this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
70 points (96.1% liked)

Canada

7204 readers
373 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
otter@lemmy.ca
70
To solve Dutch housing crisis, proposal aimed to ban the rich from buying some homes. Could it work here? (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In an attempt to deal with an affordable housing crisis, the Dutch housing minister recently proposed a law that would have allowed municipalities to force some property owners to sell their homes only to low and middle-income earners. The problem the policy is trying to fix is one that's particularly acute in Canada.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] weew@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)
  1. Scale property tax for number of properties owned. Double it per property owned.

i.e. own 2 homes, property tax for ALL homes owned doubles. Own 3 homes, pay 4x property tax. etc. Homes should not be hoarded. And corporations are definitely not exempt, except perhaps before first sale (i.e. they constructed the property) or demolition sale (buying multiple properties for demolition to be able to construct denser units)

  1. Add or expand speculation tax (like the empty homes tax): it should be decently large, like at least 10% of the property's assessed value per year. However, it can be negated based on income tax paid by someone who lives at that location (as reported on their tax filing). There may need to be some additional reductions for retirees/seniors too.

Either way somebody's gotta live and work there to avoid the tax. No "students" owning multi-million dollar mansions.

[–] BedSharkPal@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why not ban anything past a primary home? It's like at a wedding where everyone gets to eat first before going for seconds.

I guess it's a political non-starter given the number of people who own more than one home...

[–] parrot-party@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

There can be some good reasons to own multiple homes, so rather than banning it you tax it. That way people can still do it and the city gets more funding for allowing it. Those that can't do the tax will sell down.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)