Of course, let's let yet another corporate land grab take even more residential property off the market for profit-based motives. This can't possibly do any more harm than locking property taxes at the time of sale.

Where I live, we are looking at locking property taxes once you hit a specified age (65) and have under a specified income ($40k+/-). The current debates revolve around exactly what those numbers are and at what level the taxes get locked. The goal is to protect the elderly who have already contributed to the economy and society for 40+ years and not force them into a financial situation forcing them to sell their home just to pay even more property taxes that they have paid for the entire ownership.

▲

epistasis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Meeting the basic needs of the population, by having enough housing and preventing hoarding of housing by wealthy individuals, is not a "coporare land grab."

Quite the opposite.

	▲	SteveGerencser 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We are clearly talking about different things. I'm talking about protecting single home homeowners on a fixed income from being forced out of their homes. Staying in the only home she owns is not hoarding. Telling people that the solution is to sell their home to an insurance company as a solution is most certainly a corporate land grab. You seem to be arguing about people/corporations that own multiple homes or even entire portfolios of property. These are not the same argument.

▲

pixelatedindex an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Of course, let's let yet another corporate land grab take even more residential property off the market for profit-based motives.

The premise does not warrant this conclusion.