• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Rather than a hard stop, I think it would be a good idea to significantly increase taxes on real estate no one is actively living in, and use the proceeds to subsidize construction of new housing.

    • Fraylor@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This seems to be the most reasonable. Disincentiivize multiple property ownership rather than outright ban it. The ones who can eat the cost will pay taxes and the rest will just bow out of the market.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Rather than a hard stop, I think it would be a good idea to significantly increase taxes on real estate no one is actively living in, and use the proceeds to subsidize construction of new housing.

      An alternative is to replace property tax with a land tax. That way instead of penalizing people for building more housing, they are penalized for holding onto land that could be used to house more people (or whatever other use is in mind).

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There should also be taxes on rental properties beyond the first to prevent the “hoard and rent” cycle

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree, because that would disincentivize housing. I think the price of housing is mostly just a function of how much of it is on the market. Wealth inequality is also a problem but should be addressed in other ways.

        As an aside, the tax should also apply to commercial real estate so there is an incentive to convert offices to apartments.