Do You Think People from Other Countries Should Be Able to Purchase Property or Land in Australia?

robertm on 28/06/2018 - 12:12

I know there are many difficulties in both wording this question and for any government attempting to implement restrictions on ownership.

I'm just curious about people's overall perception on this topic and what their basic feeling about it is.

Some obvious difficulties:

  • How would you determine who should and shouldn't be allowed? Permanent resident or citizen? Consider number of years of residency? People who are born here?

  • How would you stop people transferring money to other's to purchase by "proxy"?

  • Only allow leasing of land rather than permanent sale?

  • Limit sale of land to people from countries which have reciprocal agreements. If a country doesn't allow Australian citizens to purchase land there then that countries' citizens can't purchase here.

  • Increase taxation for particular buyers rather than just a complete ban? This money could then go into a fund to offset any related problems?

Poll Options expired

  • 145
    Yes
  • 469
    No
Financial Immigration Investment Property

Comments

        • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2018 - 22:21

          Um… Why won't they, if inflation rockets up (An because commodities are at long time lows that's very possible) they can be forced to increase it. Additionally, have you even looked up the BBSR charts these days?

        • [Deactivated] on 03/07/2018 - 01:12

          A mini recession and when we have one of the highest property to wage ratios in the world plus the highest mortgage debt to income in history? Don't make me laugh, look at charts, stats and history rather than your intuition or hopefulness.

        • minotaurian on 04/07/2018 - 14:07

          @jared444: I'm not disagreeing with you, I know a mini correction will occur. But inflation is also influenced by wage growth. If wage growth is stagnant, people are not going to buy more stuff, they more likely to keep it in the bank. but knowing that humans are irrational, people spend money they don't have, aka debt. If this is the case, here comes GFC version 2.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2018 - 13:00

    of course. so we all can buy a house on wolseley rd point piper :p

    but wait… there are more oz bargain users than the number of lots on wolseley rd… :(

  • thriftybunny on 01/07/2018 - 14:34

    Not sure…
    FDI brings new buildings = new places for people to live, which is nice, they also create jobs for Australians..
    Maybe only new apartment buildings? & areas that needs growth money? & tax them more?

  • spedohero on 01/07/2018 - 16:38
    +2

    No government in the world can resist $$$

  • qazwsx on 01/07/2018 - 16:48
    +11

    There are many problems with the domestic property market; foreign investors is just one problem. I am Aust, now living overseas, but used to work in an area that had high exposure to high net wealths and property investors in Aust before I moved. Let me share my insights.

    1. Foreign investors - part 1
      There's 2 problems here: 1) foreigners buy at almost the same rate as locals, and 2) law enforcement. Aust has had laws that require those who no longer remain long term residents to dispose of property, but not until Joe hockey was treasurer was it actually enforced and even then only about a dozen or so cases. Need to enforce, not just this law but all the others!

    2. Foreign investors - part 2
      Have a look at Hong Kong and Singapore for some interesting approaches for residential properties. In SIN, if you are a citizen you pay normal stamp duty on your first property, 7% extra on 2nd property and 10% extra on subsequent. PRs pay 5% extra on #1, 10% extra on #2 and 15% on subsequent. Foreigners and non individuals pay extra 15% on all purchases. To clarify, this means of a citizen buys first property, no extra tax; if he sells it and buys another, then no extra tax again. This has multiple impacts:

    - doesn't close off the market to foreign investors, but at least we (thru our govt) gets to collect some money along the way
    - there is a stronger concession for citizens, and a larger penalty for foreigners
    - it slows down multiple property investors for both domestic and foreign investors
    - penalties on subsequent purchases helps to level the playing field between owner occupiers who are buying for residence and investors who are able to pay extra because of the income they will generate

    1. Negative gearing
      Most people heard of it, not as many really understand it and how much they save. Quite simple topic, but the idea that rental losses should be deductable against other unrelated income is not right. Rental losses should only be deductible against other rental income, and if sold then form part of the cost base for CGT purposes (this will also incidentally reduce the attractiveness of the 50% CGT discount). That will retain tax philosophy in that you get taxed only on profits, without the massive leakage that allowing deductions against unrelated income allows.
      Negative gearing is responsible for some very Australian property quirks in that many investors are very comfortable with rental losses, and this obsession with interest only loans with offset accounts - for property investors these interest only with offsets are amazing, and it's good to see APRA getting the banks to drive it down

    2. Loan standards
      I'm not sure that the royal Commission is doing enough to uncover loan writing by the banks. For a long time it was too easy to get home loans for subsequent properties - you can revalue existing property to get a higher valuation, then drawdown the extra valuation and use it to put down as a deposit on another property. This practice should be severely curtailed (like no drawdowns based on a higher revaluation within 5yrs of last drawdown) or other regulatory limits put in place (like linking max borrowings to income and liquid assets).

    3. Tam exemptions for "owner occupiers" and "first home owners"
      I put the above in quotation marks because I'm referring to those who stretch the definitions of the above terms. Being able to classify a property as main residence and therefore exempt from CGT for up to 6yrs without residing in it is BS - that should be curtailed. Also same with first home owners for stamp duty - it should be at least 12mths residence, not 6mths.

    4. Change in mindset - property prices do go down!
      There's a mentality pervading through property investors, particularly Aust investors, that property prices only ever go up, so just buy buy buy. Govt needs to be open to instituting some cooling measures at the right time to let some steam out, and psychologically remind the market that property prices can actually go down. A fundamentally strong property market will be able to take the cooling measures in their stride, like HK and Singapore have done. Property markets built on a bed of hot air will tumble - they should not have been that high in the first place.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2018 - 18:11
      +1

      All of these issues are secondary factors, and you missed the main reason for this crazy housing casino. Interest rates.

      • minotaurian on 01/07/2018 - 21:12
        +1

        To a certain extent, but bare in mind,interest is one factor to this complex issue. Look at Japan with their negative interest rates. Housing prices still going down, and they literally have no land to build property on. This is because of declining population and great infrastructure, people don't mind living outside of major cities. But in Australia, everyone wants to be in the big cities, its like a growing obsession.

        • Ti-au on 02/07/2018 - 03:42
          +4

          everyone wants to be in the big cities

          Replace with "everyone has to be in the big cities"

          (due to poor public transport, lack of services (like child care / school spots ), etc.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2018 - 22:35

          Put it to -5% interest rates and you'll see it'll grow. It's much easier to change interest rates than it is to change legislation or demographic factors. The fact is that if interest rates stayed at normal rates, property wouldn't be as crazy regardless of foreign investment, negative gearing or anything else. They are factors that have influence, but do you really think they have that much of a grasp on the market compared to an increase of 4.5% interest back to normal rates?

    • brongz on 02/07/2018 - 00:04
      +1

      Because the politicians have vested interest in this situation it’s hard to change what happens now. Don’t you think so?

  • CandyMan on 01/07/2018 - 20:00
    +1

    TLDR
    Yes, on our terms. Only when it’s in our own interest

    • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 10:21

      No one is forcing property owners in Australia to sell to anyone… so yay, it's already "on our terms".

  • brongz on 01/07/2018 - 23:59
    +8

    Show me the political party that really wants local to have their own house.
    Who want to limit foreigner ownerships of Australian properties (since many countries out there already doing this).
    Unfortunately the politician are likely have not only one investimenti property. They’re gaining a lot from this property boom. Do you think they care about us or the future generations??

    • minotaurian on 02/07/2018 - 00:33
      +7

      Agreed, there was an article in the paper recently showing how much of a property mogul politicians are. An Altruistic politician is an oxymoron, let alone any other human. They will not erect legislation that will shoot them self in the foot.

      • myusername on 02/07/2018 - 10:50

        2 best comments in this thread right here

  • useruser on 02/07/2018 - 13:11

    In Thailand it's pretty clear cut. Foreigners can never purchase land, doesn't matter if you marry and become a permanent resident/makeshift citizen you cannot. Foreigners can buy units/apartments but only ever own up to 49% of an entire complex/building. Likewise becoming a resident is much harder, and a citizen? ha forget about it unless you have years to waste, money to burn and love to jump. Honestly I think Australia is probably too far gone, but it's not right that foreigners can just buy the country and it's assets from under you.

    • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 15:36
      -1

      For the last time, no one can buy anything unless the owner/seller agrees. No one is buying anything from "under" anybody.

      • useruser on 03/07/2018 - 11:54

        The politicians of this country do not represent my views and so I do not agree with your statement. The question was not about seller's agreeing, it was about the laws of foreign ownership.

        • HighAndDry on 03/07/2018 - 11:56

          Yeah but you're not the seller or owner of the property - it's not being "sold from under you" in any way. The only person who really should have a say is the owner, and I assume they're not being forced to sell to anyone.

        • useruser on 03/07/2018 - 22:13
          +3

          @HighAndDry: Nonsense. There is a tangible line between the assets of a country and it's people, unless you are Liberal biased that is. The discussion point here is not about who the seller chooses to sell to, it's whether foreigners should be allowed to buy Australian assets. You can bang on about it being the sellers choice until the cow's come home to their foreign owned pastures all you want, it's not the discussion we're having here.

  • lostn on 02/07/2018 - 15:34

    If you're allowed to purchase property in another country, then people in other countries should be allowed to purchase properties here.

    It sucks for some people, but fairness requires consistency.

    It's a free market. Bid against them. If you can't outbid them, well it only goes to the highest bidder, as it should. Do you think the vendor would prefer to sell it to you for cheaper because you're a fellow Aussie? No. They're going to want the highest price.

    Whenever there's losers, there's always winners too. You can't please both sides.

    • mini2 on 02/07/2018 - 15:57

      Money talks.

      Unless the vendor has a bit of backbone and refuse to sell to investors/overseas buyers then there's no hope of the trend slowing down. I've only ever heard of one old fella refused to sell to investors (the irony is he is an investor himself) and insist on selling it for less to a first home buyer.

      • lostn on 02/07/2018 - 16:45
        +2

        Why would they want the trend to slow down? They aren't going to be concerned about the trend. If house prices continue pushing upwards, that's just a bigger gain to them.

        If you're a home owner, your assets are going up in value thanks to foreign investors. If you have lots of investment properties yourself, you definitely wouldn't want any moves that drive down the value of your wealth.

        The ones crying about it are those who don't have a house and are looking to buy. Where there's a buyer, there needs to be a seller. So if you enact policies that help buyers, the sellers are the losers.

        Not that many people would give large sums of money to a stranger, which is effectively what you'd be doing if you refused to sell to foreigners or sold it to locals for a cheaper price. I can see this kindness happening towards people you know, but not strangers.

        • Ti-au on 04/07/2018 - 06:56

          If house prices continue pushing upwards, that's just a bigger gain to them.

          Well unless they enjoy being homeless, probably not as they are going to have to purchase another property, which has also gone up.

          So if you enact policies that help buyers, the sellers are the losers.

          Depends - fhog allowed sellers to rise their prices.

      • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 16:49
        -1

        Unless the vendor has a bit of backbone and refuse to sell to investors/overseas buyers

        What the hell does this have to do with backbone? This is OzBargain - do you routinely leave money on the table for no reason?

        • Shiny Mew on 02/07/2018 - 18:47

          In such cases they would be 'leaving money on the table' for altruistic or charitable ends rather than no reason.

    • Ti-au on 04/07/2018 - 06:53

      If you're allowed to purchase property in another country, then people in other countries should be allowed to purchase properties here.

      I will let the the Chinese, etc, etc, etc know. I am sure they will let me buy a property there now…..

      Are you saying that reciprocity should be only one way? Because then thats not really fair.

      However if you are saying that we enact the same rules for foreigners that Australian citizens face I will heartily agree with you.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 02/07/2018 - 23:24
    +1

    If you really think about it folks, we are a bunch of hypocrites, really.

    Many people can say "no" the this thread question however every single day we all make transactions involving whereby we are supporting "foreign" people/companies who have bought or own land in Australia. Think Apple, Samsung, Ikea, Costco, Maccas, and more.

    Those who ride with Uber, or order off UberEasts … well surprise surprise, supporting a foreign company owning land in Australia and increasing demand at at the same time.

    Sometimes I have to agree with that that loser prime minister Malcolm Turnbull when he said to the effect "if you can't afford a house, hopefully you have rich parents."

    • Ti-au on 04/07/2018 - 07:11

      Those who ride with Uber, or order off UberEasts … well surprise surprise, supporting a foreign company owning land in Australia

      What land does uber eats own? I mean we could rent it to them, or we could restrict ownership to commercial premises. If those companies don't want to setup here - no one is forcing them.

      we are a bunch of hypocrites, really.

      How? Many people from overseas buy here, when we are not allowed to buy there; many foreign companies open here and import product and yet we face tariffs and regulatory hurdles if we try to open there or export to them.

      People demanding that we should allow foreign ownership are hypocrites when we cannot buy in those peoples countries.

  • ACTdealchaser on 02/07/2018 - 23:25
    +1

    I doubt foreign investors are the root cause of the property price.

    I agree with comments about the lack of infrastructure and jobs outside capital cities, high population growth- both international permernent and temporary residents and inter state migration, low interest, government interest and politician’s vested interest all contribute. Investors are just those see the opportunity as a result of above and decide to profit from it. The reasons above actually created the opportunity.

    There is a recent and classic example of govement doesn’t actually want to see property price go down: APRA put a limit on the % of investor loans the bank could have on the book. Subsequently the property price has slowed down. Then APRA just removed this restriction. Wouldn’t this means despite what the gov says, when they see property price decline, they want to save it, and this sort of thing probably has little to do with foreign investors.

    Before the root cause are being looked at, the property probably is not becoming a lot more affordable and we will have many others issues

    • Ti-au on 04/07/2018 - 07:19

      There is a recent and classic example of govement doesn’t actually want to see property price go down: APRA put a limit on the % of investor loans the bank could have on the book. Subsequently the property price has slowed down. Then APRA just removed this restriction. Wouldn’t this means despite what the gov says, when they see property price decline, they want to save it, and this sort of thing probably has little to do with foreign investors

      True, however there are 2 arguments you could mount - the first one is fairness - are we allowed to buy in their country> No. Will we be allowed to buy in their country in the future? No.

      I also suggest that one could argue that foreign investors and people who get residence here are obviously having some effect on the market, esp. considering when in one of Sydneys newest suburbs 70%+ of units are in foreign names (I think its higher - but giving benefit of the doubt). Or the fact that overseas investors were buying 1 in 10 properties (almost all located in Syd/Melb crowding out locals).
      Hence foreign investors have driven prices higher meaning other buyers have to take on more debt to service (as there is less supply). Those same investors keep their units empty, meaning prices have gone higher fro renters (even Singapore has targeted this type of speculation). I mean do we want productive assets that are useful to our society or assets that do nothing for our society?

      • ACTdealchaser on 04/07/2018 - 12:56

        I am not saying (foriegn) investors having no impact on, I am saying they only try to profit from the situation however didn’t cause the situation. My point is even if the foreign investor is banned, we will still have other above mentioned issues, and then suffer from the impact of those issues.

        Your reply only comment on the fairness and what impact they have had. Fairness probably not so essential- we should do what’s right for us no necessarily has to be receipocal. For instance a lower income country often very well provide favourable treatment for foreign investors without geting the same the other way around.

        I can supply another example- my area is not considered as international investor driven to the extend large developer often have to market their project in Sydney with the hope to get Chinese.
        Our govement on the other hand has learned the trick and lower the land supply by total and only by small batches. To put into perspective the net population growth is in 5k, new land is less than 500 blocks. For most it time,The local govement will not rezone farms unless they bought them as the farm first.Additional demand is met by unit built on previous social housing land. You get the spirit?

  • tidie on 03/07/2018 - 13:43

    https://www.realestate.com.au/news/former-treasurer-joe-hock…
    Well, I guess this guy disliked overseas investors until it was him selling the house.

  • outlander on 03/07/2018 - 15:21
    +2

    I say yes, because I'm planning on squatting in the future, and the more empty luxury houses in ideal locations there are, the more places I have to choose from.

    • Ti-au on 04/07/2018 - 07:22

      Considering how long they remain empty its probably a good strategy.

  • dresh on 03/07/2018 - 16:08

    They should be able to but they should also be taxed at a much higher rate than a PR or Citizen. The price of housing should reflect mainly the real demand and supply of the market of that specific country. What is happening here and what happened in Canada is that the house prices don't reflect anymore the real purchasing power of Australian residents. Implementing an higher taxation for foreign investor should help to balance the different purchasing power.

    You also need limitations on property left vacant and not put on the rental market. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/vacancy-tax-wont-solve…

    But then I believe you also need limitations on a number of other subject, such as AirBnBing entire places. You can do it but only for a limited amount of time throughout the year. Where I lived so many places where not part of the rental market anymore because people prefer it to put it on AirBNB. Less supply but higher demand and rental prices go through the roof.

    So yeh, I like regulation.

    • Ti-au on 04/07/2018 - 07:27

      I think AirBnB gets a little overstated - lots of people rented their homes out, but the more people renting - the lower the returns. My guess is there will be some equilibrium at some point (already AirBnB rentals have decreased), plus people have to service the property - cleaners, management company, paying tax! etc, so at least it provides some net benefit.

      Purchasing a property and leaving it empty provides almost no benefit (especially if it was an overseas developer - so all the profits go offshore, and they illegally dont pay tax).

      • dresh on 04/07/2018 - 09:25

        And yet they estimate that there are 82k homes and apartments vacant in Melbourne and roughly 70k in Sydney. Put disincentives to avoid that and imagine even half of these properties hitting the rental market.

        Servicing a place for Airbnb doesn't really bother owners. The rental return they get is so much higher than the one they would get from the residential rental market.
        I was renting in the eastern suburbs of Sydney and there were hundreds of properties on Airbnb that would have otherwise been on the residential market. I am not against Airbnb completely but I believe it should be regulated to limit the impact on the rental market.

        • HighAndDry on 04/07/2018 - 09:58
          -1

          Where are you getting your estimates? Also, an apartment being let out on AirBnB shouldn't be counted as "vacant" - it's clearly occupied.

          This is another case of you wanting to control what others can do with their property, and for your own self-interest. Why is your self-interest more important than the self-interest of the owners?

        • dresh on 04/07/2018 - 12:15

          @HighAndDry:

          From here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/vacancy-tax-wont-solve…

          Because the interest of the community and of a nation is more important thank the one of the owners. That's why so many countries have regulations in place and this is why Australia should follow. Housing should be viewed primarily as a basic human necessity, then as a speculative investment.

          You clearly sound libertarian and therefore we will never agree. I would love to know your opinion on negative gearing then?

        • HighAndDry on 04/07/2018 - 12:47
          -1

          @dresh:

          Because the interest of the community and of a nation

          The community and the nation are made up of the individuals - you know, those people who buy and own property?

          Housing should be viewed primarily as a basic human necessity, then as a speculative investment.

          I've said this far too many times, but there are international speculation on everything from food, textiles, etc. Why you think property is some kind of "special" exemption is beyond me.

          You clearly sound libertarian and therefore we will never agree. I would love to know your opinion on negative gearing then?

          Negative gearing isn't actually a discrete thing. It's the standard "making deductions from taxable income for income-related expenses". You know all those posts about claiming home office expenses, travel, work related clothing, etc? Negative gearing is literally that concept. Not a separate but identical concept, it is that concept.

          Also you linked an opinion piece when I think you meant to link a news piece.

        • dresh on 04/07/2018 - 13:02

          @HighAndDry:

          The community and the nation are made up of the individuals - you know, those people who buy and own property?

          And also the ones who rent or want to get into the property market!

          I've said this far too many times, but there are international speculation on everything from food, textiles, etc. Why you think property is some kind of "special" exemption is beyond me.

          Because it's completely different! If the orange juice concentrate price skyrockets due to speculation it will result in higher juice prices and therefore less demand. People will start buying more apple juice and prices eventually will come down. Same with bacon and grains. They are different markets, disconnected from each other, and much bigger and harder to speculate on. How on earth can you compare this to the Australian housing market? What do you do if the housing market gets worse than it is now in Sydney everywhere in Australia? You go and live on a boat? You start drinking more apple juice? What's the % of income you spend on mortgage repayments/rent compared to grains, juice, or even clothes?

          Negative gearing isn't actually a discrete thing.

          Wow. You hate regulations and government control on housing market but you love a good ol' tax deduction for the same market that you say doesn't require regulation. How great is that you allow tax deduction on a property investment loss to someone who earns 200k+ a year? No wonder so many countries have this.

          Also you linked an opinion piece when I think you meant to link a news piece.

          If you read it you will find out it's based on a research that analysed water usage. Do you reckon that if an apartment uses 1 litre of water a year it's mainly because they like bottled water?

        • HighAndDry on 04/07/2018 - 13:13

          @dresh:

          And also the ones who rent or want to get into the property market!

          Sure. And a democracy works by respecting each other's rights. Private property rights tend to be a fairly important one.

          Because it's completely different!

          Sigh. Unless you're saying food is less of a necessity than housing, it's no different at all because all food are traded on international futures markets. They're as "disconnected" as property market in Sydney Eastern suburbs and Western suburbs. Using your logic, I'd say: If property in one area is too expensive, that would drive down demand and people can buy elsewhere! (And I'd be right - Australia doesn't lack for land. People are only whining because they all want to live closer to the city centers)

          You hate regulations and government control on housing market but you love a good ol' tax deduction for the same market that you say doesn't require regulation

          I don't see how that's inconsistent. Taxes are government regulation. If I want less regulation, I'd also want less tax. And again "you can deduct income-earning expenses from taxable income" is the standard. Negative gearing isn't some special thing - exemptions to negative gearing would be the out-of-the-ordinary element.

          If you like taxes so much, go live in China. Or try to go live in one of the Scandinavian countries, but good luck getting them to let you in.

        • dresh on 04/07/2018 - 15:02

          @HighAndDry:

          Sure. And a democracy works by respecting each other's rights. Private property rights tend to be a fairly important one.

          And regulating foreign investments in the housing markets would mean disrespecting private property?

          Sigh. Unless you're saying food is less of a necessity than housing, it's no different at all because all food are traded on international futures markets. They're as "disconnected" as property market in Sydney Eastern suburbs and Western suburbs. Using your logic, I'd say: If property in one area is too expensive, that would drive down demand and people can buy elsewhere! (And I'd be right - Australia doesn't lack for land. People are only whining because they all want to live closer to the city centers)

          Probably because most jobs are in the city? And because for the main part commuting from outside the city or 20/30km from CBD is a pain due to traffic and lack of public transport? Are you actually comparing moving from Marrickville to the Central Coast working in the CBD to switching from orange to apple juice?

          If I want less regulation, I'd also want less tax.

          No. As a libertarian you would want the least government intervention possible. You are on your own, you make a bad financial choice investing in a house, well, too bad.

          If you like taxes so much, go live in China. Or try to go live in one of the Scandinavian countries, but good luck getting them to let you in.

          Because getting a PR or citizenship in Australia is easy right? Talking about China doesn't make any sense and you should know it. Loving taxes is also bollocks and has nothing to do with this discussion.

  • BartholemewH on 03/07/2018 - 22:20
    +2

    I picked 'No' because '(profanity) No' wasn't an option.

  • AustriaBargain on 04/07/2018 - 06:32
    +2

    We should open up the deserts. Build Las Vegas style cities, let the foreign land owners pay the rates that keep the water flowing into these cities.

    • HighAndDry on 04/07/2018 - 12:49

      We already have land. We don't have a shortage of land. It's just the people whining don't want to live there.

      • TheMindsetTraveller on 04/07/2018 - 14:42

        I would happily live 200kms away from a big city IF they had bullet trains that travelled at 400kms/hr ;)

        • HighAndDry on 04/07/2018 - 16:03

          Eventually we'll get there. It's pretty telling that our population density isn't at a point that makes High Speed Rail cost-effective yet.

          Seriously though, even by that - 200kms away at 400km/h train speeds, there's a LOT of land within 30mins train of the city that's far from expensive. In Sydney for example, that's as far away as Parramatta, between the two of which are literal hectares and hectares of vacant, residential-zoned land. Would cost you bugger-all to buy a plot, or even a house there. The problem is still that no one wants to live there.

  • sillyguy on 04/07/2018 - 12:38

    I am from a foreign country and I am buying all your lands…Lands are so cheap here it’s a real bargain!

    • Gordon84 on 04/07/2018 - 18:54

      If it's such a bargain how come I've never seen it on ozbargain :)

  • nuttapillar on 04/07/2018 - 16:04

    Nope, hard enough for aussies as it is.

  • Gordon84 on 04/07/2018 - 18:54

    For people who currently own property in the major cities have benefited greatly from the foreign investment boom. I just think the government isn't doing enough to tax and put restrictions on foreign investors from buying property and land at the moment. Increase taxes for foreign investors and give it back to create affordable housing for future generations and growth.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join