3 ms·
The problem with this is that not everyone has the down payment or the desire to be a homeowner. What you're describing would likely increase ownership somewhat
by awillen 4y ago
The problem with this is that not everyone has the down payment or the desire to be a homeowner. What you're describing would likely increase ownership somewhat, but it would also create an incredibly punitive tax on renters, who tend to be less economically advantaged.
If you can't come up with a down payment, then you have to rent. Because you have this captive group of people who don't have any other option, the result of what you're suggesting is that your 10% tax on non-individually owned property will just be passed along to renters. They'll have to pay it, because they have no other choice. The government will collect their tax money, but at the expense of the least advantaged, not the owners of investment properties.
- NoGravitas 4y agoNone of their proposals include a tax on renters, only on landlords. You're assuming that landlords would be allowed to pass on this cost. And under the current system, they would. But as long as we're proposing hard-to-implement solutions, we might as well include some kind of rent control.
- awillen 4y agoI'm not assuming, I'm responding to a comment which defines a set of proposals, and that set of proposals does not include rent control. I can't really respond to your proposal of rent control, because it has no detail on how that would work (How would a newly build apartment building come up with rents that factor in their costs but not the 10% tax? Does any newly built apartment building just have to lose money every month?). But anyway, rent control is bad because it constrains supply of available units. That's been discussed on HN more times than I can count, so no point in rehashing it here.