[ImPostingOnHN]

> The problem is that "selling at a loss" is a much, much higher loss than the tax over time

You don't know what the tax is, so there's no way that you can make that assumption. Like folks here are saying, we just make the tax enough that it's an even higher loss than that.

> There effectively a land value tax on commercial property

Commercial property isn't the issue here. We're talking about penalizing unused commercial property.

> That money is people's pension money

I didn't force people to put their pension money into Blackstone so Blackstone could ruin communities with their speculation. More importantly, communities being ruined here, and the people living in them, are more important than investors in speculation which ruins them. The livelihoods are already being destroyed by them.

[spwa4]

So that would be a yearly tax, higher than the sale value of the property? Oh great, then I don't need to explain to anyone what a horrible idea that is.

Unused commercial property is a subset of commercial property.

And you don't care that people lose their pensions. Ok. I think we're done here ...