I could just leave a PC on mining some random coin to ensure there was always a bit of power going on. Likewise leave a tap slowly going. Cheaper than any tax most likely.
If it's not vacant, it's someone's primary residence which is recorded, but also the landlords will have receipts and be taxed. If there is a vacant unit, the landlord's income with be smaller than expected and can be used to ask the landlord to attest to the occupancy of their units.
You can go wherever you want. The house isn’t going anywhere, it’s still registered as yours and you still pay taxes for it, with a discount if you designate it as your primary residence.
Well you either tax them such that the owners can still afford them, so no material change in ownership ratios, or you make them unaffordably high and you punish people for being successful in life.
If you feel that taxes are punishments then we can't really have much of a discussion. Taxes are meant for wealth redistribution. They are what prevent kings and lords.
Second homes and vacation homes should be unaffordable. They are a luxury.
Disagree with all but your last sentence. Taxes are a necessary evil to pay for things we require as a society (e.g. police, schools). They are a burden on citizens, particularly the poor.
As for the comment about kings and lords, I suppose you're not familiar with the story of Robinhood...
That's the thing: taxes should NOT be about wealth redistribution - that's Marxist thinking. They should be about financing basic public services, like justice system, military, or possibly healthcare and education.
If you think taxes are a punishment for success in life, I assume you support toll roads, pay for your snow removal from city street and rent your police and fire protection? Or are you only concerned about the impact on your success not anybody else’s?
Taxes aren’t a binary thing! I think overly high taxes are a punishment for success, and a fair level of tax is necessary for a good and fair society.
I’m British, I think our society is better than the US due to things like social services, the NHS, etc. What is being discussed here is way outside the realm of British (and definitely American) way of taxation and public/social services.
You have to look
at the intention of the tax - as per this discussion - is not about wealth distribution but about enforcing a policy by trying to free up existing homes for the homeless.
In the advocates ideal position there would almost never be any money collected from this tax because it would make a second home or holiday home unaffordable. If people truly want the homeless to all be homed then why not use tax money to build more homes in better locations for those that need them? In the US, UK, and most other countries there is massive amounts of available real estate (could be via building up or building out). The issue here is more than finding a house. Who is going to pay the power, water, rates, insurance, furnishings, transport costs etc (those Martha Vineyard homes are not a great location for homeless trying to work).
Why not? Does anyone deserve such homes if there is people who could permanently live in them? Or maybe some reasonable cost involved let's say 20% a year.
Should I be able to get a free home if I refuse to pay rent? What if I can work, but refuse to, should I get a free home? Instead of taking my home, why not build them their own new home.