4 ms·
I work in real estate and am privy to the behind-the-scenes details of some of these all cash, foreign buyer deals, in markets like SF, NYC and Miami. There's
by nugget 11y ago
I work in real estate and am privy to the behind-the-scenes details of some of these all cash, foreign buyer deals, in markets like SF, NYC and Miami. There's nothing new about it: money laundering has been around for a long time. And that's all it is, money laundering. Chinese families are moving assets out of China and into real estate in Western countries in order to evade taxes, evade lawsuits (often for obvious theft) and/or protect themselves from political crackdowns. In Miami, it's South American families doing the same thing to flee unstable or unfavorable regimes in that part of the world.
If I were a law-abiding millennial trying to buy a house in one of these markets I would be extremely frustrated. The playing field was a little uneven before (young versus old) but the influx of foreign money has taken it to the next level. The domestic political challenge is that current homeowners have no incentive to stop it because they receive a net benefit from rising home prices. And of course the real estate machine (agents, appraisers, contractors, etc) are all incentivized to ensure it continues.
Most economists seem to agree that the best long-term solution is a high land value tax (replacing various other taxes). Let the foreign owners pay 3% of home value each year to local governments - it will encourage them to invest elsewhere, or at least discourage letting properties sit idle. But in the short term house prices in areas like California would fall.
- mlrtime 11y agoWhy not just add a tax for homes that aren't your primary residence? Foreigners will not do this since they would need to pay income tax as well?
- prostoalex 11y ago1) Easy to game the system. 2) Why? Somebody is already paying 100% of the property tax without putting stress on the roads, the schools, police and fire services, local parks, libraries, and other services that local governments are hired to provide. The neighbors get more bang for their buck, leave alone financial stability that property appreciation brings.
- mahyarm 11y agoThose people also put nothing into local economy through their spending. You get the vancouver effect. No incomes or jobs, but high housing prices. A high tax for unoccupied residences would be a better one. It would increase housing supply so the double whammie of buying a house and leaving it unoccupied wouldn't effect the housing supply nearly as much.
- im_a_lawyer 11y agobest long term solution would be to just "build more New-Yorks and San Franciscos". US is starting to have a "London problem" where too much of our economic and social capital is concentrated in a handful of cities. You can't have 300 million people and growing forever competing for a place in one of those cities. The government just needs to encourage more of these type of cities that can compete on a global level.