Re:The City That Had Too Much Money
by api on Sunday October 21, 2018 @11:58AM
(#18268626)
Non-local residential property should be taxed at a significantly higher rate than owner occupied or locally owned properties. That would both solve the problem and provide much needed revenue.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
There a number floated at 57 million for 2018? value of Vancouver property purchased by local students with zero income - so this only tallied the ones not clever enough to use shell companies or lawyers as described as the other money laundering techniques to purchase homes, though the casino cash to chips to cash might be most brazen. I think just like the UK hsd recently done - stricter anti money laundering rules, income transparency are needed.
Re:The City That Had Too Much Money
by TheCoelacanth on Monday October 22, 2018 @10:40AM
(#18275005)
So at Vancouver prices, something like 20 houses? That seems like a number that could easily hit just with students from super wealthy families who legitimately live there. I don't see any reason to believe that involves money laundering.
Re:The City That Had Too Much Money
by AzzieElbab on Sunday October 21, 2018 @12:51PM
(#18268845)
How would you enforce that when people have "trusted" relatives all the world?
1. All real estate held by non-human persons ( i.e. corporations, LLC) gets taxed at a higher rate.
2. All real estate used for income production - i.e. AirBnB for significant percentage of the year
3. An owner can declare a single piece of property their primary residence, all others are taxed as commercial property.
4. etc....
Vancouver needs to define "residents" and tax property that is not being held by non-residents.