Vancouver Real Estate 'Bubble' at 30-year Peak

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by nds88

I agree, we are governed by a bunch of clowns.

The great thing about Canada is you’re always free to leave.

[cairnstone]

I was born here so no place to leave to

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by nds88

Increasing taxes at any time for any reason is completely unjust. Its a form of weaponization and a way to punish someone/group because you don't like something about them. In some scenarios, I would probably prefer to go to jail than be taxed. A democracy doesn't mean mob mentality. Individuals still have rights even if a majority want to infringe them or harm them.

Stop paying income taxes. You'll get your 4 walls and 3 square meals a day. They even provide clothes in prison!

Maybe you can get this tattoo while you're there:

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

I was born here so no place to leave to

I didn't imply you weren't. But anyone (such as nds) is always free to go and apply to work/live elsewhere if they are really so unhappy here. Unlike some authoritarian countries we don't prevent people from leaving.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I didn't imply you weren't. But anyone (such as nds) is always free to go and apply to work/live elsewhere if they are really so unhappy here. Unlike some authoritarian countries we don't prevent people from leaving.

But where is this magical unicorn land free of laws and taxation where everything works perfectly?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

But where is this magical unicorn land free of laws and taxation where everything works perfectly?

Maybe that island John McAfee lives on.

[nds88]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd like to park or drive my car anywhere I'd please, but so does everybody else. Hence traffic rules, signals and signs, parking metres, fines, tickets and other regulations. Such is the price of society: nobody is truly free.

That's a bogus analogy. How you drive and park on the road directly affects someone else. If I run a red light, I can hit someone else and kill/hurt them. Not their fault. I can't park in front of someones driveway because it blocks them from entering/exiting. Not their fault. Leaving a house empty, or using it on weekends only, or visiting it twice a year for 2 months at a time does not negatively affect a specific person.

The better analogy is I own 3 cars: a 4 door sedan for everyday work, a pick up I use to drive into the woods to hike and shoot guns in the woods, and a 2 seater convertible I take out on for dates and leisure drives during the summer. 2 of these cars are usually parked in the driveway and the primary car usually has 4 empty seats. Am I taxed an empty car tax, unless I allow someone that doesn't have a car borrow mine? What about the empty seats? Should I incur congestion tax since I should be carpooling with a neighbour?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nds88

The better analogy is I own 3 cars: a 4 door sedan for everyday work, a pick up I use to drive into the woods to hike and shoot guns in the woods, and a 2 seater convertible I take out on for dates and leisure drives during the summer. 2 of these cars are usually parked in the driveway and the primary car usually has 4 empty seats. Am I taxed an empty car tax, unless I allow someone that doesn't have a car borrow mine? What about the empty seats? Should I incur congestion tax since I should be carpooling with a neighbour?

Me, I'd just pick one vehicle that does everything.

Bad metaphor, the EHT is more like road pricing or parking - if you don't have to drive, then please don't, or at least pay up to make it equally unfair. Beats banning new cars outright; I suppose the equivalent would be a "one household, one home" law.

[nds88]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Me, I'd just pick one vehicle that does everything.

That's great. If you do, I don't care. However, if someone wants 8 cars, which in my personal opinion, is completely unnecessary, they can have that too.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Bad metaphor, the EHT is more like road pricing or parking - if you don't have to drive, then please don't, or at least pay up to make it equally unfair. Beats banning new cars outright; I suppose the equivalent would be a "one household, one home" law.

I interpret the Empty Home as having a lot of variance on a scale. To someone that is a foreigner that buys a home and never visits it or uses it. Then there are the families (foreign or not) that have a home in BC and visit it multiple times a year, or perhaps even as often as several days a month. Then there is the business person (several of whom I know), that have a condo downtown that they stay in while doing some sort of deal. When the deal is done, they stay at their spacious suburban home. The cycle repeats several times a year. The legislation has made it so difficult that you basically need to rent it out full time as anything else is not realistic.

[nds88]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Stop paying income taxes. You'll get your 4 walls and 3 square meals a day. They even provide clothes in prison!

Maybe you can get this tattoo while you're there:

That tattoo will look great on my back.

In some scenarios jail would be better. So, we are going to abolish the capital gains tax. Now we are going to tax you 95% on your gains. Or you could spend a month in jail.

It can get even sillier. Extreme laws aren't made overnight. They slowly chip away, until one day (read the following and below with sarcasm in my voice).............So Muslim community, there was an attack on Canadian soil with ISIS taking responsibility. We have implemented the Muslim tax to help fix the damage and compensate the victims. You can easily avoid this, just renounce your faith!

So Mr Gay couple, we noticed you don't have children. Well, you have a lot of disposable income now. We can all see it on your fabulous Instagram page. Others with kids are struggling, so we are implementing the gay tax. You can easily avoid this, just have kids or don't be gay.

So Canadians born on this soil of Japanese descent....your distant relatives you never knew in a country you never been to, well, they sorta just attacked Pearl Harbour. So we are going to move you all to these really rural areas to keep everyone safe. Don't worry, we are going to sell all your stuff and tax it to pay for it. Oh, you can easily avoid all this. Just go work on an Alberta farm for pennies. Wait, what? The Nazis are also attacking us. Oh, don't worry, the Germans here are cool. After the war, if none of you are charged for a crime....don't worry, we will have an awesome apology ready for you.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nds88

That's great. If you do, I don't care. However, if someone wants 8 cars, which in my personal opinion, is completely unnecessary, they can have that too.

Sure, and they can pay upkeep on all eight of them. In that context, the EHT is pretty much just an extension of the property tax, which itself already has incentives and penalties.

Originally Posted by nds88

I interpret the Empty Home as having a lot of variance on a scale. To someone that is a foreigner that buys a home and never visits it or uses it. Then there are the families (foreign or not) that have a home in BC and visit it multiple times a year, or perhaps even as often as several days a month.

The former is the target of the tax, as we both know.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the latter (and so is Victoria, which I believe offers a $2k break), but they have to realize that supply is low and demand is high - second homes are becoming a luxury no matter where you go. And how do they afford flight tickets twelve times a year, but not a 1% increase in property tax?

Originally Posted by nds88

Then there is the business person (several of whom I know), that have a condo downtown that they stay in while doing some sort of deal. When the deal is done, they stay at their spacious suburban home. The cycle repeats several times a year. The legislation has made it so difficult that you basically need to rent it out full time as anything else is not realistic.

If I'm reading this correctly, they literally own a second home just to avoid commuting to work. That could be its own meme.

[cairnstone]

I have several clients that have a place downtown. They regularly travel between 2 to 3 cities. THis way they dont have to pack more than a carry on. And have everything they like in there home.

Also one friends Business partner has a unit downtown as he lives in the valley. The regularly go to plays shows fundraisers and much nicer than having to book a hotel.

So are we to fine them so that some one that did not invest well and work hard can save maybe 10% on a house. The tax has not worked nothing is more affordable. Don't see alot of low paying blue collar guys shopping for 500000 1 bedroom apartments

[nds88]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, and they can pay upkeep on all eight of them. In that context, the EHT is pretty much just an extension of the property tax, which itself already has incentives and penalties.

The car owner is 100% aware of insurance and upkeep costs, before they get the car. Just like a home owner is aware of the standard property taxes, insurance and maintenance (lawn mowing to comply with city bylaws, or strata fees in a condo). The EHT applies to those after they own their home. If anything, it should have grandfathered existing owners. Any new homes purchased and left empty would be taxed. I don't agree with this either, but then new buyers are aware of this and existing buyers don't have significant changes to them after the fact.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the latter (and so is Victoria, which I believe offers a $2k break), but they have to realize that supply is low and demand is high - second homes are becoming a luxury no matter where you go. And how do they afford flight tickets twelve times a year, but not a 1% increase in property tax?



If I'm reading this correctly, they literally own a second home just to avoid commuting to work. That could be its own meme.

Depends on the situation. Some live in Victoria, and take the ferry over a couple times a month. Others might live in Burnaby or Fraser Valley and literally work 24/7 during deal time. All the lawyers, accountants, business partners etc are in DT core and a extra condo serves as Business person's base. Others need to bounce between Vancouver, Toronto, NYC etc and need a base that is set up to come and go as needed. Office set up, documents stored, clothes ready. Family sometimes accompany them.

I have family that lives in Calgary that own a condo in a BC resort town. They come and go from there as they please. Sometimes they stay a few weeks, sometimes a night as a base when they drive out here. They are not speculators. In fact, they bought when there was excess supply and little demand. Should they have gotten a tax rebate for that, since at the time there was way more supply than demand? They should have gotten a 1% tax rebate for stimulating the economy in times of need. The province wants to tax them more when supply is low and demand is high.

Arguing that if someone can afford to pay for something others can't, doesn't justify having them pay extra tax on top of their regular expenses. So what if someone can drop $10k on a Hermes bag. That doesn't mean some silly Super Luxury Tax should be implemented on luxury things to fund XYZ Affordable Justice League Fund. I don't have kids, so I have more disposable income. Should a Bachelor Tax be implemented to help single moms? And in my previous post, I'd assume gay couples have a higher percentage of childless homes. Should a gay tax be implemented if a couple does not have children (or even straight couples that choose not to have children). There should be a DINK tax (dual income no kids)!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Some people prefer to travel by yacht or private plane. They're fully prepared to pay extra for it.

Originally Posted by cairnstone

So are we to fine them so that some one that did not invest well and work hard can save maybe 10% on a house. The tax has not worked nothing is more affordable. Don't see alot of low paying blue collar guys shopping for 500000 1 bedroom apartments

Wealth or lack thereof depends on a lot of things. This Calvinist "poverty is a character flaw" crap can't die out soon enough.

As for prices, economic policies take entire election cycles to pan out. At the very least, we know that prices won't start skyrocketing again; a rogue wave will swamp all boats.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd like to park or drive my car anywhere I'd please, but so does everybody else. Hence traffic rules, signals and signs, parking metres, fines, tickets and other regulations. Such is the price of society: nobody is truly free.

But mind you that you don't keep shifting goal posts as you see fit. Enticing foreigners to come invest here with all the perks and then changing/reversing the policies mid-way through will definitely send a clear signal that this province is shady, like a banana republic, and will not pause to screw you unexpectedly.

That is the signal we send to the international community: When we need your money during desperate times, we welcome you warmly, but when times are tough, you pay more for it or get the hell out.

Not saying that the previous system was perfect, but our new measures should only target the real speculators and flexible towards those who are doing long-term investments here. It is sheer laziness and backward-thinking to implement a policy that fits all, only that it does not.

What I see from the current fiasco is that politicians are merely pandering to those who are jealous of richer folks coming to live amongst us, as evident by the irresponsible comments here in this thread. These people are only happy to see the outsiders living here to be getting the short end of the stick. That must really give them immense pleasure.

[Krissy]

Vin, you're the last person who should be lecturing about 'shifting goal posts as you see fit'.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

But mind you that you don't keep shifting goal posts as you see fit. Enticing foreigners to come invest here with all the perks and then changing/reversing the policies mid-way through will definitely send a clear signal that this province is shady, like a banana republic, and will not pause to screw you unexpectedly.

That is the signal we send to the international community: When we need your money during desperate times, we welcome you warmly, but when times are tough, you pay more for it or get the hell out.

Not saying that the previous system was perfect, but our new measures should only target the real speculators and flexible towards those who are doing long-term investments here. It is sheer laziness and backward-thinking to implement a policy that fits all, only that it does not.

LOL, because rampant money laundering isn't "bannana republic" enough for you? Tax dodging?

Like all the viewcone haters you subscribe to the "we're running out of land" trope. So if that's the case, there is no justification for selling off such a rare commodity to foreign buyers.

All the moaners ignore the fact that in each case cited here the tax worked exactly as intended: casual part-time visitor sold the property and a local bought it. Success!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nds88

The car owner is 100% aware of insurance and upkeep costs, before they get the car. Just like a home owner is aware of the standard property taxes, insurance and maintenance (lawn mowing to comply with city bylaws, or strata fees in a condo). The EHT applies to those after they own their home. If anything, it should have grandfathered existing owners. Any new homes purchased and left empty would be taxed. I don't agree with this either, but then new buyers are aware of this and existing buyers don't have significant changes to them after the fact.

Depends on the situation. Some live in Victoria, and take the ferry over a couple times a month. Others might live in Burnaby or Fraser Valley and literally work 24/7 during deal time. All the lawyers, accountants, business partners etc are in DT core and a extra condo serves as Business person's base. Others need to bounce between Vancouver, Toronto, NYC etc and need a base that is set up to come and go as needed. Office set up, documents stored, clothes ready. Family sometimes accompany them.

Extra costs come all the time - anybody who uses Rogers or Telus will tell you that. I'd get used to it.

There's a good chance that people that can afford spare homes all over the city/province/continent also have enough of a budget to afford an extra 1% property tax on them. I don't see it as Tall Poppy Syndrome so much as "hey, this is how the world works."

Originally Posted by nds88

I have family that lives in Calgary that own a condo in a BC resort town. They come and go from there as they please. Sometimes they stay a few weeks, sometimes a night as a base when they drive out here. They are not speculators. In fact, they bought when there was excess supply and little demand. Should they have gotten a tax rebate for that, since at the time there was way more supply than demand? They should have gotten a 1% tax rebate for stimulating the economy in times of need. The province wants to tax them more when supply is low and demand is high.

Unless that resort town is Kelowna or West Kelowna, your family should be exempt.

If you give tax breaks or subsidies for something, you get more of it. We aren't short of tourists, and there's a good chance that the housing crisis would be even worse with your rebate.

Originally Posted by nds88

Arguing that if someone can afford to pay for something others can't, doesn't justify having them pay extra tax on top of their regular expenses. So what if someone can drop $10k on a Hermes bag. That doesn't mean some silly Super Luxury Tax should be implemented on luxury things to fund XYZ Affordable Justice League Fund. I don't have kids, so I have more disposable income. Should a Bachelor Tax be implemented to help single moms? And in my previous post, I'd assume gay couples have a higher percentage of childless homes. Should a gay tax be implemented if a couple does not have children (or even straight couples that choose not to have children). There should be a DINK tax (dual income no kids)!

Shouldn't people be fined for excessive water use during a drought? Shouldn't we be upset about Nestle selling our own reservoirs back to us during said drought?

You're comparing apples to Agent Orange. At last check, buying a designer bag or starting a family aren't basic needs, but having a roof over your head is.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

That graph is a bit misleading though, as it shows relative shares.

Investment in equipment, machinery and R&D could have gone up on an absolute basis in that timeframe but it would look like its crashing simply because residential investment has spiked.

True, it would be useful to have absolute figures but we've know for a long time that Canada is a laggard in R&D and funding start-ups. Look at the headline in today's BIV:

‘We don’t have enough money’: Tech leaders debate constraints at Vancouver Startup Week
Why it matters: Growth in technology may be stymied without enough investment capital, say experts

It’s a rare feat for B.C. tech companies to lay claim to capital raises totalling more than $450 million over the course of 13 days.

Despite that recent tally, the current level of capital flowing into the province may not be enough to elevate the ecosystem to a level on par with other global leaders, according to experts speaking at Vancouver Startup Week...

https://biv.com/article/2019/09/we-d...r-startup-week

That's why I cheer the real estate bubble bursting. Investors need to learn condos aren't always a sure-fire winner and that there are other means to invest.

[LeftCoaster]

Condo investors aren't going to just shift over to tech though, tech investors are a very specific and purposeful breed.

Condo investors will leave (probably not a bad thing) but tech investors still need to be convinced to shift capital away from silicon valley, and that is not easy. Canada as a whole has this problem and it has nothing to do with real estate.