3 ms·

Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? The "foreigner exclusion" sounds like fighting a symptom. Simply require proof of residency in the property (or an a

by ethbro 10y ago

Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? The "foreigner exclusion" sounds like fighting a symptom. Simply require proof of residency in the property (or an active lease agreement / market listing) to qualify for a tax break. Otherwise, if you're parking-and-holding-without-using, you get slapped with a higher tax rate.

aianus 10y ago
> Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? That would be much more difficult to enforce. You'd have to hire people to walk around knocking on doors or have neighbours snitching on each other. No thanks.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
Something like this was suggested by economists at the local university. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-professors-call-for-property-surtax-on-vacant-vancouver-housing/article28235302/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-prof... The Mayor of Vancouver is also interested in taxing non-occupancy and in the same special session of the legislative assembly that passed the 15% foreign buyer tax the Province granted the City of Vancouver (but not others) the powers to tax non-occupancy. It can be pretty involved to find out occupancy and the City has limited means so it'll be interesting to see if that goes anywhere.
acomjean 10y ago
Cambridge MA, has a resident tax abatement program. It hasn't seemed to help much as we are starting to see foreign all cash sales...
- didgeoridoo 10y ago
  Starting? It's been rampant for well over a year. We opted out of the whole mess and moved to Salem. $200/sqft for a beautiful historic mansion in an eminently walkable small city that's a quick train ride from North Station. Don't fight it. Just bail.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
>Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? The "foreigner exclusion" sounds like fighting a symptom. The cynical answer to this by the way is that there's a Provincial election in early 2017, so in the near term appearing to address the problem is more important than addressing the problem in an effective way.

by ethbro 10y ago

aianus 10y ago

> Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? That would be much more difficult to enforce. You'd have to hire people to walk around knocking on doors or have neighbours snitching on each other. No thanks.

Tiktaalik 10y ago

Something like this was suggested by economists at the local university. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-professors-call-for-property-surtax-on-vacant-vancouver-housing/article28235302/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-prof... The Mayor of Vancouver is also interested in taxing non-occupancy and in the same special session of the legislative assembly that passed the 15% foreign buyer tax the Province granted the City of Vancouver (but not others) the powers to tax non-occupancy. It can be pretty involved to find out occupancy and the City has limited means so it'll be interesting to see if that goes anywhere.

acomjean 10y ago

Cambridge MA, has a resident tax abatement program. It hasn't seemed to help much as we are starting to see foreign all cash sales...

didgeoridoo 10y ago
Starting? It's been rampant for well over a year. We opted out of the whole mess and moved to Salem. $200/sqft for a beautiful historic mansion in an eminently walkable small city that's a quick train ride from North Station. Don't fight it. Just bail.

Tiktaalik 10y ago

>Is there a reason they didn't tax non-use? The "foreigner exclusion" sounds like fighting a symptom. The cynical answer to this by the way is that there's a Provincial election in early 2017, so in the near term appearing to address the problem is more important than addressing the problem in an effective way.