5 ms·
Overall I think these ideas are super interesting and may be good in the long run. But I'm also curious about what the unintended consequences will end up being
by obstinate 10y ago
Overall I think these ideas are super interesting and may be good in the long run. But I'm also curious about what the unintended consequences will end up being.
- beambot 10y agoCare to speculate? Besides, if there are unintended consequences, the laws can be changed...
- tikhonj 10y agoTax laws are hard to change. Prop 13 sure had unintended consequences...
- obstinate 10y agoHrm . . . I guess I'm struggling to think of a good reason to keep a house empty for a year. Presumably there is a remodeling exception . . . The only thing I can really think of is that it might force people to divest in a very down market where it is difficult to find renters, but it doesn't seem like a huge tragedy for people who have at least two dwellings to be forced to sell one of them or else eat losses.
- mappu 10y agoLeaving the property empty can be worthwhile if you make more from the capital-gains than you would from {rental income, minus repairing problems caused by the tenants, minus maintenance, minus property management fees, minus income tax}.
- adrienne 10y agoYes but the whole point is that that's only "worthwhile" for you, and it contributes to fucking everyone else in the housing market over.
- s0rce 10y agoDon't you make the same gains on the property regardless of if its rented or not? You might not need the money from renting it but its still going to be more money above the gains from appreciation...
- aianus 10y agoYou can't time the market and sell the house if there's a tenant living in it. (I'm guessing that's the thought process)
- aorloff 10y agoI would imagine that one unintended consequence is that very few homes (read: zero) actually sit empty for a whole year. In fact, I would imagine there's a local property manager right now offering to rent your house out with "very light use" for exactly 31 days every 6 months while offering "maintenance services."
- kgwgk 10y agoI think the idea is that it cannot be empty more than six month out of twelve, not that ot cannot be empty more than six months in a row.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y agoUntil I see actual statistics about empty houses, I consider this policy as a useful empty gesture. It's an opportunity for politicians to pretend that they are doing something about housing prices, while avoiding actually doing anything, and hence avoiding the unintended consequences.
- Tiktaalik 10y agoThere have been a number of studies using a variety of methodologies. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouvers-empty-home-rates-have-almost-doubled-since-2001/article32530286/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouv...
- jchrisa 10y agoIf I did the math right, there are 50 empty dwellings in England for every person sleeping on the streets. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/27/squatters-open-oligarchs-empty-london-property-as-homeless-shelter https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/27/squatters-op...
- omegaham 10y agoThe article looks at one empty building in London, but how many dwellings are in decent areas versus shitholes / the middle of nowhere? I doubt that all of them are Russian oligarch money havens. We can play similar games in the US with abandoned houses - there are probably enough abandoned homes in Gary, Indiana to house the entire US' homeless population. Said homes, unfortunately, happen to be in Gary. I don't know enough about England towns and cities to make a judgment, but it looks like The Guardian got their data from here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tab...
- ptero 10y agoI agree the ideas are interesting, but I wonder how easy it is to detect that the house is empty (and who has the burden of proof). Unless there are some pretty draconian / invasive inspections I wonder if the law has any teeth. Not a criticism of the root comment, just curious.
- awqrre 10y agoLooking at the power consumption should be enough in most cases unless they generate their own electricity which should also be easy to figure out... from my home I can wirelessly read the power meters of about 30 of my neighbors (updated every 1 to 5 minutes) using a cheap rtl-sdr and a raspberry-pi (I probably could do better if I placed the antenna outside of my house or if I optimized the antenna for the frequency)
- MarkMc 10y agoThen I can avoid the tax by using a timer device to switch the lights on and off
- krrrh 10y agoCheck out this proposal for a surtax which more targets the issue from a different direction, with a more simple implementation than foreign buyer or vacancy taxes. > One example is the Immigrant Investor program, where those wishing to immigrate would make an interest-free loan to government of $400,000 in exchange for landed immigrant status. UBC geographer David Ley has shown that investor immigrants in the Vancouver region represent nearly 10 per cent of the Vancouver region’s population. That population paid, on average, $1,400 in income tax 10 years after immigrating. This is less than refugees. > … > A property surtax is an elegant and legally safer way to reduce foreign capital flows into Canada’s cities than the new foreign buyer’s tax. A one per cent surtax would work like this: if you own a $1 million house, you will receive a surtax bill for $10,000. If you have already paid equivalent income tax, are on a disability pension, or if you are a retiree on CPP, the tax is a full deduction—you’ve already paid, thanks. http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/a-roadmap-for-bringing-sanity-back-to-housing-markets/ http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/a-roadmap-fo...
- geoka9 10y ago> That population paid, on average, $1,400 in income tax 10 years after immigrating. How's that possible - do they all become non-resident after receiving their passports?
- Kluny 10y agoCapital gains tax in Canada is ludicrously low, also the richer you are the more tax loopholes you can afford to find out about.
- geoka9 10y agoI wouldn't say it's ludicrously low - it's still half of income tax, which itself can be pretty high for people who make a lot.
- wattt 10y agoKeep in mind if you get capital gains you pay tax twice to both governments. You make it sound like it is a huge deal but factor in the increased accounting costs and in most cases the advantage isn't that great at all.