No reason not to do this across the board

    • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think you dropped the wrong link.

      That one’s is Rogers whinging about having to pay lawyers to break competition regulations.

    • pbjamm@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months 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.