AC-T2-211 Academic · Task 2 · advanced · 40 min · 250+ words Opinion Essay Housing

Limiting Foreign Buyers of Homes

The question

Governments should restrict foreign investors from buying residential property in order to make housing more affordable for local residents. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Instructions

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. • State your position clearly in the introduction and keep it consistent throughout. • Support your view with reasons and relevant examples. • Briefly acknowledge the counter-arguments before explaining why you reject them. • Organise your ideas into clear paragraphs and use cohesive devices.

How to approach this opinion essay question

An opinion (agree or disagree) essay needs a clear position from the introduction to the conclusion.

Paraphrase the statement and state your opinion in the introduction.
Give two main reasons, one per body paragraph, each with an example.
Consider the opposite view briefly, then explain why you still hold yours.
Conclude by restating your position in different words.

How to plan this answer

Structure

Introduction: paraphrase the proposal to limit foreign buyers of homes and state the extent to which you agree or disagree.
Body 1: the case for restriction, such as competition from overseas investors pushing up prices and the effect on first-time buyers.
Body 2: the counter-argument, such as the value of foreign investment for construction and the risk of retaliation, and why you accept or reject it.
Body 3 (optional): a more targeted alternative, such as taxes on empty homes or stricter rules for investors who leave properties unoccupied.
Conclusion: restate your position, using the extent wording of the question.

Idea bank

In some city markets, overseas buyers have accounted for a noticeable share of high-value purchases, which can push prices beyond what local incomes can support.
Many properties bought as investments are left empty for much of the year, which reduces the supply of homes available to residents.
Foreign investment can fund new construction and create jobs in the building trade, which is a benefit that restrictions could reduce.
Other countries may respond to restrictions by limiting the purchases of their own citizens, which could damage the property market and tourism.
A higher tax on the purchase of second homes by non-residents may be a more targeted measure than a full ban.
Clear registration of beneficial owners would show who is buying property and allow governments to target empty homes more accurately.

Useful vocabulary

foreign investors: Foreign investors can push prices up in popular cities.
residential property: Restrictions would apply to residential property rather than commercial buildings.
first-time buyers: First-time buyers are often priced out of the market by investors.
affordability: Housing affordability has become a major concern for young families.
left vacant: Many homes are left vacant for much of the year.
a targeted measure: A targeted measure would affect only the properties that are not occupied.
retaliation: Restrictions could provoke retaliation from other governments.
to the extent that: I agree to the extent that restrictions protect local buyers.
it is questionable whether: It is questionable whether a complete ban would achieve its aim.
a double-edged measure: A ban is a double-edged measure, because it may reduce investment as well as demand.

Common mistakes

Claiming that all foreign buyers push up prices, rather than saying that the effect is strongest in specific high-demand cities.
Using a figure for the share of foreign buyers without a source, which makes the argument look speculative.
Ignoring the benefit of foreign investment in construction, which leaves the counter-argument too weak to be considered.
Giving a conclusion that changes the position, such as agreeing in the introduction and then disagreeing in the conclusion without explanation.
Proposing a ban without saying how it would be enforced, such as through registration of owners or a tax on the purchase.

Examiner tip: Use the phrase to what extent in your position statement, and make sure the counter-argument is considered fairly before you explain why your view still stands.

Model answers by band score

Written for this question to show what changes from one band to the next. Try the task yourself first, then compare.

Band 6 answer

Nowadays house prices are very high in many cities, and some people think that governments should stop foreign investors from buying homes. I agree with this opinion because it can help local people to find a house. The first reason is that foreign investors buy many houses and flats in the city centres, but they do not live in them. They only want to make money, so the prices go up and the local people can not afford them. For example, in some big cities like Vancouver and Sydney, many young people can not buy a home because the foreign buyers pay too much money. If the government make a law to limit this, there will be more houses for the local people and the price will be lower. The second reason is that empty houses is bad for the community. When foreigners buy a house and leave it empty, the street has no life and the shops loses customers. The local residents have to move to other places which are far from their work and family. However, some people disagree with me. They say that the foreign investors bring money to the country and create jobs in building. This is true, but I think the government can allow investors to build new houses and not buy the old ones. In this way the country gets the money and the people get the houses. In conclusion, I strongly agree that governments should restrict foreign investors from buying property, because it is the best way to make housing cheaper for local residents.

Why this is band 6

Position is clear from the introduction and kept throughout, and the counter-argument about investment and jobs is acknowledged and answered.
Support relies on general claims ('the prices go up') and brief examples (Vancouver, Sydney) that are named but not explained, so ideas are only partly developed.
Language range is limited and repetitive ('local people', 'foreign buyers') with errors such as 'the government make', 'empty houses is' and 'the shops loses'.
Band 7 would develop each reason with explanation of the process, show more precise vocabulary and sustain control of grammar.

Band 7 answer

In many cities, house prices have risen far faster than wages, and some argue that governments should prevent foreign investors from buying residential property. I largely agree with this view, although restrictions need to be carefully designed. The main reason is that foreign demand pushes up prices. Investors from abroad often have more capital than local buyers, so they can outbid families who rely on a mortgage. In cities such as Vancouver, where a tax on foreign buyers was introduced in 2016, politicians took action precisely because young residents could no longer afford to live in the areas where they worked. Limiting such purchases therefore protects the people for whom the housing is meant. A second reason is that many foreign-owned properties are bought as investments and left empty. This reduces the housing supply and weakens local communities, since empty flats do not support shops, schools or neighbourhood life. Critics claim that foreign investment brings money into the economy and creates jobs in construction. This is partly true, and a total ban could discourage developers. However, the government could allow foreigners to invest in new developments, which adds to the supply, while preventing them from buying existing homes, which only raises the price of the current stock. Others argue that the real problem is a shortage of new homes, and that restrictions treat the symptom rather than the cause. Although that is a fair point, restricting foreign buyers is a quick measure that can work alongside a long-term building programme. In conclusion, I agree that governments should limit foreign purchases of homes, because this protects local buyers and keeps more properties occupied.

Why this is band 7

Clear position stated in the introduction and the conclusion; the essay acknowledges counter-arguments and explains why they are rejected, as the task requires.
Support is relevant and fairly developed, with a concrete example (Vancouver's tax on foreign buyers) and a practical proposal to allow investment in new developments only.
Good range of vocabulary and cohesion ('therefore', 'However', 'Although that is a fair point') with occasional awkward phrasing.
Band 8 would be more economical and precise: the paragraph on a shortage of homes is a little mechanical and would be better integrated.

Band 8 answer

House prices in many cities have climbed far faster than incomes, and some governments have responded by limiting foreign purchases of residential property. I broadly agree with this approach, provided it is targeted and accompanied by other measures. The central argument is that foreign demand inflates prices. Overseas investors often hold far more capital than local buyers and are not dependent on local wages, so they can outbid families relying on a mortgage. Vancouver illustrates the point: after a tax on foreign buyers was introduced in 2016, the number of such purchases fell sharply, and officials cited the need to protect residents priced out of the areas where they worked. A restriction therefore directly protects those for whom the housing exists. A second consideration is that many foreign-owned homes are treated as stores of wealth rather than places to live. Flats left empty remove homes from the market and weaken neighbourhoods, since vacant buildings support no shops, schools or community life. Opponents counter that foreign capital creates construction jobs and that a ban would deter investment. This has some force, but the objection is easily met: governments can permit foreign buyers to purchase new-build properties, which adds to the supply, while barring them from the existing stock, where their purchases simply raise prices. It is also true that a shortage of homes is the underlying problem, and no restriction would remove it. Nevertheless, limiting foreign buyers is a swift measure that can complement a longer-term building programme. In conclusion, I agree that restricting foreign investors is justified, because it keeps homes affordable and occupied for local residents.

Why this is band 8

Position is clear and qualified ('provided it is targeted'), and the counter-arguments are acknowledged and rebutted with a workable alternative (new-builds only).
Ideas are well developed and selected: the mechanism by which foreign demand raises prices is explained, then illustrated with an example.
Vocabulary is precise ('stores of wealth', 'existing stock', 'complement') and cohesion is natural, with rare errors.
Band 9 would integrate the final concession into the argument and support the Vancouver claim with tighter, more compelling detail.

Band 9 answer

In many cities, house prices have outpaced wages so dramatically that governments are now tempted to limit foreign purchases of residential property. I broadly agree with such restrictions, provided they are carefully targeted and accompanied by an increase in supply. The strongest argument is that foreign demand inflates prices. Overseas investors frequently command far more capital than local buyers and are insulated from local wages, so they can outbid families dependent on a mortgage. Vancouver illustrates the effect: after a tax on foreign purchasers was introduced in 2016, such transactions fell sharply, and officials explained that they were acting for residents priced out of the districts in which they worked. A restriction therefore protects precisely those for whom housing exists. A second consideration is that homes bought as stores of wealth are often left empty. Each vacant flat removes a dwelling from the market and takes something from its neighbourhood, since an unoccupied building supports no shops, schools or social life. Opponents counter that foreign capital creates construction jobs and that outright bans deter investment. This has some force, but it is easily met. Governments can allow overseas buyers to purchase new-build properties, which enlarge the housing stock, while barring them from existing homes, where their buying merely transfers ownership and raises prices. It is also true that a shortage of homes underlies the crisis, and no restriction removes it. Yet limiting foreign buyers is a swift measure that buys time while longer-term building programmes take effect. In conclusion, restricting foreign investors is justified, since it keeps homes affordable and occupied for the residents they were meant to serve.

Why this is band 9

The position is nuanced from the first paragraph and held to the end, and the opposing views are acknowledged and answered fully rather than dismissed.
Reasoning is developed and persuasive: a mechanism (outbidding, vacancy), a concrete case (Vancouver 2016) and a practical distinction (new-build against existing stock).
Language is sophisticated and natural ('insulated from local wages', 'buys time') with no errors, and cohesion is achieved through logic rather than connectors.
The concluding paragraph ties the argument back to the question without simply repeating it.

Band levels are our estimate against the public IELTS criteria; they are not official scores.

Write your answer

Sign in with Google to write online and get 8 free answers marked each month against the IELTS band criteria. No card, no password.

Practise all four IELTS skills

Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking with band 8 samples at ieltsa.org.

Try IELTS A