Or if housing costs were reigned in via this measure would the costs they are burdened with that make it barely feasible for 5 families to split the mortgage cost on a hunting cabin in a remote rural area be alleviated. Granting them more financial freedom, benefiting society all while still keeping the place thats becoming nearly untenable for them due to outrageous real estate markets?
Comment on Grandma is on her own
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 hours agoMy extended family in Michigan keeps a hunting cabin that they split costs between 5 people on and can still barely make the mortage… Is that clearly able to afford more taxes?
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 minutes ago
They can barely split it because they’re all broke af not because the house is expensive. The house and land are pretty cheap
GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
Not really, but it sounds like your family should rather sell that cabin and spend their money on more importsbt things.
chocrates@piefed.world 5 hours ago
I know for the public good this is the right answer but this is not a winning strategy
bdonvr@thelemmy.club 6 hours ago
I’d sacrifice your family’s hunting cabin if it helps house more people. Find a sixth person or something.
It’s an edge case that shouldn’t hold up societal progress.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works 5 hours ago
The added tax revenue would also make the rural places these vacation home are in more sustainable for regular residents. And probably keep local governments and even small hospitals solvent.
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
It might even alleviate the financial burdens that are making that situation almost untenable for them now as real estate markets are corrected and added tax revenue gets allocated into public benefits that could reduce the cost of living. They may benefit from the proposal even if tax rates get increased on subsequent properties.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
No, it shouldn’t hold up societal progress. But not being aware of how your policies actually affect people is just plain bad. I agree with progressive taxes on multi house ownership, but you also need to understand that will mean people who are less rich than you think losing them, it’s not just people that can afford them
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
Or does the correction in housing pricing lower their actual taxes paid in total on their main properties, granting them more breathing room, allowing them to comfortably afford the hunting lodge even if the rate itself has increased? You’re expecting everything else to remain the same and just increased tax rates as a whole. Something like this would readjust the market values of properties and the subsequent tax being paid while making sure those corporations hoarding properties are taxed appropriately and providing inventory into a market that would bring pricing back down to earth. The rate could be increased but total paid could be lowered in these cases of second homes so long as tax increase is exponential and not flat on additional properties. The goal of measures like this would be to make companies hoarding thousands of properties an untenable option not to hurt every person who might look into having a second or third property.