It's no secret that many of the most well-known celebrities own sprawling luxury properties with money to spare — but to the average individual, some of these residences and lifestyles can seem a bit bizarre, to say the least.

In the r/travisandtaylor subreddit, one user recently brought scathing attention to the extravagance of pop star Taylor Swift's seasonal home in Watch Hill, Rhode Island, valued at an estimated $17 million.

In fact, the state of Rhode Island has proposed a tax on all non-primary residences worth over $1 million, and the so-nicknamed "Taylor Swift Tax" is bringing Swift's estate, among others like it, into the spotlight, according to the New York Post article from June spotlighted on Reddit.

While owning a large property isn't a direct burden on the environment, large mansions often go hand-in-hand with habits of overconsumption regarding space, utilities, and other resources. Taylor Swift, for instance, owns eight homes across the U.S., according to the Wall Street Journal, and keeping the lights on and the temperature controlled across each of them takes quite the toll on the planet. After all, most conventional means of generating electricity release planet-heating carbon pollution into the atmosphere.

Still, there's nothing outright wrong about owning a large home, especially if it's what you and your cohabitants require. The "tiny home" lifestyle emerging around the country might prove a supremely effective way to optimize limited space and resources, but extreme minimalism may not be for everyone.

Instead, you can offset the carbon costs of your traditional home — regardless of its size — with simple steps like installing solar panels, ensuring that your electricity comes pollution-free while bringing your energy costs down near zero. Tools like EnergySage can get you started on solar by connecting you with local installation services and helping you save up to $10,000 on the process.

Responses to the wealth displays of inordinately rich celebrities often tend to be wary if not outright irked, and comments under this latest Reddit post prove no different.

"$136k is chump change to her," one user wrote, referring to the additional taxes Swift would undertake under the proposed law.

"AGREED," added another. "Tax the s*** out of her and everyone else taking up massive pieces of coastline with their mega-mansions and not even being there to enjoy it."

In July, Thomson Reuters reported that Rhode Island had enacted the "Non-Owner-Occupied Residential Property" tax "for taxable years beginning on or after July 1, 2026."

It added: "The tax is measured by the assessed value of the real estate at the rate of $2.50 for each $500, or fractional part, of the assessed value in excess of $1 million. "

Should the ultra-wealthy pay a tax to help offset their environmental impact? Absolutely 💯 Depends how they're taxed 💰 Only corporations should pay those 🏭 No way 🚫 Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.

Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.