3 ms·

That's a good question about the enforcement. You'd really only care about the most trafficked dense areas to live in, so gated communities should be less of an

That's a good question about the enforcement. You'd really only care about the most trafficked dense areas to live in, so gated communities should be less of an issue unless the whole city is made of urban sprawl neighborhoods. If it turns out to be hard to catch, the penalty should take into account the likelihood of getting caught, such that the expected reward from cheating is still negative. If you're out of the country for an entire year and you want to keep your house empty during an housing crisis, you seem like exactly the kind of person this tax should be levied on. Either rent your home to someone else for the year, or pay the penalty for contributing to the housing crisis.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
> If it turns out to be hard to catch, the penalty should take into account the likelihood of getting caught, such that the expected reward from cheating is still negative. That already puts a red flag. How do parties prove/disprove vacancy? Far better to discourage (not forbid, mind you) multi-ownership in the first place. > If you're out of the country for an entire year and you want to keep your house empty during an housing crisis, you seem like exactly the kind of person this tax should be levied on. Either rent your home to someone else for the year, or pay the penalty for contributing to the housing crisis. As long as it’s a penalty and not a forced eviction. If I’m taking a one-year sabbatical and then coming back it’s a bit much. There’s a perverse set of incentives for a city/town to try and mark someone as “not residing”, which makes me question this vacancy approach even further. It’s just ripe for abuse.