3 ms·
I think it's hardly enforceable in a world where real estate can be owned by legal entities, which can be set-up on paper in seconds. Besides, in a free market
by IkmoIkmo 5y ago
I think it's hardly enforceable in a world where real estate can be owned by legal entities, which can be set-up on paper in seconds.
Besides, in a free market it should not matter to prices whether I own two properties, or me and my brother (acting individually) own a property each, the market will set prices and neither of us can with one or two or 200 properties.
Of course there's a limit to this logic, which is when you own so much you have a monopoly, but there's no entity that I'm aware of that has a monopoly in residential real estate or anything close to it.
- R0b0t1 5y agoIt's easily enforceable. Avoid applying the tax to primary residences. If it's not a primary residence, tax.
- IkmoIkmo 5y agoYou've not addressed my point. The idea is not to tax, it's to have a progressive tax. i.e., the more units you own, the more limitations or taxes you pay. That doesn't work if investment firms can invest in individual entities owning individual properties.
- bostik 5y ago> but there's no entity that I'm aware of that has a monopoly in residential real estate or anything close to it. Singapore might come close.[0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore -- "The majority of the residential housing developments in Singapore are publicly governed and developed, and home to approximately 78.7% of the resident population."
- IkmoIkmo 5y agoBut that's public housing, owned by the state, governed by a democratic vote. The theoretical chance that the state will abuse its monopoly position to squeeze renters is extremely remote, and in fact the opposite of the going practice in Singapore.