4 ms·

Maybe tax investment properties at an elevated rate? I'm all for home ownership, but the proposed policy doesn't seem compatible with owner-occupied home owners

Maybe tax investment properties at an elevated rate? I'm all for home ownership, but the proposed policy doesn't seem compatible with owner-occupied home ownership.

rapind 4y ago
Not sure if it’s the same in the states (but I suspect it is), but in Canada, if your primary residence doubles in value and you sell it, you don’t have to pay tax on that investment income. However you would pay tax on all other investment income (real estate or stocks etc.). This is an exception to the tax rule and it’s a significant factor behind house prices (artificially low interest rates, and supply being other causes). It actually became a “smart” investment to over leverage for a primary residence because it’s a tax free investment that outperformed interest rates and other taxed investments.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
It is compatible with that. It's not compatible wih the strange religious belief that homeowners should be handed free money from the government at the expense of everyone else, including their own children, for not doing anything socially useful. That's the root problem, but it'll take a while to fix, because people like getting free money at the expense of other people as long as there's enough hoops to jump through that they feel like they deserve it, even when they don't, and enough hoops for them to not click that they are everybody else's "other people" and probably losing on the deal overall.
monknomo 4y ago
In expensive areas (ie, cities that are popular), it does not encourage single family construction. Rather, it includes packing as many units onto property as feasible. That doesn't preclude ownership - condos and co-ops work as well as apartments. Out in the boonies a land value tax wouldn't discourage single family, because the land is not valuable (in comparison to a city).

Maybe tax investment properties at an elevated rate? I'm all for home ownership, but the proposed policy doesn't seem compatible with owner-occupied home ownership.

rapind 4y ago

Not sure if it’s the same in the states (but I suspect it is), but in Canada, if your primary residence doubles in value and you sell it, you don’t have to pay tax on that investment income. However you would pay tax on all other investment income (real estate or stocks etc.). This is an exception to the tax rule and it’s a significant factor behind house prices (artificially low interest rates, and supply being other causes). It actually became a “smart” investment to over leverage for a primary residence because it’s a tax free investment that outperformed interest rates and other taxed investments.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

It is compatible with that. It's not compatible wih the strange religious belief that homeowners should be handed free money from the government at the expense of everyone else, including their own children, for not doing anything socially useful. That's the root problem, but it'll take a while to fix, because people like getting free money at the expense of other people as long as there's enough hoops to jump through that they feel like they deserve it, even when they don't, and enough hoops for them to not click that they are everybody else's "other people" and probably losing on the deal overall.

monknomo 4y ago

In expensive areas (ie, cities that are popular), it does not encourage single family construction. Rather, it includes packing as many units onto property as feasible. That doesn't preclude ownership - condos and co-ops work as well as apartments. Out in the boonies a land value tax wouldn't discourage single family, because the land is not valuable (in comparison to a city).