Dear Editor:
Your editorial on the speculation tax [see "Related"] ignored the built-in inequities of the legislation.
Here are two examples from a list of many:
A person lives in Victoria but works in Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»three days a week. They have a condo in both cities. They have no opportunity to rent either. One of the two will be subject to the tax. Note that if they simply rented a suite in Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»the owner of that suite would not be subject to the tax, the occupancy being identical in both circumstances.
Example 2: Parents have two adult children with families. They have purchased homes for them that they have retained in their name. As these homes are not rented at “arms length” they are subject to the tax, even though they are fully and legitimately occupied.
There are hundreds of other examples.
This is an unfair tax designed to tax individuals who have made good use of their money and invested wisely.
Why are the units I own that I rent out any less speculative than my other two examples? If a home is not “vacant,” why should it pay the tax?
Douglas Forst
North Vancouver
