We don’t need to fight over little figures like this. Let’s just multiply op’s figures by 5. And then we can tax a lot after that, multiply that by 10 and tax more than what it’s worth after that.
Problem isn’t someone living in 2 bedroom per person, it’s when they have multiple mansions. Or multiple “investment properties”, and some of them are just empty because it’s still profitable
Let them go as big as they want, but they’re heavily taxed on any residence they control (it can’t be “owned” because there are ways around that word) but don’t live in for at least six months plus one day out of the year. Make this true for everyone. We’re not telling anyone they can’t have a second “vacation” house, just that it won’t be cheap and certainly not profitable. Doesn’t apply to multifamily rental properties of four or more units. Single family home rentals are destroyed, suddenly the market is flooded with cheap homes.
Also, we need to make it international, in that they’ll be taxed at home for any residences controlled overseas. Of course, they’ll hide them behind shell businesses owned through Nevis, but that’s a different problem that should also be addressed.
They’ll probably just forward that down to the renters. We need the renters to have an option to buy instead of rent if they want. So that some people can’t buy up all properties and then jack up prices of both renting and buying houses.
Again, I think it’s ok if you have 1 more
house or maybe 2 houses you rent out, but anything more than that taxed heavily. Or a non-personal entity owning multiple properties should be taxed so high they can’t keep it up. But it is worrying that even the slightly well-off people with 1 property start increasing rent. But having enough available and not having someone hord all of them means they can’t keep some empty and still make profits, so many of those houses will be available for rent for cheaper.
Like, if we have 100 people with 100 properties they rent out, means all of them want their property occupied. But 5 people with 20 property each can double the rent and have 40% property unoccupied and still make profits.
We don’t need to fight over little figures like this. Let’s just multiply op’s figures by 5. And then we can tax a lot after that, multiply that by 10 and tax more than what it’s worth after that.
Problem isn’t someone living in 2 bedroom per person, it’s when they have multiple mansions. Or multiple “investment properties”, and some of them are just empty because it’s still profitable
Not trying to fight, just confused. My wife and I were in a 1800sqft townhome later on and that was like the minimum in our minds.
Let them go as big as they want, but they’re heavily taxed on any residence they control (it can’t be “owned” because there are ways around that word) but don’t live in for at least six months plus one day out of the year. Make this true for everyone. We’re not telling anyone they can’t have a second “vacation” house, just that it won’t be cheap and certainly not profitable. Doesn’t apply to multifamily rental properties of four or more units. Single family home rentals are destroyed, suddenly the market is flooded with cheap homes.
Also, we need to make it international, in that they’ll be taxed at home for any residences controlled overseas. Of course, they’ll hide them behind shell businesses owned through Nevis, but that’s a different problem that should also be addressed.
Oh no, someone is being reasonable on the internet!? ;) that’s a good idea though. Also, rent seeking properties should be taxed higher.
They’ll probably just forward that down to the renters. We need the renters to have an option to buy instead of rent if they want. So that some people can’t buy up all properties and then jack up prices of both renting and buying houses.
Again, I think it’s ok if you have 1 more house or maybe 2 houses you rent out, but anything more than that taxed heavily. Or a non-personal entity owning multiple properties should be taxed so high they can’t keep it up. But it is worrying that even the slightly well-off people with 1 property start increasing rent. But having enough available and not having someone hord all of them means they can’t keep some empty and still make profits, so many of those houses will be available for rent for cheaper.
Like, if we have 100 people with 100 properties they rent out, means all of them want their property occupied. But 5 people with 20 property each can double the rent and have 40% property unoccupied and still make profits.
Good points. Maybe that last could be part of the equation. Like a logarithmicly escalating rate for unoccupied rentals.