[petesergeant]

In theory I agree with everything but I’ll point out that:

> But residential construction should be protected to ensure each household is able to buy one with the average country salary

is political suicide, because you’re giving every voter with existing property a haircut on money they believe they already have, that they’ve usually borrowed to buy, and that they’ve financially planned on appreciating. Per Jean-Claude Juncker, “ We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it”

[xtracto]

I understand, but what if you establish a 10/20 year increasing taxation scheme. Plus some decreasing tax incentive to sell residential property.

You tell people: You have 20 years to sell your second/third residential properties, even at a good tax premium. But in 20 years you MUST have sold or you Will pay lots.of.taxes.

Edit: anyhow... I dont pretend to try to solve this complex issue in a couple of HN comments. It's just a general sentiment I have that the.only way to remove speculation from residential property is by government mandate.

I'm all for this. And I am "part of the problem " as I own 2 houses in 2 different states, and rent one at a freaking high rent price, because the market in that area is crazy.

[bell-cot]

Yes, and for any unit of gov't which is funded by property taxes, there's a second edge on that razor blade. Spiraling residential home values yield spiraling property tax revenues. And there are a whole lot of beneficiaries who feel entitled to their ever-growing cuts of the resulting gov't spending.