this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
122 points (96.9% liked)

Canada

7230 readers
407 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ 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
 

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 104 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] fresh@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. By having an official policy of propping up prices, the government is effectively giving a subsidy to homeowner profits at the cost of renters.

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

That's the core tenet of neoliberalism: to transfer wealth to the wealthy.

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Don't worry it'll trickle down eventually! One day... Any minute now

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago

Housing was expensive four years ago, that was before prices almost doubled. Policy that lowers prices to those levels would put home ownership in the reach of many.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TH1NKTHRICE@lemmy.ca 78 points 1 year ago (7 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?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 year ago (2 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.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Allowing housing to become investments has been a mistake that needs to be corrected for the long term stability of the nation.

Canadians are using real estate as their retirement nest eggs. That means they're investing less in productive businesses and are woefully under-diversified. Reducing/removing the capital gains exemption on real estate sales would encourage actual investment.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Shit, when was such an exemption passed? That's literally a law that turns housing into a non-productive investment.

Making a necessity to live in the modern world an investment is the way to turn a portion of the population resentful and unproductive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

To be fair, the reason they're using it for retirement is because every other method (defined-benefit pensions, defined-contribution pensions, bonds, mutual funds, RRSPs) have been systematically broken by the wealthy.

The dotcom bust, and the lesser extend the 2008 crisis, wiped out a lot of Boomer and elder-Xer equity. Real estate was the next thing that "weath advisors" pushed after they ran the other options into the ground.

If people could retire with dignity and security, we probably could have headed off some of the early stages of the real estate speculation boom. Of course, that would have required rich people to make less money, or face some kind of consequence. As it stands, the economy suits them just fine, even if it fails everyone else.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 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 34 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@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

House: 1 million $.

Job: 22k$/years.

So, how can this work? Magic 🪄✨

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 year ago (10 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@beehaw.org 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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Those two goals are fundamentally at odds with each other.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] onionbaggage@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 1 year ago

And I want a unicorn!! 🦄

[–] Templa@beehaw.org 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 15 points 1 year ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tigbitties@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tellah@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There is a logic to this. Private developers will not make multi-year, large capital investments in something if they think that its value is guaranteed to decrease. That should be obvious.

And we desperately need to increase supply. For better or worse, we do still live in a capitalist society so its going to be up to the private sector to increase supply, with the govt providing an incentivizing role. The govt ever saying anything like "we need to bring house prices down" would paralyze private sector investment into building houses.

FWIW, in my esteemed position as an armchair big-social-problems-fixer, the solution is obvious: Govt investment/subsidies to convert downtown commercial real estate towers into condos. Instead of forcing people back to the office to salvage what's left of the real estate value for those empty towers. The owners get their handout, people can continue to work from home, it's good for the environment too! I dunno, I think it makes sense.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

We accept that a fundamental need like healthcare shouldn't be subject to market forces. We don't have to treat housing any differently. Vienna was rated the #1 most livable city because they understand this. Our path forward is not only clear as day, it's tested, proven, and already putting out the best results in the world. The only reason we don't follow that path is because those with the authority to change things are in the class of people profiting from doing things wrong.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This. Fucking this.

Homes are infrastructure not investments. Well not monetary investments anyway.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ReallyKinda@kbin.social 9 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] michael@lemmy.perthchat.org 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Maybe we need to be more vocal? 🤔

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

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

https://www.canadahousingcrisis.com/ will email all of your representatives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 8 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 — 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.

[–] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

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

*fixed your headline

[–] 4vr@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

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

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 6 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..."

load more comments
view more: next ›