4 ms·
Perhaps in the very long term. But drastically increasing taxes on property would certainly not improve things for home owners who'd still have to keep paying t
by seoaeu 4y ago
Perhaps in the very long term. But drastically increasing taxes on property would certainly not improve things for home owners who'd still have to keep paying their mortgage as well. And even renters would likely find their landlord passing on much of the taxes...
- astrange 4y agoThe solution for low-income groups we want to protect (like retirees in their primary home) is generally to defer the tax until their home is sold. And ideally it would reduce their cost of living for other reasons, since land value near them would be deflated and properties would be improved so there's more workers in the area, there's less reliance on other regressive taxes like sales tax, etc.
- nivenkos 4y agoYou don't want to protect groups like that, as it means that they tie up valuable properties in economic centres and workers can't afford to live there. The failures of rent control in Sweden for example, are a great example of this. Tax wealth, not work. Income tax should be near zero (especially <$100k), and instead tax property with land value tax, property tax, inheritance tax, etc. so that people can work their way up.
- astrange 4y agoThe main reason you want to do that is they're the average voter. Young people don't vote. They also might not have a community/family/friends anymore and might not be capable of relocating. LVT is a better-designed alternative to property tax; taxing property (improvements to land) has the downside that you want people to improve their land, and taxing that would cause deadweight loss.
- Ericson2314 4y agoHomeownership cannot be saved. Do LVT and maybe bsil out people with underwater mortgages with a debt rightoff, but do not preserve SFH ownership.