this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2026
22 points (82.4% liked)
Explain Like I'm Five
22036 readers
59 users here now
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel like you shouldn't have more than 1, maybe 2 properties you don't live in that are tax free and no corporations should ever own property; they should only be allowed to rent unless the business owner owns the property. So if you're super wealthy you can have like one maybe two and or one each vacation house / business location. And if you are renting out your second / third property, you have a LOT of competition just by design. Anything more than that should be legal, but get taxed at an exponential scale. Honestly if we left all assets where they are and just portioned all business assets to their owners then taxed like that they'd have to sell to not be taxed to death and it would all equalize pretty quickly. What counts as "one property" should be in terms of population over acreage in suburban and rural areas, and population over square footage in urban areas. HOAs should only exist as shared governance of buildings that are physically attached to each other.
Corporations only allowed to rent AND rent being taxed reasonably AND rent being legally bound to be proportional to value would solve some problems ๐ค Not sure how many new problems this would create, especially in transition periods and with foreign countries not all doing the same.
Counting properties is difficult for bigger lots though. Is that a big shed or an extra house at the other end of your farm? Or maybe that doesn't really matter unless you rent it out.