"Hey you know that activity that you enjoy, that makes the tedium and tests of life a bit more bearable? The one that provides a hub to maintain familial bonds, and adds another source of food that isn’t factory farmed or ultra-processed to your diet?
That isn’t how you’re supposed to spend your money, so stop it."
The key point you’re missing, I think, is that the tax would increase exponentially for each additional house owned. The first one could be, say, a 0.5% tax increase, and it could go up from there.
If you’re in a position where paying 0.5% extra tax on your hunting cabin split 5 ways will bankrupt you, then I’d argue that it isn’t how you’re supposed to spend your money. That’s “Skip eating out once a year” territory.
Nah, I’m not opposed to the proposition, and understandably any such tax law (if legislated with due consideration) should take into account cases where the effect may be otherwise than intended (or be amended with further subsequent legislation). Corporate squatting is a literal travesty.
I was just a bit baffled at the gall of supposing that the cost/benefit calculation of this kind of lifestyle choice could be up for second-hand proscription.
I certainly don’t want to decide for your family how to live their lives, but five parties just so scraping by doing the payments on a hunting lodge seems miserable for everyone involved. Wouldn’t it be possible to rent one instead / buy one in a cheaper area / rent out the lodge when not in use?
I also wouldn’t consider a lodge in the middle of nowhere a residential building that should fall under those taxes when kept empty to drive up the rent.
Same. We have to get private equity out of homes, but telling people on the edges that they will get caught up is going to make it a tough sell. Even if we account for the example above, another family that wasn’t on the edge of affordability might be after the change.
With something like this we may need to offer buybacks or short loved exemptions of some sort.
Not really, but it sounds like your family should rather sell that cabin and spend their money on more important things.
I know for the public good this is the right answer but this is not a winning strategy
"Hey you know that activity that you enjoy, that makes the tedium and tests of life a bit more bearable? The one that provides a hub to maintain familial bonds, and adds another source of food that isn’t factory farmed or ultra-processed to your diet?
That isn’t how you’re supposed to spend your money, so stop it."
The key point you’re missing, I think, is that the tax would increase exponentially for each additional house owned. The first one could be, say, a 0.5% tax increase, and it could go up from there.
If you’re in a position where paying 0.5% extra tax on your hunting cabin split 5 ways will bankrupt you, then I’d argue that it isn’t how you’re supposed to spend your money. That’s “Skip eating out once a year” territory.
Nah, I’m not opposed to the proposition, and understandably any such tax law (if legislated with due consideration) should take into account cases where the effect may be otherwise than intended (or be amended with further subsequent legislation). Corporate squatting is a literal travesty.
I was just a bit baffled at the gall of supposing that the cost/benefit calculation of this kind of lifestyle choice could be up for second-hand proscription.
I certainly don’t want to decide for your family how to live their lives, but five parties just so scraping by doing the payments on a hunting lodge seems miserable for everyone involved. Wouldn’t it be possible to rent one instead / buy one in a cheaper area / rent out the lodge when not in use?
I also wouldn’t consider a lodge in the middle of nowhere a residential building that should fall under those taxes when kept empty to drive up the rent.
Same. We have to get private equity out of homes, but telling people on the edges that they will get caught up is going to make it a tough sell. Even if we account for the example above, another family that wasn’t on the edge of affordability might be after the change.
With something like this we may need to offer buybacks or short loved exemptions of some sort.