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.
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.