Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a symbolic order signalling his government will prioritize passing his promised middle-class tax cut, following the first in-person meeting of his cabinet on Parliament Hill Wednesday.
Some people have to spend a lot on housing just to have a place to have sex without bothering others. Or use a table saw. Or play the trombone. Sew a quilt. Cook a big meal.
If we have accessible, shared locations to do these things, the actual living space doesn’t have to be as big.
The newer, fancier condos have all sorts of sports like gyms, swimming, squash etc. And they have function rooms to throw parties. And hanging out space. If that could be generalized to all people it would contribute to reducing the “how much space does each person need” value.
The problem I have with the space tax idea, which I think OP has mentioned before, is just that it presupposes what people need without much justification, and then applies a penalty to force that outcome. Really, you only want to make people pay for what they take, and people buying big houses definitely do that. (Having inequality in the first place is of course it’s own issue)
Are you thinking of sewer lines, garbage pickup, roads and the like?
I think it’s quite possible that if they weren’t free, lifestyles would change to accommodate it, including a lot more people going car-free and transit growing to accommodate that. OP’s talking about something different, though, and I’m guessing the effect on house sizes just from non-free services would be mild, if measurable.
For sure, a thorough study of what Canadians need would be helpful to something like this. Could inform what a good space to person ratio could be. Especially in Canada.
Culturally dependent, I’m pretty sure. Housing in Japan can be pretty tiny. Canada’s on the large side.
It also depends on the person and their habits: introverts and people who spend more time at home are likely to want more personal space.
Also what is available in a common/public way.
Some people have to spend a lot on housing just to have a place to have sex without bothering others. Or use a table saw. Or play the trombone. Sew a quilt. Cook a big meal.
If we have accessible, shared locations to do these things, the actual living space doesn’t have to be as big.
The newer, fancier condos have all sorts of sports like gyms, swimming, squash etc. And they have function rooms to throw parties. And hanging out space. If that could be generalized to all people it would contribute to reducing the “how much space does each person need” value.
Personality and lifestyle dependent, too.
The problem I have with the space tax idea, which I think OP has mentioned before, is just that it presupposes what people need without much justification, and then applies a penalty to force that outcome. Really, you only want to make people pay for what they take, and people buying big houses definitely do that. (Having inequality in the first place is of course it’s own issue)
No they don’t because they don’t pay the whole value of taxes to get services in such an inefficient manner.
There is no home you can buy that is small enough to NOT be inaccessible to most people.
Are you thinking of sewer lines, garbage pickup, roads and the like?
I think it’s quite possible that if they weren’t free, lifestyles would change to accommodate it, including a lot more people going car-free and transit growing to accommodate that. OP’s talking about something different, though, and I’m guessing the effect on house sizes just from non-free services would be mild, if measurable.
For sure, a thorough study of what Canadians need would be helpful to something like this. Could inform what a good space to person ratio could be. Especially in Canada.