6 ms·
It only takes one such case to make the tax look bad. But a LVT for corporate owners makes sense. Maybe one for young people too, only excepting retirees.
by tormeh 5y ago
It only takes one such case to make the tax look bad. But a LVT for corporate owners makes sense. Maybe one for young people too, only excepting retirees.
- fatbird 5y agoThe way you handle retirees is tax deferral: they don't pay the taxes every year, they pay the whole amount when the property is transferred by sale or inheritance. In this case it would just be the land transfer.
- dane-pgp 5y ago> Maybe one for young people too If we're concerned about fairness in the housing market, a special tax which only applies to young people isn't the policy I'd recommend. As an alternative, you could give each person an allowance of land area/value (perhaps based on the median value, or an equal share of the nation's land territory) and say that anyone who uses more than that (with a mansion, or multiple homes) would pay the tax, and perhaps people who own less land than that should get a rebate. Obviously corporations wouldn't get such an allowance, as they are not people for the purposes of this calculation. Also, you could make the tax exponentially progressive, to put a downward pressure on the size of land holdings and encourage competition between landlords.
- Zacru 5y agoTaxing different entities at different rates just opens the door for a middle-man with a lower tax rate to profit from simply renting the land to the entities with higher tax rates.
- dane-pgp 5y agoIf multiple middle-men all entered into contracts with one entity who wanted to set higher rental prices across the market, that would hopefully be caught by existing anti-trust / cartel laws, as well as tax evasion rules. You're right that there's a potential loophole here, but I don't think it is any more exploitable than other tax rules (i.e. it probably depends on how motivated the tax authorities are to actually enforce the rules).