A B.C. study gave 50 homeless people $7,500 each. Here's what they spent it on. - eviltoast

No reason not to do this across the board

  • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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
      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.