3 ms·

Foreign ownership of property should be heavily taxed both at the transaction and in the form of an elevated property tax bracket for non-resident owners. In ur

by api 6y ago

Foreign ownership of property should be heavily taxed both at the transaction and in the form of an elevated property tax bracket for non-resident owners. In urban areas with cost of living problems, non-resident should probably be defined as someone not residing in the city or any corporation with >50% beneficial ownership not residing in the city. Otherwise non-resident could be defined as non-citizen. I coined a term for this and similar things: "fiscal pollution." Fiscal pollution is essentially harmful investment or investment with strong negative externalities.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
I would imagine that a lot of foreign-owned property in Canada is owned by foreigners that already have obtained permanent residency, or who are using relatives who have obtained permanent residency. Consequently, they may be treated no differently than any other Canadian. So, would simply “taxing foreigners” really be an effective solution?
foldr 6y ago
> Otherwise non-resident could be defined as non-citizen. I don’t think this would work well in a lot of cities. For example in London there are any number of non-citizens who are just as much resident in the city as anyone else. You’d be saying that e.g a French citizen who’d lived in London for 10 years was a non-resident.
- api 6y ago
  Those homes are owner occupied though. I am talking about absentee foreign ownership, which is mostly about parking money and money laundering.
  - foldr 6y ago
    I still don't see how that makes quite the right cut. For example, I live in London any my landlord is German. She lives in London too. I can't see any reason why she should be treated differently to a UK citizen in the same position.
908B64B197 6y ago
> non-resident should probably be defined as someone not residing in the city or any corporation with >50% beneficial ownership not residing in the city. Some places already have that distinction for capital gains. You get a different tax percentage on the capital gain resulting from the sale of your "main residence" (where you spend the majority of your time) vs any secondary or investment properties you might have. But that doesn't change property taxes.

by api 6y ago

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

I would imagine that a lot of foreign-owned property in Canada is owned by foreigners that already have obtained permanent residency, or who are using relatives who have obtained permanent residency. Consequently, they may be treated no differently than any other Canadian. So, would simply “taxing foreigners” really be an effective solution?

foldr 6y ago

> Otherwise non-resident could be defined as non-citizen. I don’t think this would work well in a lot of cities. For example in London there are any number of non-citizens who are just as much resident in the city as anyone else. You’d be saying that e.g a French citizen who’d lived in London for 10 years was a non-resident.

api 6y ago
Those homes are owner occupied though. I am talking about absentee foreign ownership, which is mostly about parking money and money laundering.
- foldr 6y ago
  I still don't see how that makes quite the right cut. For example, I live in London any my landlord is German. She lives in London too. I can't see any reason why she should be treated differently to a UK citizen in the same position.

908B64B197 6y ago

> non-resident should probably be defined as someone not residing in the city or any corporation with >50% beneficial ownership not residing in the city. Some places already have that distinction for capital gains. You get a different tax percentage on the capital gain resulting from the sale of your "main residence" (where you spend the majority of your time) vs any secondary or investment properties you might have. But that doesn't change property taxes.