Cities need to fund themselves through real estate rather than income taxes. Tax “the person who could live in a place” rather than “the person who does live in a place”. For actual residents, it’s a wash, but it severely penalizes the investment crowd.
It also severlely penalizes the elderly and retired, who don’t earn but certainly still vote.
In my city in Australia it’s common to see a single elderly retiree living in a rundown home on a large block, where the land alone could be worth close to a million dollars. When the property is sold it can often be split into two, and house two families in detached homes.
It feels cold hearted to say elderly should be pushed out of homes they have lived in for 50 years. But it does make it harder for cities to grow - the carrot of higher prices doesn’t seem to work for people who just want to live out their days in the community and home they know.
> It feels cold hearted to say elderly should be pushed out of homes they have lived in for 50 years.
More or less cold hearted than forcing three new dads to spend 15% of their waking hours getting back and forth to work, which means they only sees their kids when they are sleeping?
If you have a million bucks in assets, I don't care if you're 75. Our country has been ruined by boomers running the country into debt by way of cutting their taxes -- taxes that millennials will eventually have to pay. I have no qualms with taxing the "winners" of that generation. They owe it to us anyway.
The same sized property next door has a full sized home and three townhomes. So potentially one person living in the same space that is housing a dozen next door.
