Latest news with #housingaffordability
News.com.au
20 hours ago
- Business
- News.com.au
‘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.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Q&A on Florida's affordable-housing Live Local Act: What is it and why is it controversial?
In 2023, the Florida Legislature approved Senate Bill 102, known as the Live Local Act, and Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law. The next year, lawmakers revised the legislation. Further updates to the act were approved by the legislature in the spring of 2025, and they will go into effect July 1. The Live (pronounced "liv") Local Act is intended to address the state's growing housing-affordability crisis by encouraging development with significant land-use, zoning and tax benefits. It makes various changes and additions to affordable-housing-related programs and policies at both the state and local level. It also requires certain information be made available on local government websites. However, things have not always run smoothly for the statewide housing strategy. Among the key criticisms: The plan has not reached those most in need; that it has the potential for developers to prioritize tax incentives over affordability; and that it intrudes on local authority and planning efforts, infringing on the surrounding community. Here are some key provisions and everything you need to know: The Live Local Act has a provision that gives developers a 75% exemption on property taxes when they build rental housing targeted for middle-income families — those with incomes that fall in the range of what a family with 80% to 120% of the area median income of the community would be able to comfortably afford. This group is sometimes called "the missing middle." There must be more than 70 affordable units in a development to qualify for this tax break, and only the affordable units would qualify. So, for example, in a 200-unit project with 75 affordable units, only the portion of property taxes covered by the 75 affordable units would get the tax reduction. Under a separate provision, developers can get a 100% property-tax exemption for qualifying developments with units targeted to families with incomes that are less than 80% of the area median income of the community. SPECIAL REPORT: Florida's Live Local Act wanted to spur affordable housing, but has it? In a training session on the act, Marisa Button, managing director of strategic initiatives for the Florida Housing Finance Corp., said this tax break provides "another tool in the tool belt of affordable-housing providers." There is a two-step application process to get approval for this tax break — going through the Florida Housing Finance Corp., then to the local county property appraiser. A governing board of a county, city or school district can opt out of the missing-middle property-tax exemption through a "supermajority" vote of at least two-thirds of the board. The board can opt out only if the geographic region it is in already has more affordable-housing units than the number of households at or below 120% of the area median income of the community — in other words, it has a "surplus" of affordable housing. More: Senator who championed Live Local Act says local governments must embrace it to work Among cities that now have a deficit of affordable housing — and are thus not eligible to opt out of offering the tax break — are the metropolitan areas that include Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Port St. Lucie, Fort Myers, Naples, Sarasota, Lakeland, and Ocala. There is no opt-out provision for the tax break for developments targeted to families with incomes that are less than 80% of the area median income. Local governments also have the option to enact an ordinance providing property-tax exemptions to certain affordable-housing development of 50 or more units that set aside at least 20% of the units as affordable to household at or below 60% of a community's median income. The exemptions apply only to the property taxes for the affordable units. The tax break can be up to 75% if fewer than 100% of the units are considered affordable, and up to 100% of all the units are considered affordable. Jacksonville and St. Petersburg were among the first cities to adopt such programs. There are provisions for more flexible zoning for affordable housing in areas within a county or city that had been designated for commercial, industrial and mixed-use development. For example, this includes easing of rules on building height, under which a residential building can be built to the highest currently allowed height for a residential or commercial building in that county or city that is within a mile of the proposed development site, or three stories, whichever is higher. There also is more flexibility related to site use (the category of development allowed on a parcel), as well as to density standards (the number of housing units allowed per acre). These provisions override the local government's height, zoning and density regulations for a specific parcel of land. To qualify for these zoning rule exemptions, a developer must set aside at least 40% of the project's rental units for affordable rental housing geared to households earning no more than 120% of the area median income for at least 30 years. Such projects would be administratively approved, with no action required by county or city governing bodies, such as a zoning board or a city council, as long as the development otherwise complies with the local government's comprehensive plan. The Live Local Act assures full funding of two long-established state housing programs through the Sadowski Trust Fund program, which gets revenue generated through a portion of documentary stamp taxes collected on real estate transactions. These housing programs are the State Apartment Incentive Loan or SAIL program, which provides low-interest or no-interest loans for development of affordable housing; and the State Housing Incentive Partnership or SHIP program, which deploys funds to Florida's 67 counties and 55 eligible municipalities for various housing programs. The act also codifies the state's Hometown Heroes Program into state statute. This program provides down-payment and closing-cost assistance to eligible first-time homebuyers who are Florida residents and work for a Florida-based company. Counties and cities must compile an inventory of publicly owned land that could be appropriate for affordable-housing projects, if such land exists in the community. The resulting list of those properties must be posted on the local government's website. Property-tax exemptions on the value of the land are provided on land owned by a nonprofit organization and leased for a period of 99 years to predominantly provide affordable housing to households at or below 120% of a community's median income. The Florida House on April 30 and the Florida Senate on May 1 unanimously approved a series of changes to the Live Local Act, as part of Senate Bill 1730. They would take effect July 1, unless vetoed by DeSantis. In analysing the legislation, Kody Glazer, chief legal and policy officer for the Florida Housing Coalition, believes the amendments are generally beneficial for spurring efforts to build more affordable-housing projects. Glazer said he believes the most significant change in the bill is that it clarifies that the act applies to properties within planned unit developments, which sometimes also are known as master planned communities. Among other changes, the measure offers more flexibility for approval of affordable-housing projects on parcels owned by religious institutions. This type of provision is considered a "Yes In God's Backyard," or a "YIGBY," reform. Such reforms are becoming more common across the country as a way to unlock land owned by religious institutions to address local housing shortages. The bill also prevents local building moratoria that have the effect of delaying the permitting or construction of a Live Local Act land-use project unless: The moratorium lasts no more than 90 days in any three-year period after a local assessment of the jurisdiction's need for affordable housing. The moratorium is imposed or enforced to address stormwater or flood water management; to address the supply of potable water; or due to the necessary repair of sanitary sewer systems, if such moratoria apply equally to all types of multifamily or mixed-use residential development. The amendments also have some added restrictions. For example: They create more building height limits for sites in certain historic parcels. They also exempt the Wekiva Study Area in Central Florida and the Everglades Protection Area from Live Local Act land-use mandates. Dave Berman is business editor at FLORIDA TODAY. Contact Berman at dberman@ on X at @bydaveberman and on Facebook at This article originally appeared on Florida Today: Live Local Act: Questions and answers
News.com.au
2 days ago
- Business
- News.com.au
Australian property market: impossible task for single buyers
Single buyers are being priced out of Australia's property market, with the average individual Australian only able to afford a house in a shocking 16 per cent of suburbs. While the financial advantages of being in a relationship is well-documented, being single now has a fresh blow as new research reveals it has become almost impossible to buy property by yourself across Australia. Comparison site Finder's First Home Buyer Report 2025 revealed that in 2017, an average Aussie could afford a mortgage for a median priced house in over half the country's suburbs. Now, that amount has fallen to only 16 per cent of suburbs across the nation. Even the unit market didn't offer much more hope for single buyers, who could now only afford to purchase in less than a third – 28 per cent – of Australian suburbs. This had fallen from two-thirds (66 per cent) in 2017. In NSW, SA and WA, the number of suburbs where the average single could afford mortgage repayments has fallen by around three-quarters. It was the worst in NSW, where single Aussies could afford the average house in 40 per cent of suburbs in 2017, that has fallen to just 11 per cent in 2025. South Australia had experienced a dramatic drop from 2017 where singles were able to afford the average house in 85 per cent of suburbs, dropping down to only 19 per cent in 2025. Housing affordability pressures have triggered a noticeable drop in the amount of single-buyers entering the market. In 2021, 45 per cent of first home buyers were individuals, that's now fallen to 39 per cent in 2025. Finder's personal finance expert Sarah Megginson said that buying a home is harder than it's ever been. 'Especially if you're trying to do it on your own without a partner or family member,' she added. 'First home buyers are not expecting to step into a mansion for their first property, but even those with realistic expectations are shocked that even entry-level homes carry eye-watering price tags. 'Saving a deposit is now a multi-year grind and many first-time buyers rely heavily on the 'bank of mum and dad' to bridge the gap between what they have and what they need. With up to three interest rate cuts predicted before Christmas, she said that will help current mortgage-holders ease some pressure, but could make things worse for those trying to enter the market. 'But demand – especially in affordable markets – is expected to surge, which could potentially push entry-level prices even higher and squeeze first home buyers further,' Ms Megginson said.
Globe and Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Canada's household debt crisis: When and how we outpaced Britain and the U.S.
Canada's household debt-to-GDP ratio has remained at or above 100 per cent for a decade – currently the highest among the world's 10 largest economies. As of late 2024, Britain ranked second at 77 per cent, followed by the United States at 71 per cent. Here's a look at when and why Canada's household debt began to outpace that of its global peers. Debt in an economy typically falls into three categories: government, corporate and household. While Canada's government debt is significant, it remains lower as a percentage of GDP than in several other major economies. What sets Canada apart is the scale of its household debt, which increases the country's exposure to interest rate hikes and economic downturns. Of the roughly $3-trillion in Canadian household debt in the first quarter, nearly 75 per cent is tied to mortgages – underscoring the central role of housing unaffordability in the country's financial vulnerability. Between 2000 and 2010, Canada's household debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than those of both Britain and the U.S. But since 2011, it has surpassed both, and the gap has continued to widen. This shift mirrors the pattern discussed in my earlier Globe and Mail article, 'When exactly did Canadian housing become so unaffordable — and who's to blame?' A key divergence emerged in 2009, when the ratio of average home price to disposable income exceeded nine. Since 2015, that figure has remained above 10 — significantly higher than in Britain or the U.S. While correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, the numbers clearly point to housing unaffordability as a major driver of household debt in Canada. Rising home prices have forced new buyers to take on larger mortgages, but the impact goes beyond that. Homeowners who saw gains in home equity were often refinanced or took out home equity lines of credit — further inflating debt levels. One major reason for Canada's divergence in housing affordability appears to be monetary policy after 2008. Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada cut interest rates to near zero. But unlike the U.S., Canada hadn't experienced a severe housing crash. As a result, prolonged ultralow rates spurred speculative demand, with buyers using cheap leverage to chase high returns on small down payments. While prolonged low rates may have initiated the divergence from Britain and the U.S., other factors such as restrictive zoning and rapid population growth helped sustain the housing unaffordability. Canada's household debt crisis is inseparable from its housing affordability problem — driven by prolonged low interest rates, limited supply owing to restrictive zoning, population growth and speculative investment. Housing unaffordability not only hurts the quality of life for younger generations, but also makes the Canadian economy more vulnerable to future economic shocks because of its tight link with household debt levels. Hanif Bayat, PhD, is the CEO and founder of a Canadian personal finance platform.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
From Banks to Trump: What Each Generation Blames for High Home Prices
Housing is no longer affordable for a record number of Americans. According to Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, more than 43 million households pay more than 30% of their gross income for housing. Read Next: Explore More: But if you ask members of different generations who or what they blame for high home prices, you're likely to receive mixed answers. Read on for more details about the current state of housing affordability in the U.S., as well as what some generations blame for the problem. Also see how President Donald Trump is impacting the housing market right now, according to Dave Ramsey. The cost of an average home in the U.S. is out of reach for many Americans at $367,969. 'Housing affordability is still at its worst point in history,' Robert Frick, a corporate economist with Navy Federal Credit Union, told Forbes in May. In fact, as reported by CNBC, among the 100 largest metros in the U.S., over 40% are dealing with a lack of affordable housing. These metros include Washington, D.C., and Seattle. But what — or who — is to blame for housing unaffordability? Check Out: 'Most Americans — about 80% — agree the housing crisis is a real problem, but that's where the agreement ends,' said Nick Pisano from Clever Real Estate. 'Boomers and Gen X point the finger at millennials for driving up prices, while millennials blame boomers for shutting them out of the market.' Pisano led the creation of a report on homeownership based on a survey from Clever Offers of 1,000 Americans across generations. For high home prices and the affordable housing crisis, 33% of boomers and Gen Xers said millennials were most responsible. However, 35% of millennials said boomers were most responsible. Overall, three-quarters or more of each age group said that homeownership is unaffordable for the average American, and most agree that the U.S. is facing an affordable housing crisis. Politics also play a factor. According to the report, 50% of boomers, 53% of Gen X and 61% of millennials blame the Trump administration for being responsible for the lack of affordable homes. In fact, Forbes reported that home prices will likely remain high due to the administration's trade wars, which have caused price increases. Further, 59% of boomers, 68% of Gen X and 68% of millennials blame banks for high housing costs. 'Millennials are more likely to hold Trump responsible than the older generations — though more than half of every generation blames the current administration,' Pisano said. 'Also, 61% of millennials blame Trump and 68% blame the banks, showing their frustration runs deep with both Washington and Wall Street.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on From Banks to Trump: What Each Generation Blames for High Home Prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
