151–160 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The typical workaround in UK is that instead of selling the house, the corporation that directly or or directly owns it is sold instead, usually on a tax haven.
UK property prices surged a lot in the past year, especially in smaller cities. I wonder if the UK government is going to do something about it
A quick look at the data suggests only about 2% of properties in Toronto and Vancouver are owned by overseas investors. Yes, housing is priced at the margin, but this won't do anything at all to prices over the long term. I'm sure this will be wildly popular politically, because people LOVE the idea that some foreign boogieman is the reason their children can't afford homes anymore. It's much easier to outsource your…
The foreign boogiemen help deflect attention from this element of the argument.
The country is ruined for non owners and it will never get better. The only options left are moving to the prairies or living in a neo-feudal shithole. This is only being introduced so they can officially give up after pretending to fix anything. Quality of life has almost nothing to do with income anymore so it’s impossible to work for a better future. Being born 5 years later is the difference between tax free, 6 f…
I'm a homeowner in Toronto and I don't think this will help. They've eliminated a small number of buyers from the market but have added other incentives like a first home buyers tax credit that will only fuel the fire - Australia tried this with tragic results. >> working with provinces and territories to develop and implement a Home Buyers’ Bill of Rights and bring forward a national plan to end blind bidding. Blind…
Australian living in Canada here - unsure what the tragic results were? It’s helped a number of my friends buy their first home - with a small (~$10k) credit /reduced stamp duties and taxes on the first home owned and lived in (ie not an investment). Negative gearing has been far more impactful in increasing the cost of housing, with people buying multiple homes for investment purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be that there is a sufficient amount of housing (built or being built), but that it is often not occupied on account of just being an asset in a wealthy person’s portfolio. In this case it could be seen as wasteful to build more, and too much of an oversupply could lead to an economic collapse if it’s on a big enough scale. The other possibility is that they are building more homes, and want them to be purch…
>> being an asset in a wealthy person’s portfolio Why wouldn't that wealthy person rent the property out and get better ROI? Keeping it empty does not make sense to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could a better thought out measure achieve the same goals? How would you do it? I feel a strong tax on houses you don't personally live in (because you rent them or because you're a company) could be efficient, but I'd love to hear other people's take on the subject.
The sale of investment properties is already subject to capital gains tax.
Here the feds want to be seen as doing something, but have little actual power so this is a good way to say the did something. Ontario is ruled by a conservative government that's up for reelection this summer. There was a big housing affordability task force that recommended building more houses (shocking!). The government will not be implementing any of its substantial recommendations, but will fiddle around and say they're "cutting red tape". Municipal governments like Toronto are obsessed with controlling development, from suburban conservative councillors trying to outlaw rooming houses, to downtown progressives decrying gentrification. Any correction will come despite all these efforts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it increases the risk of default. I say "banks hate this" as unsubtle shorthand here. Obviously they don't hate it enough to refuse people additional mortgages (it's all secured by tangible assets at the end of the day) but they certainly aren't as happy about it as if people had a 20% downpayment in cash rather than pulling it from a line of credit.
> Because it increases the risk of default. For who? Banks don’t hold mortgages on their books, they sell them to investors. I don’t think you understand how modern finance works.
We need this so bad in the Netherlands right now! Listing price of a house in Amsterdam 525K, bidding price 641K, someone else with 660K comes and takes it away. Cries in pain after 10th bidding war lost :(
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 g…