Canada is acting quickly to reposition our trade economy to become more resilient, diverse and self-reliant. We need a similar re-calibration of Canada’s housing system to address our deepening affordability problem. Housing is foundational for a strong Canada, and we must focus on housing that is more affordable, cost-effective to construct, energy efficient and climateContinue reading "Non-profit housing is an economic no-brainer"
The goal is to crash the price of land for everyone, probably by like 75% or more in many areas. The ongoing cost to owning land should be something you’re willing to pay because you want to live there, and the benefit should be shared by all citizens of the country because that’s what the country is… land.
The amount of the UBI should offset the amount an average family would pay in increased taxes if they’re using a “reasonable” amount of land for their family size and location.
This way if you use more land than you should be, you pay for that privledge, and if you use less you benefit a bit.
The amounts would be fairly self-levelling, as the now significantly lower price of land would still reflect the desirability of an area because people are essentially now bidding on how much they’re willing to pay in taxes since the tax amount would be much higher than the fixed land cost on a yearly basis.
A family property that’s $500k in land today, with a $300k home on it would drop to like $100k in land and $300k in home value, going from a total price of $800k to $400k, which would be like a $4000/month mortgage swapping into a $2000 mortgage plus $2000 in land value taxes (at 25%), and then the family of 5 living there would see a $400 per person UBI which offsets the tax cost.
Meanwhile, grandpa and grandma living in that same paid off large home would see a $2000 per month tax increase, and only a $400 per person UBI which means they can either pay $1200 extra per month to stay in the too-big for them home, or they could downsize to something more reasonable for just 2 people.
It will absolutely get passed, it just needs to sit on the back burner until home ownership rates drop to probably around 40-45% rather than the 65% we have now. Non-home owning voters need to outnumber home owning voters, with a bit extra to deal with cultural inertia.
Small adjustments will just keep the pain going for longer, but eventually enough people will get upset enough to flip the table.
“Let’s wipe out the vast amount of wealth for the majority of the country” is unlikely to play well basically ever.
“Grandma and Grandpa need to take a $300k wealth cut so that we can force them out of the neighborhood they’ve lived in for 30 years because it’s not the optimal use of that land” is going to always go over like a wet fart. You’re coming across like a technocrat here rather than a feeling human being.
Grandma and grandpa did absolutely nothing to earn that money. They paid $50k for that property and house. Why does society owe them $700k for their retirement because of that?
You’re right that it’s unlikely to go over well, but that’s because people are greedy and don’t care about the harm it’s causing the next generation.
My wife and I have made about as much as a full additional third income in equity appreciation over the last 15 years by simply living in a house. We did nothing to earn it. I’d trade it in an instant for the house prices to go back to what they were 15 years ago.
That money has to come from someone, it’s a giant pyramid scheme that should never have existed in the first place. Our kids are absolutely fucked, they will never be able to afford a reasonable home because we have treated homes as investments and by default investments need to appreciate faster than inflation.
I have a different idea.
LVT is significant, like 25-50%+ of land value.
Use that money to fund a Universal Basic Income.
The goal is to crash the price of land for everyone, probably by like 75% or more in many areas. The ongoing cost to owning land should be something you’re willing to pay because you want to live there, and the benefit should be shared by all citizens of the country because that’s what the country is… land.
The amount of the UBI should offset the amount an average family would pay in increased taxes if they’re using a “reasonable” amount of land for their family size and location.
This way if you use more land than you should be, you pay for that privledge, and if you use less you benefit a bit.
The amounts would be fairly self-levelling, as the now significantly lower price of land would still reflect the desirability of an area because people are essentially now bidding on how much they’re willing to pay in taxes since the tax amount would be much higher than the fixed land cost on a yearly basis.
A family property that’s $500k in land today, with a $300k home on it would drop to like $100k in land and $300k in home value, going from a total price of $800k to $400k, which would be like a $4000/month mortgage swapping into a $2000 mortgage plus $2000 in land value taxes (at 25%), and then the family of 5 living there would see a $400 per person UBI which offsets the tax cost.
Meanwhile, grandpa and grandma living in that same paid off large home would see a $2000 per month tax increase, and only a $400 per person UBI which means they can either pay $1200 extra per month to stay in the too-big for them home, or they could downsize to something more reasonable for just 2 people.
Sure, nice idea. I supported it back in 2008 or so.
But it will never get passed in any functioning democracy.
So better to figure out schemes that most people will actually support.
It will absolutely get passed, it just needs to sit on the back burner until home ownership rates drop to probably around 40-45% rather than the 65% we have now. Non-home owning voters need to outnumber home owning voters, with a bit extra to deal with cultural inertia.
Small adjustments will just keep the pain going for longer, but eventually enough people will get upset enough to flip the table.
“Let’s wipe out the vast amount of wealth for the majority of the country” is unlikely to play well basically ever.
“Grandma and Grandpa need to take a $300k wealth cut so that we can force them out of the neighborhood they’ve lived in for 30 years because it’s not the optimal use of that land” is going to always go over like a wet fart. You’re coming across like a technocrat here rather than a feeling human being.
Grandma and grandpa did absolutely nothing to earn that money. They paid $50k for that property and house. Why does society owe them $700k for their retirement because of that?
You’re right that it’s unlikely to go over well, but that’s because people are greedy and don’t care about the harm it’s causing the next generation.
My wife and I have made about as much as a full additional third income in equity appreciation over the last 15 years by simply living in a house. We did nothing to earn it. I’d trade it in an instant for the house prices to go back to what they were 15 years ago.
That money has to come from someone, it’s a giant pyramid scheme that should never have existed in the first place. Our kids are absolutely fucked, they will never be able to afford a reasonable home because we have treated homes as investments and by default investments need to appreciate faster than inflation.