I've said this before but I'm going to keep saying it. No property taxes on ones primary residence makes sense. But please for the love of God continue taxing the property held beyond that. Somebody with 100 rental properties should 100% pay taxes. Otherwise wealthy investors will hoover up all the property and sit on it for free.
Land is another topic, I think a reasonable amount of acres could be untaxed but those with tens of thousands of acres should not be let off the hook
A greatly reduced rate for agricultural use would prevent people or corporations from sitting on land. In Colorado they have a special rate so the work around is that developers lease to a cattle company or farmer to work the land. There has to be something to close that loophole
It wouldn’t be about that, it would be to prevent someone from being able to accrue controlling interest of too much property.
If it’s needed, sure, but attach a cost to it.
The U.K. Has been one landowner for a long time, for instance. In Canada, one entire province is effectively controlled by a single person (but still owned by the crown).
It may still be a bad idea, but it’s worth discussing.
FYI to both, taxes on rents are constitutional, and should not go away.
Every plant has a root and the seed is Satanic. I won't deny the roots for the sake of discernment. From 40000 feet, this is discernment. The international works only for himself and shares his wealth only with those willing to sell out their own.
I've said this before but I'm going to keep saying it. No property taxes on ones primary residence makes sense. But please for the love of God continue taxing the property held beyond that. Somebody with 100 rental properties should 100% pay taxes. Otherwise wealthy investors will hoover up all the property and sit on it for free.
Land is another topic, I think a reasonable amount of acres could be untaxed but those with tens of thousands of acres should not be let off the hook
yes ^^, this ^^
I like your ideas, fren!
A greatly reduced rate for agricultural use would prevent people or corporations from sitting on land. In Colorado they have a special rate so the work around is that developers lease to a cattle company or farmer to work the land. There has to be something to close that loophole
Good idea, that sounds reasonable enough.
So you want the ultra wealthy to carry a larger part of the tax burden? Because that ship just sailed. Look, it's just past the harbor. Wave!
It wouldn’t be about that, it would be to prevent someone from being able to accrue controlling interest of too much property.
If it’s needed, sure, but attach a cost to it.
The U.K. Has been one landowner for a long time, for instance. In Canada, one entire province is effectively controlled by a single person (but still owned by the crown).
It may still be a bad idea, but it’s worth discussing.
FYI to both, taxes on rents are constitutional, and should not go away.
u/Cuomos_nipple_rings
Yayyyy the Jews win again!
billionaires of every stripe.
Every plant has a root and the seed is Satanic. I won't deny the roots for the sake of discernment. From 40000 feet, this is discernment. The international works only for himself and shares his wealth only with those willing to sell out their own.
What college did you attend that indoctrinated you to hate wealthy people to this extreme?
Does it trigger you that Q+ is a billionaire?