We have a similar problem in the bay area, only a little bit worse. People from foreign countries are coming over and buying property as an investment. Because they are treating it as an...
We have a similar problem in the bay area, only a little bit worse.
People from foreign countries are coming over and buying property as an investment. Because they are treating it as an investment, in many cases they are not even renting the property out. These homes, condos, and apartments often sit unoccupied for years at a time, before the investors flip them for a profit.
Honestly I don't understand it a whole lot, since rent around here is high and it would be easy to hire someone to manage it for you (and therefore return even more profit) - but I suppose when you have a lot of money and would like to see 10%/yr returns you might want to protect your investment from any possible damage.
I heard of a neat fix to this problem in Canada (I think Toronto?) - basically they just taxed any home buyers that were not Canadian residents enough to discourage them from buying. Finding the...
I heard of a neat fix to this problem in Canada (I think Toronto?) - basically they just taxed any home buyers that were not Canadian residents enough to discourage them from buying.
Finding the right mix of enough tax to discourage foreign investment and allow local people to buy homes but not too high to drive off all investment is a good middle ground - even a 1% tax on homes could generate a lot of local revenue and the sweet spot is likely higher than 1%.
A voluntary tax? Yeah, most people won't pay that. It needs to have teeth. Oakland, CA just voted in an extra $3000/yr property tax on empty lots, condos and storefronts with the money going to...
A voluntary tax? Yeah, most people won't pay that. It needs to have teeth.
Oakland, CA just voted in an extra $3000/yr property tax on empty lots, condos and storefronts with the money going to affordable housing and homeless support. Enforcement hasn't started yet, but I know I'll happily report the empty house on my block. It was fixed up in 2016 and has sat empty since then. The smoke alarms chirp their "low battery" cries into the night, and the trust that bought it as an investment property is ignoring maintenance on it entirely. The front yard is full of dead saplings and bushes, and the back yard has to be regularly emptied of squatters by people in the community. Maybe an extra $9k a year (two condos and a parcel for the "public space") won't make the owner rent it , but if not at least they'll be paying for other housing with their neglect.
A lot of empty property, especially in London's wealthier boroughs, is money laundering, something our government seems very reluctant to deal with....
A lot of empty property, especially in London's wealthier boroughs, is money laundering, something our government seems very reluctant to deal with.
Hm, interesting problem, which is not just isolated to Dublin. The concept of AirBnB is great, both for the renter and the owner. The issue is the commercialization of it, i.e., investors that buy...
Hm, interesting problem, which is not just isolated to Dublin. The concept of AirBnB is great, both for the renter and the owner.
The issue is the commercialization of it, i.e., investors that buy large amounts of apartments to rent them out. Outlawing this is probably difficult, it might be easier to just raise the tax on this type of business, so that it's not (as) profitable. This would generate short-term income for the city, help out the hotel industry (as prices for airbnb places goes up) and help residents as apartments are sold due to non-profitability. Of course, this is not an overnight fix.
Also, obviously the number of tourists would probably go down, but that shouldn't be the main focus if the people in your city can't afford to live there.
Maybe there should be some kind of progressive federal tax on family dwellings. A US centric example could be the first and second home are subject to standard taxes, third home taxes double,...
Maybe there should be some kind of progressive federal tax on family dwellings. A US centric example could be the first and second home are subject to standard taxes, third home taxes double, fourth taxes quadruple, etc.
Would deter investors from buying up family dwellings and then they couldn't just jump across state line to avoid property taxes. It would also individuals to use their primary dwelling as a personal investment and maybe own a vacation home. But investors wouldn't be able to use family dwellings as a scaled investment asset.
We have a similar problem in the bay area, only a little bit worse.
People from foreign countries are coming over and buying property as an investment. Because they are treating it as an investment, in many cases they are not even renting the property out. These homes, condos, and apartments often sit unoccupied for years at a time, before the investors flip them for a profit.
Honestly I don't understand it a whole lot, since rent around here is high and it would be easy to hire someone to manage it for you (and therefore return even more profit) - but I suppose when you have a lot of money and would like to see 10%/yr returns you might want to protect your investment from any possible damage.
London suffers from the same issue. And Barcelona.
I heard of a neat fix to this problem in Canada (I think Toronto?) - basically they just taxed any home buyers that were not Canadian residents enough to discourage them from buying.
Finding the right mix of enough tax to discourage foreign investment and allow local people to buy homes but not too high to drive off all investment is a good middle ground - even a 1% tax on homes could generate a lot of local revenue and the sweet spot is likely higher than 1%.
This was one London Borough's attempt at a solution, and it was a miserable failure
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/13/westminster-wealthiest-households-failing-pay-extra-tax-community-contribution
https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/mayor-calls-higher-council-tax-empty-properties-london
A voluntary tax? Yeah, most people won't pay that. It needs to have teeth.
Oakland, CA just voted in an extra $3000/yr property tax on empty lots, condos and storefronts with the money going to affordable housing and homeless support. Enforcement hasn't started yet, but I know I'll happily report the empty house on my block. It was fixed up in 2016 and has sat empty since then. The smoke alarms chirp their "low battery" cries into the night, and the trust that bought it as an investment property is ignoring maintenance on it entirely. The front yard is full of dead saplings and bushes, and the back yard has to be regularly emptied of squatters by people in the community. Maybe an extra $9k a year (two condos and a parcel for the "public space") won't make the owner rent it , but if not at least they'll be paying for other housing with their neglect.
A lot of empty property, especially in London's wealthier boroughs, is money laundering, something our government seems very reluctant to deal with.
https://www.ft.com/content/f454e3ec-fc02-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/11/london-haven-dirty-cash-unexplained-wealth-orders-money-laundering
I don't think that's like our NRST at all https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/bulletins/nrst/
Hm, interesting problem, which is not just isolated to Dublin. The concept of AirBnB is great, both for the renter and the owner.
The issue is the commercialization of it, i.e., investors that buy large amounts of apartments to rent them out. Outlawing this is probably difficult, it might be easier to just raise the tax on this type of business, so that it's not (as) profitable. This would generate short-term income for the city, help out the hotel industry (as prices for airbnb places goes up) and help residents as apartments are sold due to non-profitability. Of course, this is not an overnight fix.
Also, obviously the number of tourists would probably go down, but that shouldn't be the main focus if the people in your city can't afford to live there.
Maybe there should be some kind of progressive federal tax on family dwellings. A US centric example could be the first and second home are subject to standard taxes, third home taxes double, fourth taxes quadruple, etc.
Would deter investors from buying up family dwellings and then they couldn't just jump across state line to avoid property taxes. It would also individuals to use their primary dwelling as a personal investment and maybe own a vacation home. But investors wouldn't be able to use family dwellings as a scaled investment asset.
Isn't the free market great. Don't worry it will regulate itself...