This is probably the most interesting and insightful real estate piece I’ve read this year.
The Financial Post’s Garry Marr wrote an article this week called, “Ontario Tried A Speculation Tax On Property And The Market Collapsed Overnight,” and it once again brings up the question of the role of government in an extremely active market-place.
B.C.’s Premier, Christy Clark, recently vowed to eliminate the practice of “double-ending” in organized real estate, so we know that governments are looking to intervene.
But there’s a massive difference between regulation, and taxation. Is there not?
If you haven’t read the article yet, read it in full HERE.
The concept of a “speculation” tax is in part, absurd, and in part, fair.
The comments section on the Financial Post article highlight the same-old, same-old:
1) Blame foreign investors
2) Differentiate between true “speculators” with empty houses, and “investors”
3) Everybody who buys real estate is “speculating” on future growth
4) The government already taxes us enough
I’m on vacation until Thursday, so forgive me if I light the fire and then run away…
But I’m curious to know what you think about the concept of a speculation tax at the most basic level, and whether it has merit, but also about the potential disaster created once the government gets to define “speculation” and “speculators,” and whether this is designed to affect the market, or whether it’s simply a cash-grab…