If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
Yeah, I thought about that bit but deleted that because it only tangentially related to the topic.
Here’s it again: a multiplier for land use. Farmland get like 0.1, residental 1.0. Also different multipliers for cities, suburbs and rural (to encourage development).
But there are companies that own farmland too, and they will try their best to find loopholes to exploit like they did to residential land. I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of writing effective property law today so I stopped there 😆
Seems overly complicated. Why not just tax based on the assessed value of the land. Undeveloped forest one one acre, basically nothing. 2,500sqft McMansion on 1 acre, worth $1 million. Own more than one home? Tax rate gets a multiplier which exponentially grows. Hell, even at a linear rate, by the time you own 100 homes, you are paying 100% of assessed value per year in taxes.
I concur, total assessed value of all real estate holdings would be a better metric.