848
submitted 11 months ago by filoria@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 18107@aussie.zone 219 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 48 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 18 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 5 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 10 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 24 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 38 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 28 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 11 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.

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 4 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] 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).

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Price of my condo: 85k

Price of my cottage: 50k

Bought in 2013 and 2020 respectively, both for sale for months and I've spent about 10k in each in renovations. If you can't afford 135k in mortgage and 20k in renovations over 10 years then maybe it's ok to just keep renting... Even at the price the condo sold at this year (170k) that's 220k + 10k over 3 years for a home and a holiday home, perfectly reasonable for a couple.

Edit: Funny how people downvote when people tell them that, yeah, it's still possible to find affordable housing...

[-] No1@aussie.zone 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Where are you? The article is about Australia. In Sydney, you probably wouldn't have seen the prices you mention since at least the 1980s.

This Australian Property price update might be useful for information purposes. The median Sydney dwelling is AUD$1.1M or about USD$720,000. The median regional dwelling (ie outside of Sydney) is over AUD$700k, so about USD$460,000.

Yes, we are fucked.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Canada, our money has about the same value and median house value in Toronto (our most populous city) is CAD1.1M

656k median house price in Canada as a whole.

The condo I used to own is located about 20 minutes from the downtown area of the country's capital (Ottawa), the whole region has about 1.7m in population, the cottage is about an hour away from there.

What's funny is that when I was telling my younger colleagues to do like I did and use that as a stepping stone to eventually buy something better, the reaction was always the same, no purchase unless it's a single family house... And then they watched from their parents' place/apartment as the market went crazy and they could have made 50k over a couple of years by buying a cheap condo before the pandemic instead of insisting on starting with a house and if that hadn't happened they could have just paid their mortgage and used that as a savings account instead of paying rent...

[-] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 23 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!

[-] chitak166@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Because people in your nation are more human than those outside of it.

[-] zacher_glachl@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Or, it could be that there's like 300x more non-Aussies than Aussies so constraining the ability of foreigners to speculate on Australian real estate could be seen as a priority by an institution who's literal job it is to serve the Australian people, first and foremost.

[-] chitak166@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

"It's better to be exploited by an Australian."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I would guess xenophobia

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago

Unoccupied housing in growth areas needs to be taxed mercilessly.

And taxes on non-multifamily rental properties should also be physically painful for the owners.

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 17 points 11 months ago

How many properties are currently affected by this? 6 times the taxes is mentioned, but how much is that per property and in total? It's odd. This is the second time I've seen this story and that relevant information is missing in each one. It reads more like a government press release to make it look like they are doing something but it's window dressing only. We need structural reform in housing. Not just in Australia, but worldwide. It's a necessity, not an asset.

[-] tristan@aussie.zone 11 points 11 months ago

It's an ongoing fee. The initial fee is raised by 3 times, and if the property is empty for more than 6 months of the year, they are charged twice the fee (so 6 times what the fee currently is, which starts at $13200aud and is up to $105600aud depending on the value of the property)

This means it will cost tens of thousands of dollars up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, each year, to leave it empty over half the year

[-] p0windah@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Yeah. The article doesn't go into details whether vacancy is self reported and what enforcement looks like.

The cynic in me says this is a great political policy, but something foreign investors will sidestep with minimal effort.

Is it based on water consumption? Leave a tap dripping.

Is it based on electricity consumption? Leave a light on.

Is it based on garbage being collected? A friend takes your bins out once every couple of months.

I want these policies to work to better support Australians with more housing options, but I'm not convinced this is enough.

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 15 points 11 months ago

Haven't read the article- does it explain why are there so many empty properties? I didn't know this was a thing. I'm glad they're finally coming along with regulations though

[-] kerrypacker@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

Chinese and boomer investors.

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 7 points 11 months ago

I'm aware of who but not why. Are they just letting them sit there until the prices rise ( I know that doesn't take too long)? Or is there another reason?

[-] set_secret@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

yes ,becuase the house prices in Australia rise so fast it's actully profitable to buy one outright (if you can afford it) and literally let it sit empty for 5 years ,sell it again and make hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars.

The when system (of capitalism) is ethically bankrupt and downright disgusting. Houses should be for homes, not profits.

[-] Cyberjin@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

I think Chinese people can't really invest in China because corruption and government can take everything you own without a reason.

Looking at property crisis in China https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-62402961

Not to mention bank crisis around China https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/11/china-violent-clashes-at-protest-over-frozen-rural-bank-accounts

So it makes sense to have a foreign investment + they can flee and live there if something should happen

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

Money. The reason is always money.

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

That's usually the reason and the possibility of getting a citizenship (depending on what country the property is in it can help).

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

I’ve a friend in Taiwan. She says it’s common for rich Chinese people to buy homes in Taiwan as a way of locking down that money in a way the government can’t access it.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Fairly common scheme with Canada, rich Chinese buy a house in Canada, declare their taxes as being paid in Canada to Chinese authorities and being paid in China to Canadian authorities...

The different levels of Canadian governments get criticized for letting them buy properties and companies here when Canadians would never be allowed to do the same in China...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 14 points 11 months ago

The bogeyman reason is investors (and especially Chinese investors).

Suspect the real reason is they're a mix of holiday homes, near ruins, crap properties in crap locations, tangled up in a bunch of legal shit, inheritance proceedings, or the old person that owns it is in care.

There's a bunch of greed as well, but it's not worth leaving a property empty over renting it out for an exorbitant sum.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago

They're vehicles for foreign investment.

[-] kowcop@aussie.zone 4 points 11 months ago

There are many, but one of the reasons is to buy a house in the catchment area of a good school. They child can attend and pretend they are living in the house but still live in the city

[-] Affidavit@aussie.zone 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Considering that the government is simultaneously boosting migration so that we're granting 200,000 permanent visas every year I don't see this as having any real positive effect. Permanent residents are exempt from this fee.

Edit: adding because I keep getting replies that assume I think I loathe permanent residents. The reason I stated they were exempt is to add context for those unaware. To be clear, and to stop annoying people with shit reading comprehension calling me racist, I think everyone regardless of migration status should be penalised for leaving empty houses.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 11 months ago

Permanent residents are basically Australians.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
848 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38987 readers
1842 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