3 ms·

Didn't Vancouver have to slap a big tax on non-domestic property sales because of something similar to this? Also I've heard ~20% of the BA real estate market

Didn't Vancouver have to slap a big tax on non-domestic property sales because of something similar to this? Also I've heard ~20% of the BA real estate market is overseas buyers parking cash, was in a report recently.

msie 8y ago
It's all hypothetical. The provincial and municipal govt had to do something because of public panic due to the media. All of the stuff I've read and heard is conjecture. Quite a tragedy.
- eps 8y ago
  Half of flats in highrises never showing any lights at night is also a pure conjecture. Hypothetical my ass.
  - mcny 8y ago
    I keep saying: 1. The land tax or property tax on everyone (so there is no need to determine occupancy) 2. Use the money for essential services like garbage and infrastructure like subways, roads, and fiber optic cable. This makes sense to me because I think it is not realistic for a government agency to accurately determine which units are unoccupied. It is much easier to raise taxes on everyone and make the market unsustainable for anyone who isn't using the real estate productively. Of course, the other side of this is reducing waste in government spending but that's a topic for another day.
    - extra88 8y ago
      > make the market unsustainable for anyone who isn't using the real estate productively That only works if the purchases are actually an investment. When real estate is a form of money laundering, you expect to lose a portion of the value to the process of making dirty money clean. Also, a portion of the purchases are by people, say from China, who just want to park their money some place in a form where it can't be seized by the government, losing some of its value is again okay. A tax high enough to change these behaviors is unsustainable if applied equally to everyone and all properties.
      - mcny 8y ago
        > That only works if the purchases are actually an investment. When real estate is a form of money laundering, you expect to lose a portion of the value to the process of making dirty money clean. Also, a portion of the purchases are by people, say from China, who just want to park their money some place in a form where it can't be seized by the government, losing some of its value is again okay. This is the beauty of taxation. It is an ongoing commitment. We can use it to our advantage. Even bumping taxes to something like 5% of value should wreak havoc (in a good way) to the market. > A tax high enough to change these behaviors is unsustainable if applied equally to everyone and all properties. Assuming the retail market cost is as much as people can afford (that's the entire point, right? people can't afford any higher rent?), there is no slack which means the people in the middle have to absorb the extra cost without passing it on. At least that is my naive position until proven otherwise.

msie 8y ago

It's all hypothetical. The provincial and municipal govt had to do something because of public panic due to the media. All of the stuff I've read and heard is conjecture. Quite a tragedy.

eps 8y ago
Half of flats in highrises never showing any lights at night is also a pure conjecture. Hypothetical my ass.
- mcny 8y ago
  I keep saying: 1. The land tax or property tax on everyone (so there is no need to determine occupancy) 2. Use the money for essential services like garbage and infrastructure like subways, roads, and fiber optic cable. This makes sense to me because I think it is not realistic for a government agency to accurately determine which units are unoccupied. It is much easier to raise taxes on everyone and make the market unsustainable for anyone who isn't using the real estate productively. Of course, the other side of this is reducing waste in government spending but that's a topic for another day.
  - extra88 8y ago
    > make the market unsustainable for anyone who isn't using the real estate productively That only works if the purchases are actually an investment. When real estate is a form of money laundering, you expect to lose a portion of the value to the process of making dirty money clean. Also, a portion of the purchases are by people, say from China, who just want to park their money some place in a form where it can't be seized by the government, losing some of its value is again okay. A tax high enough to change these behaviors is unsustainable if applied equally to everyone and all properties.
    - mcny 8y ago
      > That only works if the purchases are actually an investment. When real estate is a form of money laundering, you expect to lose a portion of the value to the process of making dirty money clean. Also, a portion of the purchases are by people, say from China, who just want to park their money some place in a form where it can't be seized by the government, losing some of its value is again okay. This is the beauty of taxation. It is an ongoing commitment. We can use it to our advantage. Even bumping taxes to something like 5% of value should wreak havoc (in a good way) to the market. > A tax high enough to change these behaviors is unsustainable if applied equally to everyone and all properties. Assuming the retail market cost is as much as people can afford (that's the entire point, right? people can't afford any higher rent?), there is no slack which means the people in the middle have to absorb the extra cost without passing it on. At least that is my naive position until proven otherwise.