> One example is the Immigrant Investor program, where those wishing to immigrate would make an interest-free loan to government of $400,000 in exchange for landed immigrant status. UBC geographer David Ley has shown that investor immigrants in the Vancouver region represent nearly 10 per cent of the Vancouver region’s population. That population paid, on average, $1,400 in income tax 10 years after immigrating. This is less than refugees. > … > A property surtax is an elegant and legally safer way to reduce foreign capital flows into Canada’s cities than the new foreign buyer’s tax. A one per cent surtax would work like this: if you own a $1 million house, you will receive a surtax bill for $10,000. If you have already paid equivalent income tax, are on a disability pension, or if you are a retiree on CPP, the tax is a full deduction—you’ve already paid, thanks.
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/a-roadmap-fo...
How's that possible - do they all become non-resident after receiving their passports?
The interest-free loan of $400,000 to the Canadian government was also a weak test for 'investors'. The Canadian banks would front the money on behalf of the immigrant, if they prepay the interest on the loan. I was told by a banker that this was at a pretty high rate of around $120,000. This amounted to paying $120k to a bank in exchange for a clean citizenship path. Lots of people benefited from this system (banks, property owners, developers) so it went on for a long time. Ottawa ended the program in 2013, but one of the problems is that Québec hasn't--they control their own immigration policy to an extent. So it became common for investor immigrants to apply to Québec but then move to Vancouver.[1] In theory, immigrants that bring a lot of wealth with them sounds great, but I was also shocked by the stat showing that they paid less taxes than refugees after 10 years.
[1] Quick reference:
http://www.news1130.com/2015/04/01/investor-immigrants-using...
> “Quebec gets the benefits from that loan, which lasts for five years. It’s a very lucrative program as far as Quebec is concerned but the downside is that the people don’t actually end up living there. There’s plenty of data that shows 90 per cent of those arrivals actually end up living elsewhere. I think it’s fair to estimate that a large majority end up living in Vancouver.”
TL;DR People who try to launder money and escape capital controls in China have a high overlap with people who cheat on their taxes in Canada.
We can play similar games in the US with abandoned houses - there are probably enough abandoned homes in Gary, Indiana to house the entire US' homeless population. Said homes, unfortunately, happen to be in Gary.
I don't know enough about England towns and cities to make a judgment, but it looks like The Guardian got their data from here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tab...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouv...
Land value tax. No income tax. People who add no value get nothing.
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/a-roadmap-fo...
Most people won't go through the trouble though.
What I'd do is just rent out the room, and not pay the fee.
The only thing I can really think of is that it might force people to divest in a very down market where it is difficult to find renters, but it doesn't seem like a huge tragedy for people who have at least two dwellings to be forced to sell one of them or else eat losses.
Define "local" and "foreigner". Does local mean you grew up in vancouver, or moved there a while ago, or your family spent three generations there already?
In addition, define foreigner. Anywhere else in British Columbia considered "foreign"? What about from Ottowa?
If you mean that you want to punish behaviour, such as buying houses and properties you don't live in or use, that's one thing. Discrimination based on locality sounds an awful lot like Jim Crow laws.
It isn't unheard of. In SE Asia (the Phillipines for example), all properties must have 50%+ occupancy by permanent residents.
I think that's an overly wide generalization. For instance, in Thailand, I don't think you're allowed to own land or houses, just a condo. In Laos, you can't own land at all.
The situation is much the same in much of Latin America.
Let's face it, capital coming into the country to buy property is a Good Thing from an economic perspective. You "just" have to make sure this capital rewards low-income people as much as property owners. This tax is one way to do that, which I think is very good.
When you're passing a law that disproportionately affects certain ethnic groups, that particular comparison is apt.
Your ethnicity isn't being discrimated against, just your country's economics circumstances. No reason to bring the SJWing into an economic argument.
Restricting people, no matter their ethnicities, based on their country's circumstances is generally frowned upon. Especially when it only affects citizens of a few countries. "Well, this law only applies to <action> Too bad only people from these countries perform these <actions>"
Besides, your claim that the money is being laundered is highly speculative and unproven. That's the definition of painting with a wide brush - because most money is suspect, you cut off access to all of it?
Local residents and voters have the right to keep others out if their laws allow for it. Outsiders/non-citizens don't get a vote.
This is fundamentally a monetary and trade policy issue.
Are you claiming that, for example, tarriffs on Chinese dumped imports are also equivalent to racially targeted laws?
Your simplistic views of history do not explain reality. Just because they weren't called Jim Crow laws doesn't mean that similar laws didn't exist.