• postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    I disagree. No need to force development to destroy natural landscapes just to avoid a tax. Simply tax multiple residential properties somewhat exponemtially.

    100%, 133%, 200%, 350%, 500% or something

    • Asifall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Generally it’s not destroying undeveloped land, but fixing up dilapidated houses so that they are livable.

      Having a progressive tax based on number of homes owned may work, but you would need to rewrite quite a bit of real estate law to make it actually effective. Obviously corporations would not be allowed to own houses to avoid people owning through shell companies, but you would also have to draw a line so corporations could own larger apartment complexes and mixed use buildings. You also do want builders to be able to temporarily own houses for the purpose of building and selling them as well as corporate flippers.

      Frankly, I think it’s too complicated to expect on a national level.

    • evatronic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Right.

      Owning one or two residential properties is fine, more is problematic.

      I say “two” to handle the very common case of children putting their parents’ homes in their own name because Medicare clawback rules will take the home after they die if you don’t do it early enough.