> What if there's no tax level that the small store can afford that prevents a mega-corp like B&N from buying out their property?
Be bookstore owner. Set the value to be twice as much as comparable neighbor property. Get bought by B&N. Buy property next to you, move your books, pocket the difference.
> I get that making $15m for my house would make me rich, but this is our first home as a family and all our memories are here.
Price it accordingly. :)
Yes, the whole idea is that the tax is much lower (1% maybe) than the value of the land.
Also, some regulations might be added, that eg. a person who got forcefully bought-out, has a year or two to move out, just to make it less convenient to use it "aggressively", while allowing wise long-term investments.
I don't see this as very helpful. The above poster views their home as something to protect from the market. It is a safehaven for family and friends and community connections, it is something that holds all the most important things in life and so it is above market mechanisms to the extent possible. Seeing this and purposefully advocating a system which forces them to put an actual price on their family memories supposes that there should be zero aspects of our life which are safe from market mechanisms. That seems like an impoverished way of looking at life.
Be bookstore owner. Set the value to be twice as much as comparable neighbor property. Get bought by B&N. Buy property next to you, move your books, pocket the difference.
> I get that making $15m for my house would make me rich, but this is our first home as a family and all our memories are here.
Price it accordingly. :)
Yes, the whole idea is that the tax is much lower (1% maybe) than the value of the land.
Also, some regulations might be added, that eg. a person who got forcefully bought-out, has a year or two to move out, just to make it less convenient to use it "aggressively", while allowing wise long-term investments.