re owner-occupied.
As they should. I'm thinking about the growing number of retirees on fixed incomes who've been in their homes for years.
For sure. There are plenty of people who bought reasonable homes in places that have since skyrocketed in price (with tax rates and valuations that have also skyrocketed).
I was checking out real estate in Burlington out of curiosity recently and was shocked at the taxes on some of them. Totally reasonable homes, not even ridiculously priced, but the taxes would add nearly $1k/month (or more in some cases) to the mortgage payments. And that's for like a 1200 square foot, 2-3 bed, 1 bath older home near downtown...definitely something that should be a "starter home" but the taxes make it unaffordable for most.
You need to take into account the homestead adjustment.
Not everyone gets that though. IMO anyone who owns a primary residence in Vermont and you live in it should get the exemption.
Yes, but that’s also capped by income, and the income limits have been mostly going down over the past decade (it’s $115,400 for 2025). Two people earning $60k per year each won’t get any credit. And in Burlington, that’s a relatively low household income. Retirees are more likely to qualify, sure, but anyone trying to get into a house isn’t going to be able to get by with taxes that high, even if they take a higher debt to income ratio than is recommended.
There are carve outs for Owner Occupied properties, as well as property's with ADUs where the landowner still lives there. As well as if an landowner wants to build an ADU on their property to airbnb. Thats fine, no problems there with anyone.
Easy delineation, if the property is your primary residence, then you get one ADU to rent out. Same as the ADU zoning in our town.
Your problem should be with the law makers in Burlington and Montpelier who keep coming up with the "solutions", let me know how that is working out for Vermont.
Tell me, which towns are house leadership from?
It’s insane that second home ownership isn’t taxed to oblivion in a state where it’s borderline illegal to build affordable housing
It's more insane that nothing has been done in decades to significantly change permitting and building housing.
Trump said it the other day: Affordable housing drives real estate values down which is bad for real estate investors hence bad for all.
I hate them so much.
VT needs more affordable housing, but it needs more mid-priced housing as well. If enough mid-priced housing exists, it removes some of the pressure on affordable housing.
Missing middle housing is a concept that needs to be adopted widely, across every town. A couple years ago laws were introduced to allow for relaxation of Act 250 restrictions, creating growth areas where missing middle housing could be built, but were too narrow and too easily rejected the NIMBY'ers.
A lot of the mid priced housing should be cheaper than it is, but demand has forced it up.
Trump is part of the problem you see
It's zoning around things like mandated parking spots for new apartments in downtowns that make it impossible.
With Act 250, anything is possible (except affordable development)!
Even without Act 250, you still have to deal with wetlands, stormwater, wastewater, and local permitting which again to bring in wildlife, forest, stream and other impacts that Act 250 regulates, but local zoning now also requires these to be addressed which adds more cost to anybody looking to build or permit anything.
And lest we forget, VT is the most "mountainous"(large steep hills) state in the country. There is not alot of places to build as there is because of it.
This is also what contributes to NH having more population, they have more actual buildable land.
Yeah let's ignore poop that went real well before.
Tell me about it, it’s fucking ridiculous
As those areas should be addresses
But what about the wealthy people? /s
People really do treat this state like a resort with the average citizen mere staff
Have you ever visited Jackson Hole Wyoming? The workers all live in Idaho and commute an hr each way to be staff for tourists. It's wild
Won't SOMEBODY think of the poor penny pinching, second home owning, adversity overcoming, retired "biglaw" lawyers from New Jersey?! If it weren't for them gracing us with their presence here a few weeks of the year, tipping 5% at local restaurants and giving nickels to the unwashed children on the street, we might not have anyone to tell us how uneducated and backwards we all are!
That does sound like a problem.
They'll be voting on it in the State House /s
Non-owner occupied homes already are taxed at a much higher rate, as any home the owner does not live in is ineligible for the homestead deduction which most homeowners get. So essentially second home owners are paying for you kids to go to school while not putting any pressure on the school system.
that's far too logical to appeal to the eat-the-rich crowd replying here
The practical answer to this is that non-resident vacation homeowners do not send their kids to VT schools. They do not avail themselves of most of the services that property taxes pay for. Instead they come from neighboring States and pump money into VT's economy.
It isn't as though the State is trying to be "nice" or "fair". It's because they want to keep the State attractive to these kinds of homeowners. Those same people could buy a second house on the other side of Lake Champlain, or in NH, or Western MA. Then VT gets no property tax from them. At some point, the expense makes moving here unappealing.
I am not a shill for the tax dept. I fully recognize the economic situation and the housing shortage. I'd like to see taxes on vacation homes raise as much as possible. But "as much as possible" is a real number. I don't want them to go so far that Massholes stop coming up and dropping thousands of dollars into the economy and then go the fuck back to Mass. Tourism is Vermont's largest industry. The State must keep itself a viable contender for out-of-towners to come and leave their money.
There is a lot of nuance required in making decisions like these. You can't have the free money from vacationers if you drive them all away.
It's not illegal to build affordable housing. What an odd take.
A good analogy would be the federal immigration “system.” So many insane rules and regulations add up to render it de facto illegal to immigrate legally unless you (somehow) have access to a lawyer to navigate the system.
Similarly, Vermonts overburdening regulatory scheme makes it almost illegal to develop in the state
It might as well be. Building affordable housing means building lots of housing units at once, in the form of apartments, townhouses or subdivisions. Just building one unique house on an individual lot can never really be affordable, even if the house is small. Try and get approval from the town, county and state to build a subdivision in Vermont and see how far you get.
Just unprofitable. I was in talks with CVOEO/ Champlain Housing Trust 20 years ago about building a smaller homes ( not tiny house) development with community heat.
It would have been about 20 homes on CVOEO land. They sold it to the state for a medical complex and an unnecessary new VSP barracks.
If we had gone forward with my proposal, I would have made a lot less money than my staff. Kinda makes the risk/ reward a little hard to swallow.
good. we should be taxing second homes/vacation homes all to hell.
At least ones in residential zoning. I feel like there’s room for some second home preferences, like condo complexes next to ski areas. But what we have now leaves town planners handicapped because people are buying homes in residential zones and turning them into businesses (short term rentals).
I feel like even those have a trickle down effect on the prices on the surrounding towns driving their homes values up while their income remains stagnant meaning local youth cannot afford to live in their hometowns when they grow up. This would only compound the exodus of young adults from the already skewed population.
Every beef occupied at a condo on a mountain is less pressure to turn private residences into Airbnbs
My family has a "camp" home up in the islands. My late father built it himself and it's filled with childhood memories. We can't afford the taxes and upkeep anymore, especially if it becomes taxed into oblivion. Personally heartbreaking but there are worse problems right now. I just hope it isn't converted into a rental.
Yeh that’s a solution
What solution does the provide ?
… None. That’s what Maybe it frees up more homes for purchase
But doesn’t solve the school districts bleeding funds
Oh and in the other side for people not giving up their other home It drives up tenant rents
Dang…it’s about time.
We currently own a 2nd home in VT (will likely become primary in a couple years). I’d be totally ok with a higher tax rate. We don’t spend as much in state as we would if were full time; this would help state revenues a bit. I’m not sitting on piles of cash, but we could manage.
If only more 2nd homeowners in this state were like you.
My town Dorset already does this and it works out fine for everyone. Second home owners aren’t taxed so much more that they need to sell and our kids have great schools. On the flip side of the problem, the town is looking to develop affordable housing. This is the way to go.
What about short term rentals.
Those too. Especially if it’s a home a local working family could use.
Thank you Phil Scott and Act 73 for finally separating non-homestead properties in seasonal camps, second homes and STRs allowing for differentiating tax rates. Now if the legislature would shift the homestead portion to a 2% income tax we may just make education more affordable for Vermonters.
Affordable for low-income, high-wealth seniors?
They already get a prebate, so no difference
Shifting to income tax for education funding is a huge giveaway to wealthy property owners at the expense of working age Vermonters.
How do you reach that conclusion?
This state is great for non working wealthy people. You can have a million dollar home, millions more in the bank and get a income sensitivity break on property taxes, dr dynasaur for your kids and even medical coverage for yourself just as long as you limit your earnings and capital gains. Its soooo nice being middle income and getting to support these people.
Most states are great for non working wealthy people lol
They get breaks now…. But those that do earn more will pay more and those that pay less will pay less. This idea we have to throw out the good because it’s not perfect is such a ridiculous perspective. We don’t tax them now and we really can’t tax them anyways so why are they the reason we shouldn’t make it more affordable for the rest of us?
How don't you come to that conclusion?
People earn more income and pay more income taxes when they're young and working.
Well because this only applies to the homestead tax so it’s only their primary residence. Those that own a lot of land are already protected most likely by current use, so using income would be a net positive. Those that are income poor but have a lot of “wealth” in the form of unrealized gains already don’t pay any property taxes because of the prebate, so there is no loss. In the end, someone making a million dollars is paying $20k / year which is almost assuredly more than their educational homestead tax. So I don’t see how it’s a giveaway to “wealthy homeowners.” I’d love you hear your perspective though if you’d care to actually explain.
People are having kids and using the school resource when they’re young too. It really doesn’t matter either way. This isn’t an age thing. It’s not a fucking boomer v whiney generations thing.
When, oh when, will somebody think of the elderly land owners! /s
The people that already benefit from current use and prebates? They don’t contribute now and NOT enacting reforms while you figure out how to tax “wealth” is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Grow up.
Its not even about taxing wealth, its about not giving people with ample resources subsidies. I don’t see any policy case for having working people subsidize people who are by most objective standards, wealthy.
Give me a mathematical equation…. Like who pays y and who pays x. This is the poo on the good because it isn’t perfect. It’s not helpful.
This needs to be seperated from consolidation and just happen. Properties should be classified as homestead, long term rental , short term rental, secondary homestead, comercial, and camp/land or some variation of this. What really pisses me off with act 73 is when i look at the spending per pupil, its the largest districts with the highest per pupil costs. Why are we pushing to close the schools with lower spending so that the higher spending schools can keep spending more? Its so damn stupid.
Exactly, this should be separate from the school issue.
Bingo
Every state should be doing this
YES!! If you have enough money to have an extra house (or two, or three), then you should be taxed HEAVILY.
Wow them go after the freaking billionaires not the upper middle class that brings $ onto ur state
These are 2 different issues and we should talk about them independently. Simply finding a new source of money is not a reason to spend unnecessarily anywhere including education.
Absolutely, and Ed funding definitely needs to be addressed, and figure out how to bring down per pupil spending, while increasing results. Right now the models of declining results while costs continue rise, is un-sustainable. And Healthcare needs to be addressed in these budgets as well.
I think healthcare for staff is a big problem in per pupil funding. Some people seek school jobs like secretary or custodian just to carry family insurance so the spouse can do a job without benefits. If people know the job has solid insurance, high insurance users go after those jobs.
It’s an issue many schools are facing. People are taking pay cuts to get jobs with better insurance knowing someone in their family needs significant medical attention.
Special education funding also is incredibly costly. I’m curious what the per cost spending is if you exclude insurance and special education costs. 2-3 students needing residential care or very intensive specialized schools can cause a huge increase in the average spending per student. This cost is even higher in small rural schools. You have a bus driver and aide sometimes just transporting one student to a school with a special education placement.
And on both issues, who put us into these situations, the legislature. They won't address rampant health insurance costs, they are ones who shifted funding of special ed from state funds to local school budgets.
Well said
Tax vacation homes and especially AirBnBs to the point they’re not profitable.
Free up some houses for people that actually live here.
Exactly. It pisses me off so much to see SO MANY homes in my small town that sit empty most of the year just so some rich person can stop by for a week in July.
Great, it’s bad enough I can’t get a decent piece of pizza in this state, now I’m going to have to pay MORE taxes on my mountain home? I think I’ll just stay at my Massachusetts home( and Florida and Arizona). /s
I always enjoy visiting Vermont but I have to wonder what the voter base actually wants. From the outside it looks like an extremely old population hell bent on stifling any and all growth and quashing anything that might pull the state forward in any way. It's basically an above-ground cemetery outside of a few urban centers like Burlington.
Is Bernie going to sell his quaint summer camp and it's guest house?
“The Vermont proposal is tied to sweeping education reforms and a contingency that lawmakers need to create and vote on larger, consolidated school districts this year. Otherwise, the new tax on second homes will not move forward.”
🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Ugh of course there is a catch, do what we want which will hurt local school or we won't tax the rich....
It will never happen because the people with the money make the laws.
Yup. The golden rule, whoever has the gold makes the rules.
About time!!
Terrible idea. You can’t fund schools based on a single demographic of people, who just so happen to be the most mobile. What you tax you get less of, and what you subsidize you get more of.
If enough people exit, then their revenue assumptions collapse, then you’re right back at square one.
The only way out of this is to structurally control education costs. This legislation does nothing to address that.
Unlikely. If second home owners sell and leave, someone WILL buy in their place. In the scenario that no one buys, real estate values tank and houses become affordable within reason again for locals. Win win.
My husband and I managed to buy a house in our little NEK town in 2024. I say managed because we seriously got lucky. There were 3 other homes for sale in town at the time that we considered, and I’m not kidding, they were sold and SAT EMPTY ever since. One was already a short term rental and still is. If we had not gotten the home we did we’d still be renting.
That assumes a deep buyer pool and zero downside risk. Vermont doesn’t have that.
If higher taxes push second home owners out, you don’t automatically get a local buyer waiting in line. In thin markets, prices drop, assessments fall, and the tax base shrinks; unless mill rates rise and locals pick up the tab.
People made the same false argument about the higher taxes on the wealthy in Mass.
They didn't.
Mass raised tons of cash and basically no one left. There are more millionaires in Mass now than there was prior to the tax increase.
Raise taxes, and then address the VRBO /AirB&Bs too.
Comparing a state with a 7 million population with Boston/Cambridge to 650k population state is crazy work.
Has nothing to do with population.
Or are you suggesting that the behavior of wealthy people owning second homes in VT, many of whom live out of State, is somehow different due to the population of VT?
I’ll completely leave out the fact that the MA economy is materially different than VT.
Massachusetts is fucking beautiful; VT has nothing that comes close to the cape. We attract a certain type of wealthy; but honestly, if you’re not a ski bum, you can get the same beauty VT offers anywhere in the northeast.
BUILD HOUSES THIS ISN’T HARD
Cost of labor and materials is now insane
I just keep thinking of the $450 MILLION we put into private hotels for VT’ers during COVID.
We could have built a whole new town complete with apartments, homes, and schools for that $$
That wasn’t just for Vermonters. Folks came from all over. I fielded quite a few calls from out of state folks looking for services and frustrated because they didn’t understand what they had signed up for.
VT will do anything except develop
Question:
What happens when a percentage of the grand list goes from higher taxed second homes to lower taxed owner occupied? Who will be covering the shortfall?
Think we all know the answer
Easy answer. The sales taxes paid by said owners of owner occupied homes for everything they buy in Vermont. Thats whats makes up the difference.
Second home owners are already being taxed for services they don't use. They pay school taxes even though they don't use the schools.
Also consider that depressing the prices of second homes will NOT create new affordable housing. What working class Vermonter is going to buy a condo in Stowe or a house on a lake?
If you want more affordable housing, address the root causes that make building difficult or being a landlord a money-losing proposition.
Oh boo hoo to them, they can sell their homes and move elsewhere if that is the case.
Okay, and who's going to buy those houses? Again not working Vermonters as they don't live where tourists do. This will only decrease the prices, which ultimately lowers the tax base.
And again, second homeowners help contribute to school taxes without benefiting. If they leave, parents will have to pay more for schools (or more likely, schools will close)
That's Economics 101, like it or not.
When the price is advantageous, very rich people, equity firms, or current slumlords will buy and convert to high rent apartments to maximize returns.
See you're missing something here, if they can't sell they still pay taxes on it.
They'll sell at a lower price. There's always a Bostonian or New Yorker willing to pay taxes on a cheap property in Vermont. But with a lower sales price one can make the case the grand list value is overstated, and get their taxes reduced.
Long term:
- the tax income to the state will not increase by much
- politicians will find a way to spend any increase- just not on schools or roads
- no affordable housing will be created
- no new jobs will be created (many will be lost if you drive tourists out)
No new jobs will be created with all the new residents who made those second homes into homesteads?
New residents from... where? Existing Vermonters who already have jobs, or out of staters who work elsewhere?
Nobody's moving into Vermont to create a job here.
This is looooooooong overdue
At last. At long last
How does this impact Vermonters with second homes? Like say you’ve got a normal house and a tiny ass deer camp next to the national forest?
Then you’re paying double for the deer camp.
Well those are the people who will vote against at this
Well that sucks. Having a tiny ass deer camp is a Vermont tradition, and nobody's gonna live in a primitive camp with no plumbing or septic
You have different designations. Not hard.
Do. It.
Stop the fuckery and DO IT
It will be interesting to see how much other people’s money Vermont can squeeze out of this idea. It’s generally not an effective strategy, you will get less second home ownership but Vermont has one of the lowest economic growth rates in the country so it alone cannot support its bloated educational system, which by the way second home owners don’t use. This sub lives to ‘tax the rich’ but the actual rich don’t ski in Vermont for the most part anymore, it’s kind of a mid upper middle income crowd. Good luck with this plan, I’m sure it will work as well as every other scheme coming out of Montpelier.
You KNOW it's serious if the state is "considering" this very obvious solution. Fuck our kowtowing to out of state rich fucks.
This won’t to much, the fundamental issue is lack of supply. Second homes and vacation rentals don’t make up that large a segment of the market and population growth continues to out pace bew construction.
The solution is to gut classist zoning regulation and encourage density.
"Dont make up that large of a segment of the housing market"- thats blatantly untrue
By capita, we are number 2 in the entire country with number of vacation homes. Up to 17 percent of our entire housing market is second homes. Or around 58,000 homes.
And that was back in 2019. Since covid its only gone up with all the rich people who wanted a place to run to.
Even if the words "Up to" aren't doing a lot of heavy lifting (look up what happened with Toronto's Vacancy tax) that's still not that much in comparison to the size of the shortage. Even if all of that housing goes up for sale it would be filled almost instantly and any reduction in housing prices will be short term. to say nothing off the issues of zoning keeping those property expensive. A large single family home on a giant lot in the exurbs is not a viable living situation for most people.
the only real solution to the housing crisis to bring the rate of new construction back in line with population growth, and to make up for lost time. We need to subdivide those oversized lots and make it legal to turn all those McMansions into fourplexes and other types of high density housing.
Another bandaid solution instead of addressing the actual problems.
If all the tourists and summer people get taxed away, won't that make rough for everyone who owns a restaurant, u-pick apple orchard, souvenir shop or other business that relies on tourists? I'm not fond of tourists either, but unless Vermont develops a new source of revenue, we need them to survive. Half the restaurants in the NEK are closed for the winter right now. If there aren't any tourists in the summer, how many of them will be able to stay in business at all?
Sure, kill that golden goose.
If you honestly don’t think that mom and pop landlords aren’t better than Black rock you have zero understanding of what’s happening to real estate right now in the rest of the country. Spoiler alert. It doesn’t make housing more affordable LOL
How about being in good paying jobs - that will increase ur middle class which ends up paying a lot proportionate. I'm finding this constant " affordable housing thing ridiculous.. work rent get roommates etc save ur $ and go after the corporations that are ripping u off re food prices etc.
Who do you think already funds the schools….second home owners. Tax AirBnB’s out the wazoo. Fine with that.
Source?
I mean, they’re paying property taxes and not sending their kids to local schools or using local services most days of the year.
Am I supposed to sympathize with the person that owns two homes?
I’m not saying you are or aren’t supposed to sympathize with anyone. I don’t have a second home. You asked a question about what the specific argument would be and I answered it.
You chimed in when I was asking for a source that second-home owners are paying more in total tax dollars than residents.
I don't care that they don't have kids in school or use local services frequently . Of course they don't. That was never in question.
It's not sympathize it's facing reality that they are finding $ into Vermont and not using it most of the time.
They did outlaw Airbnbs in certain areas in Montreal where there used to be hundreds. It did absolutely nothing to reduce rents.
THIS
Tax the living fuck out of ‘em.
👏👏👏👏✊✊✊
It's amazing that people who worked hard got educated dumbell got a good job and invested in a 2nd home in VT are being looked at as the villains. They pay property taxes and don't use of the infrastructure- schools. Vermont has always had from inception out of states coming here and if possible retiring here or having vacation homes. That they should "give up the 2nd home" is ridiculous. You all are obviously jealous as shit. Get a life and be hapoy people still want to come here!
Wah wah, Stop crying about your second home. Nobody cares. If you cant afford new taxes, then it sounds like you did not do to well with your "education", and actually cant afford it. Maybe you are not as well off as you think.
We dont care you dont use the infrastructure. You know what else you dont do? Contribute to local economy, buy things here in Vermont all year paying sales tax, and you certainly dont add anything of value to the community you dont even live in.
You deserve to pay double taxes to cover all of that. You did well. You can afford it.
If not, I hear property in Ohio and Mississippi is super cheap for a second home. You should try there, you could likely afford that.
Schools dont need huge funding increases year after year when nothing actually changes.
Inflation alone drives up costs. Everything else in the world is more expensive now, why should schools be any different?
Inflation is the lowest weve seen in the last 4 years. If you think theres ten of millions of dollars of inflation soley driving the school budgets up, You must me tens of millions of dollars of crack every year.
No one said it was the "sole reason" but you, in this strawman argument.
My point is the budget goes up when nothing fundamentally changes because costs for everything go up, every year.
The biggest driver of increased costs these past few years was health insurance.
Less students. That changes.
Less students? More budget. Checks out.
The Vermont way
Im pretty sure Stowe tried this, got sued and lost. Can't do it, its unconstitutional.
Huh? Towns can't pass their own tax laws in VT.
Stowe is actually one of the towns where the crazy funding formula leads to homesteaders paying a higher tax rate than non-homesteaders. Which is ridiculous
Your wrong, ordinance is still on the books with the town looking to expand it more.
Horrible idea all around. This will only make tge problem worse: great job Vermont. Keep digging your grave.
They have been considering it for 40 years. They never will enjoy your slop merry Christmas
I agree. Don’t own. Visit a lot. Went to school there and feel it’s my “home”. But agree, if you can afford a 2nd house you can and should pay more in taxes. Shit in New Jersey my property tax is out for residential….
They can and I owed 2nd house my answer would be same, no question
The Beautiful people need to pay more because things are now slanted their way ….and I make good money but not fuck yiu money. They should pay, why simple because they can. Yiu want to enjoy then pay. And no they aren’t going to new ham-hire or upstate ny. If yiu love Vermont a little more isn’t going to change that. Plus if they want to sell and buy in 2nd state massive costs to it; sale in property, moving costs etc. They will complain about that extra 5m 10, maybe 15k but in the end they will pay, they willl just bitch and moan for a while so people might need to let them complain and eventually tune them out as you sip your bee or whatever
Shit if I sat next to someone and they asked I would tell them, yeah you should and tell them all the reasons. If they wanna argue with me for an hour I workday and I wouldn’t change my view. You wanted the beauty and peace of Vermont as 2nd home owner, well guess what yiu gotta pay a big (aka fee term going back to bookie days) for that privilege. Don’t like it, move.
Call your reps to say you support this!!
[deleted]
We are already running out of people to tax, so lets tax the people with the money, oh they might move, making more housing available to residents, who will pay taxes, oh darn. Yes Education Spending needs to be fixed but we also need to fund the Ed fund with or without Education spending reform.
You are going to buy some guy’s $1MM second home after he says fuck Vermont and gets a place in Utah or Cape Cod instead? And pick up his $15k a year in property taxes too, I assume? I don’t think this is going to work out well for you, but good luck.
Nice use of the slippery slope fallacy