‘Taylor Swift Tax' could cost her and neighbours $200k
A US state is weighing a proposal that could hit Taylor Swift and dozens of her wealthy neighbours — with a six-figure tax bill for leaving their coastal mansions mostly unoccupied.
The so-called 'Taylor Swift Tax,' an unofficial nickname for a proposed surcharge on luxury properties not used as a primary residence in Rhode Island, would levy significant annual fees on second homes valued over $US1 million ($A1.5 million), the New York Post reports.
The pop star's sprawling estate in Watch Hill, assessed at roughly $US17 million ($A26 million), could be subject to an additional $US136,000 ($A200,000) in taxes each year if the measure is approved, according to Realtor.
While the legislation does not single out Swift by name, her high-profile ownership has thrust her into the spotlight of a broader debate playing out across New England's elite seaside enclaves.
The initiative, formally referred to in budget documents as a 'non-owner-occupied property tax,' is part of a growing effort by politicians to address housing affordability in the Ocean State by tapping into the wealth of seasonal residents.
At the heart of the proposal is a straightforward formula: properties valued at more than $US1 million that are not used as a primary residence would face a surcharge of $2.50 ($A3.84) per $US500 ($A768) of assessed value beyond the first million.
That adds up quickly for high-end homes in coastal towns like Westerly and Newport, where property values have surged in recent years, partly due to out-of-state buyers and short-term rental demand.
Politicians backing the measure argue that absentee ownership contributes to housing shortages and erodes community life.
Many luxury homes sit vacant for much of the year, they say, while local workers and families struggle to find affordable housing.
Supporters believe the tax could help balance that equation.
By imposing a cost on keeping homes empty, they hope to encourage property owners either to spend more time in their homes or open them to renters — both of which would inject life, and potentially revenue, into quiet off-season communities.
The revenue generated would be earmarked for housing initiatives.
Opponents, however, warn of unintended consequences.
Real estate agents and longtime property owners caution that the measure could deter investment, depress home values and even pressure multigenerational families to sell beloved beach homes they've owned for decades.
They argue the policy casts too wide a net, penalising not only speculative investors but also those with deep roots in the state.
Debate over the bill has drawn sharp lines between politicians and real estate professionals, full-time residents and part-time neighbours.
While some view the measure as a needed corrective to a distorted housing market, others see it as a shortsighted move that could undermine property rights and local economies.
If passed, the law would not take effect immediately. Homeowners would have until July 2026 to adjust — either by proving they spend at least 183 days a year at the property (the standard for primary residence status) or by listing their homes as rentals.
Parts of this story first appeared in the New York Post and was republished with permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump says it's 'very hard' to ask Israel to stop Iran attacks
US President Donald Trump has played down the possibility of asking Israel to halt its attacks on Iran, as the two countries continue to trade missiles.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Inside Iran's Fordow nuclear bunker experts say only US weapons can destroy
Deep below a mountain in Iran sits a once-secret uranium enrichment facility which now threatens to drag the United States into the Israel-Iran conflict. There is one bomb – a so-called "bunker-buster" – which may be able to reach and destroy the facility. But there is only one country in the world which could drop it. This is the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, located near the city of Qom. Aerial imagery shows the facility nestled in a mountain. It is accessed via tunnels, evidenced by entrances visible from the surface. The bulk of the nuclear facility is located under an estimated 90 metres of rock. At its heart is a large hall which houses centrifuges, used to enrich uranium to certain percentages. As if a mountain was not defence enough against air strikes – there are thought to be blast or debris traps near its entrances. A low percentage of enrichment – about 3 to 5 per cent – is required for the uranium to be used in civilian settings, like a nuclear power plant. A high level – generally about 90 per cent – is needed for use in modern atomic weapons. Fordow's location means conventional bombs, like those in Israel's possession, would have little to no effect on the parts of the facility buried deep. A secret base revealed In 2009, then-US president Barack Obama stood alongside the leaders of France and the UK, and revealed Iran had been building a "covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years". He said a week earlier, Tehran had written to the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mentioning "a new enrichment facility, years after they had started its construction". IAEA inspectors were allowed into the facility in late 2009, where they were shown two halls, according to a 2019 report by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). The think-tank is led by David Albright, a leading American physicist and nuclear weapons expert, who is also a former weapons inspector. The report said one hall contained what one might expect for the enrichment of uranium for use in nuclear reactors, but the other hall was being stripped and modified at the time. "These observations contributed to several inspectors, including ones who were experts in gas centrifuges, becoming suspicious that this hall was for the onward enrichment of uranium up to weapon-grade," the report, authored by Mr Albright and two others, read. "Of course, Iran denied any such work," it said. Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), colloquially known as the Iran deal, Fordow was allowed to operate as a nuclear physics and technology centre, but was banned from uranium enrichment and storing nuclear material at the site for 15 years. 'The US and allied negotiators were not able to convince Iran to shut down this site, even though it has no credible civilian nuclear justification,' the ISIS report said. In 2018, during his first term, US President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Iran deal, reportedly just days after a briefing from the Israeli prime minister on a daring raid in Tehran by Israel's foreign intelligence service, Mossad. A raid in the night The raid on Iran's "Atomic Archive", as it was labelled by Israel, has been extensively documented by the New York Times and Washington Post. The publications describe a clandestine night raid in early 2018 on a nondescript warehouse in Tehran by agents of Mossad. The agents torched their way into some of the 32 safes contained in the warehouse, after a two-year surveillance operation, stealing and smuggling out of the country tens of thousands of documents, and compact discs — containing memos, videos, and plans, relating to Iran's past nuclear research. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the heist in April 2018 – presenting some of the documents in a televised address, arguing against the Iran deal. Later, select media outlets were given access to some of the haul by Israeli officials, who decided what they could and couldn't see. At the time, Iran said the documents were fraudulent. "Iran has always been clear that creating indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction is against what we stand for as a country and the notion that Iran would abandon any kind of sensitive information in some random warehouse in Tehran is laughably absurd," a statement from its UN mission in New York read. But among the haul, was a picture showing support facilities for the Fordow nuclear facility, then named the Al Ghadir project site. It also contained designs and diagrams for the underground portion of the project, according to the Institute for Science and International Security. The ABC's 3D map of the facility, featured above, is based on these blueprints — which are understood to be the only publicly available layouts of the facility. The IAEA says Iran stopped implementing all of the commitments it made as part of the Iran deal in February 2021 – including allowing daily access to Fordow, on request, for monitoring. The watchdog has still been able to verify what's happening at Fordow at less-regular intervals. Its latest report, released more than a week ago, said the facility is enriching uranium to 60 per cent — adding changes in its enrichment process had "significantly" increased the rate of production. "It's actually easier to go from an enrichment of 60 per cent to 90 per cent, than it is to get to that initial 60 per cent,' said nuclear physicist Kaitlin Cook in The Conversation. "It's a fairly trivial last step to go 90 per cent, which is why people were alarmed," said Jeffrey Lewis, an expert in nuclear non-proliferation from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. "Fordow is not the largest enrichment facility, but it is the enrichment facility that we expected Iran to build as part of its nuclear weapons program. "If your goal is to eliminate the nuclear program, you have to eliminate Fordow," he said. Dan Shapiro, who was the US ambassador to Israel under Barack Obama until 2017, told ABC TV's 7.30, he believes Fordow needs to be destroyed. "If it survives and continues to be a facility where they can enrich at 60 per cent and when they choose, to sprint to 90 per cent, this campaign will not have achieved its objective," he said. "They [Iran] will remain capable and maybe even more motivated to produce a nuclear weapon at any time of their choosing." Iran has long denied having a nuclear weapons program. "Iran declared … quite a few times that … it does not have any nuclear, you know, just program in terms of military aspects," the Iranian Ambassador to Australia, Ahmad Sadeghi, told the ABC's David Speers, on Wednesday. The massive ordnance penetrator According to experts from the Royal United Services Institute, there is only one conventional weapon thought to be big enough to reach and destroy Fordow. The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is a behemoth. It weighs more than 13 tonnes, stands six metres tall, and is specifically designed to "defeat hard and deeply buried targets", like bunkers and tunnels, according to a fact sheet from a US Department of Defense agency. It is said to be able reach depths of up to 60 metres, before exploding. "Multiple GBU-57/B impacts would almost certainly be required to reach the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, with the second bomb impacting inside the hole made by the first," said Justin Bronk, an airpower specialist at RUSI. The United States is the only country known to have this kind of bomb – and the only one with the aircraft approved to deliver it, the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber. "While each B-2 can carry two GBU-57/Bs, such an attack would require redundancy since the weapons would have to function and be delivered perfectly to get down into the facility, and explode at the right depth to cause critical damage," Professor Bronk told ABC NEWS Verify. Another bombing aircraft, the B-52, has dropped the bombs during testing. B-2 bombers operate out of a US Air Force base in Missouri. But the uniquely shaped aircraft have, as recently as April, been seen at an air base on the island of Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean. That same month, US media reported the B-2s were being stationed there in a display of power to countries like Iran. Whether they take off from the US, or the Indian Ocean, the stealth bombers' range limitations mean they might need to refuel while in the air on any mission to Iran. According to Reuters, AirNav systems, a flight tracking website, said more than 31 US Air Force refuelling aircraft – primarily KC-135s and KC-46s – left the United States on Sunday. It said the flights had landed in Europe. The decision to bomb, or not, will ultimately be decided by the US commander in chief, Donald Trump. "I may do it. I may not do it," he said on Wednesday. The White House said on Friday that Trump would decide on whether to intervene in the conflict, or not, within two weeks. If a bombing raid is given the green light by the US president – there is no guarantee it will work. But in a 2024 podcast, David Albright said he believed Fordow was "more vulnerable" than people think. "We have the building designs, it's in the nuclear archive," he told Arms Control Poseur. "Israel has even more of those designs, they know exactly how the tunnels go, where they start, how they zig and zag, where the ventilation system is, the power supplies. "You don't have to bring down the roof of the enrichment hall to put that facility out of operation for a long time," he said. Notes about data used in this story:
ABC News
9 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump can keep control of National Guard in LA, appeals court rules
A US appeals court has let Donald Trump retain control on Thursday of California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles. Mr Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second most populous city. On Thursday (local time), a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on US District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Mr Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service. Mr Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding his administration probably complied with the requirement to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Mr Trump's directive. "And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalise the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalised National Guard may engage," it wrote in its opinion. Mr Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and US Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Judge Breyer, it said. In a post on X after the decision, Mr Newsom vowed to pursue his challenge. "The president is not a king and is not above the law," he said. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of US military soldiers against our citizens." Mr Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social. "This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans," he said. "This is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should state and local police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done." Judge Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Mr Trump's action brought by Mr Newsom, where he ruled that Mr Trump violated a US law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor. It also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Judge Breyer ordered Mr Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Mr Newsom. Hours after Judge Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel had put the judge's move on hold temporarily. Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Mr Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against Mr Newsom's wishes. Mr Trump also ordered 700 US Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Judge Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilisation. At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Judge Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Mr Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions by which a president can federalise state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the US government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at immigration authorities' vehicles, used a trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalised property, frustrating law enforcement. The Justice Department has said once the president determines an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument. The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. In its June 9 lawsuit, California said Mr Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and US laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Mr Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. Reuters
