this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
17 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In a country with some of the world’s most expensive real estate, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government wants housing to become more affordable.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 86 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whenever they say "I don't want to drive down prices" that demonstrates a fundamental unseriousness about the crisis.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

I think you're assuming waaay too much about the seriousness of this statement. It's a politician assuring the losers of a policy they won't lose by rewording the policy a different way.

[–] TH1NKTHRICE@lemmy.ca 65 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It seems to me that increasing supply alone is not going to cut it. Are there not a bunch of financial groups with nearly bottomless wallets that enable them to afford to buy up any amount of property to rent or flip at any price they want, even if it means some properties sit on the market empty for a long time? This government policy seems analogous to having people with $100 dollars sitting at a no-limit poker table with a bunch of billionaires who can afford to endlessly put you all in on every bet, so they always bet more than you have and then the government comes in and says they will allow for more games to be played. Wouldn’t the policy be pointless if you don’t also limit the number of games the wealthy players can play?

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Supply and demand control prices. Period. Adding supply will only fail to control prices if demand keeps rising. And if buyer demand keeps rising to keep up with prices? It would suck, but there's actually a silver lining to that: Rent goes down then.

Remember, now that we're punishing vacant units, every investment unit must be rented out. So as the investors make a mad dash to build and buy our endlessly-rising housing units, more and more inventory gets dumped onto the rental market.

Now, there's obvious downsides to this story, I'm not going to pretend the "own nothing and be happy" end is ideal. But it's better than the "own nothing and live in a fucking tent" ending.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Canada wants to eat it's cake while also having it. Something like 60% of Canadians own their home or live in a home their parents own. 40% of a country is more than sufficient to tear the country apart if they lose faith in the society they live in. Allowing housing to become investments has been a mistake that needs to be corrected for the long term stability of the nation.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If government had the power to just snap their fingers and halve the price of all real estate, regular home owners should not be negatively affected.

It's mostly only the people who own multiple homes as investments, developers, and people who rent out their properties.

If you own a home that you live in, yes it will suck that prices dropped after you signed your mortgage, but you already agreed to pay that before so you should be able to afford those payments wether your house is $1M or $500K.

If you need to move, the house that you need to move to will now be half price so you didn't lose anything with your own house going half price. If anything you win by not having to pay as much taxes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They want the existing houses to remain expensive while the new houses somehow are cheap? Sounds like they're wishing for a magic trick, or are trying to put lipstick on their business-as-usual pig.

[–] Frederic 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

House: 1 million $.

Job: 22k$/years.

So, how can this work? Magic πŸͺ„βœ¨

[–] cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

99 year mortgage.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just tax homes past a primary residence like Singapore. We know it works and at least it'll be real obvious those against are the immoral asses we thought they were

[–] clutchmattic 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is the simplest solution. But the annual property tax on 2+ properties has to bite otherwise corporations hoarding housing stock would just see that as cost of doing business.

The best approach would be progressively higher (like, exponentially) property taxes according to the number of properties held

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I like Singapore's handling

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Hot damn. That's how you do it!

I suspect this would crash the housing market immediately.

1% annual tax on the total value of a property, increasing at 2x the rate of inflation, first for corporate owners & foreign individuals of residential properties, then individual owners of any residential property that's not their primary residence. The money raised goes directly to build affordable housing and first time home buyer rebates.

This doesn't shock the system, and frees up homes over a period of time, rather than eviscerating demand after a particular date, and slowly releases homes into the market over the course of years, as individual properties fall into non-profitability.

Someone PLEASE steal this idea.

[–] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 4 points 1 year ago

@clutchmattic @BedSharkPal

This.

Every property owned above primary should double in tax.

At this point it's the only way to stop the hoarding immediately. Canada is rolling into what may be a viciously cold winter soon, and if we don't do something RIGHT NOW, people will not survive.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We do tax homes past a primary residence. In fact, we also tax the primary residence.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Are you talking about the capital gains? Because that's not enough as it treats homes like any other commodity. Homes aren't an ETF. That's the whole point of the tax, to make it no longer an attractive investment vehicle for amateur landlords.

Again look at how Singapore does it, it works.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Templa 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Call me a radical, but this is a speculation issue. Stop allowing homes to be the object of speculation by limiting the amount of properties people can buy/have.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Magrath@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah that won't happen. Houses just get bought up by those who can afford so they a) can rent them out and b) use it as a safe investment. House prices need to come back down to fix this anytime soon so they can't be seen as an investment.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Or as in the case of vancouver realestate a foreign owner buys it then never even occupies it

[–] belated_frog_pants 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Housing as an investment is the problem. They dont want to stop that so fuck the poors i guess :/

[–] Alto@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can't have the common folk building any sort of equity, gotta keep them renting from us forever

[–] small_crow@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Equity was a fun choice of word here, since both its definitions apply to the conversation.

If housing wasn't an investment, a purchased home wouldn't build any equity in the financial sense, but people who need a home would have more equity in the social sense.

It's almost like finance is at odds with social justice.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] onionbaggage@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 1 year ago

And I want a unicorn!! πŸ¦„

[–] Tigbitties@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I want to stop being an alcoholic but I'd like to drink occasionally"

You say that in jest but I know far more previous functional alcoholics who drink occasionally vs went teetotaler.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

~~Canada~~ International Billionaires want to make ~~homes~~ places where poor people live ~~affordable~~ profitable without crushing prices

*fixed your headline

[–] ReallyKinda@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Selfishly want Canada to road test some ridiculous tax for residential properties that you own but don’t personally reside in. 50% progressive increase in property taxes for every residential property beyond the one you live in or something.

[–] blindsight 2 points 1 year ago

I could see something like that working. I think it works pretty well for most since two adults could own two homes (one each) so most Canadians wouldn't be affected, so it would get broad support, but those with large real estate portfolios pay a lot more.

I think maybe BC's model would work better, just scaled up much more dramatically. Here, you get a property tax rebate for living in the home (and an extra small rebate for also being a senior). Make that a $5k rebate and increase property taxes to match and now there's a real incentive to sell. As it is, $1000/yr or whatever it is doesn't bite enough to move the needle.

[–] 4vr@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Possibly making a statement before election. Doubt government has any intention make housing affordable.

[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe we need to be more vocal? πŸ€”

Contact the Prime Minister https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/connect/contact

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] michael@lemmy.perthchat.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm guessing he has a few investment properties already.

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

And even if he doesn't, a large percentage of MPs do, either because they needed that passive income to actually be able to afford to run for parliament (campaigning is a full time, temporary job, and it's difficult to go a month without an income), or because an MP's salary and position makes it so much easier to afford the rental properties after they've won the election.

And if you can find yourself in the position to set yourself up for life with a passive income, most people are going to take that opportunity. Especially the neo-liberals that dominate all of the viable parties who don't even have a theoretical problem with the idea .

[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

I wish they would raise the HBP limit for RRSP that can be used towards a downpayment. It's not like I'm going to be able to retire with that if I can't build equity beforehand.

From the CRA "Currently, the HBP withdrawal limit is $35,000. This applies to withdrawals made after March 19, 2019."

From the article "Recent surges β€” prices have risen 36 per cent in three years"

So it should be closer to $50,000. Maybe $60, 000 would be better to account for prices continuing to rise while we wait for something to be done to improve the situation.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

"I want you to buy a home at this price."

I can't afford that.

"But what if you paid anyway..."

[–] guyrocket@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read an article a while back that argued the only way to really make housing affordable is to build MASSIVE amounts of housing.

Supply and demand is at least part of the problem.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (37 children)

It really isn't in this case, unfortunately.

Lets says I I have a farm that produces all the food people need, but because I own the only farm, I can set the price for food to whatever I want.

Helping me build ten more farms doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that I'm in a position to decide the price. Helping someone else build more farms, might work, but I already make so much I could probably buy them the moment they're done. And even if I don't, we don't actually need more farms. The one I have could already feed everyone.

Building more farms at that point, would be a irresponsible waste of this already overloaded planets resources.

The real solution is dividing up ownership of the already sufficient existing resources. This will crash prices, but that will only hurt those who already have what they need, not those currently unable to get it.

load more comments (37 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί