If they really wanted to improve things they would have put a moratorium on foreign investment and looked at ways to close up all the loopholes and multitude of "work around's" for that inflow. Instead they bring in a change that just happens to bring in more tax dollars while hardly nipping a the edge of the problem.
When you consider where most of the foreign money is going (hugely expensive houses) 1% is likely inconsequential to their decision. This is about moving money out of unstable dictatorships where money could be confiscated in a heartbeat rather than moving it for the big investment gains. If they get the RE gains then great but just having their assets tied up in a safe haven is really what they are after...even if there is a cost. Kinda like laundering money. 70% legit safe money is better than 100% illiquid funds subject to confiscation. Are they going to be worried about bothering with managing a rental because of 1% cost? They are likely to see a bigger hit by letting renters in. Not like renters tend to look after other peoples stuff very well.
|