Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

Post by toyg » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 1:12 AM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #449

brc wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even worse in Australia, which most properties do not have a yearly property tax. So you pay a 'stamp duty' when you purchase the property, based on a % of the sale price. This means you have people living in Sydney with multi-million dollar properties - which are just modest houses in now-desirable suburbs - who haven't paid any property tax since the 60's, and who can't move anywhere because they'd be up for s…

> This means you have people living in Sydney with multi-million dollar properties - which are just modest houses in now-desirable suburbs - who haven't paid any property tax since the 60's, and who can't move anywhere because they'd be up for so much stamp duty in one hit (easily 50-100k). I don't understand. When you're making millions on the sale of the property, how is 100k in stamp duty a problem? It's on the sa…

Post by vkou » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 1:13 AM UTC

CountSessine wrote: post #402

brc wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even worse in Australia, which most properties do not have a yearly property tax. So you pay a 'stamp duty' when you purchase the property, based on a % of the sale price. This means you have people living in Sydney with multi-million dollar properties - which are just modest houses in now-desirable suburbs - who haven't paid any property tax since the 60's, and who can't move anywhere because they'd be up for s…

And yet if you ask the average person in the street, they will blame 'interest rates' or 'Chinese buyers', and not once look at the ridiculous blockage on supply. I think that this is the other dimension to the Vancouver housing problem that no one is talking about yet. Vancouver is separated from the rest of the province by the Fraser river to the south-east, and regional development policy for about 30 years has be…

Post by JoshTriplett » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 1:18 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #451

JoshTriplett wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like an excellent argument for getting rid of property taxes altogether. Property taxes have some major fundamental problems, not least of which that using them to pay for local services tends to make such services better in more affluent areas and worse in less affluent areas. They produce potentially unbounded and unexpected expenses long after paying off the house itself (which impacts retirees and oth…

You are proposing to remove taxation on a bull market (property)? This would inflate prices even more, as investors make a run for nice tax-free properties. It doesn't make sense, sorry. You need to remove incentives to invest in property altogether . It's one of the worst and most unproductive markets, and not even a market in practice because everyone needs a home. My personal pope-emperor utopia would forbid compa…

Post by DrScump » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 1:30 AM UTC

klipt wrote: post #431

Agustus wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a fair assessment of the situation. There are a number of factors that have been put in place by the populace and government agencies to force this situation in the bay area: 1. Rent Control: This forces an incentive not to move. If you are in the 4-bedroom house at $1,500 a month for the past 15 years, a comparable 4-bedroom house is now $6,000. There is no incentive to move and owner's have little incen…

If you think of the government as the "ultimate landlord", then property tax is just another form of rent and Prop 13 is just another form of rent control . It has most of the same positives and negatives as rent control: > forces an incentive not to move Check, if you move your property tax will go up > and owner's have little incentive to bring up to standard something they are not going to get an ROI on Check, the…

Post by DrScump » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 1:34 AM UTC

shostack wrote: post #457

ScottBurson wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prop 13 has nothing to do with real estate price inflation. Yes, it does, because it incentivizes municipalities to encourage commercial development (which tends to change hands more often) over residential. It's a classic unintended consequence.

Corporations have been dodging taxes via Prop 13 for some time to the tune of potentially a $9 BILLION dollar windfall should they close some of those loopholes. I've heard of things like companies buying businesses outright so they can get the property, without buying the property as a transaction with the other entity. [1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert...