On one hand I understand the value of the EU to my country’s (Portugal) development on the other I take real issue with how the influx of foreign capital has priced out most common workers from buying a house before they’re 30/40, which directly impacts one’s ability to start a family. Two of our greatest obstacles to wellbeing.
I love some initiatives like the tighter regulation on big tech, but fear the power of a supranational organisation over Portugal’s democratic process. An organisation which is perceived as not so democratic.
We are building, although not enough, a lot of houses, unfortunately, a big chunk is high income/luxury housing and another big chunk is used as an investment vehicle which can sit idle for years even when it’s placed in the middle of our biggest cities.
For some extra context I leave this excerpt from another comment:
In Portugal we have more than 170,000 (state/private) empty houses. A fund of more than 100 million euros (and counting) for the renovation/construction of public/cooperative housing which has been collecting dust for 2 years now. We have the resources to fix this, but our politicians seem more preoccupied in punishing 10K people for being Muslim (they have valid concerns, wrong solutions)
That’s a funny way of wording the question since it never stopped, but there’s a few recent things I can point to. If you need a time frame, I’d say the last several months.
The city nearest to me abolished single-family zoning and is seeing a ton of construction and sharply falling prices. I might finally be able to break into the market myself. We have a new federal government department designed to start producing housing en mass, called Build Canada Homes. Housing prices are also easing off across the country, although certain cities are having more trouble, and the temporary scaling back of immigration while building continues is probably the main factor.
Maybe in Portugal there’s more space issues, but it’s not Hong Kong so I don’t think that’s the whole problem.
Every country should heavily tax non-resident property owners. They should also increasingly tax every property someone owns over 1, to the point that owning more than 3 homes becomes completely unrealistic for most and middle class landlords disappear.
Everyone should own their own residence (or have the opportunity to). Housing prices would collapse if they weren’t being used as a financial vehicle for investments instead of housing that degrades without upkeep.
Taxing the ultra-wealthy out of existence
Taxing landlords out of existence
I believe those are every societies largest priorities.
Often these landlords incorporate though. They have well paid real estate and inheritance lawyers on their payroll, looking for every opportunity to snap up properties - be it apartments or land - on the market for development.
This problem can be solved by good lawmakers, good public servants, and a good amount of public will.
If I had to take a crack at it, it sounds like this would be solved with taxing corporations as landlords in a similarly punitive way. I’m fine with one corporation owning one apartment complex as a service for transient people, but I’m not okay with a corporation owning multiple properties and making their bag entirely via enshittifying people’s housing and jacking up rent.
If we’re worried about a person having ownership in multiple companies that each own one apartment, we can solve that too. Again, I’d focus on tracing back ownership of these assets and taxing those individuals accordingly. If a person owns 10% of 20 companies that own an apartment building each, they should be taxed like they own 2 apartment buildings. Abstraction and obfuscation should not be a successful defense against supporting the society one is a part of. We all have to do our part, and we will be better off if we did both as individuals and as a collective.
The same or at least similar increase in real estate prices has happened in non-EU countries around the world, and the primary beneficiaries are the local upper-class not the foreign investors. It is a complex topic, and EU regulation does play a role in it, but overall I would say that the EU isn’t the primary driver behind this.
I don’t think the EU per se is the reason for this. I think the free flow of foreign capital into industries of essential goods is more to blame, and that lax regulation does come with the EU.
I’d attribute that problem to Portugal specifically though. Especially to the taxation policies that incentivized people to move to Portugal but without requiring them to specifically set up business in Portugal. This resulted into many people working in other countries to move to Portugal to pay lower taxation. This indeed increased prices, especially for rent but also in general, as those people had higher purchasing power but did not significantly increase salaries. There is a reason why Lisbon is the heaven of digital nomads.
I hear things are changing, but I don’t know too much about it. Indeed I know many people in Lisbon who work mostly in other countries. Sure they pay taxes, but that doesn’t directly translate into higher paying jobs.
The tax incentives for digital nomads are a big issue for sure. I love meeting digital nomads, always a fun conversation, I just don’t understand why we should subsidize highly paid individuals looking for a cheap place to live for a while. They do not create roots or care much about the country they live in. If things go south they will leave and the people of the country they enjoyed will be burdened with all the issues.
I say we welcome all digital nomads if they wish to live with us, but they should pay their due like everyone else.
Indeed, however this is not a common problem across Europe. That would not explain otherwise why most digital nomads are mostly Europeans. Such issue was mostly generated by the specific tax policies of Portugal who incentivized rich people to move into the country without ensuring this would lead to a common good.
All in all, I do not believe this is a problem strictly related to the fact that Portugal is part of the European Union, but rather the result of poor policy planning.
Mind you, I’m not saying the policies were without reason, but probably did not obtain the expected results.
I’m mentioning this issue in the context of the EU, due to the EU naturally allowing a more free flow of people and capital. Which is great for the “core” of the EU and at the same time the cause of big issues in the peripheries.
The same would occur in any kind of free movement agreement.
I give the benefit of the doubt to those who implemented this ideas, I understand the logic, I’m just not convinced by the results.
I feel like the EU is beginning to experience some growth patterns that the USA experienced in the later 20th century where the was a mass migration towards the American Sunbelt in search of better weather and a lower cost of living. However, without the mass building that occurred in the USA during that time, the migration is causing housing unaffordability as working Portuguese families can’t compete with northern pensioners.
I don’t know much about the American phenomenon you mentioned so I can’t comment on that.
In Portugal we have more than 170,000 (state/private) empty houses. A fund of more than 100 million euros (and counting) for the renovation/construction of public/cooperative housing which has been collecting dust for 2 years now.
We have the resources to fix this, but our politicians seem more preoccupied in punishing 10K people for being Muslim (they have valid concerns, wrong solutions)
Because at it’s core, the EU is still a neoliberal organization that promotes business interests over public welfare. It exists to ensure giant corporations in Europes developed core can compete against massive non-European firms. The only reason they don’t push for American levels of cruelty is that the people of the EU would riot and overthrow their governments if their hard earned benefits (universal healthcare, worker protections, pensions, mandatory vacations) were severely threatened.
This is a confusing issue to me.
On one hand I understand the value of the EU to my country’s (Portugal) development on the other I take real issue with how the influx of foreign capital has priced out most common workers from buying a house before they’re 30/40, which directly impacts one’s ability to start a family. Two of our greatest obstacles to wellbeing.
I love some initiatives like the tighter regulation on big tech, but fear the power of a supranational organisation over Portugal’s democratic process. An organisation which is perceived as not so democratic.
Why don’t you just build more houses? That’s what my country is doing to solve our problem.
Great question.
We are building, although not enough, a lot of houses, unfortunately, a big chunk is high income/luxury housing and another big chunk is used as an investment vehicle which can sit idle for years even when it’s placed in the middle of our biggest cities.
For some extra context I leave this excerpt from another comment:
Canada is building more houses? Since when?
That’s a funny way of wording the question since it never stopped, but there’s a few recent things I can point to. If you need a time frame, I’d say the last several months.
The city nearest to me abolished single-family zoning and is seeing a ton of construction and sharply falling prices. I might finally be able to break into the market myself. We have a new federal government department designed to start producing housing en mass, called Build Canada Homes. Housing prices are also easing off across the country, although certain cities are having more trouble, and the temporary scaling back of immigration while building continues is probably the main factor.
Maybe in Portugal there’s more space issues, but it’s not Hong Kong so I don’t think that’s the whole problem.
Every country should heavily tax non-resident property owners. They should also increasingly tax every property someone owns over 1, to the point that owning more than 3 homes becomes completely unrealistic for most and middle class landlords disappear.
Everyone should own their own residence (or have the opportunity to). Housing prices would collapse if they weren’t being used as a financial vehicle for investments instead of housing that degrades without upkeep.
I believe those are every societies largest priorities.
Often these landlords incorporate though. They have well paid real estate and inheritance lawyers on their payroll, looking for every opportunity to snap up properties - be it apartments or land - on the market for development.
This problem can be solved by good lawmakers, good public servants, and a good amount of public will.
If I had to take a crack at it, it sounds like this would be solved with taxing corporations as landlords in a similarly punitive way. I’m fine with one corporation owning one apartment complex as a service for transient people, but I’m not okay with a corporation owning multiple properties and making their bag entirely via enshittifying people’s housing and jacking up rent.
If we’re worried about a person having ownership in multiple companies that each own one apartment, we can solve that too. Again, I’d focus on tracing back ownership of these assets and taxing those individuals accordingly. If a person owns 10% of 20 companies that own an apartment building each, they should be taxed like they own 2 apartment buildings. Abstraction and obfuscation should not be a successful defense against supporting the society one is a part of. We all have to do our part, and we will be better off if we did both as individuals and as a collective.
The same or at least similar increase in real estate prices has happened in non-EU countries around the world, and the primary beneficiaries are the local upper-class not the foreign investors. It is a complex topic, and EU regulation does play a role in it, but overall I would say that the EU isn’t the primary driver behind this.
I don’t think the EU per se is the reason for this. I think the free flow of foreign capital into industries of essential goods is more to blame, and that lax regulation does come with the EU.
I’d attribute that problem to Portugal specifically though. Especially to the taxation policies that incentivized people to move to Portugal but without requiring them to specifically set up business in Portugal. This resulted into many people working in other countries to move to Portugal to pay lower taxation. This indeed increased prices, especially for rent but also in general, as those people had higher purchasing power but did not significantly increase salaries. There is a reason why Lisbon is the heaven of digital nomads. I hear things are changing, but I don’t know too much about it. Indeed I know many people in Lisbon who work mostly in other countries. Sure they pay taxes, but that doesn’t directly translate into higher paying jobs.
The tax incentives for digital nomads are a big issue for sure. I love meeting digital nomads, always a fun conversation, I just don’t understand why we should subsidize highly paid individuals looking for a cheap place to live for a while. They do not create roots or care much about the country they live in. If things go south they will leave and the people of the country they enjoyed will be burdened with all the issues.
I say we welcome all digital nomads if they wish to live with us, but they should pay their due like everyone else.
Indeed, however this is not a common problem across Europe. That would not explain otherwise why most digital nomads are mostly Europeans. Such issue was mostly generated by the specific tax policies of Portugal who incentivized rich people to move into the country without ensuring this would lead to a common good. All in all, I do not believe this is a problem strictly related to the fact that Portugal is part of the European Union, but rather the result of poor policy planning. Mind you, I’m not saying the policies were without reason, but probably did not obtain the expected results.
I’m mentioning this issue in the context of the EU, due to the EU naturally allowing a more free flow of people and capital. Which is great for the “core” of the EU and at the same time the cause of big issues in the peripheries.
The same would occur in any kind of free movement agreement.
I give the benefit of the doubt to those who implemented this ideas, I understand the logic, I’m just not convinced by the results.
I feel like the EU is beginning to experience some growth patterns that the USA experienced in the later 20th century where the was a mass migration towards the American Sunbelt in search of better weather and a lower cost of living. However, without the mass building that occurred in the USA during that time, the migration is causing housing unaffordability as working Portuguese families can’t compete with northern pensioners.
I don’t know much about the American phenomenon you mentioned so I can’t comment on that.
In Portugal we have more than 170,000 (state/private) empty houses. A fund of more than 100 million euros (and counting) for the renovation/construction of public/cooperative housing which has been collecting dust for 2 years now. We have the resources to fix this, but our politicians seem more preoccupied in punishing 10K people for being Muslim (they have valid concerns, wrong solutions)
Because at it’s core, the EU is still a neoliberal organization that promotes business interests over public welfare. It exists to ensure giant corporations in Europes developed core can compete against massive non-European firms. The only reason they don’t push for American levels of cruelty is that the people of the EU would riot and overthrow their governments if their hard earned benefits (universal healthcare, worker protections, pensions, mandatory vacations) were severely threatened.