This is scam protection not spam protection. The beta was just introduced and you have to opt-in.
deathbird
joined 3 years ago
Why? And that's two questions.
Yeah 10 acres seems a bit excessive to me but I like the basic principle.
It's not a bad compromise, it's just a matter of finding a good value for X. And that's hard to do as housing prices continue to balloon and housing costs take up a greater percentage of people's incomes. Houses that would have cost one year's income in the 60s can easily cost 8 to 10 times that today.
I don't know, maybe you should have to pay property taxes if the land occupies more than a certain square footage. That could discourage suburban style development and promote greater population density, which could both act as a net positive.
You know what stops people from selling houses? Skyrocketing housing prices. Cuts out buyers, and makes loans against equity more appealing than actually cashing out.
You know what tax people can actually afford, that isn't based on the opinions of appraisers regarding the fickle whims of a speculative market? Income tax.
I still think citizens should pay the bill for their services, but tax should be on the basis of income, and wealthier people should pay more to cover for those who can't. And why not income, the money you actually bring in, and not a portion the money your home would theoretically sell for if you sold it? The point at which to take tax is the point of transfer, whether it's labor for a wage or a change of ownership (sales and inheritance).
I absolutely don't believe that people would be less likely to sell their property because they might have to pay a percentage of the profits from the sale. And if they were less likely to sell it, who cares? Take the money from the excess houses when they die. I think I also mentioned that I'm not principally against taxes on non-resident property (which is essentially abandoned or a business asset if not owner occupied). I'm also not against rent controls.
Like God forbid one recognize that certain approaches to taxation are problematic, it must mean you're a conservative who's against government services.
Eventually no one will be able to afford a house not merely because they can't buy it in the first place, but because even if they inherit it they can't keep up with the tax bill because on paper it's worth 8 times what their parents paid even inflation adjusted. I'm not even making those proportions up, that's about the change in cost in my neighborhood I think.
Workers. Employers. Commuters. Capital gains. Sales.
There are so many things you can tax, so many points where money moves from one set of hands to another where you can shave a little off the top. It's just a bit absurd to me that we will shake people down for money for just having a home that an assessor figures could sell for some particular amount of money.
Tax Other Stuff
Okay I know it's not such a popular opinion but I'm still on the notion that you shouldn't pay taxes for holding on to the place that you live.
Yeah yeah local governments need income and all that and their house is assessed over 4 million dollars and many people can't even afford a home at a 10th of that and they should have known and blah blah blah but come on, commodified housing is bad enough. Paying what amounts to a rent to the state just to hold on to the property, actual repairs and upkeep and other naturally occurring costs aside is insane.
Tax the sales of property. Tax the legal transfer of control of LLCs that "own" property. I'm not even saying never charge property tax on properties not occupied by the owner, but you should be able to have a house to live in without paying the state for the privilege of them not taking it.
They need to be given motivation, through legal obligation.