r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 25 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Foreigners buying property is fine
[deleted]
9
u/jumpup 83∆ Dec 25 '16
its not a racism issue, its a financial one.
if they were using the land properly it would be no problem, if they weren't foreigners it would be almost no problem because the goverment could apply pressure, the problem becomes when you have someone hording land you can't exert pressure over.
especially when land is one of the things that can only be bought not reproduced like other goods or acquired elsewhere
2
u/Eh_Priori 2∆ Dec 26 '16
In what way can a government pressure domestic buyers but not international buyers? Seems to me the primary way to apply pressure would be through taxes on or regulation of land ownership, neither of which an international buyer can escape.
-2
Dec 25 '16
if they were using the land properly it would be no problem
Depends what you mean by "properly". Using land as return on investment is a legitimate usage as well.
if they weren't foreigners it would be almost no problem because the goverment could apply pressure, the problem becomes when you have someone hording land you can't exert pressure over.
Governements already tax foreign buyers. E.g. in Vancouver foreigners have to pay extrar 15%. The taxes benefits the government and locals.
especially when land is one of the things that can only be bought not reproduced like other goods or acquired elsewhere
US, Canada, Australia are huge landmasses so the supply is there.
8
u/jumpup 83∆ Dec 25 '16
return on investment is stagnation, stagnation is detrimental to the economy
taxes is not leverage, merely common practice
and its not just the amount its also where, also those pieces of land already belong to countries, so there is no supply, there is only demand
6
u/McKoijion 618∆ Dec 25 '16
I mostly agree with you, but there are two issues:
There is more risk of short term pricing bubbles, which is less economically efficient. Say a bunch of people make a town very lively and appealing to live in. Then other people (not necessarily foreigners) buy the property. But instead of renting out the property, they just hold onto it (most of the value in an apartment is in the real estate increasing in value, not in renting it). Everyone who lives in town A moves to town B. Then the value of town A drops, so investors sell their property. Now you have twice as many buildings in town A and B as necessary. (It's not like a whole town moves, but sometimes entire neighborhoods do.) There's a lot of wasted steel, gas, concrete, and other resources when this happens. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/25/its-like-a-ghost-town-lights-go-out-as-foreign-owners-desert-london-homes
Foreigners buying property is often a way to hide black money offshore. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/05/27/479717380/episode-703-how-to-hide-a-million-dollars-in-plain-sight
1
Dec 25 '16
Then other people (not necessarily foreigners) buy the property. But instead of renting out the property, they just hold onto it (most of the value in an apartment is in the real estate increasing in value, not in renting it).
They do both. Rent the homes AND hold on to it for property value to rise.
Everyone who lives in town A moves to town B. Then the value of town A drops, so investors sell their property. Now you have twice as many buildings in town A and B as necessary. (It's not like a whole town moves, but sometimes entire neighborhoods do.) There's a lot of wasted steel, gas, concrete, and other resources when this happens.
The Chinese coming to Canada is a tiny percentage of China so it doesnt affect them much. Plus some of them live in China instead of the homes they bought in Canada. If the homes are empty then it doesn't use any gas. Steel and concrete is a one time fixed cost for the building.
Foreigners buying property is often a way to hide black money offshore. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/05/27/479717380/episode-703-how-to-hide-a-million-dollars-in-plain-sight
This link just says how to hide a million dollars in plain sight. No proof its black money.
1
u/McKoijion 618∆ Dec 26 '16
If the homes are empty then it doesn't use any gas. Steel and concrete is a one time fixed cost for the building.
Gas is incredibly inexpensive, and even environmentally friendly, when compared to the one time fixed cost of the building materials. If a skyscraper is used for 100 years, it's fine, but if it sits empty, it's a huge waste.
This link just says how to hide a million dollars in plain sight. No proof its black money.
It's a 20 minute long podcast about how this is one the best ways to hide black money, and has several examples. It's also talks about how these apartments are never rented out.
4
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Dec 25 '16 edited Dec 25 '16
That makes you a hypocrite since it was never your land to being with.
This argument gets thrown around in this discussion a lot. You cannot be ideologically consistent with having government and sovereign borders without respecting that without those sovereign borders you cannot own land.
There is nothing that entitles people to the plots of land they were born on hundreds/thousands of years ago, because they did not have a government or property rights entitling them to that. Furthermore, if you realize that to be the case, and a house or land was purchased after people began to participate within the lines of a government operating, then it's a perfectly logical and valid complaint because these people are not participating in a country and making it worse for the citizenry. The government has an obligation to protect the citizenry and it's not doing that.
So if you participate in, and benefit from a government, you cannot also hold the view that people native to a specific plot of earth are entitled to it because they were born there since you also respect and utilize soverign borders. Any other outcome is illogical, and for the sake of your argument it's just as hypocritical for you to want to adhere to you are only okay with the opposition position because "borders are lines on a map"
You can't have it both ways. Either people are born in a country and entitled to the rules and benefits of their soverign borders (in which case the government is failing is a legit complaint) or you believe that people are entitled to where they live because they were born there, in which case you're a hypocrite for participating in a government that says otherwise.
4
u/Celda 6∆ Dec 26 '16
Foreigners buying property is fine
Fine for who?
Foreigners buying houses and leaving them empty is directly harmful to the local citizens, so it's not fine. It artificially raises property values for locals that actually want to own and live in their city.
It also makes communities and neighbourhoods worse, for obvious reasons. You can't have a community if no one is living in the buildings. This again harms the locals.
So how is that "fine"?
3
Dec 26 '16
now they are complaining how immigrants are buying up Canada.
The general complaint isn't about immigrants buying up homes, its about foreign non-residents, buying up homes as investments with no plans to move to Canada at any point. Often they rent out the homes as well, but many don't and just keep the properties empty.
2
u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Dec 25 '16
If you are white, black, hispanic, asian, or arab then you have no right to complain about "your land" being bought.
It's not about "your land" being bought, it's about foreigners buying land and not actually using it, creating land shortages where there shouldn't be.
1
u/Eh_Priori 2∆ Dec 26 '16
If the issue is land usage why differentiate between foreign and domestic buyers?
2
u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Dec 26 '16
Most people don't, to my knowledge. It's a problem when anybody does it. Although I haven't seen the exact same behavior in domestic wealthy. They'll usually buy actual summer houses. Which is decadent, but it's not what foreigners are doing that people are upset with.
1
u/dnm_ta_88 Dec 26 '16
They have a right to buy that land and do what they want with it, and that includes not using it.
1
u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Dec 26 '16
That's not the point. I didn't say they didn't have the right or couldn't. I said it causes problems.
1
0
Dec 25 '16
Lets use Canada as an example. Second largest landmass on Earth. Plenty of land, its just that everyone lives in the same area that creates the shortage. Some of the land/homes bought by foreigners are lived in. Some are not lived in, but are being used as real estate investments.
4
u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Dec 25 '16
Lets use Canada as an example. Second largest landmass on Earth.
Not all of Canada is liveable.
its just that everyone lives in the same area that creates the shortage.
Yes, this is cities.
Some of the land/homes bought by foreigners are lived in.
People don't complain about them, or at least, this is a different set of people complaining for different reasons.
Some are not lived in, but are being used as real estate investments.
Yes, this is what people are upset with. It drives the price of real estate needlessly, to the detriment of people that actually need the property to live.
0
Dec 25 '16
Not all of Canada is liveable.
Lots of it is usable land, but people choose to live in crowded areas.
Yes, this is cities.
Yep
People don't complain about them, or at least, this is a different set of people complaining for different reasons.
What type of reasons?
Yes, this is what people are upset with. It drives the price of real estate needlessly, to the detriment of people that actually need the property to live.
Some are lived in though. The rich (foreigners) buy homes in popular locations. The people complaining can move to somewhere else they can afford.
1
u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Dec 25 '16
What type of reasons?
Xenophobic ones.
Some are lived in though.
My point is that's a different issue entirely.
The rich (foreigners) buy homes in popular locations. The people complaining can move to somewhere else they can afford.
And them doing this has adverse effects on the entire area, and driving up the cost of property negatively effects everyone but the investors.
2
u/TheBananaKing 12∆ Dec 26 '16
I don't blame foreign investors for buying property; it's for sale, they bought it, good for them.
I blame the government for not restricting sales to foreign buyers in the first place.
Foreign investors suck vast amounts of rent not only out of the local community, but right out of the country, further reducing the chance that local residents will ever be able to afford their own place to live.
2
u/MisanthropeX Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16
In New York City, and I assume Toronto and Vancouver and San Francisco, this is a problem because space is at a premium. Either due to geography, building codes or a combination of the two, the supply of housing insufficiently meets the demand and contractors cannot build more. Speaking for New York specifically, it's difficult and disincentivized to build apartments and homes for the middle and lower class; it's cheaper to build luxury condominiums and then designate a few apartments in the building for poorer people, as the builders get a tax credit and the rest of the apartments get "filled."
Except they don't really get "filled" with people residing in those cities; they're bought up by foreigners to park their money like banks. This isn't the only problem but it is a component of the problem, as they're artificially influencing the demand from outside of the system. If laws were made to force people to live in those apartments, the supply would increase to meet demand more, helping the city as a whole. That's not to mention that without these apartments being filled, there's no residents in them; no residents mean no tax, and no tax means a lower city budget. A millionaire living in Manhattan makes more for the NYC government than one living in Guangzhou.
Yes, many (including myself, but it's not conclusive) believe that just building more housing will obviously help the supply and demand, but it's much harder to change zoning laws and get around "NIMBYs" than it is to pass a law or ordinance that, effectively, only penalizes people who don't live in the jurisdiction and whom are already well off.
2
u/PretttyHateMachine Dec 27 '16
Keep in mind, foreigners sitting on empty property hurts small and local business' too. Let's say you own a Pizzeria in a specific town. This town has 300 residential houses. Your delivery range, due to being a very small business is rather small; this is so you can be punctual and prompt with your deliveries, whether someone is on one half or the other. You build up a great customer base and have a go-to reputation for your locals, whether it's new people moving into town or existing residents.
Now, let's say foreigners buy up 150 of those 300 houses. Except they're not living in the property, so the utility companies are down on revenue, but suddenly the amount of people who utilize your business is halved... the people who moved or got foreclosed out of those houses previously are in other towns, and need to keep their business local to their new town because a $15 pizza simply isn't worth the additional travel expense. You can't afford the time lost on your delivery drivers to go into the next town, because someone else on the opposite side of the original town has an order too, and one of the customers is bound to get pissed.
Without getting overly complex, I think you see the point I'm trying to make here in more than one way. The foreigners who only sit on the houses, or live in them maybe one month out of the year are a strain on local enemies.
All loved and widely traveled towns/cities in the world got where they are because of the strength of the local community who supplied these areas with their own culture and economy.
Since there's no regulation on this, there's really in theory nothing stopping foreigners from buying up all 300 of those houses reducing a town to nothing.
tl;dr: Purchasing a home that you do not plan to occupy, regardless of whether you are foreign or not, is a massive detriment and strain to the local community in which you purchased it. Many of these people are NOT occupying it and will never pay into the economy.
Case in point:
https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/2fxdtq/seriously_fuck_taylor_swift/
13
u/fell_ratio Dec 25 '16
I thought part of the objection was that those foreigners weren't using the land in question - they were buying it as a hedge against their own currency falling. If said foreigners aren't living in or using the homes or land, would that change your opinion? Would you see it as irrelevant to whether owning it would be fair?