(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
10%. Loss. In. Gains.
Not a complex concept.
They currently make 100k a year on the investment. After this tax, they will be GAINING 10% less. A 10% loss in gains is NOT inconsequential.
If you were told you were about to lose 10% of your gains in your investment are you seriously saying you wouldn't bat an eye at it and consider investing elsewhere? Some where else where you wouldn't potentially be losing the gains.
Last edited by Tyrianth; 2016-11-11 at 01:04 AM.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
No, but it's also nothing they need to really worry about. They're still making money hand over fist and not a damn thing in this world pays a 9% ROI that isn't simultaneously insanely illegal lol.
The $10k "you lied" daily penalty might help though, but I'm dubious as to how well that'll be enforced. Or all they need to do is rent it out for absurd amounts and make more money, or they can then just say "yeah I can't find any tenants."
But they will reconsider their investment. There are lots of places these foreigners can invest. Why invest in Vancouver where they will be losing 10% of their gains when they could be investing in say Montreal where they would only be losing 3% of their gains? Millionaires don't become millionaires for making poor investment decisions.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
There is a housing shortage in Vancouver where the common folk can no longer afford to live.
Want to keep your million-dollar luxury pad in Vancouver empty?
How does this affect "the common folk" exactly?
This seems stupid, I paid my property tax , if i want my house to sit empty thats my call I paid for the bastard
Holy shit, I cannot believe what you are trying to argue for at this point. A 10% loss in gains is inconsequential when the net gain in gains is 90%. Find someone who would not be interested in that kind of return. Find someone who would be deterred from that investment opportunity. Go ahead, find them.
Who cares, when investing, that your gains take a hit from time to time as long as your net gain is positive. Hell, my stocks and 401k go up and down all year I don't worry if they dip as long as the net value year over year is up.
The FACT that the net investment is a 9% gain is what's important. A $90k, 9% net gain, is not a deterrent to owning property in Toronto.
So you're saying you wouldn't bat an eye if your investments were guaranteed to take a 10% hit? You wouldn't consider buying investments in a different city where your gains weren't going to be hit as harshly? lol
That's just poor investing.
A 9% gain is a deterrent in Toronto if Vancouver would net you 10%.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
Of course its poor investing. However, I never said that. You're now not even following your own argument. You said a 10% loss in gains. That is NOT the same as a 10% hit to investments. Seriously, how can you not follow this simple math. Of course I would not be interested in a 10% loss. The scenario being discussed results in a 9% gain; no net loss. And yes, I would happily invest in an opportunity that resulted in a 9% gain.
- - - Updated - - -
9% ROI is not a poor investment. Find someone who thinks it is, please.
I don't know if you've noticed, but lots of investments exist in things that aren't necessarily in THE most profitable thing. There are a range of reasons for that - costs involved in changing, proximity to investment, demand and competition, political climates, etc - but it seems absolutely absurd to say that a drop from 10% ROI to 9% is going to make it significantly less attractive. 10% and 9% are both very attractive numbers that will undoubtedly attract lots of investment.
Holy shit, my whole argument has been about 10% loss in your gains. I made one post about a 10% loss to investment which I obviously meant gains as I've said that in every other post.
You would happily invest in an opportunity that resulted in a 9% gain over the exact same opportunity in a different city that results in a 9.5% gain? You wouldn't consider the 9.5% at all?
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
No problems here. People want to live in houses, not packed in like sardines in apartments. Wealthy people buying homes that people can't afford because they've driven up the prices so badly with doing just that and letting them sit is a blight upon the market.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Your whole argument has been that the $10k tax is a deterrent. It's not when the net gain, over all, is $90k. 10% loss in gains is meaningless. You can talk about loss on gains all you want. At the end of the day all that matters is the over all net. And in this case if the over all net is a 9% gain, its a win and definitely not a deterrent.
Please stop with the made up scenarios that detract from the article in the OP stating : the $10k is a deterrent.
It's not and has nothing to do with what real estate market is the best for investing.
Last edited by callipygoustp; 2016-11-11 at 01:26 AM.