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

Canada

10035 readers
1180 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.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 2 years ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca
52 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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)