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.
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.