3 ms·

The advantage of course is capital flowing to the country: someone sold that house and now owns currency that was introduced from outside the system Assuming i

The advantage of course is capital flowing to the country: someone sold that house and now owns currency that was introduced from outside the system Assuming it was true that this is such a net positive benefit to a city, it sounds like it stops working very quickly. The second sell on the property is now a foreigner to either a city local, which would siphon the money out of the city, or from a foreigner to another. So this would only work to increase the city's cash flow temporarily, or in the case where the property depreciate and the foreigner incurs a less.

toyg 9y ago
If the problem is (reportedly) that foreigners hold too much property, it means the money entered the system and remained there, so the bonus has become permanent (one-off, yes, but permanent). You also assume a foreigner selling property will move the money out of the country, which is actually unlikely - if he's done good business, chances are that he'll reinvest in the same market, so the money again stays in the system; and if he's done bad business then the locals effectively skinned him, which is again a bonus. Plus, every transaction is typically taxed, so even just an increased amount of activity is a bonus for the system. As long as authorities crack down on loopholes (like foreigners buying property through a fake company, and then selling the company to avoid real estate tax over property sales; or keeping properties empty for an unreasonable amount of time in the face of housing shortages), it's a net positive.