I think you possibly intended to reply to a different comment
My comment was talking about heavily taxing 2nd properties (and implicitly any more after that)
Comment on Owners of second homes in Wales are having to sell up. That’s no disaster: it’s a godsend
cristian64@reddthat.com 1 day agoIt’s not unreasonable, but if after taxing 3rd and 4th homes (etc.) to oblivion the issue persists, then also second homes should be taxed high. I truly believe that extreme would not be needed once it’s made humanely forbidden to own multiple homes without intention of ever living in them.
Worth adding that it should not be the number of homes what should be taxed, but based on the market value of those properties.
9point6@lemmy.world 1 day ago
cristian64@reddthat.com 1 day ago
I did mean to reply to your comment. Just trying to say that I don’t need 2nd homes to be taxed much more higher that 1st homes if the issue can be fixed without getting to that point. Although it shouldn’t be off the table if it’s necessary to guarantee people can have access to homes.
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Why not just tax based on the number of homes, isn’t that a better idea?
If someone owns three £10M mansions, they’re potentially depriving two families of homes but way of scarsity, but frankly if you can afford a £10M mansion is it really an issue, as you’re not being deprived of a home?
If they instead own one £10M mansion and forty £200k flats/terraces, they’re potentially depriving forty families of homes and so should probably be charged twenty times as much to dissuade people from buying up the cheapest homes.