Related, I’m concerned about the trend of megacorporations gobbling up single-family homes which appears to be happening in the US and Canada. I wonder if it’s possible to construct a law that would limit corporate ability to acquire these assets while making it possible for families to do so. Unfortunately, even if there is, politicians at least in DC seem to have zero motivation to solve political problems unless t…
Triple or quadruple property taxes after the 10th purchased residence in the state. Encourage tax breaks through high density development of condos with coop property management firms.
Related, I’m concerned about the trend of megacorporations gobbling up single-family homes which appears to be happening in the US and Canada. I wonder if it’s possible to construct a law that would limit corporate ability to acquire these assets while making it possible for families to do so. Unfortunately, even if there is, politicians at least in DC seem to have zero motivation to solve political problems unless t…
This is one of those things that a proper tax structure would do wonders - those who hoard housing should get a kick from a exponential tax.
Like, what value are those corporations bringing to people, to the market, and to a country by hoarding houses other than controlling the renting market for some areas?
This is really, really stupid. It reeks of economic illiteracy. If you think foreign investor cause harm, just estimate how much harm it is, and tax them accordingly. Why would you ban them? Taxing is almost always more economically efficient than banning. You can even pay out (part of) the tax take to the people you think are harmed. (In general, a land value tax for everyone would be a good idea. But if political r…
Would taxing do anything in this specific case? Foreign investors are already willing to pay millions in a single home just for it to lay empty, from what I read in this thread. Why would some fixed (even if progressive) tax on top of that change the demand?
Presumably if it was high enough they would move onto other investments that are comparatively more profitable when accounting for the tax. It would have to be a heck of a tax to keep up with how Canadian house prices have been inflating recently though.
This is really, really stupid. It reeks of economic illiteracy. If you think foreign investor cause harm, just estimate how much harm it is, and tax them accordingly. Why would you ban them? Taxing is almost always more economically efficient than banning. You can even pay out (part of) the tax take to the people you think are harmed. (In general, a land value tax for everyone would be a good idea. But if political r…
Would taxing do anything in this specific case? Foreign investors are already willing to pay millions in a single home just for it to lay empty, from what I read in this thread. Why would some fixed (even if progressive) tax on top of that change the demand?
Hypothetical example: Tax it 100,000,000%. Turn a $1 house into a $1,000,000 house. Do you think they'd still want it? That's the power of taxation to change behaviour. (of course a real tax can be whatever is needed to "get the job done", it doesn't need to be ridiculous).
If you don't want empty houses, tax empty houses (though as a distracting aside, the idea that empty houses is a big problem has also been fairly thoroughly debunked, but that's another discussion that it's important rn)
Having your housing stock bought up as holdings by nonresidents is not great. It hollows out the communities by having choice housing sit empty and it raises the cost of living for everyone who is actually there. I'm interested to see how this plays out. It seems pretty heavy handed. Zoning denser housing or placing limited restrictions on square footage may proved smarter in the long term. That said, two years is pr…
Prediction: barely anything happens and problems continue to rise as population numbers have yet to peak and the people who are struggling most with this problem, the working class, continues to lose wealth relatively to the upper classes.
Almost every country with these problems has similar symptoms and the problem could've been seen coming from decades away. Tackling these things requires far, far more input from governing bodies. Input they aren't willing to give.
Foreigners, especially the billionaire type, can and have been setting up shell corporations through which to purchase Canadian real estate. The proposed measure will do nothing to stop this practice. The measures proposed by the Canadian government are likely just political posturing and indented to "pull the wool over the eyes" of Canadian voters because the housing bubble/crisis has reached epic proportions and ev…
This feels like nationalism, in delivery no matter how true it may be.
This is really, really stupid. It reeks of economic illiteracy. If you think foreign investor cause harm, just estimate how much harm it is, and tax them accordingly. Why would you ban them? Taxing is almost always more economically efficient than banning. You can even pay out (part of) the tax take to the people you think are harmed. (In general, a land value tax for everyone would be a good idea. But if political r…
Explain how would you tax them effectively then, since they are foreign. Every time I talk about taxing the rich, I'm stormed by people calling me economically illitterate and telling me it's impossible as the rich will always find a loophole. So if you think they can find loopholes on the ban, why couldn't they find loopholes on new taxes? They do already and very effectively.
A % tax on the cost of the property would be pretty simple. Can't buy without paying the tax up front. It's usually the more complicated taxes that have exceptions to rules that are exploitable. It's hard to find exploits in simple rules.
Would taxing do anything in this specific case? Foreign investors are already willing to pay millions in a single home just for it to lay empty, from what I read in this thread. Why would some fixed (even if progressive) tax on top of that change the demand?
Hypothetical example: Tax it 100,000,000%. Turn a $1 house into a $1,000,000 house. Do you think they'd still want it? That's the power of taxation to change behaviour. (of course a real tax can be whatever is needed to "get the job done", it doesn't need to be ridiculous). If you don't want empty houses, tax empty houses (though as a distracting aside, the idea that empty houses is a big problem has also been fairly…
Off by a few zeros. Humbly thought I might put that out there in the word problem.
Thats doesn't solve much of the problem tbh. They need to build more homes. Much like the problem in the UK also. But in the UK we need to push back on normal people wanting this property empire and massively over leveraging themselves > The government will also impose higher taxes on people who sell their home within a year. Nice!
> They need to build more homes.
Why build more homes at enormous expense (both financial and environmental), when most countries have way more than enough homes in total?
The problem is two-faced: vacant properties sitting around empty because of money laundering and speculative usage on one side, and on the other side the usage disparity because rural areas have been left behind by modern infrastructure - particularly high speed Internet, mobile phone coverage, public transport and services of everyday living (healthcare, basic shopping).