Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a symbolic order signalling his government will prioritize passing his promised middle-class tax cut, following the first in-person meeting of his cabinet on Parliament Hill Wednesday.
My suggestion to add significant property taxes essentially does the same thing, since you’re “renting” from the government when you pay those. Then it applies properly to everyone, and it’s not some half cooked system that people can exploit.
"You think? I mean I’d rather high taxes compared to the status quo. But in my version there is the “let us take it off your hands” option, where it ends up in public ownership. Yours just has the properties swirling around some private market.
you’re “renting” from the government
In most jurisdictions, the landlord tenant relationship includes duties on the landlord with regard to services, standards etc. In Ontario they have to keep the unit a minimum temperature, fix the roof if it leaks, provide safe electricity etc. It also offers the landlord the remedy of eviction should the tenant fail to pay rent for a while.
There is nothing at all like that with paying taxes. The government hardly even enforces the regulations on the landlord. And I’ve never heard of anybody getting evicted for non-payment of property taxes. So I dunno what you are on about.
some half cooked system that people can exploit
I’ll admit my idea is half cooked, I’m no policy wonk.
Rent is inherently exploitative: the landlord is forcing people, usually with less wealth/power, to pay them a fee to avoid being evicted. The fee is greater than the costs incurred = profit. My proposal doesn’t completely eliminate that but would substantial reduce that. If provides no new avenue of exploitation that I can see.
People should be allowed to purchase the rights to control land and buildings, it allows them to make more serious changes (construction, renos, landscaping) that they care about. It also allows for long term stability in terms of not getting evicted.
In my system for renters, the duties of a landlord are still taken care of by landlords, since it would still be perfectly legal to own a property and rent it out. It’s the same as now, except instead of the landlord making a profit off the month rent AND the property inflating in value over time, they can only make a reasonable profit off the monthly rent and even then only if they’re using the land efficiently. It’s not the concept of renting that’s broken the market, it’s the fact that instead of just being a value added service (taking care of the repairs, utilities, etc.) the current market has made it a long term investment. Force it back to just a value added service (like renting cars) and it will be fine.
And I’ve never heard of anybody getting evicted for non-payment of property taxes.
Governments force the sales of properties all the time over unpaid taxes.
Renting is inherently exploitative:
No it isn’t, that’s only the case when the market fails like a situation with a finite amount of land in a specific area. There’s nothing inherently exploitative about renting cars to people, or renting a garden tool you only use once a year, or renting a paddle board for a trip to the lake, or renting a hotel room while travelling.
Once you push the land efficiency aspect via taxes, the land limitation drops off significantly and we can go back to having apartment/home rentals just be something landlords do to earn a little bit of money for providing a service, rather than it doubling their investment every 5 years.
My suggestion to add significant property taxes essentially does the same thing, since you’re “renting” from the government when you pay those. Then it applies properly to everyone, and it’s not some half cooked system that people can exploit.
"You think? I mean I’d rather high taxes compared to the status quo. But in my version there is the “let us take it off your hands” option, where it ends up in public ownership. Yours just has the properties swirling around some private market.
In most jurisdictions, the landlord tenant relationship includes duties on the landlord with regard to services, standards etc. In Ontario they have to keep the unit a minimum temperature, fix the roof if it leaks, provide safe electricity etc. It also offers the landlord the remedy of eviction should the tenant fail to pay rent for a while.
There is nothing at all like that with paying taxes. The government hardly even enforces the regulations on the landlord. And I’ve never heard of anybody getting evicted for non-payment of property taxes. So I dunno what you are on about.
I’ll admit my idea is half cooked, I’m no policy wonk.
Rent is inherently exploitative: the landlord is forcing people, usually with less wealth/power, to pay them a fee to avoid being evicted. The fee is greater than the costs incurred = profit. My proposal doesn’t completely eliminate that but would substantial reduce that. If provides no new avenue of exploitation that I can see.
People should be allowed to purchase the rights to control land and buildings, it allows them to make more serious changes (construction, renos, landscaping) that they care about. It also allows for long term stability in terms of not getting evicted.
In my system for renters, the duties of a landlord are still taken care of by landlords, since it would still be perfectly legal to own a property and rent it out. It’s the same as now, except instead of the landlord making a profit off the month rent AND the property inflating in value over time, they can only make a reasonable profit off the monthly rent and even then only if they’re using the land efficiently. It’s not the concept of renting that’s broken the market, it’s the fact that instead of just being a value added service (taking care of the repairs, utilities, etc.) the current market has made it a long term investment. Force it back to just a value added service (like renting cars) and it will be fine.
Governments force the sales of properties all the time over unpaid taxes.
No it isn’t, that’s only the case when the market fails like a situation with a finite amount of land in a specific area. There’s nothing inherently exploitative about renting cars to people, or renting a garden tool you only use once a year, or renting a paddle board for a trip to the lake, or renting a hotel room while travelling.
Once you push the land efficiency aspect via taxes, the land limitation drops off significantly and we can go back to having apartment/home rentals just be something landlords do to earn a little bit of money for providing a service, rather than it doubling their investment every 5 years.