11–20 of 395 posts
Should housing be a primary vehicle for investment and the de facto way of making money? Or should it serve as a necessity and basic aspect of life?
Should housing be a primary vehicle for investment and the de facto way of making money? Or should it serve as a necessity and basic aspect of life?
Should housing be a primary vehicle for investment and the de facto way of making money? Or should it serve as a necessity and basic aspect of life?
In Australia if I recall correctly, foreign buyers are only able to buy newly built homes. Canada would benefit from a similar rule, it would stimulate more housing and not impact the demand for existing homes.
I don't think you need to look far to figure out that foreign cash purchases are coming from... foreign rich people who realize that housing is the best long-term investment possible.
In the USA, all it takes to buy a house is money. A wealthy person sitting anywhere can buy a home with a email, and a few clicks, or a phone call. All it takes is money.
If a person can't legally live in the home he bought, why are we selling it to them? I know the answer, but don't like it.
I don't know of any other country that makes buying our land so dam easy.
(I only know U.S.A. realestate, but care about Canadians.)
Should housing be a primary vehicle for investment and the de facto way of making money? Or should it serve as a necessity and basic aspect of life?
If I recall it was a "tax" 1% of the property value every month after the first 12 of vacancy
I can't imagine that going into effect and rent/house prices _not_ going down
But two or three years ago the govt. banned overseas buyers. There is no reason to suggest the ban is not effective. It even bans non-permanent residents, so plenty of legitimate residents (work visas) can't purchase property.
We also have strong money laundering laws, to the point of making tech innovation difficult (our prediction market run by a university had to move to the USA).
Yet it didn't stop or even dent runaway house prices.
Turns out the overseas investors (and immigrants) were just a good scape goats for lots of other problems.
Edit: People overseas I have mentioned this struggle to belive it and suggest the ban must not be working. Yet nobody here suggests it is not. We have supply issues, transport issues, ridiculous construction and material costs and lots of regulations. Old houses are sold at prices relative to new houses. If new houses cost more and more, old houses also increase in value, especially since they are on the best land (not in new far away outer suburbs).
Should housing be a primary vehicle for investment and the de facto way of making money? Or should it serve as a necessity and basic aspect of life?
How does people investing in housing change how much housing is available? They just rent it out.
Investing in housing can decrease housing availability especially if investors are using it for short term rentals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Australia if I recall correctly, foreign buyers are only able to buy newly built homes. Canada would benefit from a similar rule, it would stimulate more housing and not impact the demand for existing homes.
I'm not sure Australia should be held as an example of a healthy housing market.