legality/fairness of higher real estate taxes for investor owned

[Jocelyn Canfield]

My son recently moved to South Carolina and I was looking to buy a long term rental property in his area but discovered that the real estate property tax is TRIPLE for non owner-occupied homes. How is this even legal?? This ultimately hurts people who rent as a landlord would pass these costs onto tenants. It seems like price discrimination to me. Robinson-Patman doesn't really apply. Curious of other states who likewise force landlords to pay a higher burden.

[Troy Gandee]

@Jocelyn Canfield @Jeff Copeland is exactly right. The 6% commercial tax rate is the default rate. The 4% owner-occupied rate is an exception that the owner-occupant must apply for in order to be granted. It isn't a higher rate for the investor, but a lower rate for the owner-occupant. The 4% rate makes SC one of the cheapest in the country as far as property taxes are concerned. The 6% is frustrating, but it still lands us pretty low in the tax affordability category.

More importantly, taxes collected for the 6% rate are largely used to fund our schools, which need all the help they can get. Without the 6% rate properties, our education system would be even worse off than it already is.

I'm an investor and broker, so I welcome investments from out of state owners, but our metro areas have become borderline unaffordable for low-middle income residents. The 4% exemption does also help affordability for in-state residents more than most people realize.