No, it shouldn’t hold up societal progress. But not being aware of how your policies actually affect people is just plain bad. I agree with progressive taxes on multi house ownership, but you also need to understand that will mean people who are less rich than you think losing them, it’s not just people that can afford them. And it’s not as far an edge case as you think, I believe
Or does the correction in housing pricing lower their actual taxes paid in total on their main properties, granting them more breathing room, allowing them to comfortably afford the hunting lodge even if the rate itself has increased? You’re expecting everything else to remain the same and just increased tax rates as a whole. Something like this would readjust the market values of properties and the subsequent tax being paid while making sure those corporations hoarding properties are taxed appropriately and providing inventory into a market that would bring pricing back down to earth. The rate could be increased but total paid could be lowered in these cases of second homes so long as tax increase is exponential and not flat on additional properties. The goal of measures like this would be to make companies hoarding thousands of properties an untenable option not to hurt every person who might look into having a second or third property.
Here’s a thought, maybe instead of blindly following the original commenters idea and repeatedly posting the same thing, refine the idea to account for people the “fringe” case mentioned?
Maybe, in addition to the multiple house ownership and residence status conditions add one that factors in income/earnings (including any capital gains) and if you exceed a threshold then additional home taxes apply?
Maybe scale the additional taxes based on income/earnings so everyone is taxed but done so appropriately for their situation?
Or maybe adopt a system like some other countries have where the first house you own isn’t taxed but additional homes are, then adjust other taxes in accordance? Under this system 5 families sharing a hunting cabin is not only easier for them but more economic and efficient than five families owning five separate cabins.
You’ll never please everybody but laws and regulations should take into account all those they effect and serve the greatest number reasonably possible.
Genuinely, I’m saying this to bring up that it’s an ill effect that will come about, and to show OP that it isn’t as clear cut and dry morally as rich get screwed, and houses get easier to buy. I don’t especially think an exception clause is reasonable, I believe they will just be abused, and it’s simply better to accept some level of negative consequences for the benefits.
I didn’t say progressive taxes are authoritarian. Your suggestion is. Applying a blanket tax without regard to impact or circumstance is authoritarian and the kind of thing a dictator would do.
It’s un-democratic.
I don’t especially think an exception clause is reasonable, I believe they will just be abused.
This is in effect no different than saying the tax shouldn’t be implemented because it might unfairly impact certain people, like z5 families sharing a hunting cabin.
If your goal is mental masturbation then it doesn’t matter but if you are talking real world, practical solutions yours doesn’t work.
A hunting cabin is purely a luxury. There’s nothing authoritarian about having high taxes for luxuries, and no, blanket taxes on luxuries are not inherently authoritarian.
Sure, it could unfairly impact people, but since in this situation there’s no needs, only luxuries, the balance of how increased housing supply fairly easily balances the scale.
And no, the point of my original comment is to understand impact. Realize harms the law could create, and don’t do it blindly. But that’s just to understand what you’re putting on the scales.
The added tax revenue would also make the rural places these vacation home are in more sustainable for regular residents. And probably keep local governments and even small hospitals solvent.
It might even alleviate the financial burdens that are making that situation almost untenable for them now as real estate markets are corrected and added tax revenue gets allocated into public benefits that could reduce the cost of living. They may benefit from the proposal even if tax rates get increased on subsequent properties.
I’d sacrifice your family’s hunting cabin if it helps house more people. Find a sixth person or something.
It’s an edge case that shouldn’t hold up societal progress.
No, it shouldn’t hold up societal progress. But not being aware of how your policies actually affect people is just plain bad. I agree with progressive taxes on multi house ownership, but you also need to understand that will mean people who are less rich than you think losing them, it’s not just people that can afford them. And it’s not as far an edge case as you think, I believe
Or does the correction in housing pricing lower their actual taxes paid in total on their main properties, granting them more breathing room, allowing them to comfortably afford the hunting lodge even if the rate itself has increased? You’re expecting everything else to remain the same and just increased tax rates as a whole. Something like this would readjust the market values of properties and the subsequent tax being paid while making sure those corporations hoarding properties are taxed appropriately and providing inventory into a market that would bring pricing back down to earth. The rate could be increased but total paid could be lowered in these cases of second homes so long as tax increase is exponential and not flat on additional properties. The goal of measures like this would be to make companies hoarding thousands of properties an untenable option not to hurt every person who might look into having a second or third property.
Here’s a thought, maybe instead of blindly following the original commenters idea and repeatedly posting the same thing, refine the idea to account for people the “fringe” case mentioned?
Maybe, in addition to the multiple house ownership and residence status conditions add one that factors in income/earnings (including any capital gains) and if you exceed a threshold then additional home taxes apply?
Maybe scale the additional taxes based on income/earnings so everyone is taxed but done so appropriately for their situation?
Or maybe adopt a system like some other countries have where the first house you own isn’t taxed but additional homes are, then adjust other taxes in accordance? Under this system 5 families sharing a hunting cabin is not only easier for them but more economic and efficient than five families owning five separate cabins.
You’ll never please everybody but laws and regulations should take into account all those they effect and serve the greatest number reasonably possible.
Genuinely, I’m saying this to bring up that it’s an ill effect that will come about, and to show OP that it isn’t as clear cut and dry morally as rich get screwed, and houses get easier to buy. I don’t especially think an exception clause is reasonable, I believe they will just be abused, and it’s simply better to accept some level of negative consequences for the benefits.
I thought it was a serious suggestion but your solution is impractical and authoritarian.
Progressive taxes are not authoritarian in nature holy shit man.
I didn’t say progressive taxes are authoritarian. Your suggestion is. Applying a blanket tax without regard to impact or circumstance is authoritarian and the kind of thing a dictator would do.
It’s un-democratic.
This is in effect no different than saying the tax shouldn’t be implemented because it might unfairly impact certain people, like z5 families sharing a hunting cabin.
If your goal is mental masturbation then it doesn’t matter but if you are talking real world, practical solutions yours doesn’t work.
A hunting cabin is purely a luxury. There’s nothing authoritarian about having high taxes for luxuries, and no, blanket taxes on luxuries are not inherently authoritarian.
Sure, it could unfairly impact people, but since in this situation there’s no needs, only luxuries, the balance of how increased housing supply fairly easily balances the scale.
And no, the point of my original comment is to understand impact. Realize harms the law could create, and don’t do it blindly. But that’s just to understand what you’re putting on the scales.
The added tax revenue would also make the rural places these vacation home are in more sustainable for regular residents. And probably keep local governments and even small hospitals solvent.
It might even alleviate the financial burdens that are making that situation almost untenable for them now as real estate markets are corrected and added tax revenue gets allocated into public benefits that could reduce the cost of living. They may benefit from the proposal even if tax rates get increased on subsequent properties.