849
submitted 11 months ago by filoria@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 18107@aussie.zone 218 points 11 months ago

Why limit these fees to foreigners? Why not penalize anyone who is leaving properties empty?

[-] jennwiththesea@lemmy.world 110 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Vancouver, BC in Canada did the same, though they actually fully banned foreign property purchasing. I'm guessing it's low hanging fruit that won't get much pushback within the country. Hopefully these are just first steps, in both cases.

Really wish fucking anything were being done in the US.

Vancouver: https://vancouversun.com/business/real-estate/experts-say-foreign-buyer-ban-wont-bite-b-c-real-estate-prices

[-] Magrath@lemmy.ca 49 points 11 months ago

That was a temporary 2 year ban on foriegn buyers, but it was too little too late. They already injected too much money and equity in to the market. I'm sure there's a way around it too. Corporations can still buy property. And once the ban is lifted it's back to normal and the prices are still fucked even with the temporary ban.

[-] tleb@lemmy.ca 12 points 11 months ago

Temp residents, including students, also aren't included in the temporary ban which makes it basically useless

[-] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

Ah yes, the true cause of the preposterous housing market… college students.

[-] tleb@lemmy.ca 8 points 11 months ago

My point was about foreign investors avoiding the ban through international students

[-] Magrath@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Foreign students that pay atleast twice the tuition that local students do. And also roll up in luxury vehicles. You think those students don't also have big expensive houses?

https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/students-own-over-57m-worth-of-ritzy-vancouver-real-estate-say_n_12032930

They are either "students" or are being funded their parents. Either way they are complicit.

[-] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It kinda sounds like they are people living in their homes lol

I don’t see why I should care where they live so long as they’re actually living in the place. They obviously need a place to stay, shouldn’t be forced into renting, and I don’t know what would be accomplished by putting a cap on how nice of a place they can buy.

Edit:

Students Own Over $57M Worth Of Ritzy Vancouver Real Estate

$57M? So what, like 100 apartments, max?

Edit 2:

The least expensive home was $1.85 million, while the priciest came in at $31.1 million.

Oh okay so like 5 lol

[-] space@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago

So they will just create local shell companies. Didn't solve any problem.

[-] buzz86us@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah they really need to fix that in the US.. there also needs to be a very significant reduction of property tax for individuals that are enterprising enough to rehab zombie properties. Go to like any city in the US, and you'll find so many homes that are sitting abandoned because the city has assessed them for such astronomical prices that no investor will touch them due to their condition.. The only option becomes to demolish them at taxpayer expense as they fall deeper and deeper into disrepair.

[-] No1@aussie.zone 50 points 11 months ago

Last I saw half the elected lawmakers have investment properties.

They'll never make any laws that will impose additional requirements or possibly impact property prices negatively.

[-] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

I can't read that whole article but yeah doesn't make sense.. a foreigner could just set up a trust which then purchases the property and leaves it vacant and you're back to square one.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You could become rich with that idea if it wasn't exactly what they started doing!

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Because there’s a big difference between an empty apartment in a city and an empty half the year holiday home out in the bush used by the whole family.

And why not give Australians an advantage in our own country? I’m fine with American companies having to pay more taxes towards us.

[-] DampSquid@feddit.uk 33 points 11 months ago

If you can afford a holiday home, you have enough of an advantage already

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 13 points 11 months ago

Mate, I earn below median wage and I could buy a “holiday home”. This isn’t something fancy, it’s a shitty old house in the bush.

What I can’t afford is a house where jobs and people are, the city.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

I think a lot of people hear holiday home and think like, tropical bungalow. A holiday home here in Sweden usually won't have a sewage connection, and oftentimes not even running water. You'd have to use a potty and bring potable water yourself. You could get these pretty cheap so long as you're in a position where you have some money left over after expenses.

A proper house will easily be 10x the amount a holiday home is.

There are fancier ones of course, that can basically double as a home. Anyone I know that has such a thing owns it as a family (as in grandparents, siblings, etc.).

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

I think people are picturing that, because that's what's been happening elsewhere; foreign investors using luxury real estate as an investment.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Well yes, not saying those aren’t a thing, but they’re not the only type of holiday homes. It’s not unfeasible for a normal person living above subsistence to be able to afford a holiday home.

Saying “oh you have a holiday home you’ve enough of an advantage” doesn’t really work in all cases.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago

A holiday home is a second home. If you don't have a home already and that's what you purchase, it's not your holiday home, it's your only home.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

They mention "the city", I interpret it as the same situation as what used to be mine, owned my main residence in a city but not in THE city so prices are lower but most jobs are outside of the city I lived in, that allowed me to buy a second residence out in the woods for cheap, but I couldn't live there full time (no water in winter, floor isn't insulated).

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 1 points 11 months ago

If you don’t live there, it’s not your home.

[-] guacupado@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

You're almost there.

Just a little further.

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 0 points 11 months ago

You don’t get it mate.

It’s okay though.

[-] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago
[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 1 points 11 months ago

In the house I rent?

[-] minorninth@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

So wouldn’t the fees be proportional to the price? The added taxes on a tiny cheap holiday home would be cheap too.

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The best way to give domestic workers an advantage would be to really raise property taxes, but make them subtractable as a tax credit. Credit.. not deductible, so overall tax burden on workers would be lower.

This would be an easy and logical step away from taxing labour and moving to taxation of land.

[-] scottywh@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I'd suspect Chinese companies would be a bigger problem than the American ones but what do I know.

this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
849 points (99.3% liked)

World News

39161 readers
1404 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS