Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by NoSorryCannot 1398 days ago
Oooor they can sell it, as originally stated. Goodness.

The point is reduce land entitlement a little bit. Yes, there's going to be some light incentive to cut loose and that's OK.

2 comments

Now the US is way ahead of the game here compared to Europe. There are no property taxes in most of Europe and families hang on to their homes for generations.
This appears to differ across Europe.

I know for a fact (through living here) that Denmark and probably the rest of Scandinavia has property tax and inheritance tax -- holding on to family property is almost as expensive as buying new property.

Which part of Europe are you referring to? I once had Greek colleague who complained about having to maintain three generations worth of houses, so that might be one place where things are as you describe?

Right, Europe is bound to be diverse on this point. I have exposure to Balkan countries and the UK (which, while they do have non-zero rates, still have them far lower what I'm used to in New England).
Norway has no inheritance tax at all; property taxes are microscopic (relative to other places that levy property taxes with intended market effects).
I think you can argue migration (forced) through history is tied to this. The US was a recent star in growth due to free land. But there is no more free land. And Mars does not fill that role. We need to disempower rentiers.
Wouldn't this just reduce land entitlement for those who aren't wealthy enough to afford the new taxes? I think something like taxes that apply for people who own more than 1 property would be better.