I see where you're going, but that wasn't the logic the interdepartmental working group adopted. Their logic was just the reverse: if 40% bought homes at the destination end, those are the people who probably didn't own homes at the originating end. You can question that logic, but that was the logic used by that group. They felt 60% was the maximum number that would avail themselves of property management services because they couldn't conceive that somebody would realistically opt to own two homes simultaneously--although some people can afford that.
On January 29th, 2007. See this statement in context.