I mean it’s not quite THAT cut and dry… But I can agree with the sentiment
Comment on [deleted]
PunnyName@lemmy.world 10 months ago
So single entity should own more than 50 addresses.
ridethisbike@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 10 months ago
True, 50 is way too high.
BallsandBayonets@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You spelled 1 wrong.
iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 10 months ago
In Holland we have wooncorporaties, which are non-profit companies that own apartments and rent them out. They are cheap, and usually there is a maximum income for tenants. There is a waiting list, and a lot of people add their names as soon as they turn 18.
The Dutch housing market is fucked, but these are good, and would not be possible if you restricted them to a single apartment.
strawberry@kbin.run 10 months ago
eh I'm OK with summertime having a vacation home
but like someone above u said, just tax the fuck out of each next home on an exponential scale
strawberry@kbin.run 10 months ago
I mean I'd say more than 2 but ok
Agent641@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Federal tax the primary residence property at 0% of council rates, fed tax the 2nd at 200% council rates, the 3rd at 300%, etc.
Council rates are managed by local government authority and are driven by property value.
Order the properties by primary residence first, then lowest value to highest.
When folks start paying an extra 7-8k a year for their 4th property, 10k for their 5th, it might stop being worth it.
Madrigal@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Main home and a holiday home/cabin or similar. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
PunnyName@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’m thinking like apartment complexes and stuff. They should have to either be smaller to accommodate the limit, or split up across owners.