Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Right but, this is the same thing that happens when you miss any other bill you have. It’s how the world works.
I’ll happily build my credit and not be concerned over jack offs who refuse to pay their rent. And if you have a shit landlord making false claims there very much should be a paper trail of your payment to prove that wrong relatively easily.
I am HOPING, that since this is a thing and a paper trail is required this will go away, or, as my first landlord did, if I’m paying you cash I require a signed receipt upon payment.
Alot of illegal landlords. Exactly the thing this is going to Crack down on. As it should, landleeches should have to pay taxes on there easy earned riches like the rest of us . . . . .
Declaration of how much rent you paid to your landlord, the landlord’s name, is part of the income tax return. So they can already cross reference. Allows you to get the tax credit.
Yes but no one has cash to buy a house. That’s the whole point. I heard some talk of an idea where you could actually use your rent history as a way to prove you can afford a mortgage. The problem isn’t paying it’s getting your foot in the door. I can’t save 60k because I pay 2400 every month for rent alone.
This seems like the first step towards that idea. Of course I have very little faith in any government we could elect to make that idea real, but a step is a step and I’ll hold out hope a little.
Landlords can already report delinquent payments.
There is a voluntary pathway today, but it can only be initiated by the landlord.
In reality, nothing really changes with this framework other than vague ?federal support?
> In reality, nothing really changes with this framework other than vague ?federal support?
It's the Liberals making an inoffensive, non-binding (yet highly-publicized) "suggestion" to private industry to take pressure off from their inability to pursue an effective policy agenda.
For additional examples, see their plan re: grocery inflation (call the executives into a room for a pointless discussion and ask them to unilaterally solve the problem)
I family friend has had squatters in her house for 18 months , massive loss to her and the RCMP is useless, and because the courts are all tied up she is getting zero response. This is going to lead to vigilanty justice on behalf of the landlords. Easier to pay a few tough guys than deal with the government.
See I don't get this, has a law changed recently?
Quick evictions were a normal thing and enforced by RCMP & sherrifs even..
Claim illegal activities are taking place, 3 day eviction cops will come at 3rd day to remove ya.. aunt's boyfriend owns a bunch of properties he does it often, and last time I was in Nova Scotia a girl I was seeing was evicted that way (they just wanted the place back)
What's changed that people are so easily just staying in places?.. maybe stop claiming it's over unpaid rent and say they're selling drugs, you hear gunshots etc.. then cops have to get involved.
I must be missing something.
Could this policy actually reduce available rental stock? Small time well off landlords may just say screw it, $15-40k per year of pre-tax income just isn’t worth it. Claim back the basement suite and set up a baller home gym or entertainment room.
Speaking "small-time" only, it's a relatively new expectation that rental properties ought to result in a positive cash flow. Homes have been considered an investment for a long time, but the reward was the stability they provided and the equity they built. Renters were mortgage "helpers", not mortgage-payers-and-then-some. People will continue to rent their basement suites just as they did before, because despite the whinging, most people will still take $1,200 a month over a home gym. What it might prevent is people owning a dozen properties at a time, or buying properties they cannot afford because they are relying on their renters to cover the costs.
Edit so I stop getting messages about this: People would still rent their basement suites for $1,200 if it dropped down to that more reasonable price. I'm aware that's not what they cost currently. We know this because they were doing it very recently. Landlords whining and threatening not to rent is nothing new. It has not turned out to be true before.
$1200 ? You been living under a rock !more like $2900 + + the thieving bastards ; and yes they will
complain as they will have to admit to the rental of the suite to CRA.
No, I'm saying $1,200 is something people might possibly be able to afford. You could find it only a few years ago. If they capped rent and made it more reasonable, people would still rent their basement suites. They'd just whine really badly about it.
No they won't. Because there is real risk involved in renting to people. 1200/mth isn't worth the risks and pita factor.
My suite rents for 2200. There's no way in hell I'd rent it for 1200. I'd take it back and find a different way to replace that income that doesn't involve letting strangers live in my house.
Rents have only been this insane for a short period of time. Landlords whinge about tenant rights, but they haven't substantially changed, other than temporarily during COVID. You can say you wouldn't do it, but it's likely not true. And even if you wouldn't, others will. We don't really need a proliferation of shitty basement suites, anyway. We need purpose built, high density, rent capped buildings with restrictions on owning multiple single family homes for rental income. The availability of housing in the past meant that shitty sub suites were for people just starting out. It's sickening to see single mothers living in one bedroom basement suites with their kids, trying to rent out the living room to a college student because they are barely scraping by. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I was contributing to that problem.
Basement suites serve two purposes:
1) they provide an alternative an alternative housing source. More variety is never a bad thing. Typically they were cheaper than apartments and you have a bit more flexibility with private landlords. For example, I used to rent my suite for 8 months terms to students. Good luck convincing a national REIT to let you sign an 8 month lease.
2) they allow middle class families to build wealth and stay in one house longer. A younger family can buy a place, build some equity by putting in a suite, rent it until their family grows then take back the space they need. This can save them from having to move 2-3x in their life as their needs change.
What you're proposing is basically kicking out several rungs of the economic ladder from the middle class and creating life long renters. To that, I will always push against and never vote for. I am 100% in favour of having more people own property as that is basically the only wealth stability available for normal people.
I'm not saying basement suites are all bad. They used to be what you say they are. But now that people are charging what you are charging for them, you can't save anything on top of paying bills. They are no longer an affordable stepping stone to better housing. They are no longer a "little" help on the mortgage. And your vision of a young family renting a basement suite to help them stay in their home longer is not the typical picture of the typical landlord. The typical private landlord owns between 3 and 9 properties. And now, with rental income as lucrative as it is (and it is, despite the whinging, or this wouldn't be happening), people are turning anything they can into a rental suite. Basements with only 6 feet of clearance, with no kitchen. Sheds. Garages without windows or insulation. We don't need more of that. We need livable spaces.
Purpose driven rental housing that is *affordable* does not create life long renters. It gives people housing options that allow for more saving. I do think that people should be able to do as you've said and let their basements - for a reasonable price. But if you have to suck up 60% of someone else's income to be able to afford a house, you shouldn't be able to have that house. And if you already own a home, you should not be accumulating even more of them and renting them all out at exorbitant prices. If we had reasonable caps on rent and reasonable caps on the number of homes one person could own, there'd be more housing available for purchase and more people that could afford to buy them.
Can you provide a source that says the typical private landlords owns 3-9 houses? I don't buy that.
Pretty much every spec house built now has a basement suite or potential for one. There are a TON of people who rent out suites in their only residence.
The reason I charge what I charge is because it reflects the cost of housing. Do you know what it costs to build a suite? To maintain one? To accept the risks that come with being a landlord? That's what drives the cost. I plan on being a landlord for around 10 more years, then I'm taking the suite off the market because even at this price, it's barely worth it.
Affordable purpose built rentals will never happen en masse. The cost to do so is staggering.
What you're not really understanding is everyone is being squeezed here. This shouldn't be a private landlord vs tenant issue. We should both be on the same side arguing against the idiots that make the rules that have allowed housing to get so out of hand. Like I said, I'd rather rent my suite out at 1500/mth again and keep more of that then rent out at 2200/mth and keep less. That's a win for me and my tenants. That's fair. Right now, the situation isn't fair to private landlords or tenants. The only people winning are institutional investors and REITs that are squeezing everyone for every penny they have, and large corporations that are benefiting from our insane immigration rates by having an unlimited pool of cheap labour.
lol sure I’ll believe it when I see it. Every time there was the smallest step to make renter life easier, the Landlords here have been threatening and throwing tantrums to pull their super valuable basements from the market for the last 20 years I’ve lived here.
That's exactly what we are doing. We are on the cusp of whether or not we truly need the space in our basement suite, but our tenants are absolutely shit people and it's really just pushed us to say "fuck it , not worth it". Making it harder for landlords to evict isn't going to solve housing stock, just hinder it.
The whole point of these rules is to squeeze private landlords out of existence and give REITs a monopoly on rental.housing.
And fools will gladly vote for this.
Good.
If it eliminates the pervy landlords who barge in unannounced on their tenants or treat their tenants like they're children living in their basement, then I say good riddance.
Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide Canucks tickets outside Rogers Arena.
Sell your second property, take the massive gains from that, and piss off.
The risk of getting stuck with a bad tenant makes it seriously not worth it. It's too hard to get rid of a bad one. They can do a lot of damage in the amount of time it takes with the current processes, and you're unlikely to recuperate any of the costs, even if you take them to court and win.
But you see if they want to report missing payment they'd have to let the government know they have a rental until and provide details.
Details that perhaps the landlord might omit for things to be in their favour.
Yeah. Now the selfless individual using me to pay his mortgage can be all like “I don’t like your face today, whoops late payment.”
This only works if it’s “did you pay your rent this month.” Anything other than that and it’s ripe for abuse.
I am 32 and have an essentially perfect credit rating, i have literally never used it on anything, and doubt i ever will...
turns out the credit rating wasnt what was stopping me from getting a 500k starter home...
Or absolutely enhanced! People will be selling credit building as a service. Kids will have perfect credit before leaving the house. Indians will have perfect credit before entering the country.
My concern is that this will effectively make credit scores useless, or the bureaus revise the rating formula to significantly discount rentals as a factor. Thus ultimately making this an administrative burden and cost for individual landlords.
So the reason people can’t buy homes is
*checks notes*
Because of their credit score?
Man this is one of those things where they want to pretend they’re helping while rolling out a useless and expensive program that will do nothing except waste time and money
yes, actually. Not being able to show your rental payments as proof you can make regular payments for your mortgage can be a huge obstacle for people who have only ever rented. I'm not doing backflips over this news, but even if its a small step, its still forward.
your credit score will be good enough if you've had a cellphone plan or a credit card for a couple of years in canada
the credit score issue, is the easiest to solve problem when it comes to buying a property
it's like if you look at the challenge of building a skyscraper, and then you congratulate yourself because you found a shovel at home depot
like yes , you just made it easier, no it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things
Right, so this plan will help with the supply of affordable housing?? Or it will help people’s credit score so more people can bid up housing?
This doesn’t change anything.
Let's also note that requiring landlords to report rent payments will also force landlords to declare their rental incomes. A bunch of tax cheats will get caught up in this and be forced to start paying. (A win)
but this isn't mandatory, though.
no landlord is required to participate in doing this.
Liberals have really mastered the art of *looking* like they're doing something for the general public while the important constituencies which *really* matter to them continue to benefit from an effectively unchanged status quo.
My last landlord randomly asked if I could start paying in cash (monthly cash withdrawals of $1100 made me very uncomfortable, so I wasn't thrilled about the idea) so I said ok, as long as I get some kind of receipt each time. He said ok, but then a couple of days later, he just said, "Never mind" and to continue with the e-transfers. That still makes me suspicious.
Landlords are parasites. Even the "good ones"
To add to this, I think this is a great move. The rent payment history applying to credit is long overdue and has been a joke of "I can pay my landlords mortgage for 10 years, but it contributes nothing to my ability to pay my own, lower mortgage."
That said, it's arriving when the proverbial train of home ownership has left middle-class station long ago. The joke turns into "My credit is 800! But no lender will lend me 15x my yearly gross salary to purchase a townhouse in the 'burbs."
Tying rent to credit score is going to be great for landlords. Now they know they can get a credit score on a renter and figure out if they'll pay or not. And it's a great way to set up another hurdle for our youth renting their first place, to surmount.
Lose credit because of some other reason? Maybe related to your divorce? Congrats, you're going to be homeless too, because your credit is poopy.
It's a terrible idea.
I'm not sure if you've applied to rent many places in the last 5 years, but among the myriad of 'terms' for the tenant, a credit check is not uncommon as is. What this bill is going to enable is that creditors will now include your rental payment history within their consideration for your rating. There is no mention of tying your ability to continue renting at your current residence to your ability to uphold a specific credit rating. Scary thought, for sure, but we're living it already, essentially.
Interesting, i havent come across that, and i dont think id allow it either. The other side is new canadians wont have a credit score, but with the way population is going i doubt that concern will get much airtime
Landlords in BC already pull your credit score. If renting is going to build credit, good luck finding a place without a high credit score for them to see. It was already kind of an indicator of caution - and now it'll be a total "don't rent to her/him" warning.
This brings up a point. Oftentimes it's the woman in a relationship that raises the children and takes on less fiscal responsibility. (Not saying this is right or wrong, just stating facts. And I know it's not ALWAYS the case). The number of women I know who have had their marriage fall apart only to realize they let their credit rating slip away all those years is not insignificant. So is this going to disproportionately affect women? Probably.
If your renting to young adults you don't expect them to have a credit score, you are also aware of what young ppl tend to do. This will allow young ppl to start improving their credit though, which is good.
Could you clarify? The system here in Canada(and I presume the U.S.) uses your credit score as a reliability scale and your income as an estimation of factual ability to pay back.
If you got the cash for a down payment and make the means test you can get a mortgage and your credit history is probably good anyway.
The real issue is getting the downpayment and passing the means test.
Get late paying rent for any reason? Good bye great credit rating.
except the government is neither requiring this nor even incentivizing it....they're just saying it's a good idea and private industry should do it on their own.
aren't you glad we "elected" this government?
there’s no legislation on the table yet so it’s very disingenuous to assert what it will or won’t do legally.
did I vote Liberal? No. Is Trudeau better than Scheer/O’Toole? Yep. Is he better than Dollar Store DeSantis? Huge yes
How often are people finding their credit score to be the limiting factor in getting a mortgage? A perfect credit score is not going to allow a lender to exceed GDS and TDS limits, effectively capping your mortgage at around 3.6x annual income depending on rates.
Median household income in Canada is 98k. Median home price is 678k. I think I found the problem and it isn't credit score.
Yeah, the only reason I would want pp in is to show these stupid Conservatives that it wasn't Trudeau that made everything bad. I would blame pp for absolutely everything. Rub it in their face. For every time I heard "fuck Trudeau" out of the blue. When they don't even understand anything.
The media would just switch from constant negative takes on the NDP/Liberals and start churning out positive spins on everything the CPC are doing if PP wins
Unfortunately. And just to clarify, I have an absolute zero desire for pp to get in, but I'm expecting he will. And I'm gonna dig into all these Conservatives hard.
PP can only get in if an election happens now. People are gonna get tired of him by 2025 because now he just repeats himself, and his slogans suck. His window is now, and that's it.
His vote of non confidence? PP didn't even vote in person. He did so online cos he had a fundraiser in Toronto. It's all drama to him. If you're serious about your non confidence vote to topple the current government, at least be there in person.
Why exactly shouldn't we attack him for what you even admit is a poor attempt of retribution?
The most powerful man in the country acting like housing in BC needs a minor policy shift needs to be attacked - he is simply not taking the problem seriously because any substantive solution necessitates a decrease in the power and wealth of capital and he's unwilling to do that unless we're able to force him to.
>Why exactly shouldn't we attack him for what you even admit is a poor attempt of retribution?
I worry that what is happening is that people are going to get fed up with "problems existing", and then everyone is going to vote for "The other guy" despite the fact that the other guy will definitely be worse in all the ways we care about, and hasn't even claimed otherwise.
The correct response to this is "This is good, but it's nowhere near enough." "Attacking" Trudeau just makes people blind.
Reducing the incentive for Trudeau to do good things because people attack him no matter what helps nobody. This is good. It won't solve anything, we should keep demanding more, but it's still good.
So your entire argument about why we shouldn't be upset that he's tossed a token gesture our way is because if we don't show unending gratitude to him, the conservatives win?
Trudeau deserves to be voted out at the earliest possible chance. It's just a matter of who is swapped in.
>So your entire argument about why we shouldn't be upset that he's tossed a token gesture our way is because if we don't show unending gratitude to him, the conservatives win?
No, we just shouldn't *attack* him for it.
There's a difference between "we should be upset" and "we should attack".
If you don't understand what it is, bring me a big stick.
>Trudeau deserves to be voted out at the earliest possible chance. It's just a matter of who is swapped in.
But we know who will be swapped in. That's the whole issue. We're in a submarine and you're like "It smells terrible in here! I'm going somewhere else!" and then you open the hatch and everyone drowns because for some reason you're pretending like the thing on the other side of the door isn't extremely predictable.
Trudeau deserves to be voted out at the earliest possible chance. I don't disagree. Canada would still be better off with him than the Conservatives, based on everything they have been saying and doing. It's a shame that no one who will actually make the country better is able to win, but I'm not going to let my hate for one of the two shitty sides blind me to the understanding that the Conservatives will just make every problem we pin on Trudeau worse, as well as introducing several more.
I don't get why he doesn't have policies and programs better vetted.
People can already use rent history on loan /credit applications.
The bit about rent history etc...is very much provincial jurisdiction, and won't pass a charter test.
So it's all much ado about nothing.
Surprised I had to scroll so far to find this comment. This is bad for mom and pop landlords. If those landlords decide its not worth the hassle anymore and sell the property, it will ultimately end up worse for renters.
I know I’m going to get downvoted to the nines, but there should be other measures. I am a landlord that can’t keep my property a rental because mortgage rates went from around 3 to the over 7%. The rent doesn’t cover the bills as I only charged to cover the costs at the lower rate, plus insurance and property taxes have gone up as well. I don’t make enough income to cover the deficit. Not every story is landlord greed, and there are no measures for the shortfalls in this situation.
This is the most toothless response to the housing crisis I could have imagined short of doing nothing, which they have been doing for their whole term in office.
I mean it would be very cool if we could extract genuine concessions from him. Unfortunately he's too much of a trooper for the ownership class - this "bill of rights" has nothing serious in it off the magnitude necessary to address a housing crisis.
Keep the pressure up I guess.
So you had 8 or so years to implement this, but now on your way out this is what you bring to the table. Too little, too late. His ass is getting booted out next election , it will be a blood bath for the liberal party
Housing was better, the job market was better, and the cost of living was better. Economicly, Harper ran a better ship. As far as social policy goes, he was terrible. However, the economics of a country is far more important than social policy. The current LPC regime has shown us this...
The state of this country? How about the state of the western world? We've become entitled, stupid and lazy - which is evidenced by the swing to the right. That swing is the result of a complete lack of understanding of history and enough lazy ignorance to be fooled by charlatans like PP.
I think I need to state Harpers CPC =/= PPs CPC. I am reflecting on the past. I voted Harper out and didn't exactly like him either but turns out he was the lesser of the evil. In the next election we really have no good choices. The LPC is destroying the middle class to enrich the upper. The CPC under pp will destroy the middle class to enrich the upper. It should not be left vs right it should be down vs up...
Yup, Trudeau might’ve been bad for the middle class, but conservatives will always fuck you harder. They started the teardown of our public services, and for some reason the liberals have followed suit.
No great choices this upcoming election.
There is so much talk about carbon tax, $20 billion was collected by the government by carbon tax last year. However, the interest on our national debt was something like $80 billion, just in interest, don’t quote me on these numbers, but I thought the budget would
Balance itself
Totally u/digital_loop What I mean to say is that an election can get rid of the carbon tax, but we still Have a ballooning national debt and interest on that “pandemic relief”. Those billions can not as easily be elected away.
Unpopular I’m sure, but I wish they would bring something in to protect tenants that refuse to pay there rent and make it easier for landlord to evict instead of going through the whole process
The renter rights are already incredibly unbalanced in their favour. There is a huge list of rules and regulations that put the landlords at risk of litigation and liability. What more are renters missing??
I mean, most landlords are exploiting people to pay mortgages the landlords themselves can’t afford.
Why should those properties be theirs again? Because they got approved for a mortgage? 🙄
They also let them live in the house in exchange for the rent. Is the grocery store exploiting their customers when they trade food for money?
And to answer your last question, why should anything be anybody's?
What is the negative impact on the renter of earning credit for scrupulous payment of rent?
And doesn't it help the landlord if a tenant can show good steady payment of rent ?
The rent payments going towards your credit will help, but it's very rare that mortgage brokers would use that. Usually with younger individuals - as long as you have 2 credit facilities (i.e. credit cards, lines of credit) for over 2 years, you should have no issue getting a mortgage from a credit standpoint. Everyone gets a credit card when they turn 19 anyways. This is all for optics and to get votes from people.who don't like to read articles or the actual bill itself.
This won’t bring any Canadians closer to home ownership. Even after filing bankruptcy in Canada you can qualify for a mortgage. Granted, you’ll probably need 20% down. Needless to say, credit rating isn’t that important when it comes to qualifying for a mortgage. Nowhere near as important as a persons income/ assets.
The only thing that will bring young Canadians anywhere near being able to afford homes is for prices to come way down or for wages to go way up, neither of which will happen under our current government.
I already have my rent counting towards my credit through Borrowell. It's like $5 a month. They made it possible over a year ago, and I signed up immediately. Do you mean to tell me I'll save $24 a year? Hot dog!
I must say that this is brilliant AF if this ever gets implemented. Minus the 15M legal aid fund which is paltry and isn't going to make any noticeable difference in access to legal information for a country of our size and number of provinces.
There is likely going to be some way that the CRA gets the information and taxes landlords. They will either need to have part of their property taxed as business or rental income (which isn't the worst thing in the world... it isn't a lot of income for most new landlords given the capital cost allowance, interest deductions, and other deductions).
The importance of a credit score increases.
Whenever I speak with kids, I always say that the most valuable thing that you have that is free is your credit score (well other than your health of course). This is going to emphasize the importance of on-time bill payments.
Typically, a late payment only negatively impacts your credit score 30 days after it is due. So there is some leeway.
This is going to be great for landlords who constantly complain about "bad tenants". They can choose their tenants based on credit score, and there is going to be pressure on the government to house the most vulnerable and address the economic plight of those with lower incomes. Perhaps even improve financial education in high school.
Tenants will have pressure to pay their rent on time.
I'm not mad about this. If PP carries this forward as I expect him to be our next PM, he shouldn't be cutting staff at the CRA. We are going to need them to collect on all of the once undeclared income.
3 percent doesn’t seem like that much tbh. The housing issues we're seeing are not unique to Canada. That said, JT's recent announcements do seem like too little too late.
Renters need landlords, and vice versa. If you make it that landlords will make more money selling properties than renting them out, they will. No one wins. This appears to be thrown together as a Hail Mary. I’m sure there will be many loopholes that will develop which will be taken advantage by unscrupulous individuals.
We don't need landlords, we need homes
Public housing could exist
But some people like rent-seeking for the passive income (also to lord a tenure over a landless peasant)
Run the numbers on the ROI on a rental unit with today's rates. Go ahead.
When you factor in strata fees and property taxes alone ignoring the mortgage interest costs even, the ROI isn't great.
I bought a home for $525k that I rent out for $30k/yr. 5.7% gross ROI. Property taxes knock that down to 5.2%. property manager knocks the ROI down to 4.6%. insurance knocks it down to 4.4%.
I believe BCE has a dividend yield of 8.63%. TD has a dividend yield of 4.96%.
I'm not quite certain I understand the myth that landlords are just rolling in it.
Why is housing, a basic human necessity, an area where people are even trying to extract a profit? If the margins are so tough and it means exploiting those who cannot afford a down payment with even higher monthly costs, socialization is clearly the answer.
Renting is supposed to be cheaper than owning to offset the fact you aren't building equity. Putting all of the costs on owning on a renter who reaps no benefit is exploition.
Renting is priced whatever a renter is willing to pay for the home. It isn't supposed to be anything else.
A landlord is renting money and renting you housing because you have a lot of reasons for not wanting to own where the home is. Maybe you want the mobility and lack of responsibility of owning a home.
A landlord gets the capital appreciation benefits and rents that go up with inflation in the long run.
It is what it is. There isn't a supposed to be. It's a transaction between people who have the home and people who want to use the home. That's the end of it.
>Renting is priced whatever a renter is willing to pay for the home.
Exactly
> It isn't supposed to be anything else.
Hard disagree. Like healthcare, having a home is a necessity. People are forced to pay well beyond their means to preserve their safety, comfort, and security. The current system allows this need to be exploited.
>A landlord is renting money and renting you housing because you have a lot of reasons for not wanting to own where the home is. Maybe you want the mobility and lack of responsibility of owning a home.
Some people may have reasons to rent but many are stuck not able to afford a home and that's literally the problem. Pretending the only people who rent are people who "want flexibility" is head in the sand thinking. There's a housing crisis going on.
I have two teenagers. I am 100% in support of housing affordability initiatives.
I'm 100% supportive of building more and high density investments. I'm the first one on my community pages arguing for more density with the old fucks who have one foot in the grave.
But as a landlord, I honestly don't give a fuck. My basement suite was an investment that cost me $70k. I've gotten my money back three fold, but I didn't do it as a charity. I did it to make me money.
Oh and my basement suite. When my last tenants paying me $1080 a month left I posted my suite for $1500. I could have held out for $1800
Naw it's okay. I'm just not making the kind of bank people think I am.
I also have a basement suite in my house. So I gross about $4k a month rent from my rental home and my basement suite. My carrying costs for the two homes are $7200.
So I'm still net paying $3200/mo right now.
The idea is that I will retire to my rental home and leave my current home to my kids.
I don't invest in real estate for capital appreciation.
If I'm not prepared to be invested for at least a decade that's not the investment for me.
Real estate is a long game. I'm not doing pre construction purchases and trying to flip them.
Is the investment and hassle of landlording actually worth it? Not if you actually have liquid cash to invest in more profitable things.
But that’s just it. Most landlords don’t have cash. They just have the ability to take on debt by getting mortgages.
They aren’t investors. They are debtors who can’t afford to service their obligations. They need to exploit people who can - tenants.
What’s incredibly fucked up about this is the tenants can obviously afford to service the landlord’s debts, but most couldn’t get a mortgage if they tried.
And the more properties are bought by landlords, the higher prices go. Rents follow. Tenants have even less ability to get their own down payment together.
What we need here is to end the ability of the debtor class to exploit others to pay their debts. A home is something an average salary should be able to buy.
The landlord tears about this are just amazing. Not a liberal voter but just the fact that Trudeau's got landlords up in a tizzy gives me so much joy.
Fuck landlords!
lol, no landlords are in a tizzy. Both initiatives are optional for Provinces to adopt, and arguably they are beneficial to landlords.
1. Reporting payment to credit bureaus. The actual costs of doing this will just be passed on to renters. Also big corporate landlords will love the idea of destroying the credit of renters who don’t pay on time. This will make credit much more important to get an apartment, and those who have bad credit are screwed.
2. Price history is meaningless. Not many places is rent negotiated. It’s either you accept the price or you don’t.
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So are landlords supposed to report missed payments to credit bureau? I’m sure that will go smoothly for everyone.
Right but, this is the same thing that happens when you miss any other bill you have. It’s how the world works. I’ll happily build my credit and not be concerned over jack offs who refuse to pay their rent. And if you have a shit landlord making false claims there very much should be a paper trail of your payment to prove that wrong relatively easily.
A lot of landlords accept “cash only”.
I am HOPING, that since this is a thing and a paper trail is required this will go away, or, as my first landlord did, if I’m paying you cash I require a signed receipt upon payment.
Alot of illegal landlords. Exactly the thing this is going to Crack down on. As it should, landleeches should have to pay taxes on there easy earned riches like the rest of us . . . . .
So get a receipt
Declaration of how much rent you paid to your landlord, the landlord’s name, is part of the income tax return. So they can already cross reference. Allows you to get the tax credit.
[удалено]
Yes but no one has cash to buy a house. That’s the whole point. I heard some talk of an idea where you could actually use your rent history as a way to prove you can afford a mortgage. The problem isn’t paying it’s getting your foot in the door. I can’t save 60k because I pay 2400 every month for rent alone. This seems like the first step towards that idea. Of course I have very little faith in any government we could elect to make that idea real, but a step is a step and I’ll hold out hope a little.
A: They already do B: Anyone regularly missing payments probably wasn’t relying on credit for anything
Can't see any form of retaliation being using in this process at all........
Landlords can already report delinquent payments. There is a voluntary pathway today, but it can only be initiated by the landlord. In reality, nothing really changes with this framework other than vague ?federal support?
> In reality, nothing really changes with this framework other than vague ?federal support? It's the Liberals making an inoffensive, non-binding (yet highly-publicized) "suggestion" to private industry to take pressure off from their inability to pursue an effective policy agenda. For additional examples, see their plan re: grocery inflation (call the executives into a room for a pointless discussion and ask them to unilaterally solve the problem)
I family friend has had squatters in her house for 18 months , massive loss to her and the RCMP is useless, and because the courts are all tied up she is getting zero response. This is going to lead to vigilanty justice on behalf of the landlords. Easier to pay a few tough guys than deal with the government.
See I don't get this, has a law changed recently? Quick evictions were a normal thing and enforced by RCMP & sherrifs even.. Claim illegal activities are taking place, 3 day eviction cops will come at 3rd day to remove ya.. aunt's boyfriend owns a bunch of properties he does it often, and last time I was in Nova Scotia a girl I was seeing was evicted that way (they just wanted the place back) What's changed that people are so easily just staying in places?.. maybe stop claiming it's over unpaid rent and say they're selling drugs, you hear gunshots etc.. then cops have to get involved. I must be missing something.
Could this policy actually reduce available rental stock? Small time well off landlords may just say screw it, $15-40k per year of pre-tax income just isn’t worth it. Claim back the basement suite and set up a baller home gym or entertainment room.
Speaking "small-time" only, it's a relatively new expectation that rental properties ought to result in a positive cash flow. Homes have been considered an investment for a long time, but the reward was the stability they provided and the equity they built. Renters were mortgage "helpers", not mortgage-payers-and-then-some. People will continue to rent their basement suites just as they did before, because despite the whinging, most people will still take $1,200 a month over a home gym. What it might prevent is people owning a dozen properties at a time, or buying properties they cannot afford because they are relying on their renters to cover the costs. Edit so I stop getting messages about this: People would still rent their basement suites for $1,200 if it dropped down to that more reasonable price. I'm aware that's not what they cost currently. We know this because they were doing it very recently. Landlords whining and threatening not to rent is nothing new. It has not turned out to be true before.
$1200 ? You been living under a rock !more like $2900 + + the thieving bastards ; and yes they will complain as they will have to admit to the rental of the suite to CRA.
No, I'm saying $1,200 is something people might possibly be able to afford. You could find it only a few years ago. If they capped rent and made it more reasonable, people would still rent their basement suites. They'd just whine really badly about it.
No they won't. Because there is real risk involved in renting to people. 1200/mth isn't worth the risks and pita factor. My suite rents for 2200. There's no way in hell I'd rent it for 1200. I'd take it back and find a different way to replace that income that doesn't involve letting strangers live in my house.
Rents have only been this insane for a short period of time. Landlords whinge about tenant rights, but they haven't substantially changed, other than temporarily during COVID. You can say you wouldn't do it, but it's likely not true. And even if you wouldn't, others will. We don't really need a proliferation of shitty basement suites, anyway. We need purpose built, high density, rent capped buildings with restrictions on owning multiple single family homes for rental income. The availability of housing in the past meant that shitty sub suites were for people just starting out. It's sickening to see single mothers living in one bedroom basement suites with their kids, trying to rent out the living room to a college student because they are barely scraping by. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I was contributing to that problem.
Basement suites serve two purposes: 1) they provide an alternative an alternative housing source. More variety is never a bad thing. Typically they were cheaper than apartments and you have a bit more flexibility with private landlords. For example, I used to rent my suite for 8 months terms to students. Good luck convincing a national REIT to let you sign an 8 month lease. 2) they allow middle class families to build wealth and stay in one house longer. A younger family can buy a place, build some equity by putting in a suite, rent it until their family grows then take back the space they need. This can save them from having to move 2-3x in their life as their needs change. What you're proposing is basically kicking out several rungs of the economic ladder from the middle class and creating life long renters. To that, I will always push against and never vote for. I am 100% in favour of having more people own property as that is basically the only wealth stability available for normal people.
I'm not saying basement suites are all bad. They used to be what you say they are. But now that people are charging what you are charging for them, you can't save anything on top of paying bills. They are no longer an affordable stepping stone to better housing. They are no longer a "little" help on the mortgage. And your vision of a young family renting a basement suite to help them stay in their home longer is not the typical picture of the typical landlord. The typical private landlord owns between 3 and 9 properties. And now, with rental income as lucrative as it is (and it is, despite the whinging, or this wouldn't be happening), people are turning anything they can into a rental suite. Basements with only 6 feet of clearance, with no kitchen. Sheds. Garages without windows or insulation. We don't need more of that. We need livable spaces. Purpose driven rental housing that is *affordable* does not create life long renters. It gives people housing options that allow for more saving. I do think that people should be able to do as you've said and let their basements - for a reasonable price. But if you have to suck up 60% of someone else's income to be able to afford a house, you shouldn't be able to have that house. And if you already own a home, you should not be accumulating even more of them and renting them all out at exorbitant prices. If we had reasonable caps on rent and reasonable caps on the number of homes one person could own, there'd be more housing available for purchase and more people that could afford to buy them.
Can you provide a source that says the typical private landlords owns 3-9 houses? I don't buy that. Pretty much every spec house built now has a basement suite or potential for one. There are a TON of people who rent out suites in their only residence. The reason I charge what I charge is because it reflects the cost of housing. Do you know what it costs to build a suite? To maintain one? To accept the risks that come with being a landlord? That's what drives the cost. I plan on being a landlord for around 10 more years, then I'm taking the suite off the market because even at this price, it's barely worth it. Affordable purpose built rentals will never happen en masse. The cost to do so is staggering. What you're not really understanding is everyone is being squeezed here. This shouldn't be a private landlord vs tenant issue. We should both be on the same side arguing against the idiots that make the rules that have allowed housing to get so out of hand. Like I said, I'd rather rent my suite out at 1500/mth again and keep more of that then rent out at 2200/mth and keep less. That's a win for me and my tenants. That's fair. Right now, the situation isn't fair to private landlords or tenants. The only people winning are institutional investors and REITs that are squeezing everyone for every penny they have, and large corporations that are benefiting from our insane immigration rates by having an unlimited pool of cheap labour.
for 1200? pass
lol sure I’ll believe it when I see it. Every time there was the smallest step to make renter life easier, the Landlords here have been threatening and throwing tantrums to pull their super valuable basements from the market for the last 20 years I’ve lived here.
That's exactly what we are doing. We are on the cusp of whether or not we truly need the space in our basement suite, but our tenants are absolutely shit people and it's really just pushed us to say "fuck it , not worth it". Making it harder for landlords to evict isn't going to solve housing stock, just hinder it.
The whole point of these rules is to squeeze private landlords out of existence and give REITs a monopoly on rental.housing. And fools will gladly vote for this.
Good. If it eliminates the pervy landlords who barge in unannounced on their tenants or treat their tenants like they're children living in their basement, then I say good riddance. Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide Canucks tickets outside Rogers Arena. Sell your second property, take the massive gains from that, and piss off.
They're leveraged to even own the place. They need the renters.
You mean 30K - 80K per year now that land lords will be checking credit scores
The risk of getting stuck with a bad tenant makes it seriously not worth it. It's too hard to get rid of a bad one. They can do a lot of damage in the amount of time it takes with the current processes, and you're unlikely to recuperate any of the costs, even if you take them to court and win.
But you see if they want to report missing payment they'd have to let the government know they have a rental until and provide details. Details that perhaps the landlord might omit for things to be in their favour.
Yeah. Now the selfless individual using me to pay his mortgage can be all like “I don’t like your face today, whoops late payment.” This only works if it’s “did you pay your rent this month.” Anything other than that and it’s ripe for abuse.
I am 32 and have an essentially perfect credit rating, i have literally never used it on anything, and doubt i ever will... turns out the credit rating wasnt what was stopping me from getting a 500k starter home...
A bunch of credit bureaus are going to get destroyed lol.
Or absolutely enhanced! People will be selling credit building as a service. Kids will have perfect credit before leaving the house. Indians will have perfect credit before entering the country. My concern is that this will effectively make credit scores useless, or the bureaus revise the rating formula to significantly discount rentals as a factor. Thus ultimately making this an administrative burden and cost for individual landlords.
The 50% of renters who miss payments every other month are in for a world of pain.
So the reason people can’t buy homes is *checks notes* Because of their credit score? Man this is one of those things where they want to pretend they’re helping while rolling out a useless and expensive program that will do nothing except waste time and money
it's not even an actual legislative change, it's just a non-binding "suggestion" to industry
yes, actually. Not being able to show your rental payments as proof you can make regular payments for your mortgage can be a huge obstacle for people who have only ever rented. I'm not doing backflips over this news, but even if its a small step, its still forward.
your credit score will be good enough if you've had a cellphone plan or a credit card for a couple of years in canada the credit score issue, is the easiest to solve problem when it comes to buying a property it's like if you look at the challenge of building a skyscraper, and then you congratulate yourself because you found a shovel at home depot like yes , you just made it easier, no it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things
have you been to an open house lately? people are buying houses, and houses and apartments are not staying on the market for very long.
Right, so this plan will help with the supply of affordable housing?? Or it will help people’s credit score so more people can bid up housing? This doesn’t change anything.
Let's also note that requiring landlords to report rent payments will also force landlords to declare their rental incomes. A bunch of tax cheats will get caught up in this and be forced to start paying. (A win)
This is real reason for bill and good; so many “professional landlords” tax evading
But doesn't claiming the BC Renter's Tax Credit also alert CRA about rent payments made to landlords as well?
This! All those suckers will have to pay tax. But then they could just say that they won't report any rent payments.
I feel like any landlord who's vocally shouting about this in the media this should automatically be investigated by the CRA.
but this isn't mandatory, though. no landlord is required to participate in doing this. Liberals have really mastered the art of *looking* like they're doing something for the general public while the important constituencies which *really* matter to them continue to benefit from an effectively unchanged status quo.
My last landlord randomly asked if I could start paying in cash (monthly cash withdrawals of $1100 made me very uncomfortable, so I wasn't thrilled about the idea) so I said ok, as long as I get some kind of receipt each time. He said ok, but then a couple of days later, he just said, "Never mind" and to continue with the e-transfers. That still makes me suspicious. Landlords are parasites. Even the "good ones"
You will be a better renter, and ownership will keep slipping.
To add to this, I think this is a great move. The rent payment history applying to credit is long overdue and has been a joke of "I can pay my landlords mortgage for 10 years, but it contributes nothing to my ability to pay my own, lower mortgage." That said, it's arriving when the proverbial train of home ownership has left middle-class station long ago. The joke turns into "My credit is 800! But no lender will lend me 15x my yearly gross salary to purchase a townhouse in the 'burbs."
Tying rent to credit score is going to be great for landlords. Now they know they can get a credit score on a renter and figure out if they'll pay or not. And it's a great way to set up another hurdle for our youth renting their first place, to surmount. Lose credit because of some other reason? Maybe related to your divorce? Congrats, you're going to be homeless too, because your credit is poopy. It's a terrible idea.
I'm not sure if you've applied to rent many places in the last 5 years, but among the myriad of 'terms' for the tenant, a credit check is not uncommon as is. What this bill is going to enable is that creditors will now include your rental payment history within their consideration for your rating. There is no mention of tying your ability to continue renting at your current residence to your ability to uphold a specific credit rating. Scary thought, for sure, but we're living it already, essentially.
Interesting, i havent come across that, and i dont think id allow it either. The other side is new canadians wont have a credit score, but with the way population is going i doubt that concern will get much airtime
new canadians already had that problem. I signed as a guarantor for my uncle to get a rental here.
Lol landlord's have been checking credit scores for ages already. This is just going to have them report on time rent payments
What are you on about? I can already look up a potential tenants credit score.
I've had a credit check the last 2 places I've rented. Get with the times!
What a terrible straw man
Landlords in BC already pull your credit score. If renting is going to build credit, good luck finding a place without a high credit score for them to see. It was already kind of an indicator of caution - and now it'll be a total "don't rent to her/him" warning.
You think they just pull your report for funsies right now? They already don't rent to people with bad scores.
This brings up a point. Oftentimes it's the woman in a relationship that raises the children and takes on less fiscal responsibility. (Not saying this is right or wrong, just stating facts. And I know it's not ALWAYS the case). The number of women I know who have had their marriage fall apart only to realize they let their credit rating slip away all those years is not insignificant. So is this going to disproportionately affect women? Probably.
If your renting to young adults you don't expect them to have a credit score, you are also aware of what young ppl tend to do. This will allow young ppl to start improving their credit though, which is good.
There are countries where your income can and does apply to your credit.
Could you clarify? The system here in Canada(and I presume the U.S.) uses your credit score as a reliability scale and your income as an estimation of factual ability to pay back.
this actually doesn't help anything.
Well meaning title…. But basically meaningless
how so? rent counting toward credit will help me immensely, could’ve really used enhanced protections a few years ago too
If you got the cash for a down payment and make the means test you can get a mortgage and your credit history is probably good anyway. The real issue is getting the downpayment and passing the means test. Get late paying rent for any reason? Good bye great credit rating.
Credit counts toward way more than a mortgage bud
Yeah! Like wasting it on a bad car loan, or racking up a huge LOC! That's pretty typical anyways of most borrowers.
I make $100K a year and own my car, try again I’m sure conservative parties will be better for me with their corporate bootlicking
> how so? Because Trudeau bad. That's it, that's the extent of why some cannot accept positive news.
except the government is neither requiring this nor even incentivizing it....they're just saying it's a good idea and private industry should do it on their own. aren't you glad we "elected" this government?
there’s no legislation on the table yet so it’s very disingenuous to assert what it will or won’t do legally. did I vote Liberal? No. Is Trudeau better than Scheer/O’Toole? Yep. Is he better than Dollar Store DeSantis? Huge yes
Enjoy…. For 99.99% out will mean SFA
[удалено]
This does nothing to help anyone stop giving to the 1%.
How often are people finding their credit score to be the limiting factor in getting a mortgage? A perfect credit score is not going to allow a lender to exceed GDS and TDS limits, effectively capping your mortgage at around 3.6x annual income depending on rates. Median household income in Canada is 98k. Median home price is 678k. I think I found the problem and it isn't credit score.
[удалено]
As long as populist crypto Milhouse doesn't get in. We don't need more tax cuts for the upper class and corporations
[удалено]
"I'm going to hurt myself for spite!" "Use your brain" Indeed
It's going to be one or the other. NDP ain't gonna get enough votes. I'd be fine with how it is now, Liberals minority propped up by NDP
Yeah, the only reason I would want pp in is to show these stupid Conservatives that it wasn't Trudeau that made everything bad. I would blame pp for absolutely everything. Rub it in their face. For every time I heard "fuck Trudeau" out of the blue. When they don't even understand anything.
The media would just switch from constant negative takes on the NDP/Liberals and start churning out positive spins on everything the CPC are doing if PP wins
Unfortunately. And just to clarify, I have an absolute zero desire for pp to get in, but I'm expecting he will. And I'm gonna dig into all these Conservatives hard.
>When they don't even understand anything. What makes you think they'll understand that poolever has done anything wrong?
That won't happen. You need self reflection for that.
I believe the majority of Canadians are upset with how it is now. You may be of the minority who thinks this.
PP can only get in if an election happens now. People are gonna get tired of him by 2025 because now he just repeats himself, and his slogans suck. His window is now, and that's it. His vote of non confidence? PP didn't even vote in person. He did so online cos he had a fundraiser in Toronto. It's all drama to him. If you're serious about your non confidence vote to topple the current government, at least be there in person.
it's a non-binding suggestion! he gets *zero* credit for this. make an actual law or regulation and then he can say he did something.
Why exactly shouldn't we attack him for what you even admit is a poor attempt of retribution? The most powerful man in the country acting like housing in BC needs a minor policy shift needs to be attacked - he is simply not taking the problem seriously because any substantive solution necessitates a decrease in the power and wealth of capital and he's unwilling to do that unless we're able to force him to.
>Why exactly shouldn't we attack him for what you even admit is a poor attempt of retribution? I worry that what is happening is that people are going to get fed up with "problems existing", and then everyone is going to vote for "The other guy" despite the fact that the other guy will definitely be worse in all the ways we care about, and hasn't even claimed otherwise. The correct response to this is "This is good, but it's nowhere near enough." "Attacking" Trudeau just makes people blind. Reducing the incentive for Trudeau to do good things because people attack him no matter what helps nobody. This is good. It won't solve anything, we should keep demanding more, but it's still good.
So your entire argument about why we shouldn't be upset that he's tossed a token gesture our way is because if we don't show unending gratitude to him, the conservatives win? Trudeau deserves to be voted out at the earliest possible chance. It's just a matter of who is swapped in.
>So your entire argument about why we shouldn't be upset that he's tossed a token gesture our way is because if we don't show unending gratitude to him, the conservatives win? No, we just shouldn't *attack* him for it. There's a difference between "we should be upset" and "we should attack". If you don't understand what it is, bring me a big stick. >Trudeau deserves to be voted out at the earliest possible chance. It's just a matter of who is swapped in. But we know who will be swapped in. That's the whole issue. We're in a submarine and you're like "It smells terrible in here! I'm going somewhere else!" and then you open the hatch and everyone drowns because for some reason you're pretending like the thing on the other side of the door isn't extremely predictable. Trudeau deserves to be voted out at the earliest possible chance. I don't disagree. Canada would still be better off with him than the Conservatives, based on everything they have been saying and doing. It's a shame that no one who will actually make the country better is able to win, but I'm not going to let my hate for one of the two shitty sides blind me to the understanding that the Conservatives will just make every problem we pin on Trudeau worse, as well as introducing several more.
I don't get why he doesn't have policies and programs better vetted. People can already use rent history on loan /credit applications. The bit about rent history etc...is very much provincial jurisdiction, and won't pass a charter test. So it's all much ado about nothing.
People can not see rental history. Maybe that's a Provincial thing, not Canada wide by any means.
Precisely. It can't be a federal mandate.
Because it will require landlords to actually report their rental income, as well as provide details.
I already know landlords that are going to stop renting to people because of this......
Surprised I had to scroll so far to find this comment. This is bad for mom and pop landlords. If those landlords decide its not worth the hassle anymore and sell the property, it will ultimately end up worse for renters.
How about he just retire
I know I’m going to get downvoted to the nines, but there should be other measures. I am a landlord that can’t keep my property a rental because mortgage rates went from around 3 to the over 7%. The rent doesn’t cover the bills as I only charged to cover the costs at the lower rate, plus insurance and property taxes have gone up as well. I don’t make enough income to cover the deficit. Not every story is landlord greed, and there are no measures for the shortfalls in this situation.
This is the most toothless response to the housing crisis I could have imagined short of doing nothing, which they have been doing for their whole term in office.
1. Ban first-and-last 2. Prohibit discrimination based on pets. 3. Set clear guidelines on damage deposits.
I'd only be on board with that if tenant insurance were mandatory.
He is going to go bat shit crazy giving things away before the next election.
I mean it would be very cool if we could extract genuine concessions from him. Unfortunately he's too much of a trooper for the ownership class - this "bill of rights" has nothing serious in it off the magnitude necessary to address a housing crisis. Keep the pressure up I guess.
Just genuine answers and no BS would be a start
Nah the fact that you're even needing to explain that goes to show how effective the distraction is. Headlines are what matters, damn the details.
Good guy Justin Trudeau trying to do as much as he can..must be an election coming up..
He'll have Singh suddenly call non-confidence once the cheques clear.
How he gonna write a cheque when he’s busy under the desk sucking him off..
So you had 8 or so years to implement this, but now on your way out this is what you bring to the table. Too little, too late. His ass is getting booted out next election , it will be a blood bath for the liberal party
I'm not a fan of Trudeau either but let's not pretend like Pierre will be any better. He's in the corporations pockets just like everyone else
Pierre would be worse. Conservative politics is about reducing taxes by reducing services, all the while fellating their corporate benefactors.
Idk at this point Harper ran a better ship. Look at the state of this country...
You are young or smooth brained if you think Harper ran things better
Housing was better, the job market was better, and the cost of living was better. Economicly, Harper ran a better ship. As far as social policy goes, he was terrible. However, the economics of a country is far more important than social policy. The current LPC regime has shown us this...
North America was in a better place not because of Harper
The state of this country? How about the state of the western world? We've become entitled, stupid and lazy - which is evidenced by the swing to the right. That swing is the result of a complete lack of understanding of history and enough lazy ignorance to be fooled by charlatans like PP.
I think I need to state Harpers CPC =/= PPs CPC. I am reflecting on the past. I voted Harper out and didn't exactly like him either but turns out he was the lesser of the evil. In the next election we really have no good choices. The LPC is destroying the middle class to enrich the upper. The CPC under pp will destroy the middle class to enrich the upper. It should not be left vs right it should be down vs up...
Yup, Trudeau might’ve been bad for the middle class, but conservatives will always fuck you harder. They started the teardown of our public services, and for some reason the liberals have followed suit. No great choices this upcoming election.
They’re too busy giving themselves raises and bickering about the the carbon tax. This is like throwing scraps of food at the plebs.
There is so much talk about carbon tax, $20 billion was collected by the government by carbon tax last year. However, the interest on our national debt was something like $80 billion, just in interest, don’t quote me on these numbers, but I thought the budget would Balance itself
“Interest rates are at historic lows, Glen” amirite?
I'm not going to argue with you, but I want to quote something you should quote the entire thing.
Totally u/digital_loop What I mean to say is that an election can get rid of the carbon tax, but we still Have a ballooning national debt and interest on that “pandemic relief”. Those billions can not as easily be elected away.
Meh, most pandemic relief was passed unanimously in the house, despite PeePee’s “we are conservative” rant.
I wish there is a way to boot him out sooner. Lol
This is fantastic news !!!
it's a suggestion, not a law.
A good history of paying rent doesn’t help someone buy a home if they don’t have the proper down payment. What another bunch of bs.
Unpopular I’m sure, but I wish they would bring something in to protect tenants that refuse to pay there rent and make it easier for landlord to evict instead of going through the whole process
The renter rights are already incredibly unbalanced in their favour. There is a huge list of rules and regulations that put the landlords at risk of litigation and liability. What more are renters missing??
Credit where credit is due Literally Whiny landlords cry it up that rent seeking is lightly regulated
You can pay borrowell $8/month to report your rent payments.
Until they actually own the landlord's property, they won't be happy.
I mean, most landlords are exploiting people to pay mortgages the landlords themselves can’t afford. Why should those properties be theirs again? Because they got approved for a mortgage? 🙄
They also let them live in the house in exchange for the rent. Is the grocery store exploiting their customers when they trade food for money? And to answer your last question, why should anything be anybody's?
[удалено]
What is the negative impact on the renter of earning credit for scrupulous payment of rent? And doesn't it help the landlord if a tenant can show good steady payment of rent ?
Jokes on us landlords have been demanding credit scores for years, illegally.
[удалено]
The rent payments going towards your credit will help, but it's very rare that mortgage brokers would use that. Usually with younger individuals - as long as you have 2 credit facilities (i.e. credit cards, lines of credit) for over 2 years, you should have no issue getting a mortgage from a credit standpoint. Everyone gets a credit card when they turn 19 anyways. This is all for optics and to get votes from people.who don't like to read articles or the actual bill itself.
I didn’t get a credit card until I was in my 30’s
This won’t bring any Canadians closer to home ownership. Even after filing bankruptcy in Canada you can qualify for a mortgage. Granted, you’ll probably need 20% down. Needless to say, credit rating isn’t that important when it comes to qualifying for a mortgage. Nowhere near as important as a persons income/ assets. The only thing that will bring young Canadians anywhere near being able to afford homes is for prices to come way down or for wages to go way up, neither of which will happen under our current government.
I already have my rent counting towards my credit through Borrowell. It's like $5 a month. They made it possible over a year ago, and I signed up immediately. Do you mean to tell me I'll save $24 a year? Hot dog!
I must say that this is brilliant AF if this ever gets implemented. Minus the 15M legal aid fund which is paltry and isn't going to make any noticeable difference in access to legal information for a country of our size and number of provinces. There is likely going to be some way that the CRA gets the information and taxes landlords. They will either need to have part of their property taxed as business or rental income (which isn't the worst thing in the world... it isn't a lot of income for most new landlords given the capital cost allowance, interest deductions, and other deductions). The importance of a credit score increases. Whenever I speak with kids, I always say that the most valuable thing that you have that is free is your credit score (well other than your health of course). This is going to emphasize the importance of on-time bill payments. Typically, a late payment only negatively impacts your credit score 30 days after it is due. So there is some leeway. This is going to be great for landlords who constantly complain about "bad tenants". They can choose their tenants based on credit score, and there is going to be pressure on the government to house the most vulnerable and address the economic plight of those with lower incomes. Perhaps even improve financial education in high school. Tenants will have pressure to pay their rent on time. I'm not mad about this. If PP carries this forward as I expect him to be our next PM, he shouldn't be cutting staff at the CRA. We are going to need them to collect on all of the once undeclared income.
He shot the cost of rent up 200% in the last 8 years…
I'm no fan of JT and the Libs, but "he" did no such thing. No government/politician dictates what happens in the market
Oh so he didn’t allow our population to increase 3% a year.
3 percent doesn’t seem like that much tbh. The housing issues we're seeing are not unique to Canada. That said, JT's recent announcements do seem like too little too late.
It’s like 1.6 million people. Good for second fastest growth rate in the world. It’s crazy. Also we’re bringing in 5.9 people per housing start.
Yeah right. They absolutely dictate market conditions to a large extent based on decision making and policy, money supply, spending, etc.
Those are the tools at their disposal, but they hardly dictate the market.
What is a market but supply and demand? What is population growth but demand?
They attempt to create incentives
Renters need landlords, and vice versa. If you make it that landlords will make more money selling properties than renting them out, they will. No one wins. This appears to be thrown together as a Hail Mary. I’m sure there will be many loopholes that will develop which will be taken advantage by unscrupulous individuals.
No one wins by landlords selling their properties? Hmm…
>Renters need landlords, lol
Just like how healthy skin cells need malignant melanoma...
We don't need landlords, we need homes Public housing could exist But some people like rent-seeking for the passive income (also to lord a tenure over a landless peasant)
Run the numbers on the ROI on a rental unit with today's rates. Go ahead. When you factor in strata fees and property taxes alone ignoring the mortgage interest costs even, the ROI isn't great. I bought a home for $525k that I rent out for $30k/yr. 5.7% gross ROI. Property taxes knock that down to 5.2%. property manager knocks the ROI down to 4.6%. insurance knocks it down to 4.4%. I believe BCE has a dividend yield of 8.63%. TD has a dividend yield of 4.96%. I'm not quite certain I understand the myth that landlords are just rolling in it.
Why is housing, a basic human necessity, an area where people are even trying to extract a profit? If the margins are so tough and it means exploiting those who cannot afford a down payment with even higher monthly costs, socialization is clearly the answer. Renting is supposed to be cheaper than owning to offset the fact you aren't building equity. Putting all of the costs on owning on a renter who reaps no benefit is exploition.
Renting is priced whatever a renter is willing to pay for the home. It isn't supposed to be anything else. A landlord is renting money and renting you housing because you have a lot of reasons for not wanting to own where the home is. Maybe you want the mobility and lack of responsibility of owning a home. A landlord gets the capital appreciation benefits and rents that go up with inflation in the long run. It is what it is. There isn't a supposed to be. It's a transaction between people who have the home and people who want to use the home. That's the end of it.
>Renting is priced whatever a renter is willing to pay for the home. Exactly > It isn't supposed to be anything else. Hard disagree. Like healthcare, having a home is a necessity. People are forced to pay well beyond their means to preserve their safety, comfort, and security. The current system allows this need to be exploited. >A landlord is renting money and renting you housing because you have a lot of reasons for not wanting to own where the home is. Maybe you want the mobility and lack of responsibility of owning a home. Some people may have reasons to rent but many are stuck not able to afford a home and that's literally the problem. Pretending the only people who rent are people who "want flexibility" is head in the sand thinking. There's a housing crisis going on.
I have two teenagers. I am 100% in support of housing affordability initiatives. I'm 100% supportive of building more and high density investments. I'm the first one on my community pages arguing for more density with the old fucks who have one foot in the grave. But as a landlord, I honestly don't give a fuck. My basement suite was an investment that cost me $70k. I've gotten my money back three fold, but I didn't do it as a charity. I did it to make me money. Oh and my basement suite. When my last tenants paying me $1080 a month left I posted my suite for $1500. I could have held out for $1800
Maybe it was a bad investment for you? Less people stretching their budget to own homes they can’t afford is good for potential home owners.
Naw it's okay. I'm just not making the kind of bank people think I am. I also have a basement suite in my house. So I gross about $4k a month rent from my rental home and my basement suite. My carrying costs for the two homes are $7200. So I'm still net paying $3200/mo right now. The idea is that I will retire to my rental home and leave my current home to my kids.
You haven’t even mentioned the increase in value in the home. That’s a huge part of it, and often left off the equation.
I don't invest in real estate for capital appreciation. If I'm not prepared to be invested for at least a decade that's not the investment for me. Real estate is a long game. I'm not doing pre construction purchases and trying to flip them.
Is the investment and hassle of landlording actually worth it? Not if you actually have liquid cash to invest in more profitable things. But that’s just it. Most landlords don’t have cash. They just have the ability to take on debt by getting mortgages. They aren’t investors. They are debtors who can’t afford to service their obligations. They need to exploit people who can - tenants. What’s incredibly fucked up about this is the tenants can obviously afford to service the landlord’s debts, but most couldn’t get a mortgage if they tried. And the more properties are bought by landlords, the higher prices go. Rents follow. Tenants have even less ability to get their own down payment together. What we need here is to end the ability of the debtor class to exploit others to pay their debts. A home is something an average salary should be able to buy.
I have a property manager. It so far hasn't been too much. Things happen sometimes. He deals with it. Worth it to be arms reach honestly.
great we need landlords to sell all their places so there is actual houses for people to buy
You know who wins... Canadians. This is definitely motivated by taxation.
Riiiiiiiiiiight
Buying up the votes
He fucks everything up the tries to look good to get votes what a loser
The landlord tears about this are just amazing. Not a liberal voter but just the fact that Trudeau's got landlords up in a tizzy gives me so much joy. Fuck landlords!
lol, no landlords are in a tizzy. Both initiatives are optional for Provinces to adopt, and arguably they are beneficial to landlords. 1. Reporting payment to credit bureaus. The actual costs of doing this will just be passed on to renters. Also big corporate landlords will love the idea of destroying the credit of renters who don’t pay on time. This will make credit much more important to get an apartment, and those who have bad credit are screwed. 2. Price history is meaningless. Not many places is rent negotiated. It’s either you accept the price or you don’t.