3 ms·

Investors from overseas can fuck off and buy something else. People who live in a city need housing, and it is completely within the rights of the city to restr

Investors from overseas can fuck off and buy something else. People who live in a city need housing, and it is completely within the rights of the city to restrict housing purchases to those who live there, or at least heavily dis incentivize it. Seriously, "xenophobia towards investors" strikes me a bit like the Silicon Valley bit about comparing the plight of Billionaires to enemies of the third reich.

slg 6y ago
>Investors from overseas can fuck off and buy something else. People who live in a city need housing, and it is completely within the rights of the city to restrict housing purchases to those who live there, or at least heavily dis incentivize it. You completely ignored the point I made. How is an investor from China buying real estate in Vancouver purely for investment purposes with no intention of having anyone live there any different than someone from Toronto doing it? Why is the former punished harsher than the latter?
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  The farther away the investor, the less stake they have in local success. In-country folks will be paying more taxes in-country, which affects things like social programs, infrastructure, and defense that contribute to a region.
  - slg 6y ago
    But those people in country would be paying national taxes either way. It isn't like if Vancouver stops a rich person from Toronto investing in real estate that this person will leave their millions of dollars in a checking account instead. They will find some other way to invest their money. If you are solely worried about the tax base, wouldn't bringing in foreign investors into real estate investing while letting domestic investors focus on some other investment vehicles lead to more tax revenue?
    - mixmastamyk 6y ago
      Perhaps. It's not hard to imagine that having additional competitors to local real estate with the result of driving up prices is not in the interest of the locals, who need places to live. That one group has less stake and can be discouraged through legislation while another has some constitutional-like protections is not a compelling problem compared to the one in the paragraph above.

slg 6y ago

>Investors from overseas can fuck off and buy something else. People who live in a city need housing, and it is completely within the rights of the city to restrict housing purchases to those who live there, or at least heavily dis incentivize it. You completely ignored the point I made. How is an investor from China buying real estate in Vancouver purely for investment purposes with no intention of having anyone live there any different than someone from Toronto doing it? Why is the former punished harsher than the latter?

mixmastamyk 6y ago
The farther away the investor, the less stake they have in local success. In-country folks will be paying more taxes in-country, which affects things like social programs, infrastructure, and defense that contribute to a region.
- slg 6y ago
  But those people in country would be paying national taxes either way. It isn't like if Vancouver stops a rich person from Toronto investing in real estate that this person will leave their millions of dollars in a checking account instead. They will find some other way to invest their money. If you are solely worried about the tax base, wouldn't bringing in foreign investors into real estate investing while letting domestic investors focus on some other investment vehicles lead to more tax revenue?
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    Perhaps. It's not hard to imagine that having additional competitors to local real estate with the result of driving up prices is not in the interest of the locals, who need places to live. That one group has less stake and can be discouraged through legislation while another has some constitutional-like protections is not a compelling problem compared to the one in the paragraph above.