I'm sorry to bring this up again so much later, but I apparently missed the notification at the time, and with the conversation just seeming to start to turn productive, it seemed like a waste to just ignore it.

Because the entire housing market is unreasonable in almost every city in the Western world. It’s not just a few outliers here and there that can be compared to some average. The average itself is completely out of whack. We can’t just rein in the crazy part of the market; the whole market is crazy.

This is a result of our markets emphasizing residential real estate as an investment tool. Homes aren't just places to live, they're pathways to profits, even if you live in them, and especially if you don't. Countries like Japan don't encourage it the same way, and it helps keep housing prices in check. It's obviously not perfect, but after some quick checks, it does appear that even the most expensive cities in Japan are still less expensive than ones in the most expensive US cities, even with all their population density and the pressure that puts on housing.

Either we pick a semi-arbitrary value and tax above that (your plan) or we introduce a graduated, progressive tax on all homes (my plan). Introducing exemptions and especially benefit cliffs has historically always had crazy unforeseen negative consequences. A tax on all homes will by itself automatically bring the market closer to equilibrium.

I could support a bracketed plan. I just think the bottom bracket should be 0%, and I probably think the bracket should be bigger than you do.

Moreover, I would argue that anyone who owns a home at all is already of enough means that they don’t need tax breaks.

If they're well off, I'm not opposed to them paying more taxes. But since I think housing should be a right, I don't think anyone should be taxed out of their homes except maybe those who are far more than simply comfortable in an average family home. I'm not opposed to ensuring people contribute. I just don't think this is an appropriate mechanism for it. People care about a society that cares about them. Let society ensure they keep their homes if they're paid off.

Home ownership is not essential. Having shelter is essential, which is why I support taxpayer funded grants to homeless people etc, but home ownership is not and should not be a fundamental right. If you can afford to buy a house, you can afford to pay taxes.

And this is where we disagree. The only truly secure shelter is one you own. Shelter that no landlord can evict you from. Shelter that no government can seize for taxes. I've no problem with renting for people who don't want to commit to a home for whatever reason, but if someone wants to own their home, they should be fully capable of buying and owning their home. If you want to tax people on their homes, make sure every single person who genuinely wants one and is willing to work for it is able to get one. Then we can consider taxing homes, but not before.

But relevant to this conversation, social security in its current form is not a pension. If all you’re living on is social security, you probably can’t afford to retire. If you’re physically unable to work, then that’s disability. If you don’t have enough money saved up to pay for the life you want, but happen to be age 65, you’re not retired. You have to keep working. ... I’m ignoring social security because it’s not a retirement plan

For 1 in 7 recipients, Social Security is at least 90% of their income. That's over 10 million people. For those people, it very much is their pension. It very much is their retirement plan.

Now you get to experience the pain of renters being priced out of their own neighborhoods, but also with a small golden parachute to take with you.

This just comes across as bitter, as if you're happy to see someone who managed to succeed in spite of a rigged system suffer. I don't think that perspective is productive. Like I said earlier in this post, people care about a society that cares about them. Housing is one of our most fundamental needs. We shouldn't be in the business of strong arming people out of reasonable homes. They still need an income to survive, and that provides a way to tax them.

And it makes things less bad in general for everyone by helping to bring housing costs down across the board.

This is true. I just don't think it's the right approach.

Also, just to keep this conversation in perspective, I don’t think this is the MAIN reason why housing is crazy in places that have similar tax carve-outs for homeowners. I actually think that’s zoning and local NIMBYism.

I think this is somewhat true, but I think they're also symptoms of homes being treated as investments. A lot of NIMBYism arises from people trying to protect their most valuable investment and trying to make sure it continues to appreciate in value. This is also true to an extent about zoning, but part of zoning was at least initially racially motivated, so it's a bit mixed on that one.

In general, I think your intentions are good, I just think you're a little too eager to squeeze people who are marginally better off than you compared to the real problem, which is the parasitic owner class. And I don't mean just home owners, I mean business owners, landlords, the people who make money off the money they already have. They do no actual work, collect all the profits, buy up our necessities, sell them back to us, pay as little tax as possible, and leave us to squabble over how the rest of us are going to finance society.