this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
149 points (96.9% liked)

Canada

9952 readers
635 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

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

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
149
A B.C. study gave 50 homeless people $7,500 each. Here's what they spent it on. (bc.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

No reason not to do this across the board

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problem with taxing High Value Property is what happens when Single Family Homes hit that value? If the value of my house skyrockets while I am living there then I can end up losing it do to a massive hike in my taxes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'd assume that as single-family homes rise in value other properties would too, so maybe the limit would just need to be adjusted fairly often? IDK I'm not a tax person.

OR, maybe it could just apply to additional properties? Like you get one free so a family home is safe, but every additional property you own gets a tax slapped on it or something like that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I bring this up because California implemented Prop13 in 1978 to address similar issues and it had mixed results.

I agree with the idea of taxing secondary properties at a higher rate. But that could also have the unintended consequence of driving up rents and landlords look to recoup that money.