Taxes would still happen on renter investment property.
Just not someones personal home.
So no subsiding at all.
Exactly. It makes renter investment property more expensive to maintain, hence making rental properties a less desirable asset, reducing the numbers built and increasing the cost of renting.
Whereas a homeowner doesn't pay that tax at all, meaning the entire residential property burden is put onto renter.
On the flip side it would increase the number of single family homes and make them cheaper so people could afford them and stop renting.
Sounds like a huge win for single familys and huge hit to giant private equity funds buying up homes and land to turn the middle class into an eternal population of renting serfs.
It would also keep communities intact as people would never be priced out of their own home.
Net win for everyone but the private equity landlords and bloated government.
I've been a victim to people thinking like that - which is why I'm currently paying £1600/month for a 500sqft 1-bed flat, shared with my girlfriend.
1000sqft or 10,000sqft, small rural home or prime real estate, both zero tax. There's no incentive to improve land use.
Or just make the law have size limitations to be eligible for the exemption.
Easily addressed issue. Not even worth duscussing.
