Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9438

Bill Overview

Title: American Property Act

Description: This bill imposes an excise tax on foreign persons who own any specified under-utilized residential real property for more than one-half of any taxable year. The amount of such tax is 1% of the estimated value of such property. The bill defines specified under-utilized residential real property as any specified residential property located in the United States that is occupied as a dwelling unit for less than 29 days during the taxable year. Specified residential property means a single-family home or structure consisting of four residential units or less, or a part of a building that is a semi-detached house, rowhouse unit, residential condominium unit or other similar premises that is, or is intended to be, a separate parcel or other division of real property, and includes any land that was conveyed with such home, structure, or building.

Sponsors: Rep. Jacobs, Chris [R-NY-27]

Target Audience

Population: Foreign persons owning under-utilized residential property in the U.S.

Estimated Size: 0

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Real Estate Agent (New York City, NY)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned that this policy might make foreign investors less interested in buying property here, which could slow down the market.
  • However, it could also mean more inventory for local buyers, especially if these properties get sold or rented out.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Financial Analyst (Miami, FL)

Age: 41 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Taxes like these are a double-edged sword. They can open opportunities for local buyers but also scare potential investors away.
  • Overall, it might help stabilize home prices if foreign speculation decreases.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 8 7

Aspiring Homebuyer (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This sounds like it could help bring prices down, or at least make more houses available.
  • I'll be watching closely to see if more listings start showing up that are within my budget.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

University Professor (Boston, MA)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is an interesting policy that could really benefit cities struggling with high vacancy rates caused by international investment.
  • It could lead to better community engagement if these properties start getting occupied.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Retired Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This tax could make it more difficult to speculate in the property market, which might stabilize my neighborhood.
  • I hope this leads to more local residents being able to afford living here.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Property Manager (Austin, TX)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I might lose some clients if they decide to sell their properties due to this tax, but it also might make it easier for locals to find housing.
  • It's a bit of a mixed bag depending on how it plays out.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Tech Worker (Chicago, IL)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If this policy can bring more housing back into the market, it could help reduce urban sprawl and make cities more livable.
  • I hope it encourages community growth by increasing housing access.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Software Developer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think this policy might help address some availability issues, particularly in areas with high foreign ownership.
  • It may stabilize prices and help friends who are trying to buy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

School Teacher (Houston, TX)

Age: 54 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could increase housing options and maintain neighborhood vitality if it brings more permanent residents into areas currently dominated by empty properties.
  • I'm cautiously optimistic.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Casino Manager (Las Vegas, NV)

Age: 33 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might discourage absentee owners, potentially bringing more people into our community.
  • It should be interesting to see if this affects local business as housing dynamics change.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Key Considerations