• jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Note that having one house, even occupied is already taxed pretty much universally.

    In some jurisdictions, it might make sense, but in rural areas, it generally doesn’t. My parents bought a house to live in that happened to come with a second house on the land in the middle of nowhere. No one wants that second house.

    The “productive empty land” could be a nightmare, lots of deforestation to ensue in areas that can ill afford it. There’s enough dead commercial properties to reclaim before we need to start going after “empty land”.

    • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Forested land is already environmentally productive, and can get rebates as such. Developing it wouldn’t make much more anyway, as the land value in rural areas is rather low. This tax would hit city property first, and could be implemented for cities only anyway.

      In cities, not only would this hit empty residential structures, it would also disincentivise big parking lots and single floor buildings.