this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
18 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7218 readers
357 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (34 children)

I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike, every one who's in a house is going to hate loosing that value, and any politician who lowers the current value of property will have to deal with upsetting that category of voters. It seems like building more affordable houses would be better, it'll have a similar effect, but probably not as drastic.

If they put effort into making them environmentally friendly and employeed/educated people to do that we could make our country a nicer place to live. Just have to breakup the grocery conglomerates and things would be looking up

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (18 children)

every one who's in a house is going to hate loosing that value

False. I'm in a house. I want to live in a different house. I can't afford a different house. Make houses cheaper.

That said there is some financial fuckery that can happen with house prices reducing. Particularly if you end up needing major repairs (though that's just the nature of owning...)

Housing price stagnation seems an acceptable medium.

upsetting that category of voters

I postulate the criticalist category is the >70 crowd, for the following reasons:

  1. They vote.

  2. They don't work much, so existing assets and pensions are the main finances in their life. Owned housing is probably the biggest part of that portfolio; with little chance of opening up new revenue streams. This makes them the most vulnerable to (real or precived) decreases in housing stock value.

  3. They may be, or are planning to become, reverse mortgaged.

  4. They vote.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Your one example is pretty easy to refute, I own my house I don't want houses to lose that stored value, or all the money I've been shoveling into my mortgage I could have been saving for w/e. It ignores that people with houses have been saving for years.

Reduction and stagnation are different.

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

You have provided exactly as many sources as the person you are responding to. If you think that you are somehow in a stronger debate position, you are incorrect.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

I remain unconvinced the original statement is false. I don't care about being correct.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)