That’s not how this works. A better solution would be to tax more aggressively second+ hinges and severely limit what corporations can invest into.
Why should a company be able to profit off of second hand housing? This isn’t a commodity, but it’s treated as such. Companies should be able to build new housing (for sale) and own housing only for the purposes of, say, housing their employees if they so wish. I simply see no benefits to allowing companies trade living spaces like stocks.
SoulWager@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
What does someone deserve to own? The product of your own work yes, but nobody deserves to own natural resources like land more than anybody else. The whole point is that you get to decide how much the property is worth to you. If it’s worth more to someone else, you’re both better off for the trade. The only losers here are people trying to cheat on their taxes by giving a “low” appraisal, and people trying to hoard multiple properties.
Plug some numbers into that formula. If you own a $100k property, you pay 1k in taxes/year If you own 10 of those properties, you pay 100k/year. This would mean you have to charge more in rent than a mortgage would cost to buy the same property. The business model would become unprofitable.
piratekaiser@lemm.ee 2 days ago
I understand the logic of it, my point is that this is a trust/honesty based system which leaves you cornered. Here are some problems with it:
The fault in your assumption is 1. that this would discourage corporations from buying up; and 2. That you live in an equal and just society;