There are many points where I disagree, and I wrote several but prefer to keep it short. This is a tax to gather funds, and the housing situation is a collater

There are many points where I disagree, and I wrote several but prefer to keep it short. This is a tax to gather funds, and the housing situation is a collateral. This tax revenue is not going to be used towards any cause, let alone efficiently, to reduce the housing problem. If this tax is levied, and then economists see that it is ineffectual to housing, or even makes it worse, but the tax does produce revenue, it will not be reversed. If the housing situation improves in the future either because of this tax, or because of market conditions (like more dwelling units being built, or change in global trends of property) this tax will not be removed. This extra tax revenue does not come with a reduction of taxes in other areas.(it is not a shift of the tax burden, its an increase). A short list to at least question the intentions and effects of such policy: 1) There is an ill-shaped enemy that must pay (Rich foreigners) 2) It uses a justification that applies to many other use cases but its only applied here (we can decide to tax you on what you do with your property, and the only one we do right now is to you X group, because you do Y.) 3) It doesnt represent an understanding or a solution to the underlying problem.