Taylor Swift Tax?

That is one FUGLY house Rhode Island has instituted a property tax surcharge on lavish vacation homes, called, the, "Taylor Swift Tax," because it was inspired by the singers purchase of a facation home in Watch Hill, RI for $17,000,000.00 in 2013.

This is a very good idea. 

A new push by states to tax the real estate of the wealthy has sparked a backlash among brokers and potential buyers, who say the taxes punish the most important local spenders.

From tax hikes on pricey second homes in Rhode Island and Montana to Cape Cod's proposed transfer tax on homes over $2 million and the L.A. mansion tax, state and local governments see a revenue gold mine in the pricey properties of the wealthy.

"It's a smack in the face to people who just spend money here," said Donna Krueger-Simmons, sales agent with Mott & Chace Sotheby's International in Watch Hill, Rhode Island.

It's a WELL DESERVED smack in the face, Ms. Krueger-Simmons.  Just because your job is to sell overpriced houses to people who have too much money does not mean that the rest of us have to suffer for it.

………

Rhode Island's new levy, nicknamed "The Taylor Swift Tax," is among the most extreme. The popstar bought a beach house in the state's elite Watch Hill community in 2013.

The measure imposes a new surcharge on second homes valued at more than $1 million. For non-primary residences, or those not occupied for more than 182 days a year, the state will charge $2.50 for every $500 in assessed value above the first $1 million. That charge is on top of existing property taxes and will add up to big increases for luxury homes in Newport, Watch Hill and other well-heeled, summer communities in the state. 

Swift's house, for instance, is assessed at around $28 million, according to local real estate records. Her current property taxes are estimated at around $201,000 a year. The new charges will add another $136,442 to her annual taxes, bringing her yearly total to $337,442 – even though locals say she rarely visits. 

Won't someone think of the obscenely rich here?

Bueller???  Bueller???

Also, I would make a point here, if one were to put 25 vacation bungalows in the space used by that hideous $28 million monstrosity, you would have 25 people going there, instead of one person not going there, which is likely to generate a lot more money for local economies than absentee home owners,