What percentage of people smoke cigarettes compared to the percentage that do cocaine? Perhaps prohibition would dramatically reduce the number of users, even if that number is guaranteed to never reach 0?

I did mean to reply to your comment. Just trying to say that I don’t need 2nd homes to be taxed much more higher that 1st homes if the issue can be fixed without getting to that point. Although it shouldn’t be off the table if it’s necessary to guarantee people can have access to homes.

It’s not unreasonable, but if after taxing 3rd and 4th homes (etc.) to oblivion the issue persists, then also second homes should be taxed high. I truly believe that extreme would not be needed once it’s made humanely forbidden to own multiple homes without intention of ever living in them.

Worth adding that it should not be the number of homes what should be taxed, but based on the market value of those properties.