this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
351 points (97.8% liked)

Canada

8143 readers
1910 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter
mp3
351
The Housing Crisis Isn’t Going Anywhere Until We Tackle Property Wealth Inequality (jacobin.com)
submitted 2 years ago by grte to c/canada
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ImplyingImplications 50 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I think the most novel proposal we put forward in the report is taxing the total real estate holdings of large landowners, as opposed to individually taxing each property using the aforementioned brackets. This could entail situations where large landowners own a portfolio of properties, each falling below that $3 million threshold, but that cumulatively add up to tens of millions of dollars. In this scenario, by taxing the total holdings instead of each property separately, these owners would no longer be able to avoid paying those progressive property tax rates.

There's a few interesting bits to this article, but I like this one the most. Property taxes on the cumulative amount of property a person or company owns is huge. It provides a punishment for buying up large amounts of property.

[–] yads 12 points 2 years ago

People already pay taxes on cumulative properties. You need this plus the progressive tax idea.

[–] psvrh 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I think the concern is that:

  • The rich would try to skirt this with numbered or shell companies, or family or other relations.
  • The rich would pass this onto tenants.

Now, the solution is to a) couple this with rent control, b) exempt purpose-built rentals from this endeavour, and c) punish serial transgressions with confiscation.

Frankly, I think the idea of punishing malfeasance by landlords with confiscation to be just awesome: if you're a predatory slumlord, we take the house and repurpose it as RGI public housing. Do I worry about the government becoming predatory? Yes, yes I do, but in this case it's a lesser-of-two-evils thin.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Corporations shouldn't be allowed to own residential property in the first place. Make it illegal.

[–] jerkface 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Housing cooperatives are non-profit corporations that own property so that they can provide residential services to the members and owners of that corporation.

You know, I'm actually not 100% sure what the difference between a condominium and a cooperative is, but condos are also corporations.

[–] whoisearth 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I agree but then one of two things has to happen.

  1. No one is allowed to own property
  2. Corporations need to stop being classified as people

Guess which one would come first? Be honest.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

There are already strong cases to be made that corporations aren't people, especially if you look into how flimsy that argument was in the first place, but I take your point.

[–] errorgap 1 points 2 years ago

Slumlords and overpriced rentals can be storage issues though. It can be a nice place, but if you're paying $2k+/mo for a 1b1b that's way too fucking much even if it's in good condition