6 ms·

> The tax applies to anyone who isn’t a citizen or permanent resident of Canada and purchases a home in metro Vancouver. I feel they could simply apply the sam

by vmarsy 9y ago

> The tax applies to anyone who isn’t a citizen or permanent resident of Canada and purchases a home in metro Vancouver. I feel they could simply apply the same tax to non US citizens/permanent residents trying to purchase a home in the Seattle area. The idea of a vacancy tax seems hard to apply while respecting people privacy. If the owner is a non citizen who doesn't live in the US, you can use immigration records to know of his presence, and they he/she can show rent documents to prove if the house was occupied. But this looks like it would be hard to enforce. It's interesting to see how other cities are tackling the issue, Paris bumping up the tax to 60% of the fair market value of rent for instance : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-07/vacant-homes-are-global-epidemic-and-paris-fighting-it-60-tax http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-07/vacant-homes-are-gl... This lost also shows that while Vancouver is high on the list, San Francisco and NYC are higher.

uiri 9y ago
non US citizens/permanent residents Why not just apply to it to non-resident aliens (a federal income tax status) rather than to people who aren't US citizens or permanent residents (which is related to nationality/immigration status). All US citizens are tax resident. All permanent residents are resident aliens. However, by defining things this way, you are excluding people who are living in the US on a temporary work visa (e.g. H-1B, TN, L-1, etc.) and other temporary residents who are, nonetheless, very much resident in the US, in that they spend over 183 days in a year (or more than 4 months per year averaged over 3 years; the rules are kind of complicated) in the US.
- vmarsy 9y ago
  Yeah, it could make sense apply it to only "non resident for tax purposes" (i.e. People filling a 1040NR) As other comments mentioned, a tax like this should also affect rich citizens who similarly contribute to vacant houses, so to actually solve the problem I guess it should affect all property owners
geppeto 9y ago
I don't think the US constitution would allow for that tax, written that way anyway. To pass a court challenge, the laws as written and the discussions around them have to apply to everyone otherwise it would be too discriminatory (5th amendment equal liberty clause, & 14th amendment equal protection clause). Maybe you could write it as all homebuyers in that jurisdiction being subject to the tax, and then its tiered for certain variables.
- sytelus 9y ago
  Protection under US laws to non-citizens including 5th amendment applies only if you are physically on US soil (excluding space before immigration at port of entry). So if you are non-citizen US house owner living in foreign country, it would be tricky to file lawsuit seeking such protection.
  - geppeto 9y ago
    Tricky to win, but this would be more like a global sanction than a tax, semantics at this point I think we could accomplish it but not at a local or state level
thegayngler 9y ago
I thought about the tax angle. However, these people have plenty of cash. So I'm not convinced taxes are as big a deterrent as people make it seem.
eikenberry 9y ago
Instead of a vacancy tax you have a homestead exemption. If you live in your home, you get a tax exception. So instead of having to find the vacancies, people who are residents will sign up for the exemption. Same effect.
krrrh 9y ago
> The idea of a vacancy tax seems hard to apply while respecting people privacy. There is support growing in Vancouver for a surtax based on property value that would be offset by income taxes, and wouldn't apply to those who are retired or on disability [1]. This would be collected from both foreigners who are underreporting their income as well as the idle rich, while also putting additional pressure on those leaving homes vacant to rent. The idea is to renew the social contract, so that those who are working and contributing to the economy can enjoy the benefits of reasonably affordable housing. [1] http://www.housingaffordability.org/faqs.html http://www.housingaffordability.org/faqs.html
malandrew 9y ago
Actually, it should be pretty easy to monitor without invading privacy much: just monitor water usage. If water is being used, its occupied. To combat fraud from people faking it by wasting water, just check water usage patterns. The rise of the smart home could give homeowners away to fake it, but that's a problem that can be addressed if and when thinks escalate to that point.

by vmarsy 9y ago

uiri 9y ago

non US citizens/permanent residents Why not just apply to it to non-resident aliens (a federal income tax status) rather than to people who aren't US citizens or permanent residents (which is related to nationality/immigration status). All US citizens are tax resident. All permanent residents are resident aliens. However, by defining things this way, you are excluding people who are living in the US on a temporary work visa (e.g. H-1B, TN, L-1, etc.) and other temporary residents who are, nonetheless, very much resident in the US, in that they spend over 183 days in a year (or more than 4 months per year averaged over 3 years; the rules are kind of complicated) in the US.

vmarsy 9y ago
Yeah, it could make sense apply it to only "non resident for tax purposes" (i.e. People filling a 1040NR) As other comments mentioned, a tax like this should also affect rich citizens who similarly contribute to vacant houses, so to actually solve the problem I guess it should affect all property owners

geppeto 9y ago

I don't think the US constitution would allow for that tax, written that way anyway. To pass a court challenge, the laws as written and the discussions around them have to apply to everyone otherwise it would be too discriminatory (5th amendment equal liberty clause, & 14th amendment equal protection clause). Maybe you could write it as all homebuyers in that jurisdiction being subject to the tax, and then its tiered for certain variables.

sytelus 9y ago
Protection under US laws to non-citizens including 5th amendment applies only if you are physically on US soil (excluding space before immigration at port of entry). So if you are non-citizen US house owner living in foreign country, it would be tricky to file lawsuit seeking such protection.
- geppeto 9y ago
  Tricky to win, but this would be more like a global sanction than a tax, semantics at this point I think we could accomplish it but not at a local or state level

thegayngler 9y ago

I thought about the tax angle. However, these people have plenty of cash. So I'm not convinced taxes are as big a deterrent as people make it seem.

eikenberry 9y ago

Instead of a vacancy tax you have a homestead exemption. If you live in your home, you get a tax exception. So instead of having to find the vacancies, people who are residents will sign up for the exemption. Same effect.

krrrh 9y ago

> The idea of a vacancy tax seems hard to apply while respecting people privacy. There is support growing in Vancouver for a surtax based on property value that would be offset by income taxes, and wouldn't apply to those who are retired or on disability [1]. This would be collected from both foreigners who are underreporting their income as well as the idle rich, while also putting additional pressure on those leaving homes vacant to rent. The idea is to renew the social contract, so that those who are working and contributing to the economy can enjoy the benefits of reasonably affordable housing. [1] http://www.housingaffordability.org/faqs.html http://www.housingaffordability.org/faqs.html

malandrew 9y ago

Actually, it should be pretty easy to monitor without invading privacy much: just monitor water usage. If water is being used, its occupied. To combat fraud from people faking it by wasting water, just check water usage patterns. The rise of the smart home could give homeowners away to fake it, but that's a problem that can be addressed if and when thinks escalate to that point.