> It would simply raise more money for the government. "money for the government" is a very weird way of saying "funding for public services". > This particul

> It would simply raise more money for the government. "money for the government" is a very weird way of saying "funding for public services". > This particular tax strategy would largely do nothing for locals in a middle or lower income categories There is no basis for saying this. Who it helps and how is a spending consideration, not a taxing consideration. Where the budget goes has exactly nothing to do with how the budget is gathered. From the article: "Brokers say some second-home owners are considering selling". At the very least this plausibly means per-capita resupply of available housing and consequently lower overall market prices. It benefits everyone in lower wealth classes all the way down the chain when wealthy individuals are disincentivized from collecting more properties than they can personally occupy at a time.