If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
I agree with the spirit of this, but the one issue is that someone with a 40 room mansion pays 1%. I say make it simple and make second homes cost double. Third quadruple, etc.
Carve out some exceptions for narrow cases, like a congressperson who needs to maintain a separate home in DC.
I mean, I get what you’re saying, but 1% of a 40 room home would be pretty high would it not?
It’s significantly less than what it is in most places.
I mean they shouldn’t need to have a second home in dc. Let’s go ahead and just give them dorm rooms while they’re there working so that way they can feel like they’re actually at the behest of the people that are actually serving. That’s also cut their pay down so that way it’s only equal to the minimum wage while they’re working and if they’re not working they need to get a job and do something else.
Dorms I can live with. The minimum wage thing might encourage an increase in it, but more likely it just encourages them to get money from their donors. More so than they already do. Only the rich would be able to do the job. It would be untenable for the AOCs and Mamdanis of the world to serve in public office.
Some people have suggested that it starts after the second house, which I would be on board with. But also, it starts lower for one home. Two homes is significantly more, but still low. as the number goes up, the percentage goes up until it becomes untenable to buy massive housing stock for rental or investment.