1) first home tax-free - the address you submit your yearly taxes on. Incentivize people to own at least one home.
2) second property you pay taxes for both homes now - no more tax free benefit since you are able to afford more than one place.
3) more than 2 properties you pay taxes for all of them times some factor 0.05*N houses. Fudge around with the factor to allow more supply for all the first home buyers since now it it is more expensive to hold multiple properties.
Maybe it's time to start one, I group myself w/ anarcho-syndicalist, but a practical one that believes some hybrid system like what we have now meets star trek is probably the best we can hope for, but LVT seems like the best way to move us there, other than creating huge employee-owned syndicates that compete w/ the other big companies, and have very loyal employees and customers.
I think OP's point is the introduction of limits to the benefit of owning multiple properties. Hard to see OP replying with "Oh gosh, darn it you got me again" as a response to your comment and much more likely to further develop policy that would stay true to the idea that being able to afford more means you should pull more weight.
Yeah, now your wife and each kid will fill taxes by themselves and you crack down on that there - you give the free tax benefit as a deduction on your income tax so if your 3 year old doesn't have income there's no benefit. The trust itself can fill taxes, you allow the tax-free benefit to apply to only single individual tax form and force a trust to pay tax.
Just give the tax break on your primary residence. If you don't live there 51% of the year you pay oppressive property tax. Give property tax breaks to landlords that provide affordable housing up to the needs of the area.
What taxes are you talking about? If you're talking about property taxes then you just created a giant hole in every local government's budget. If you're talking about taxes on profits after you sell then that's basically how it works already.
Doesn't fix it. People end up buying bigger homes just as a place to park money. The root of the problem is that housing is a subsidized investment; you're getting free money from the government by taking out a mortgage, and the market will figure out ways to take advantage of that with silly results.
Why does this matter? The problem stated is lack of supply generally, not that people want bigger homes, right? Who cares if people are parking their money in a bigger home if they only have a single home?
The lack of supply is because of a lack of desirable land. I don't think viewing it through the lens of "houses" getting more expensive is correct, as many old homes being purchased for 500k+ near me will be immediately torn down. There's a finite supply of land in driving distance of a city and bigger suburban houses mean less homes can be built. If you don't view it like that, bigger homes still require more materials and man-hours.
Simpler than that: just enact State, County, or HOA bans on corporations from owning single-family homes. Let them pour money into apartment complexes.
Incentivizing people to own their primary residence tax-free kills almost 90% of the Georgist incentive structure. The only justification for doing that is if you consider homes an investment asset. Almost all homeowners own only one home and would have the exact same incentives to advocate development restrictions. Governments would forego almost all of the land value tax and be forced to continue with high levels of other less efficient taxes.
1) first home tax-free - the address you submit your yearly taxes on. Incentivize people to own at least one home.
2) second property you pay taxes for both homes now - no more tax free benefit since you are able to afford more than one place.
3) more than 2 properties you pay taxes for all of them times some factor 0.05*N houses. Fudge around with the factor to allow more supply for all the first home buyers since now it it is more expensive to hold multiple properties.
Not sure if this falls under Georgism.