PDA

View Full Version : BC just said fuck you to NAFTA



EE_
31st July 2016, 06:32 AM
Being the protectionist I am, I think we should impose a big tax on China when buying RE in the US.
At the rate China is buying property here, they will eventually be landlords over all Americans. I'm ready for a trade war.

Barry Appleton: B.C. just violated NAFTA with its foreign property tax — and we could all pay for it
Barry Appleton, Special to Financial Post | July 28, 2016 | Last Updated: Jul 29 9:38 AM ET

The British Columbia government has suddenly introduced a penalty tax forcing non-Canadian purchasers of residential real estate in the Greater Vancouver Regional District to pay a 15 per cent tax on all purchases registered from Aug. 2, 2016. This penalty tax discriminates by definition against foreign investors buying residential real estate in the Greater Vancouver Area: Canadian citizens buying residential real estate are exempt; foreign buyers must pay the tax.

That discrimination is a glaring violation of our trade treaties. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other Canadian trade agreements prohibit governments from imposing discriminatory policies that punish foreigners while exempting locals. NAFTA’s national treatment obligation requires that citizens from other NAFTA partners investing in B.C. receive the same treatment from the government as the very best treatment received by Canadian investors. Americans and Mexicans forced to pay the 15 per cent penalty tax would be able to pursue direct compensation for B.C.’s discriminatory tax from an independent international tribunal.

Canada has other treaties with similar protections for citizens and businesses with other trading partners. We have agreements with similar terms with: Argentina, Armenia, Barbados, Benin, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Hungary, Jordan. Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Tanzania, Thailand Uruguay, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Investors from those states might also potentially challenge the B.C. tax. While the vast majority of Vancouver’s foreign property buyers might be Chinese, who were apparently the provincial government’s main target, enough investors from our dozens of treaty partners, comprising of hundreds of affected foreigners with trade rights, could be caught up in this tax, leading to mass claims. Those claims would be against the Canadian government, the signatory to NAFTA and the other international trade treaties, not B.C. Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars.

In addition, the anti-foreigner tax has the potential to lead to trade disputes, as the national treatment provision permits foreign governments to seek retaliation against Canada. For example, the recent Canada-China Bilateral Investment Treaty has the same national treatment protections that would allow the government of China to challenge B.C.’s tax. The U.S. government could also apply its trade muscle to demonstrate its resolve against anti-foreigner penalty taxes affecting American investors.

The foreign-buyer tax was announced in an arbitrary and unfair manner. The penalty does not exempt existing transactions legally concluded before the tax was announced. This arbitrary imposition disrupts predictable commercial relationships that may have been in place years in advance. It’s an unfair action that violates international legal norms of fairness, protected under treaties. All Canadians could well end up paying a heavy price for it.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/barry-appleton-b-c-just-violated-nafta-with-its-foreign-property-tax-and-we-could-all-pay-for-it

Joshua01
31st July 2016, 06:42 AM
What difference, at this point, does it make?

Glass
31st July 2016, 06:46 AM
has the potential too.... fear fear end of the world.

like Brexit would crash the pound and destroy UK and it would grind to a halt and the people would starve. So much fear suggestion and nothing actual to come of it.

Foreigners should not be allowed to own more than 49% of any real property. That's the rules in all non western countries but apparently we aren't allowed to do the same thing.

On the other hand could be good news on several levels.

EE_
31st July 2016, 07:57 AM
Many are probably happy to see their property price soar, especially if they are only speculating. Cities are especially happy to see prices soar, because they get more revenue from rising property taxes. To others that just want to live somewhere, rising property taxes are hurting them. The many being hurt haven't seen wages rise to keep up, or those on fixed incomes.

jack1878
31st July 2016, 12:49 PM
What difference, at this point, does it make?

The trade treaties are a problem because they supplant the government. All the signatory countries in NAFTA now have to answer to NAFTA. No doubt the BC government will be sued in a NAFTA tribunal, made up of NAFTA appointees, and the taxpayers in BC will ultimately have to pay the bill.

Governments can't introduce any laws which adversely effect present or future profits of corporations. That's the basic philosophy of trade agreements. You might as well cut out the middleman and have the corporations installed as the government.

osoab
31st July 2016, 01:55 PM
What difference, at this point, does it make?

The B.C. government has not been directly cashing in on the real estate runup.
They want in on some of the action.

Horn
31st July 2016, 06:36 PM
Will see, but typically governments can do what they want with regards to trade agreements.

They (agreements) are basically only there to prevent any small time capitalist inc. from succeeding without large governmental/banking loans/reigns "assistance". Bureaucracy/Insurance.

They are in and of themselves trade wars against the captive citizenry.

Joshua01
31st July 2016, 08:21 PM
The trade treaties are a problem because they supplant the government. All the signatory countries in NAFTA now have to answer to NAFTA. No doubt the BC government will be sued in a NAFTA tribunal, made up of NAFTA appointees, and the taxpayers in BC will ultimately have to pay the bill.

Governments can't introduce any laws which adversely effect present or future profits of corporations. That's the basic philosophy of trade agreements. You might as well cut out the middleman and have the corporations installed as the government.


The B.C. government has not been directly cashing in on the real estate runup.
They want in on some of the action.

Yeah, it's a stupid question...I knew that! :)

jack1878
1st August 2016, 09:23 PM
Will see, but typically governments can do what they want with regards to trade agreements.



No they can't.

Governments at all levels, State and Federal, are bound by the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses (ISDS) which are inserted into these trade agreements.

The fact that in 2013 the Lone Pine mining company was suing the Canadian government because the Quebec provincial government introduced environmental regulation of gas mining is one of many examples of foreign corporations suing sovereign governments under such binding clauses. The Australian government is currently being sued by Philip Morris tobacco company because a previous government introduced plain packaging laws for cigarettes.

http://aftinet.org.au/cms/isds-sue-governments-tpp-2013

No informed citizenry would assent to being bound by such draconian clauses. This is why the negotiations and full terms of trade agreements are shrouded in secrecy. All the mainstream media tells us is how wonderful it is to have access to cheap foreign goods. But there's a steep price to pay.

Horn
1st August 2016, 11:37 PM
No they can't.

Governments at all levels, State and Federal, are bound by the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses (ISDS) which are inserted into these trade agreements.

But there's a steep price to pay.

For sure, when anyone of those investor corps. gets their day in court.

The trade agreements are rigged for the monopoly companies only. "environmental laws" (regarding those plots) would be turned in favor of that largest of corp. to begin with and no suit taken place at all.

Its only those vestment corps. (truly capitalistic companies) get entrapped into the game and eliminated. Larger commie corps know exactly where to tread in advance to remain untouched. Or if they do happen to get themselves into a spot there is so much "dollar grease" all parties end up bought and paid for.

Imo, most of these agreements are weighted commie type agreements, the idea that some foreign global capitalism corp.is going to run rough shot is completely up to the country its taking place in. none are binding and penalties fruitless. Though many small investor groups think all is well and opened for them to do so.

jack1878
2nd August 2016, 09:45 AM
Imo, most of these agreements are weighted commie type agreements, the idea that some foreign global capitalism corp.is going to run rough shot is completely up to the country its taking place in. none are binding and penalties fruitless. Though many small investor groups think all is well and opened for them to do so.

I don't know, they seem binding to me. I guess governments could just default on any compensation levied by a tribunal. That would be one way of getting out of the treaty.

When you weigh up the pros and cons, FTAs are a bad deal for the average worker. Governments shouldn't be allowed to bind their countries to them without a referendum where all the pros and cons are fully explained.

Horn
2nd August 2016, 03:49 PM
sure, my guess is many of them were intended to fund a particular banking political elite.

companies, ordinary joe investors or tax payers sometimes winding up the target.

all in all bad for economics on the whole.

make the rules so they're the only ones who can break them or lay blame to.