4 ms·
This used to be my position as a committed (or idealistic, young) libertarian, but, following the principle that you should be able to do anything so long as it
by crdb 10y ago
This used to be my position as a committed (or idealistic, young) libertarian, but, following the principle that you should be able to do anything so long as it does not infringe another individual's rights:
- there is such a thing as the commons;
- there is a cost to the government to protect your rights which is much higher for land than "virtual" assets and the cost to investors ought to reflect it.
Commons: I like that Singapore, for example, is taxing drivers around $90,000 per 10 years for the privilege of riding a car. The air is much cleaner and streets freer of traffic. Both of these were damaged by too many car owners. Similarly, the supply of land is limited whilst population can grow ad infinitum, creating ever upwards pressure on land prices.
Cost: in terms of individual rights, the army, police and justice defend your right to own that land free of damage, spurious lawsuits to drain your resources, land grabs by powerful men, and foreign invasion forces. This forms the basis of modern society and the implementation of your individual rights. The cost is proportional to land area but not as strongly correlated with company size in the equity case (you might have a few more problems but not proportionally to market capitalisation, and they involve court cases rather than policing, with most of the high costs - lawyers - born by private parties).
In theory, any land owners ought to be taxed, however, I make an exception for one's primary home (tax residence) considering that all citizen are naturally short housing (they need a place to live) and buying a home puts them in a housing neutral position and also has many positive effects on the commons (people are more invested in the future of their country if they own their home, less likely to move somewhere else, etc.).
Vancouver is a great example of citizen who have created ideal conditions for home ownership by participating in building a peaceful, prosperous economy which respects individual rights. Foreigners have accordingly swarmed to take advantage of the fact they were not charged for the benefits arising from ownership.
This has caused citizen - beyond the first generation of land owners - to be penalised for having built their own country up, as they end up unable to afford to live in it, burning up valuable income into paying high rents and house prices. A tax - which should offset what Canadians would pay elsewhere on productive activities, like income - is one of the best way to correct this imbalance, by charging the cost of enforcing individual rights to those who benefit from it.
- mistermann 10y agoVery well said, I wonder if a well fleshed out argument along these lines would help to persuade the portion of the population that "doesn't get" (aka those who already own real estate) why we should tax foreigners.
- Pxtl 10y agoWe don't need to "tax foreigners". If it was Toronto Bay Street investors or Albertan oil millionaires, the problem would be similar (smaller, of course, because there just aren't as many of them as there are wealthy Chinese scions). To me the correct approach is to simply shift the tax burden higher onto investment properties, and expand the definition of "investment property" to include homes owned and occupied by able-bodied people who don't work for a living and never earned the kind of money that would be needed to afford such a home. If you don't pay and never paid income tax, you don't need the tax exemptions that are given to homeowners.
- Kadin 10y ago> to include homes owned and occupied by able-bodied people who don't work for a living and never earned the kind of money that would be needed to afford such a home. That sort of means testing isn't required (and would be open to system-gaming / perverse incentive creation anyway). You just apply capital gains tax to all properties with the exception of one primary residence per person, and you could even cap the primary-residence exemption at the median value of a home in a particular area. So if you own property and rent it out rather than living there yourself, it gets taxed as an investment, period. So that this cost isn't just passed on to renters, you should make the rental payments for your primary residence tax deductible, again perhaps capped at a median level so as not to perversely encourage higher rents. I think you could construct a tax regime that was revenue neutral pretty easily this way.
- Pxtl 10y agoPeople are already gaming the principal residence exemption by loaning the money unemployed friends and family "students" who actually buy the homes and claim them as principal residences. That's why the principal residence exemption should be means-tested by income-tax, imho. If you do not and have not paid any income tax in Canada, then your property is really a de-facto investment property or a vacation home and it does not need a subsidy.