3 ms·

Yes, clearly the problem with housing is not enough taxes. Taxing people for owning homes will definitely not result in rents rising and fewer people owning hom

Yes, clearly the problem with housing is not enough taxes. Taxing people for owning homes will definitely not result in rents rising and fewer people owning homes.

tw04 10y ago
He didn't say tax housing, he said tax land. Specifically non-agricultural land that has no homestead. That is a double edged sword though (at least in the US). If we continue to try to divest of public lands (thank you republicans) but then tax private lands, what happens to conservation efforts? You'd at the very least need to enact something that has an exception for land conservation, but good luck keeping out the loopholes. Minimum of 100 years before the land can be built on? And then an egregiously high tax at the end if it is to be built on?
hwillis 10y ago
Fewer people owning homes is exactly what he's talking about. More taxes means a higher incentive to rent to cover that cost. A tax on ownership is a tax break on renting, and more competition among renters. Of course that also means more people looking to rent, so I don't think that will really work, but its not an absurd suggestion.
- shshhdhs 10y ago
  I disagree. If you tax the home owner, they will pass on the taxes to the family renting that home.
  - hwillis 10y ago
    Of course. But the renter and/or rentee will still be paying less in taxes than people who just own.
    - friedman23 10y ago
      Have you thought about all the outcomes that will be caused by this policy? Because one obvious one is old people and poor families being kicked out of homes because they can't afford the tax. I guess we can just increase taxes even further to pay for their safety net which will result in them living in nice beautiful public housing.
      - hwillis 10y ago
        This isn't a drafted policy proposal. Tax laws are a little more refined than "tax houses". The tax would obviously be progressive and targeted at cities, to avoid affecting the poor, retired or rural. You're arguing against a strawman of a concept I'm not even a real fan of. There's no need to attack via the fallout of flawed implementations. If you disagree with the fundamental concept that's valid, but it needs to be disproven on a fundamental basis.

Yes, clearly the problem with housing is not enough taxes. Taxing people for owning homes will definitely not result in rents rising and fewer people owning homes.

tw04 10y ago

He didn't say tax housing, he said tax land. Specifically non-agricultural land that has no homestead. That is a double edged sword though (at least in the US). If we continue to try to divest of public lands (thank you republicans) but then tax private lands, what happens to conservation efforts? You'd at the very least need to enact something that has an exception for land conservation, but good luck keeping out the loopholes. Minimum of 100 years before the land can be built on? And then an egregiously high tax at the end if it is to be built on?

hwillis 10y ago

Fewer people owning homes is exactly what he's talking about. More taxes means a higher incentive to rent to cover that cost. A tax on ownership is a tax break on renting, and more competition among renters. Of course that also means more people looking to rent, so I don't think that will really work, but its not an absurd suggestion.

shshhdhs 10y ago
I disagree. If you tax the home owner, they will pass on the taxes to the family renting that home.
- hwillis 10y ago
  Of course. But the renter and/or rentee will still be paying less in taxes than people who just own.
  - friedman23 10y ago
    Have you thought about all the outcomes that will be caused by this policy? Because one obvious one is old people and poor families being kicked out of homes because they can't afford the tax. I guess we can just increase taxes even further to pay for their safety net which will result in them living in nice beautiful public housing.
    - hwillis 10y ago
      This isn't a drafted policy proposal. Tax laws are a little more refined than "tax houses". The tax would obviously be progressive and targeted at cities, to avoid affecting the poor, retired or rural. You're arguing against a strawman of a concept I'm not even a real fan of. There's no need to attack via the fallout of flawed implementations. If you disagree with the fundamental concept that's valid, but it needs to be disproven on a fundamental basis.