Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spain proposes 100% tax on homes bought by non-EU residents

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 282 posts

Re: Spain proposes 100% tax on homes bought by non-EU residents

#181

Post by throwaway4aday »

louison11 wrote: post #158
delroth wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does allowing *non-residents* to buy real estate help in attracting foreigners and cultivate growth?

Money invested from abroad is money coming inside the economy - whether the person lives there or not. That money goes to the seller, who'll then get taxed on it, spend it somewhere else... Or that money could be used, as I said, to build new buildings and rehabilitate old ones, thus creating jobs in the process. If the system was well set up for it, foreigners investing in a country is usually a good thing. The US i…

Worked great for Vancouver /s

Re: Spain proposes 100% tax on homes bought by non-EU residents

#182

Post by JumpCrisscross »

klipt wrote: post #179
WorkerBee28474 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that argument assumes you can only blame 1 thing at a time. Even if the bureaucracy is the worst offender, every foreigner buying a house still results in 1 less house for Spaniards. Sure, fix bureaucracy, but don't pretend foreign purchases have zero effect.

You could also argue that every Spaniard moving from the countryside to the cities takes away houses from Spaniards born in the cities. Seems like an argument for internal visas like China's household registration system to prevent excessive migration to the cities. The countryside is mostly emptying out so no need to prevent people moving or buying there.

> Seems like an argument for internal visas like China's household registration system to prevent excessive migration to the cities

With the big difference being the Chinese citizen being denied Beijing hukou is still a Chinese citizen. Madrid should properly first concern itself with Spaniards' wellbeing. (This isn't an argument for or against this policy. Just clarifying why restricting non-EU home purchases is different from hukou.)

Re: Spain proposes 100% tax on homes bought by non-EU residents

#183

Post by Teever »

klipt wrote: post #179
WorkerBee28474 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that argument assumes you can only blame 1 thing at a time. Even if the bureaucracy is the worst offender, every foreigner buying a house still results in 1 less house for Spaniards. Sure, fix bureaucracy, but don't pretend foreign purchases have zero effect.

You could also argue that every Spaniard moving from the countryside to the cities takes away houses from Spaniards born in the cities. Seems like an argument for internal visas like China's household registration system to prevent excessive migration to the cities. The countryside is mostly emptying out so no need to prevent people moving or buying there.

That comparison make sense in a world where the well being of a nation's citizens wasn't the priority of a nation.

However we live in a world where that isn't the case so a nation deciding to restrict immigration or economic activity by foreigners for the benefit of the domestic population is an acceptable position to take -- provided it actually have that desired outcome.

Re: Spain proposes 100% tax on homes bought by non-EU residents

#184

Post by iforgot22 »

epicureanideal wrote: post #171
iforgot22 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason gold increases in $ value just by existing or people passively invest in S&P500. New money is created and it has to settle somewhere. There's plenty of cheap land or land that barely moves in value, but the desirable spots in cities are limited, so that's a natural place to invest.

Limited yes, but limited by regulation more than anything else. Within a 30 minute drive of SF there are hundreds of square miles to develop on. Pick a dozen at random and build residential skyscrapers. Problem solved.

That's pretty much what they're doing. But the apartment that probably requires driving 30 minutes (or 1.5hr train) to work is worth a lot less than something in SF.

Edit: SF itself does have strict zoning. But even if everyone there wanted max density, so they tore everything down and built skyscrapers instead (ignoring the soil problem there), it's a fixed supply of land.

Re: Spain proposes 100% tax on homes bought by non-EU residents

#186

Post by JumpCrisscross »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #181
louison11 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money invested from abroad is money coming inside the economy - whether the person lives there or not. That money goes to the seller, who'll then get taxed on it, spend it somewhere else... Or that money could be used, as I said, to build new buildings and rehabilitate old ones, thus creating jobs in the process. If the system was well set up for it, foreigners investing in a country is usually a good thing. The US i…

Worked great for Vancouver /s

To be fair, you're referring to one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in Canada [1]. (It also has a massive affordability crisis despite a ban on non-student foreigners buying expensive real estate.)

[1] https://www.katrinaandtheteam.com/blog/vancouver-bc-economy/

Re: Spain proposes 100% tax on homes bought by non-EU residents

#187

Post by kleinsch »

behnamoh wrote: post #63
jedberg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you calculate the unimproved land value? This is an interesting question with the fires in LA right now. Is the land still as valuable as it was before the house burned down, minus the rebuild cost of the house? Or is the value intrinsically tied to the community that was there but no longer is? Or is the value actually higher now that a developer can come in and remake an entire neighborhood?

Interesting game theory situation: - if land value depends on the community that was there, then owners would all have incentive to rebuild their burnt down houses to regain the values. - but owners probably realize most owners will sell their property as soon as things are back to normal. that would reduce the value of surrounding houses. - so owners will rebuild as fast as possible, probably cutting lots of corners…

Disagree with logic that most will sell. Many people will incur high tax bills (if the property appreciated) or transaction costs to move. People who bought in the 2010s have mortgage rates that don’t exist anymore. Many had a reason to live in the area to begin with.

- Many will rebuild to move back

- Some will sell their lots to investors

- Some will rebuild using insurance money to flip upon completion

Re: Spain proposes 100% tax on homes bought by non-EU residents

#188

Post by nradov »

defrost wrote: post #140
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't hire a nominee director? Yes, you can, and it's very common. Couple hundred euros in Cyprus [1]. [1] https://blog.wamo.io/how-much-does-it-cost-to-open-a-company...

Yep. I've a longterm "internet friend" and Cyprus resident/native who has been grumbling about this for two decades now, his principal complaint is the sheer number of Russians back dooring their way into becoming an EU company via Cyprus and screwing up the cost of living, housing, etc for the locals who suffer from the pressure of rich transients who do little for the community. A common enough templte compliant th…

As a bloc, the EU should be encouraging Russians to move assets out of Russia because this reduces the tax base for the Putin regime. Do everything possible to destroy the Russian economy. Of course, this can have disruptive effects in some local areas like Cyprus.

Re: Spain proposes 100% tax on homes bought by non-EU residents

#189

Post by epicureanideal »

iforgot22 wrote: post #184
epicureanideal wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limited yes, but limited by regulation more than anything else. Within a 30 minute drive of SF there are hundreds of square miles to develop on. Pick a dozen at random and build residential skyscrapers. Problem solved.

That's pretty much what they're doing. But the apartment that probably requires driving 30 minutes (or 1.5hr train) to work is worth a lot less than something in SF. Edit: SF itself does have strict zoning. But even if everyone there wanted max density, so they tore everything down and built skyscrapers instead (ignoring the soil problem there), it's a fixed supply of land.

Yeah I’m seeing some of the development but it’s mostly 5 story rather than 50, and very small total area compared to what would be possible.

The apartments are still quite expensive even an hour’s train ride away.

Post reply on HN