Ah, got it!

I recall the SA president saying they do have a violence problem, just not in the way trump is describing it.

What’s your point here?

Yeah, I agree it’s always harder to define than it seems at first glance. Square footage might be a better proxy with fewer loopholes. Problem is that a shitty rundown house will be taxed the same as a luxury house of the same size. That might be fine, I don’t know.

I think regardless of how you do it, taxes need to be adjusted for inflation or change of average living costs, like any tax brackets could/would. I think one of the goal should be to avoid artificially inflated living costs.

And also regardless of approach, tax limits should probably also depend on how many people live in the house. That can probably be abused too though.

Either way, I don’t know much about economy and taxes, this is just me thinking out loud on a complex topic.

That was very well put, thank you.

Yeah, the devil would be in the details, of course, and to make sure there aren’t any obvious loopholes. Ideally it would be at increasing brackets as well.

Wouldn’t taxes on above-X value keep prices down? Buying fancy houses as investment could be countered by the additional running expense of taxes.

Basing it on square footage could also work, or as an additional parameter, but might make more sense in cities where space is more scarce.

Why not tax the property for all value above X. Where X is some amount over the average or median property value. That way, if you can afford a luxury home you pay some tax on it.

Yeah you misread what I meant at least. Springsteen, according to the quote, says the America he sings of has been a beacon of liberty for 250 years, which obviously isn’t an accurate depiction. The vision and ideal was liberty for all and a right to pursuit of happiness, but with some very troubling caveats that put a huge stain on those ideals.

”Beacon of liberty“ is a bit strong when you have a rich history of segregation and slavery for a big portion of the population.