this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
149 points (96.9% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
635 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

No reason not to do this across the board

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem with taxing High Value Property is what happens when Single Family Homes hit that value? If the value of my house skyrockets while I am living there then I can end up losing it do to a massive hike in my taxes.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd assume that as single-family homes rise in value other properties would too, so maybe the limit would just need to be adjusted fairly often? IDK I'm not a tax person.

OR, maybe it could just apply to additional properties? Like you get one free so a family home is safe, but every additional property you own gets a tax slapped on it or something like that?

[–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I bring this up because California implemented Prop13 in 1978 to address similar issues and it had mixed results.

I agree with the idea of taxing secondary properties at a higher rate. But that could also have the unintended consequence of driving up rents and landlords look to recoup that money.