The deficit argument is a deflection. The government doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending and priority problem. Canada (but also applies to other countries) runs deficits while handing out billions in corporate subsidies and mismanaging public funds consistently. Asking citizens to pay yet another layer of taxation to cover institutional inefficiency isn’t a solution, it’s a blank check with no accountability.
On land value coming from government infrastructure: that’s a partial truth dressed up as a complete argument. In Canada, most land is technically owned by the Crown, meaning you’re already leasing it under various terms depending on how title is held. So the “you’re privatizing public gains” framing already falls apart at the foundation. But let’s humor it anyway: what if I’m fully off-grid? Septic tank, solar panels, private road, self-maintained everything. Does my land value drop? No, it doesn’t, because the value is also artificially inflated by government-controlled permitting, zoning restrictions, and intentional supply suppression. The government is simultaneously the cause of inflated land value and the entity collecting taxes on that inflation. That’s not a neutral tax, that’s a racket.
On Japan: you’re conflating two separate timelines. Japan implemented its housing policies and saw prices stabilize and even decline well before its fertility crisis became the dominant economic story. The Akiya (vacant homes) problem and price normalization were underway as a direct result of policy choices, treating housing as shelter rather than an investment vehicle. The fertility decline accelerated consequences but didn’t create the policy. Meanwhile, Canada’s fertility rate is already comparable to South Korea, one of the lowest in the world, and Canadian housing prices haven’t corrected meaningfully. That alone dismantles whatever argument of “Japan only worked because of demographics”.
And here’s where it gets uncomfortable: the Canadian government has effectively admitted (look it up online, they don’t even hide it) that preserving housing values was a deliberate policy consideration in pushing back against remote work. Commercial real estate, residential landlords leveraged to the hilt, and an economy where housing represents a disproportionate share of GDP all created an incentive to force people back into urban cores. This isn’t conspiracy, it was acknowledged. When your economy is structurally dependent on a housing ponzi scheme, every policy bends toward keeping prices elevated, including taxation that forces lower-income retirees to sell, which conveniently frees up supply without crashing prices.
The honest conclusion is that property tax doesn’t exist to fund services equitably. It exists to keep the machine running for the people who benefit most from it, and that isn’t the person who spent 30 years paying off a mortgage.