Banning marijuana growing at home, increasing the substance’s tax rate and altering how those taxes get distributed are among vast changes Ohio Senate Republicans proposed Monday to a marijuana legalization measure approved by voters last month.

The changes emerged suddenly in committee just days before the new law is set to take effect, though their fate in the full Senate and the GOP-led House is still unclear.

The ballot measure, dubbed Issue 2, passed on the Nov. 7 election with 57 percent of the vote and it set to become law this Thursday, making Ohio the 24th state to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use. But as a citizen-initiated statute, the Legislature is free to make tweaks on it, of which they’re attempting plenty.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Property is a huge one that should be taxed more. If you own property, you’re preventing other people from utilizing it, so it should be taxed in proportion to its value yearly. If you don’t utilize it maximally, the cost of taxes will outweigh its ownership and you’ll be pushed to sell it to someone who will utilize it better (or you just eat the cost). It’s drive down hoarding of houses and leaving apartments unfilled, which would drive down the cost as landlords attempt to fill them maximally.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Im not sure high base property tax rates are the best solution to corporate ownership of single family homes.

        A progressive tax based on number of residential properties owned makes more sense to me.

        100% tax on home 1 125% on home 2 150% on home 3 200% on home 4 250% on home 5

        And if they still try to arbitrage the market, double the tax for unoccupied homes.

        just make it impossible to profit after a point.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Land value tax is progressive already. It’s also very efficient with no real way to create loopholes. A progressive tax based on number of owned properties would just create shell companies and putting properties under another name. I don’t disagree with increasing tax on unoccupied residences, but I don’t think that is appropriate with a LVT, as it just adds complication. You’re taxed based on value, which is correlated to the value others think they could extract from the same land. Empty property could be utilized, so the value doesn’t care if it’s empty and will be taxed appropriately regardless.

          A LVT also works for farmland and other land to ensure maximum utility. Also, assuming land shouldn’t belong to anyone (which why should it. They didn’t create it?) it appropriately returns value to the public for occupied land.