@averagejoe1 saidSorry, I forgot, Suzianne can help as well. Of course we, ok most, of us realize that "those" people expect "others" to do it. Others being, damned if I know.
Thankyou. Now. I beg you to put this in terms that Thousand and the Suzianne can understand.
@averagejoe1 saidThey wouldn’t have to do anything. I would make property taxes on a non domicile third and over houses so high that they would sell their spare houses to local people or better yet local authorities who could rent them out in an equitable manner to people on low incomes and plow any profit back into a house and local amenity building fund.
If Wolf owns 40 apartment units, and collects $40,000 a month in rent, what would Suzanne otherwise have him do?
@ogb
I might point out the blacks taking over white lands has already been done and now there is a lot of backlash and this time from other blacks who saw misjustice.
That is in post Apartheid Africa now as we speak.
And of course that would not happen here since for one thing the law would be on the side of anyone being forced out of their houses and in this age of racism in the US any black attempting such would be gathered up and most likely killed by cop.
Which is not to say blacks have no right to protest OF COURSE they have the right to protest the pandemic of white racism inherent in the US for the last 300 or more years.
It would be a far different America now if we had not institutionalized slavery back when the Dutch were bringing them in.
That was the time to stop it but way too late for hindsight now.
Blacks deserve reparations and of course we can't come up with whatever was said, tens of trillions of dollars but they deserve a lot more than they are getting now.
Like fair housing, like being treated as equal on the job.
Like women getting less pay for the same job as a white dude.
And Black women getting even less.
That is the DEFINITION of systemic racism in the US BESIDES the police murders and lynching of the last 200 years.
@kevcvs57 saidBut to assess extreme taxation on the entrepreneurial citizens, would that not deter other apartment developers from developing apartments and non-domiciles,.... in effect, stopping the development of such properties. Ultimately, the government would not be able to do as you say in later years, lacking such inventory? We could define 'extreme', I guess, but I would say your concept above is indeed extreme. I guess Wolf would go into another profession?
They wouldn’t have to do anything. I would make property taxes on a non domicile third and over houses so high that they would sell their spare houses to local people or better yet local authorities who could rent them out in an equitable manner to people on low incomes and plow any profit back into a house and local amenity building fund.
Wouldn't your suggestion be the exact opposite of progressing in society? Progressivism? There would be no progressive movement in the construction of dwellings by citizens.
@kevcvs57 saidPossibly.
I would make property taxes on a non domicile third and over houses so high that they would sell their spare houses to local people or better yet local authorities who could rent them out in an equitable manner to people on low incomes and plow any profit back into a house and local amenity building fund.
But in some instances the tax burden would be reflected in higher rents for tenants.
Just make it illegal to own someones home.
Make the law effective 5-10 years hence so as not to create a crash.
@wolfgang59 saidNo the level of tax would be so prohibitive it would make large portfolios unprofitable. It’s only levied on the fourth and subsequent houses. The displacement of large landlords by large local authority landlords can only be a good thing for the vast majority of voters. I agree that almost everybody wants to own their own home but one of the best way of doing that is by living in an affordable decent house until you can save for a deposit and afford the mortgage. At which time an affordable decent house becomes available to rent.
Possibly.
But in some instances the tax burden would be reflected in higher rents for tenants.
Just make it illegal to own someones home.
Make the law effective 5-10 years hence so as not to create a crash.
@wolfgang59 saidYour first sentence. Do you mean higher rents FROM tenants? So that landlord would be able to afford the increase in tax?
Possibly.
But in some instances the tax burden would be reflected in higher rents for tenants.
Just make it illegal to own someones home.
Make the law effective 5-10 years hence so as not to create a crash.
Or, if you mean FOR tenants (to pay),what do you mean by higher rents FOR tenants?
@averagejoe1 saidProfound questions from the Libertarian Superman.
Your first sentence. Do you mean higher rents FROM tenants? So that landlord would be able to afford the increase in tax?
Or, if you mean FOR tenants (to pay),what do you mean by higher rents FOR tenants?
@averagejoe1 saidMy brother-in law in NZ has multiple properties and not long ago they changes the law to require landlords to supply both insulation and efficient heating. Granted they were given notice but many properties in an old town, ( Wanganui ), where he has property, did not have the required insulation. No probs, insulation in and rent up, easy.
Your first sentence. Do you mean higher rents FROM tenants? So that landlord would be able to afford the increase in tax?
Or, if you mean FOR tenants (to pay),what do you mean by higher rents FOR tenants?
Wanganui used to be very cheap to rent, not so much now.
@wolfgang59 saidThe harm this would cause would be massive. In Australia not long ago ( maybe even still ) incentives were given for private investors to develop low income suitable housing, with low rent, as the government needed private money.
Possibly.
But in some instances the tax burden would be reflected in higher rents for tenants.
Just make it illegal to own someones home.
Make the law effective 5-10 years hence so as not to create a crash.
This statement is far to simplistic and a tad naive. Ok, a lot naive.