My first instinct is “yes” but then I thought about it and I think it’s just going to exacerbate the short-stay problem unless combined with other measures.

  • Because the value is not immediately and readily accessible without uprooting their entire life.

    Tax the shit outta the sale, sure but basically penalising someone for living in their own house opens up a lot of very bad doors.

    • That’s exacty what I’m arguing. A land tax which is able to be put off until the sale where people have low incomes. That would not penalise anyone, it just means some of the windfall gains from rising property prices go towards paying taxes rather than being a freebie to be passed on to the next generation as inheretance.

      • You’re still playing the same issue - penalisation.

        Ok, you have person A. Been living in their house for yonks, now getting taxed because real estate turned into a batshit ponzi scheme outside their window.

        Low income for an pensioner? Well now the can has just been kicked on to penalise the next generation if they sell or want to move into the property.

        It’s going to hurt people it shouldn’t, because the ones who aren’t paying their dues will just find a way to skae this as well

        • I don’t see inheritance as a right, and I definitely don’t think the kids having a small amount of tax owing on the house they inherit as “penalisation”.

          Any tax change will involve some changes in who and how much people pay and needs to be handled carefully, but protecting inheritances should come far below paying for services: things like hospitals, schools and nursing homes. The next gereration will hurt a lot more from proposals like an income tax levy, and that will also hurt those who are not priveleged enough to inherit a house.