Primary residences should not be taxed, secondary or non-individual(holdings by a company or other non-individual) homes should be taxed. That is my simple idea
>>84417419All land should be taxed according to its market value regardless of what's build on top of it in order to incentivize maximum efficiency.
>>84417419I'm kinda glad I'm unemployed because no income means uncle sam ain't taking my money for his israeli buddiesWhy the fuck would I ever want to work and pay taxes?
>>84417432Taxes(based upon value) should be determined at the time of sale. Someone should be able to build a million dollar house on a property and it not be taxed at the point until it is sold, and not at all if its a primary residence or passed on as inheritance
>>84417458That'll just turn everything into California and massively constrict supply so that nobody can ever afford housing again. Anyone who owns a home is privileged and should be taxed as such.
>>84417483>removing superfluous overtaxation will make it just like california!Uh buddy what
>>84417495Proposition 13 capped property taxes in California and predictably led to boomers sitting on their homes for all eternity when they should have been forced to sell and move out decades ago.
There should be no taxes. There should be no central banks, usury, or fiat currency. The problems of the world are extremely simple and easily solved. The problem is most solutions cling desperately to the cause of the problem and try to integrate the problem further while making it easier to bear. I prefer solutions where the problem is eradicated at its source.
>>84417432jsut based on value? not even on revenues or anything like that? what if a low profit margin business sits on a valuable piece of land and provides an essential service to the surrounding industry, such as a private transport service? what if a local government is captured by rent seeking freaks and they stop all development for a decade to boost their housing prices to cash out and now I'm stuck paying triple the property taxes, something that historically is impervious to rate fluctuations for housing stability? there are reasons this kind of tax theory isn't actually popular
>>84417715>what if a low profit margin business sits on a valuable piece of land and provides an essential service to the surrounding industry, such as a private transport servicePublic transport is nearly always subsidised anyway.>what if a local government is captured by rent seeking freaks and they stop all development for a decade to boost their housing prices to cash out and now I'm stuck paying triple the property taxesThen rejoice because you're rich, sell your house and become a millionaire?
>>84417419how is the local government supposed to get revenue
Good idea, my landlord gets a tax cut. Im sure this will help me out in the long run.
>>84417665whatever it is you're implying, you wont be nowhere near the top of that hierarchy
>>84417521I mustve missed where i said to put a property tax cap. If a property is sold or held as a non primary residence then its taxed even if its a billion dollar property
>>84417862Through any of the various other infinite number of taxes that were passed as a temporary measure and then never lifted, as well as cutting bloat and wasteful spending
>>84417840Yeah, thank god you're not in government.
>>84417987>inefficient use of land good, actually
>>84417992Holy bugman, if niggas wanna rest on their laurels or run a failing business then they can. Pick up the scraps when they collapse or if they dont (or you cant) then fuck off
it is genuinely baffling to me how anyone with an income less than a million dollars a year could ever possibly disagree with taxing the rich
>>84418004Why? They didn't create the land, they shouldn't earn untaxed gains from its increased value without investing into it. Other people want to buy homes, allowing someone to sit for 50 years on a house they bought for 300k which is now worth 2 million is insanity.>>84418016Yes, I support taxing the rich, specifically through a land value tax because anyone who owns property is rich.
>>84418030>allowing people to stay on property they bought is insane when other people want to buy propertyWild concept indeed, imagine wanting to live somewhere and build on that place and maybe even pass it on to your children without someone else reaping some money from your efforts
>>84418061If the value of the land goes up without you investing on it, then you are the one reaping money from others' effort. Which is what an LVT prevents. It's doomsday for rent seeking.
>>84418079>you are the one reaping from others effortsAnd that is fine since you bought the property
>>84418121It is absolutely not "fine", it creates an incentive to block development in order to constrain supply and artificially inflate the value of your property without investing into it. In fact it discourages building a valuable property and encourages blight. LVT fixes it by pushing you to build the most valuable property possible and punishing blight.
>>84418141Which is why non primary resident individuals would be taxed, while niggas just living in their house are free to sit and wait to sell if they feel so inclined, and restrictive legislation that serves only as red tape to prevent newcomers in industries should be challenged
>>84418157>niggas just living in their house are free to sit and wait to sell if they feel so inclinedThis cohort is responsible for 99% of the reason why there is red tape in the first place, because they only benefit from sitting on their ass and enjoying inflated land value by obnoxiously preventing development and constraining supply.
>>84418175You could introduce the LVT for non primary residences and non individual holdings, but not primary residences
>>84418180That'll leave the root of the cancer untreated. Those are the brunt of the NIMBY pack that prevent development.
>>84418193And they wouldnt have a say on what others can build on their properties as well
>>84418196You can do this with one simple trick called LVT. It's literally the most direct path to fixing the issue. In fact it actually *helps* people who just want to own a home and chill, because it increases land use efficiency and drives those people naturally out into lower density areas. If your house went up 10x in value over decades, you simply sell it, move to another perfectly fine house that costs half as much in a place with lower demand, throw the difference into an index fund and get set for life. And now you don't have to screw over first time homebuyers either, which is what currently happens.
>>84418212Hmmmm or we could just make you homeless instead and you have to pay enough for someones house for them to sell it, that sounds better
Disagree.Income tax should be removed.And yearly land value tax should make up the difference.All retirees need to be penalised for staying in the desirable inner city areas.
>>84417903Hierarchy?
>>84417862That's the neat part. It isn't.
>>84418016Perhaps because I'm not pure evil and I'm not a thieving nigger at heart so I don't want to live off stolen money. I also want to keep the money I have instead of having it stolen from me so that worthless pieces of shit like you can have a good life.
All this talk about taxes bad it makes life unaffordable or first time home buying too expensive it makes life unaffordable. It's too much one way this or the other. Why not compromise? Houses are taxed at 100% property tax. Not owning a house is taxed at 100% of a houses value. Failure to pay house or no house tax is punished with a 100% fine. Both sides lead to precisely this anyway so in the name of efficiency and expedience let's just skip to the end. The notion of seeking permission to own a first house or permission to continue living in a house is patently absurd to begin with. Ban all food and make it illegal to eat anything other than bandaids since everyone seems to love them so much.
>>84418244We don't want your retirees either. They should all be forced to only live in the desirable inner city areas and not allowed anywhere else. City and suburb lovers created this problem so it's only fair you have to deal with the fallout.
>>84417715what makes you think that you or productive businesses deserve that money more than the government
>>84419120We're subsidising your infrastructure so you could at least do us a favour.
