this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
383 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
19 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
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CorvusNyx 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You know what would go a long way? Make housing a shitty income source. Bring about heavy taxes on any additional livable property beyond the one you live in yourself. Ban all politicians from landlording - it’s a conflict of interest holding us all back. Ban corporations and foreign organizations from owning housing. You’d see a fire sale. Prices would plummet, and people who need housing would have a greater chance at it. Finally, get a fucking UBI going, and grow universal healthcare to include eye and dental care.

Enough is goddamn enough. We know who the problem is and it isn’t immigrants, it’s well-off folks taking and hoarding more than they need using their much larger disposable income and connections to take advantage of the rest of us.

There are solutions to making Canadian’s lives better, and they’ll take work and time to make happen, but this continuous pissing in the wind isn’t getting us anywhere. We can do this civilly with hard work, or we can get to a breaking point and do things like 1789 France. One way another, the bullshit has got to go.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There's just not enough houses, though. Measurably. Banning landlords would be bad news for anyone who can't afford a mortgage downpayment.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great news then. Banning landlords of non purpose built units, would drop prices!

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like former office space or whatever? That's not what OP said, but encouraging repurposing is an idea worth talking about.

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

No, as in single family homes. If the building was expressly built with density in mind (think triplex and above) then it's fine IMO. This reduces the land scarcity side of the equation, as well as incentivizes density.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, we could do a Castro and just nationalise all rentals, in theory. Growing a government department that plays the role of every landlord at once would be a big project, though, and of course it's not politically viable at the moment. And we'd still have a housing shortage.

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

Not public housing, social housing. We could seed self-owning housing coops.

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

Same problem as with getting a mortgage, then. A lot of people don't have the money to start or buy into such a thing.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Finally, get a fucking UBI going

We did have UBI going. It set inflation in motion, as the naysayers always said it would, and we had to reel back.

UBI doesn't have have to cause inflation, but implementation has to be careful to ensure that. You can't throw any random desk jockey at the job and expect sunshine and rainbows. Trouble is, those who have the right skills aren't interested in doing the work. We don't subscribe to slavery, so...

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Technically GMI, but we've always conflated the two. The study Ontario tired to conduct a few years ago, which was oft-referred to as a UBI study, was also GMI, not UBI, if you look at the implementation details. There are subtle differences, to be sure, but they probably don't make much difference in practice. The conflation isn't the result of them being radically different.

Further, when you have unskilled people doing the work, as we do, it is likely they would be unaware of the difference. So what differences do exist, even where impactful, are ultimately immaterial in any practical sense. Call it UBI, GMI, GBI, MBI, or the many other names thrown out there, and you'll get the same response every time: "You what? Oh, you want to give people money? Okay. Umm. I don't know what that entails, but I'll think of something!"

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

I never got a penny of it and I am living off 13k a year. It was "technically" not GMI or UBI. We have NEVER had GMI or UBI.

[–] jatone@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

no it didn't. saying CERB caused inflation ignores hand waves everything else going on in the world economy.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

So CERB is the driver of inflation. Inflation that the entire world experienced. Holy fuck. Who knew Canada had so much economic power.

[–] Tigbitties@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

50% of Airbnb in Toronto are hosted by entities of 10+ full homes. The average occupancy rate is 37 nights/year. How are we letting this happen?

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

Numbered corporations create annoymity for these Airbnb landlords to evade taxes and encourage mortgage fraud. force real name incorporation for real estate and cities can enact punishing tax rates for these illegal hotel operators.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Source? 50% seems really low

[–] Tigbitties@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

http://insideairbnb.com/toronto

It's interactive. I clicked on the "full homes" and only multi listings and the number was 8600/16000.

[–] Templa 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People from r/Canada are so pathetic and predictable that they got pissed at the article and the thread about this has already been locked.

"Why would corporations hoard housing if it wasn't for immigration?" is the main argument they use, like corporations wouldn't be attempting to profit over a basic human need in any circumstances.

This pisses me off so much.

[–] regalia@literature.cafe 4 points 1 year ago

Are white upper class Americans in their definition of immigrants? Or are they just racist and simping for big corporations lol.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

It's okay. It's over now. We're free. Let metacanada go. They can't hurt us anymore.

[–] regalia@literature.cafe 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Corporations should never be able to buy homes, they're not a commodity. I'm in the US and we have the same problem, it's fucking us over with no end in sight.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] steebo_jack@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

Immigrants have always been the punching bag of long term residents...

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Blaming corporations is a cop-out. Small "mom and pop" landlords are just as capable of gouging their fellow Canadians for profit. At least there are real-estate corporations that build stuff instead of being purely parasitic.

And at least the corps have to pay tax on their profits. Private owners who bought when things were cheap and are now multimillionaires got all that money effort-free and tax-free thanks to the principal residence exception.

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

This stinks. I'm not a landlord, I do own my own house.

And at least the corps have to pay tax on their profits

I wish i payed 15%. I'm not even counting on the rebates they get for setting up shop places, or developing "doing research". Corporations quite often do not pay their fair share. Corporations do buy up swaths of real estate.

Private owners who bought when things were cheap and are now multimillionaires got all that money effort-free and tax-free thanks to the principal residence exception.

Almost nobody got their shit effort-free, you still have to go in with the bank and pay them a shit tonne of money. Principal residence only applies to first residence, and you still have to pay taxes on your residence (I know, because I pay them).

And here's some news for you: housing was always relatively expensive, people who bought gigantic mortgages took on a whole pile of risk, made the banks rich, and sometimes came out richer for it; that doesn't make them bad.

[–] Naatan@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago

I was researching the other day when we might expect the housing market to recover to the point where people can actually afford a house again.

Instead, what I found was lots of articles proclaiming that the housing market will "recover" by 2024. By "recover" they meant that the downward trend in $$$ is going up again. Meaning house prices going up.

It really blew my mind that there is so little concern for affordability and it's all about the investments.. So sad. Seriously considering leaving Canada at some point in the future in order to buy a house, which is nuts.

[–] Vakbrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

The beaverton speaks truth once again!

[–] AlexRogansBeta@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

And they can't wait until we push our govt to build more homes ... So they can buy them up.

Everyone saying we need more supply is a loon. We need a reallocation of existing homes. Building more will just line these assholes' pockets.