- cross-posted to:
- drs_your_gme@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
- cross-posted to:
- drs_your_gme@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
(Credit to rexxit user u/JackTheTranscoder)
Could this be the start of a big foreign ownership dump?
(Credit to rexxit user u/JackTheTranscoder)
Could this be the start of a big foreign ownership dump?
That model is regressive against immigrants that have not attained citizenship. Those who are buying to mask assets or capture growth without doing anything are self financed or can secure loans via foreign institutions against other assets.
Just ban non-residents from purchasing or place limitations of what they can buy, e.g. 1 dwelling, not through a corporation, etc.
I think people who aren’t very familiar with immigration simply don’t know that permenant residency exists (what the US calls a green card, since pop culture makes that better known). When most people immigrate to Canada, they get permenant residency. Citizenship doesn’t come till much later and many don’t get it because it’s just not necessary and some countries don’t allow dual citizenship, so getting Canadian citizenship would mean giving up your other citizenship.
So yeah, permanent residency is likely the most reasonable requirement. There’s also people with longer term temporary residency, like people on student visas or temporary foreign worker programs, but I don’t think it makes sense to own housing as a temporary resident. They can rent, as many already do.
Exactly. Netherlands is an example of a country where you simply cannot be naturalized without forfeiting previous citizenship.
He said people who live here, not citizens.
You’re agreeing with him.
Read again what he said about Finland.
I’m not wholly disagreeing, but controlling through mortgage rates to support only citizens is backwards and regressive to lawful resident immigrants.
If there’s a road to citizenship within 5 years I don’t see the problem as as bad
It’s not as if you are forced to buy - you can also live on rent for a couple of years and save up in order to buy a house afterwards.
Coupling it to citizenship is a good solution since it’s impossible for 1 person to have houses in more than 1 or 2 countries - and not have houses in countries that they are not related to at all just for investment
Sometimes buying is cheaper than renting, but also allows the person to capture equity and build wealth. It’s exclusionary for a group of people who have been otherwise welcomed into society.
Established residency I agree with. However, Citizenship is simply too high of a bar, and for some may be unattainable due to laws on not permitting dual citizenship.
1 dwelling is what I would pitch, but brainwashed Canadians will never vote for it.
OP did say “people who live here”, not citizens… so that base seems kind of covered no?