this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
149 points (98.1% liked)

Canada

9691 readers
662 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 week ago (51 children)

I'll repeat again, I don't need a fucking tax cut. I need the price of housing to start going down.

Increase taxes on property significantly, and use 100% of that money to give everyone a basic income.

This incentivizes both people and developers to be efficient with their housing choices. Using too much housing for the area you live in? You pay extra to help out everyone. Using the right amount? No harm to you. Using less than the average? Here's a payout, thank you.

Prices overall will drop, because it's no longer profitable to simply own a home due to the taxes, and especially not if there's no people in it because the taxes won't be offset by the basic income.

[–] quaff@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (15 children)

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 🤔

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

[–] quaff@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

For sure, definitely an interesting way to think of property taxes and how to encourage people to not have frivolous space.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Average square footage of homes:

  • 1920: 1,048 square feet
  • 1930: 1,129
  • 1940: 1,177
  • 1950: 983
  • 1960: 1,289
  • 1970: 1,500
  • 1980: 1,740
  • 1990: 2,080
  • 2000: 2,266
  • 2010: 2,392
  • 2014: 2,657

https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

Yup. All that post-war housing built for returning military had an effect on house sizes.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (47 replies)