3 ms·
Which is actually nice for the US, since Chinese buyers can't pick up a piece of real estate and bring it back home with them, and the ownership obligates them
by bkeroack 11y ago
Which is actually nice for the US, since Chinese buyers can't pick up a piece of real estate and bring it back home with them, and the ownership obligates them to pay taxes, etc.
It hurts the domestic home buyer, though, who has to compete with inflated all-cash offers from these foreign investors.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThis: > It hurts the domestic home buyer, though, who has to compete with inflated all-cash offers from these foreign investors. is much more hurtful then the benefits provided by foreign buyers paying taxes. If you don't believe me, look at London. Actual workers are pushed out by money launderers (yes, that is what they are).
- ebiester 11y agoThe big difference between the US and GB is how much more land there is in the US. We can always build a new city.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoIts not where the land is. Its where the jobs are. Is everyone going to live in a tiny house in BFE Texas?
- zaccus 11y agoThis wouldn't be as much of an issue if more companies embraced working remotely.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoCompletely agree. It'll happen slowly. You already can see more companies willing to hire remote so you're not limited to candidates that fit your requirements within 0-50 miles of your office.
- EliRivers 11y agoGB is less than 10% urban. A lot less. You could build another city the size of Birmingham in GB and not notice. The problem GB has with land isn't not having enough; it's a regulatory problem of planning permission and associated issues.
- ConfuciusSay 11y ago"the ownership obligates them to pay taxes" In theory you're right, and they often do pay taxes, but there are many schemes where the foreign investors pay zero taxes. There's no incentive on the industry's part to showcase or investigate to what extent this occurs, but we know it's pretty prevalent.