[nixos]

Because I can't pay taxes with my home "value". Income tax makes sense, when you've got fungible goods coming in, spend some as taxes. No income this year, fine, you're off the hook.

Property, not being fungible and being mostly atomic, is a horrible thing to tax.

[emptybits]

> No income this year, fine, you're off the hook.

Some locals are concerned that a disproportionate amount of the very highest value properties now being purchased are owned by those with no income. Poverty level. Asset rich, and rich in foreign cash. No income.

When such owners (OR, often, their elderly and school-aged family) take up residence in Vancouver then the result is 1) a net loss in income tax to support social services (such as education and health care), plus 2) a net increase in the cost to deliver those services because of our new and impoverished residents.

I'm not arguing for more property tax, but it's complex and very different than in the "good 'ole days". Not long ago, an asset-rich person could be assumed to have paid significant income tax into the public coffers during their life before they and their offspring drew down on public resources. Now, many do not. Food for thought?

[nixos]

So when they sell, they'll have to pay taxes. Sooner or later they'll have to sell (the point of investment properties is the ultimate profit), and that profit is taxable.

And really, how much money does an empty house need from the city? Street cleaning? Street maintenance? Some paperwork overhead? Except for the last one, they benefit all who use the street (the public), not just the property owner.

I think raising income tax is fairer than raising property taxes.

Incidentally, I think income tax bracket should be calculated on a rolling average income, not a monthly income (to prevent unduly punishing people who make large sporadic income)

[aianus]

They send their children to buy and live in the properties and go to UBC. So when they sell it is non-taxable since it is the child's primary residence.

[drpgq]

What taxes do they pay if they sell? Most of them I'm assuming will have one spouse listed as the owner and there's no capital gains taxes on principal residences in Canada.

[stormbrew]

If you make a large sporadic income, it's either from holding multiple payroll jobs, in which case you can file a form that adjusts your yearly income to the CRA such that your withholdings will make sense, or you're a contractor/business owner and you're paying your own taxes, possibly in installments anyways.

It's not like you're taxed at your peak monthly income. Withholdings are just estimates that can be adjusted.

[yazaddaruvala]

Your profit, is not their profit.

From what little I understand, the "profit" they get, is to safeguard this money from the Chinese government.

It is an investment towards a "low risk, high reward" future for themselves and their family.

[rahimnathwani]

You can pay taxes with your home value. Your home has a value as a home. That 'value as a home' can be quantified as rent. If you rent out your home to someone else, you can pay a portion of that as tax. If you would prefer not to do that, and to live in it yourself, you would make that decision after weighing the fact that you have to cover that tax yourself.

Property taxes aren't obviously absurd. I realise that there are counter-arguments (see supporters of prop 13 in California) but it's not as simple a situation as your comment suggests.

[hx87]

> Because I can't pay taxes with my home "value".

Then your home (and those of everyone else in the same situation) is horribly overvalued.

Property may be atomic, but their ownership can be split. Walmart is pretty damn unitary, but I can own shares in it, entitling me to a share of its profits. Similarly, a municipal government levying property taxes can allow you to pay the tax in shares in that property, entitling them to a share of the profits. In this case, the profits are imputed rent, i.e. the rent you avoid/pay yourself due to owning the place.