Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a symbolic order signalling his government will prioritize passing his promised middle-class tax cut, following the first in-person meeting of his cabinet on Parliament Hill Wednesday.
There’s an idea I hadn’t thought of before. I wonder if there’s any studies out there about how much space a single person needs to be comfortable. And how that’d change base on how many others are in the same space. Could be interesting idea to tax people based on their space to people ratio 🤔
There are studies on that, but they’re not super relevant because the appropriate amount of space is determined by how many people want to live somewhere, not based on the specific size.
People are willing to live in smaller places the closer they are to amenities. It’s a gradient, not a single value even for each location.
The problem I have with the space tax idea, which I think OP has mentioned before, is just that it presupposes what people need without much justification, and then applies a penalty to force that outcome. Really, you only want to make people pay for what they take, and people buying big houses definitely do that. (Having inequality in the first place is of course it’s own issue)
For sure, a thorough study of what Canadians need would be helpful to something like this. Could inform what a good space to person ratio could be. Especially in Canada.
If I’m understanding this correctly, you wouldn’t need to adjust any taxes based on occupancy. The property tax would be fixed based on the value, as it is now but higher. If a single person lived in a big house the new guaranteed income might be less than the tax increase, if you added a second person you’d double the income and potentially cancel out the increase. If you had a family of four in that same house, you’d potentially pay no taxes at all or even get some back.
Maybe not no taxes, but less? Could be an interesting way to tackle low occupancy rates. If it’s possible to pay no taxes at all, it might cause people to sardine can a house to save on $.
I see where you’re coming from, but I can’t really see how that outcome would be any more or less common than it would be currently. I suppose I should’ve said effectively no tax, as it would simply be the new combined income being higher than the total property tax.
Some quick hypothetical math:
For illustrative purposes we can pretend every house is worth the same amount so we can deal simply with averages. At the same time we’ll round the average household to 2.5 people. Let’s say every house currently pays $5000/yr in property tax and that gets doubled, then we distribute the total evenly between every person in the country. We should end up with every individual person getting $2000/yr. If your household is 2 people, you’d effectively pay $6000, if your household is 5, you’d pay $0.
In the real world values obviously differ, but it would theoretically lower taxes on full houses and raise taxes on underutilized houses, with the impacts felt much less on small single occupancy houses and much more on huge mansions occupied by a small family.
I’m no expert, I’m simply a normal guy taking someone else’s commented idea and running with it, so I’m sure there would be issues. In fact I see one already. This sort of sounds like how the carbon tax was supposed to work, where the average consumer breaks even, but in reality people in more rural areas felt like they were being punished because they didn’t have realistic options to cut down on their fuel usage. This housing idea would have a similar issue where people in the least affordable cities would feel punished, because their shoebox sized studio might cost as much as a house fit for a multi generational family in a different province.
The trick to make this work is to tax the land value, rather than the property as a whole.
Rural area, land not worth a lot, fairly low tax. My rural property that I live in is about 20% land value, and 80% house value.
Downtown core, land worth a lot, but then it gets divided by all the apartments in that building bringing it to a very low number. So you have a 40 million dollar plot of land, but there’s 100 condos on it, which makes the land value about the same as above in terms of a percentage vs building value.
It’s underutilized land that gets absolutely slammed. That empty nest couple who kept the 5 bedroom family home that’s now inside the city boundaries and refuse to sell to let it be developed into condos. The 2-3 floor condo that was built 60 years ago right downtown, but really needs to be 10-15 floors at this point. Or the 1 story business in the core, sitting on a primary bus route or next to a bus exchange, that needs to be a condo building with commercial space on the bottom.
There’s an idea I hadn’t thought of before. I wonder if there’s any studies out there about how much space a single person needs to be comfortable. And how that’d change base on how many others are in the same space. Could be interesting idea to tax people based on their space to people ratio 🤔
There are studies on that, but they’re not super relevant because the appropriate amount of space is determined by how many people want to live somewhere, not based on the specific size.
People are willing to live in smaller places the closer they are to amenities. It’s a gradient, not a single value even for each location.
For sure, definitely an interesting way to think of property taxes and how to encourage people to not have frivolous space.
Average square footage of homes:
https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html
Man, WWII sure happened.
Yup. All that post-war housing built for returning military had an effect on house sizes.
Culturally dependent, I’m pretty sure. Housing in Japan can be pretty tiny. Canada’s on the large side.
It also depends on the person and their habits: introverts and people who spend more time at home are likely to want more personal space.
Personality and lifestyle dependent, too.
The problem I have with the space tax idea, which I think OP has mentioned before, is just that it presupposes what people need without much justification, and then applies a penalty to force that outcome. Really, you only want to make people pay for what they take, and people buying big houses definitely do that. (Having inequality in the first place is of course it’s own issue)
For sure, a thorough study of what Canadians need would be helpful to something like this. Could inform what a good space to person ratio could be. Especially in Canada.
If I’m understanding this correctly, you wouldn’t need to adjust any taxes based on occupancy. The property tax would be fixed based on the value, as it is now but higher. If a single person lived in a big house the new guaranteed income might be less than the tax increase, if you added a second person you’d double the income and potentially cancel out the increase. If you had a family of four in that same house, you’d potentially pay no taxes at all or even get some back.
Maybe not no taxes, but less? Could be an interesting way to tackle low occupancy rates. If it’s possible to pay no taxes at all, it might cause people to sardine can a house to save on $.
I see where you’re coming from, but I can’t really see how that outcome would be any more or less common than it would be currently. I suppose I should’ve said effectively no tax, as it would simply be the new combined income being higher than the total property tax.
Some quick hypothetical math:
For illustrative purposes we can pretend every house is worth the same amount so we can deal simply with averages. At the same time we’ll round the average household to 2.5 people. Let’s say every house currently pays $5000/yr in property tax and that gets doubled, then we distribute the total evenly between every person in the country. We should end up with every individual person getting $2000/yr. If your household is 2 people, you’d effectively pay $6000, if your household is 5, you’d pay $0.
In the real world values obviously differ, but it would theoretically lower taxes on full houses and raise taxes on underutilized houses, with the impacts felt much less on small single occupancy houses and much more on huge mansions occupied by a small family.
I’m no expert, I’m simply a normal guy taking someone else’s commented idea and running with it, so I’m sure there would be issues. In fact I see one already. This sort of sounds like how the carbon tax was supposed to work, where the average consumer breaks even, but in reality people in more rural areas felt like they were being punished because they didn’t have realistic options to cut down on their fuel usage. This housing idea would have a similar issue where people in the least affordable cities would feel punished, because their shoebox sized studio might cost as much as a house fit for a multi generational family in a different province.
The trick to make this work is to tax the land value, rather than the property as a whole.
Rural area, land not worth a lot, fairly low tax. My rural property that I live in is about 20% land value, and 80% house value. Downtown core, land worth a lot, but then it gets divided by all the apartments in that building bringing it to a very low number. So you have a 40 million dollar plot of land, but there’s 100 condos on it, which makes the land value about the same as above in terms of a percentage vs building value.
It’s underutilized land that gets absolutely slammed. That empty nest couple who kept the 5 bedroom family home that’s now inside the city boundaries and refuse to sell to let it be developed into condos. The 2-3 floor condo that was built 60 years ago right downtown, but really needs to be 10-15 floors at this point. Or the 1 story business in the core, sitting on a primary bus route or next to a bus exchange, that needs to be a condo building with commercial space on the bottom.