5 ms·
Or, and hear me out here.... we could tax non-primary residences. But I agree, we should instead allow the free market to lead us towards a non-competitive her
by ep103 5y ago
Or, and hear me out here.... we could tax non-primary residences.
But I agree, we should instead allow the free market to lead us towards a non-competitive hereditary based future
- kiba 5y agoWe should erode the value of housing and housing debt through inflation, and have the government buy up lands to redevelop into high density housing with corresponding transport infrastructure. Then set land value tax when the government sold the land back to the market, or otherwise continue to subside and manage these housing stocks. Otherwise, the middle class will continue to fight any land reform.
- thomasahle 5y ago> We should erode the value of housing and housing debt through inflation If you want to lower house prices, easier to just tax houses/properties more.
- kiba 5y agoIf you want to lower house prices, easier to just tax houses/properties more. Increase taxation, the middle class homeowners will revolt. Political will is required to build more housing.
- thomasahle 5y agoSure. Political will and homeowner revolt is why we havent done it already. You seem to say inflation can sidestep these issues. But why should we even assume house prices wont just grow with inflation, or much faster, as has been the case so far?
- imtringued 5y agoIf land value taxes won't happen, then the next best thing is a ground lease for all new plots of land.
- snidane 5y agoLand value tax and ground lease are equivalents. Calling it a lease or tax or fee or whatever is just a political strategy to appeal to the right group. Naming it a tax will surely infuriate right leaning propertarians and common populace. Interesting idea about govt buying up all land and then reimposing LVT on then newly privatised land. I am skeptical, because of 1. government corruption 2. higher chance of experiencing a land market reset through war
- kiba 5y agoGovernment corruption shouldn't be a reason to stop the government from doing anything, unless it is an issue that obviously going to stop effective implementation.
- kiba 5y agoGood point. Inflation does no good if housing undergoes asset inflation faster than inflation can rise.
- mjevans 5y agoHypothetically, summer / winter homes. The tax law should exempt, from this tax on inverters, any home the owner resides in for at least 33.4% of a year (literal text "one third of a calendar year, rounded up to the next whole day"). Someone could thus have a summer and winter home, but only two. An additional clause should also disqualify any home rented for value for more than 1/3rd of a year. Letting friends and family stay free thus exempted from the disqualification. (Still must comply with the above qualifier on primary residence.)
- ep103 5y agoSure! Taxes can go up with each subsequent home owned. Taxes can go up in inverse proportion to time spent in the home. Taxes can go up in proportion to the total value of the home (to avoid simply buying your neighbor's home and calling it one property to bypass this law). Etc, etc, etc. There are plenty of possible ways to implement this, and I leave it to actual experts to determine what the best way is. But the plethora of ways makes it quite clear that at least one viable path should be determinable and implementable.