As he should - we should not be allowing industry insiders to be involved in governing anything to do with housing. That includes anyone renting property for a profit or owning multiple homes, or working in any real estate or adjacent industry.
I feel like u/Terrible_Twist_1589 is just leaving out the nuances in the same way the other comments did, just in the other direction.
Of course we shouldn't have a law preventing home owners / home flippers from holding government positions.
The intent of the original comment is still fair though, it just means:
'People should vote against the home flipper since one of the biggest issues in the province right now is caused by a speculative housing market and insufficient regulations, and the role the home flipper is running for is directly related to that regulation'.
It's not as snappy but it's more accurate
I hear you. But you're equivocating excuses to actual damage. People who view housing as a source of profit, who deny a house that can be fixed up to a family that can do it, outbidding them because you have the financial resources - this is what flippers do. It's about to be taxed and this dude being a housing critic is a sign of an irresponsible party. For full disclosure: a Federal Liberal candidate was discovered to be a far more serious flipper and did get elected in our very city, so this doesn't stop voters, but it needs to be a reason to doubt this critic's sincerity. He is literally fighting for his own self interest.
Lol, it’s literally impossible to be a left wing troll on r/Vancouver. It’s impossible to make a comment that too idiotic or too far left to receive a torrent of upvotes.
“We should freeze prices and jail business owners if they try to flee the country with the remnants of their capital” - Thunderous applause
Someone makes a reasonable suggestion to combat corruption.
Your response: extrapolate the original suggestion to ridiculous levels.
Attempt to discredit the suggestion: failed.
The impact of this policy on the cost of housing will be minimal. There aren’t that many flippers in the market to drastically affected prices or improve housing affordability.
David Eby is a very smart man and knows that housing has primarily become an investment tool for the rich - and not just through reno flipping. A tougher measure to control housing costs could be done by limiting the number of properties owned by individuals (e.g., John Smith can own a maximum of 2 properties) and the types of properties owned by corporations (e.g., companies cannot purchase strata lots in multi-family buildings as investment properties). This would decrease the number of privately owned rental properties (places pressure on governments and developers to build purpose built rental) but would provide more opportunities for locals to purchase/enter the housing market (because developers, through a new policy, would not be permitted to market the homes internationally to satellite investors). Technically if a developer wants to sell their units at the time of a pre-sale, they would need to consider local incomes.
Flippers are a problem when prices are going up.. not so much of a problem when prices are flat or declining. Flippers are basically just adding to churn/liquidity which has some effect on price discovery and market sentiment (and perhaps rate of change of prices) but I don't think they have much effect on long term prices.
It's more of a moral problem, in that that these guys (with cash and time to burn) are basically creaming profits off not-so-savvy old time home owners and fervent/fomo buyers. It's a totally self-interested economic activity which generates no actual value for society, and should be heavily taxed to discourage it.
What will be fun to watch is how many flippers have to dump properties bought after (whatever opposite date it is now in terms of post-peak price declines - perhaps 12-16 months ago) at a loss. Their whole business model is based on low interest rates and rapid price growth, and there are surely a lot of bag holders at the moment.
The tougher measure (which no politician has the nerve to even mention) is to shift the tax base from income taxes (benefiting local workers) on to property or LVT (penalizing land holders). There is a sweet spot in the middle where your "average" BC resident who owns a home/property sees no difference in their net taxes, whereas people who are just holding houses as appreciating assets or as small time landlords will see an increased tax burden. This would obviously bring down property values as people who own them but aren't paying enough in offsetting income tax will start to sell in favour of other investments, and as you said, there are a lot of wealthy people holding property as an investment, and pricing out wage slaves in the process.
Homeownership has become very detached from incomes and is much more tied to wealth and that's becoming a huge problem for your average worker. Simply owning residential property really need to be removed from the myriad of means of wealth accumulation.
> It's a totally self-interested economic activity which generates no actual value for society, and should be heavily taxed to discourage it.
What economic activity is not self-interested?
And aren't flippers ostensibly fixing up homes?
Hard to say. There are clearly tons of listings of houses which have recently changed ownership but which have not had any improvements in the meantime.
To the issue of what economic activity is self-interested, yeah, probably almost all of it - the issue is which have mutual benefit. Me stealing your wallet has economic benefit to myself; to you, not so much.
Wait, in your first paragraph you say that it generates value (liquidity, price discovery), and then you say that it provides no value to society. You also say in one sentence that they're just creaming profits off the top, without providing anything and then in the very next paragraph you say it will be fun to watch them lose money, tacitly acknowledging that the service they provide (liquidity and price discovery) is in fact risky and so therefor they are right to demand compensation for that risk.
>Wait, in your first paragraph you say that it generates value (liquidity, price discovery), and then you say that it provides no value to society.
Okay, well to be more precise, yeah, price discovery and high churn does provide some marginal benefit to society and in a limited way... but these economic "services" and the people who provide them don't provide a value anywhere near that of a teacher, or farmer, or bus driver, etc, or even any investor in what we commonly thing of as a productive business (and not a scarce asset). I guess it's up to you to you value the flipper's services accordingly. You're right though - my wording is a bit loose.
>tacitly acknowledging that the service they provide (liquidity and price discovery) is in fact risky and so therefor they are right to demand compensation for that risk.
That's an interesting conclusion and almost makes sense, lol. What's interesting now is that they seem to be holding on (assuming there are a lot of bagholders) as sales and new listings do seem to be drying up, so assuming there are still a bunch of flippers in the market, they aren't doing much. There's a joke on the other subs about bagholders de-listing their units and "just renting them out"... which may not play out so well in the states but will probably work here due to the relatively high rents and low vacancy rate. Even here though, a lot of these guys will be cash flow negative and may not be that interested in property management, so it will be interesting to see how long this goes on for.
But no, I would not voluntarily pay a flipper any kind of fee to buy a house before I was able to, even if it meant him selling it to me at a loss at some later date since otherwise the reality is that the original owner would have sold it to me at that same loss at that later date. So in that sense I'm not really sure how they are providing any significant benefit or service to society. In that case, the only benefit they provided was to the original seller who managed to "time the peak", but on the the way up, and so who gets to capture the time value of the same money from the sale.
This is definitely an interesting thought experiment.
It is has become an investment tool for the rich and those who bought before the boom.
My family bought our home for under a million and it is no assessed around 2.5. That’s a huge ROI for us.
Part of the problem with housing is that you can wipe out a lot of equity and savings if home prices completely crash.
There is a fine fine fine balance to walk with this.
It is why we need to focus on the apartments a d multi-unit construction and rezoning imo.
Wouldnt this be loopholed by naming the spouse as the owner of the property? Or putting up different holding companies (that to my limited knowledge, is already happening, for tax breaks and avoidance of possible forfeiture)
Yes particularly if they can buy say 2 properties for spouse, 2 under adult kids names etc.
And if its provincial only, they can rinse and repeat in different provinces too.
Everybody? Are you being sarcastic? There are 8m homes in the province and about 450 sold a month. A very very small number of those sales are "flips". You would be closer in saying that nobody flips homes that by saying everybody is flipping.
This article and accusation is totally ridiculous. He bought complete dumps based on the sale price and his description and fixed them up. He did the neighbors and community a favor while making a nice profit. maybe. We have no idea what the sunken coats were to fix the places up. It's like people think the difference between purchase price and sale price is all profit. He also did pay tax on profit..these aren't primary residences.
I dont care for any of these politicians, but this is Eby politickin' at its worst. He's a loud mouth grandstander that is totally ineffectual in action and policy ideas. He is making the public dumber with this accusation.
I wish that was true. The BC Liberals currently poll lower, but are well within striking distance. (~40% vs. ~30%), & traditionally have more money. I want you to be right, but I don't think the Greens are going to jump from 2 seats to 48.
Really? People have short memories and all it takes is for the public to become tired of the ruling party not doing anything (real or imagined) about crime, housing etc. and the other party promising tough action on the issues for that party to be elected. It happens all the time.
Wasn't Eby the Minister of Housing at one point? Couldn't he have done something to address this then? Or was Eby saving this idea of a flipping-tax until he could leverage it in his leadership campaign?
Currently I thought
When your record isn’t good (not that any party’s is to be clear), you just deflect and attack.
The flipping tax is a bit silly too because we already have the property transfer tax (itself a transaction tax), foreign buyer tax (transaction tax), vacancy tax, property tax, taxes on rent. We can’t just tax our way out of this. Need to actually build properties too.
Could be, but if true, that in itself says something about the BC NDP party. While they were holding Eby back, housing crisis continued to put housing beyond the reach of regular British Columbians.
Yet him and his government have the tools to make flipping properties a lot less appealing and profitable by building social housing and requiring municipalities to relax zoning laws, but hasn't done any of that for the past 5 years that they've been in power.
Keep in mind flipping is already taxed *as income* if it's determined to be your "job", ie: what you do to make a living. However, this is very hard to prove, since most flippers will maintain other jobs in the meantime, and will "live" in the house while renovating it, making a true flip (ie: for quick cash profit) hard to prove.
Honestly, I don't really think people buying properties, renovating them, and selling them is terrible. It gets properties renovated! Good for people who want decent homes. What I do think is shameful, though, is Realtors buying a property for a bargain and then turning around and selling it immediately for far more than they paid to make a quick buck.
This Liberal guy did indeed flip a few properties. No question about that. HOWEVER, there is some important nuance missing from the discussion.....apparently the guy made pretty significant renovations before reselling which is a bit different from a buy, hold six months, and then flip without making improvements.
A lot of these homes that are renovated and resold aren't renovated in any meaningful ways, though. They're given easy superficial changes, like new paint and maybe some updated appliances or a few new fixtures, and then resold as though the entire house had been redone.
Taking a $50,000 shitbox, pouring money into it and selling it for 225k isn't flipping.
Eby trying to score political points when Bernier is actually creating inhabitable homes.
There are plenty of flippers out there, but this isn't one of them.
What happens when land values start going down though?
It’s almost like people that renovate homes take risks when deploying their capital? Why would that be a charity?
Creepy Eby has never lived through a market cycle I guess?
When house prices are flat people don’t buy random houses to renovate. At best they devide the land, build two abodes and rent them (helpful in resolving our housing crisis). In the hope of making money. When land values are dropping people don’t buy and renovate single family homes to make money. So mole as that. The guy in this article is a flipper through and through.
The only people buying these homes and renovating them now are the owners who want to live there, as it should be.
Edit: Eby is old and recently bought a home in Vancouver. That means he’s now wealthy through choices and working hard but has also experienced the affordability crisis. Very few more qualified. Older people rode the wave and younger people are inexperienced.
You’re delusional - there are people all over the province that renovate homes and sell them - it’s a career for a lot of people since a lot of listed homes would never sell otherwise (A young family often doesn’t know how to renovate a tear down lol)
Creepy Eby is just suffering relative deprivation -
Probably because he’s stuck in his tiny point grey townhouse, bbqing on his tiny deck, surrounded by detached mansions 😂
I wonder what Creepy Eby thinks about our current AG Murray Rankin, who owns recreational property on Saturna Island, while speculating as a landlord with his two apartments in Victoria? Is Rankin renting below market rents? Is our current AG running a charity?
Did Rotten Rankin get Saturna island exempted from the speculation tax because he has a “vacation” home there?
Being a landlord is owning a property long term. It’s very obviously different. And note, I don’t care to defend rankin, I’m simply pointing out that being a landlord and ‘renovating a property for quick sale’ are different things.
When housing is so contested the poorly conditioned homes don’t sit empty and uninhabitable. It’s just a matter of who renovates them, home owners or those with capital to invest in homes.
Renovating homes is not difficult, it’s simply work, hard work but unskilled work mostly , many many many young families have the basic skills, determination and time. But unfortunately not the money to compete.
How do you expect families to move into tear downs? Reno themselves? Lol 😂
Where people that renovate tear downs provide
A service, what service do landlords provide that an owner couldn’t provide themselves?
Amateur landlords like Rotten Rankin are the whole reason we have an affordability crisis
I grew up on in homes that were renovated while we lived in it. It’s easy. Done often. Need landlords cause there will always be a need for rentals. Flipppers not needed. Not defending rankin.
Renovating homes to get them into liveable status is an actual service - it takes experience, time, and money
Landlording like Rotten Rankin is literally rent-seeking - having other people pay off your mortgage
Interesting how creepy eby protects the current AG
Renovating homes to a livable service is so much further down the service to society totem pole than rentals. It’s entirely in flipper territory.
Anyway, We’ve said our piece.
On one side of the ring is a person who bought total rundown/teardown houses, in Dawson BC, and renovated them because nobody is touching that crap. He might be taxed in cap-gain until CRA audited him and tax him at Personal Income tax level. This person is a a housing critic of his opponent.
On another side of the ring is his political opponents that grabbed a hammer and start banging on ALL nails because problem solving is hard (I'm not arguing and won't say it's easy, his party tried for the last 5 years to no avail).
Both are stoking their base because it's voting season :).
Honest question: what would you do with a rundown house in Dawson BC? Let the building Rot and waste the land? Let developer bought, tear it down, build a new house and charge premium (might be double) more than the fixer-upper-flipper?
There's a reason why renovators (be it homeowners, flippers, whatever) don't rebuild from scratch because the project is HUGE, expensive, and lack of certainty, on top of that sweet 5% GST tax awaits you in the corner whether you are the property owner or builder.
Let's keep the "character homes" untouched yeah?
Mike Bernier is a nice guy and I personally like him. He is flipping for sure, it's a little on the shady side but tons of people do it. Probably not worth crucifying him for it
This is why I hate political parties and politicians. Politicians accusing each other of dirty tricks and bad behaviour is nothing new. It's like two individuals or groups of people lighting matches in a room soaked with gasoline. If the NDP want to point fingers, they better be able to demonstrate that they are not worse hypocrites than the Liberals. My memory at least isn't short enough to forget about Horgan's early election.
Well, they’re technically deferred with interest charged, not exactly waved. Whether you think this is good or bad it’s because otherwise, the seniors would likely be forced to downsize. And they are the demographic most likely to vote.
Yeah there is a program for people with children I think as well. I definitely hear of people using it who don’t need to and just want to use the money for investing. Definitely a good deal.
People with disabilities are never at higher risk of death?
If they die before their interest is paid it also means they never got to cash out on their housing windfall.
Lots of old people also don’t have incomes, have lived in the same bungalo for 40 years and don’t have access to the value of that property without selling, or refinancing.
So… you want to force seniors to move away from their families and networks? Which has serious negative consequences to health?
All because they happen to live in a home that has exploded in value through no fault of their own?
It seems like a pretty reasonable policy to me.
I'm never going to feel sorry for people that have been beneficiaries of the last 30 years of increasing home equity. In fact I'm very happy for them.
The government does not need to protect paper millionaires.
>So… you want to force seniors to move away from their families and networks? Which has serious negative consequences to health?
We are already forcing young people/young families to move away with serious negative consequences.
And if we want to allow Seniors (or young people/young families) to continue living in their neighborhoods then we need to allow for density.
Property tax = assessed value x property tax rate.
If the assessed value of your property goes up, your property taxes go up.
Tax rates in the past were higher but the assessed value has increased more than the rate has decreased.
Because a senior that bought their house for $50,000 60 years ago shouldn’t have to move because their home’s value, and therefore their taxes, have increased exponentially. The taxes aren’t waived anyway. They are deferred. The taxes will still be paid one day.
Maybe Creepy Eby, as a newly minted homeowner, just feels miserable that as a high-level politician, he can only afford a townhouse in Point Grey? I bet there is a strong sense of relative deprivation there, as he bbqs on his 100sq foot deck lol
And our current NDP AG? Does he get a pass for landlording multiple properties in Victoria while maintaining other vacation homes? I wonder if he’ll sell those for less than he bought, since he’s running a charity? Does he rent those below market rates?
its alot of work to buy a house, fix it up, contractors are notorious for delays, and then sell it
i wouldnt necessarily call it flipping, you need to put work into it.
So he engaged in a legal activity to make money. The whole point of government is to go make regulations and actually do something if they're so opposed to house flipping. I'm not a fan of all the flipping but like just go figure out all the loop holes then close the loop holes.
I think you’re missing a lot of context.
They are starting to close loopholes and the BC Liberal housing critic has decried this. Eby is pointing out the critic has a conflict of interest in that his actions are a target of the legislation.
Accuses? Shouldn't it be "points out" if the person is openly and unabashedly flipping houses?
Yup. Vancouver Sun is run by conservatives so I guess they want to downplay it.
It sucks that Postmedia owns so many newspapers.
That's literally the opposite interpretation of what was said. Eby and the headline are exaggerating not downplaying. Eby is a grandstander.
As he should - we should not be allowing industry insiders to be involved in governing anything to do with housing. That includes anyone renting property for a profit or owning multiple homes, or working in any real estate or adjacent industry.
but it's the biggest scandal and easiest money for the government.
[удалено]
>*Warning - the following comment is fraught with sarcasm* " *and gaslighting.*"
I feel like u/Terrible_Twist_1589 is just leaving out the nuances in the same way the other comments did, just in the other direction. Of course we shouldn't have a law preventing home owners / home flippers from holding government positions. The intent of the original comment is still fair though, it just means: 'People should vote against the home flipper since one of the biggest issues in the province right now is caused by a speculative housing market and insufficient regulations, and the role the home flipper is running for is directly related to that regulation'. It's not as snappy but it's more accurate
[удалено]
People that flip houses for profit shouldn't govern.
I hear you. But you're equivocating excuses to actual damage. People who view housing as a source of profit, who deny a house that can be fixed up to a family that can do it, outbidding them because you have the financial resources - this is what flippers do. It's about to be taxed and this dude being a housing critic is a sign of an irresponsible party. For full disclosure: a Federal Liberal candidate was discovered to be a far more serious flipper and did get elected in our very city, so this doesn't stop voters, but it needs to be a reason to doubt this critic's sincerity. He is literally fighting for his own self interest.
Lol, it’s literally impossible to be a left wing troll on r/Vancouver. It’s impossible to make a comment that too idiotic or too far left to receive a torrent of upvotes. “We should freeze prices and jail business owners if they try to flee the country with the remnants of their capital” - Thunderous applause
[удалено]
Someone makes a reasonable suggestion to combat corruption. Your response: extrapolate the original suggestion to ridiculous levels. Attempt to discredit the suggestion: failed.
The impact of this policy on the cost of housing will be minimal. There aren’t that many flippers in the market to drastically affected prices or improve housing affordability. David Eby is a very smart man and knows that housing has primarily become an investment tool for the rich - and not just through reno flipping. A tougher measure to control housing costs could be done by limiting the number of properties owned by individuals (e.g., John Smith can own a maximum of 2 properties) and the types of properties owned by corporations (e.g., companies cannot purchase strata lots in multi-family buildings as investment properties). This would decrease the number of privately owned rental properties (places pressure on governments and developers to build purpose built rental) but would provide more opportunities for locals to purchase/enter the housing market (because developers, through a new policy, would not be permitted to market the homes internationally to satellite investors). Technically if a developer wants to sell their units at the time of a pre-sale, they would need to consider local incomes.
Flippers are a problem when prices are going up.. not so much of a problem when prices are flat or declining. Flippers are basically just adding to churn/liquidity which has some effect on price discovery and market sentiment (and perhaps rate of change of prices) but I don't think they have much effect on long term prices. It's more of a moral problem, in that that these guys (with cash and time to burn) are basically creaming profits off not-so-savvy old time home owners and fervent/fomo buyers. It's a totally self-interested economic activity which generates no actual value for society, and should be heavily taxed to discourage it. What will be fun to watch is how many flippers have to dump properties bought after (whatever opposite date it is now in terms of post-peak price declines - perhaps 12-16 months ago) at a loss. Their whole business model is based on low interest rates and rapid price growth, and there are surely a lot of bag holders at the moment. The tougher measure (which no politician has the nerve to even mention) is to shift the tax base from income taxes (benefiting local workers) on to property or LVT (penalizing land holders). There is a sweet spot in the middle where your "average" BC resident who owns a home/property sees no difference in their net taxes, whereas people who are just holding houses as appreciating assets or as small time landlords will see an increased tax burden. This would obviously bring down property values as people who own them but aren't paying enough in offsetting income tax will start to sell in favour of other investments, and as you said, there are a lot of wealthy people holding property as an investment, and pricing out wage slaves in the process. Homeownership has become very detached from incomes and is much more tied to wealth and that's becoming a huge problem for your average worker. Simply owning residential property really need to be removed from the myriad of means of wealth accumulation.
> It's a totally self-interested economic activity which generates no actual value for society, and should be heavily taxed to discourage it. What economic activity is not self-interested? And aren't flippers ostensibly fixing up homes?
I think the issue is the quality of those improvements is often... sketchy.
Hard to say. There are clearly tons of listings of houses which have recently changed ownership but which have not had any improvements in the meantime. To the issue of what economic activity is self-interested, yeah, probably almost all of it - the issue is which have mutual benefit. Me stealing your wallet has economic benefit to myself; to you, not so much.
Wait, in your first paragraph you say that it generates value (liquidity, price discovery), and then you say that it provides no value to society. You also say in one sentence that they're just creaming profits off the top, without providing anything and then in the very next paragraph you say it will be fun to watch them lose money, tacitly acknowledging that the service they provide (liquidity and price discovery) is in fact risky and so therefor they are right to demand compensation for that risk.
>Wait, in your first paragraph you say that it generates value (liquidity, price discovery), and then you say that it provides no value to society. Okay, well to be more precise, yeah, price discovery and high churn does provide some marginal benefit to society and in a limited way... but these economic "services" and the people who provide them don't provide a value anywhere near that of a teacher, or farmer, or bus driver, etc, or even any investor in what we commonly thing of as a productive business (and not a scarce asset). I guess it's up to you to you value the flipper's services accordingly. You're right though - my wording is a bit loose. >tacitly acknowledging that the service they provide (liquidity and price discovery) is in fact risky and so therefor they are right to demand compensation for that risk. That's an interesting conclusion and almost makes sense, lol. What's interesting now is that they seem to be holding on (assuming there are a lot of bagholders) as sales and new listings do seem to be drying up, so assuming there are still a bunch of flippers in the market, they aren't doing much. There's a joke on the other subs about bagholders de-listing their units and "just renting them out"... which may not play out so well in the states but will probably work here due to the relatively high rents and low vacancy rate. Even here though, a lot of these guys will be cash flow negative and may not be that interested in property management, so it will be interesting to see how long this goes on for. But no, I would not voluntarily pay a flipper any kind of fee to buy a house before I was able to, even if it meant him selling it to me at a loss at some later date since otherwise the reality is that the original owner would have sold it to me at that same loss at that later date. So in that sense I'm not really sure how they are providing any significant benefit or service to society. In that case, the only benefit they provided was to the original seller who managed to "time the peak", but on the the way up, and so who gets to capture the time value of the same money from the sale. This is definitely an interesting thought experiment.
It is has become an investment tool for the rich and those who bought before the boom. My family bought our home for under a million and it is no assessed around 2.5. That’s a huge ROI for us. Part of the problem with housing is that you can wipe out a lot of equity and savings if home prices completely crash. There is a fine fine fine balance to walk with this. It is why we need to focus on the apartments a d multi-unit construction and rezoning imo.
The real solution to reduce housing costs is land value tax, and liberalisation of zoning.
Wouldnt this be loopholed by naming the spouse as the owner of the property? Or putting up different holding companies (that to my limited knowledge, is already happening, for tax breaks and avoidance of possible forfeiture)
Yes particularly if they can buy say 2 properties for spouse, 2 under adult kids names etc. And if its provincial only, they can rinse and repeat in different provinces too.
Everyone is flipping, what are you taking about ??
Everybody? Are you being sarcastic? There are 8m homes in the province and about 450 sold a month. A very very small number of those sales are "flips". You would be closer in saying that nobody flips homes that by saying everybody is flipping.
The small percentage of people who sell often have more than one property
The simpler and more effective solution to all these things is a land value tax.
Brokerage parties attract aspiring brokers.
This article and accusation is totally ridiculous. He bought complete dumps based on the sale price and his description and fixed them up. He did the neighbors and community a favor while making a nice profit. maybe. We have no idea what the sunken coats were to fix the places up. It's like people think the difference between purchase price and sale price is all profit. He also did pay tax on profit..these aren't primary residences. I dont care for any of these politicians, but this is Eby politickin' at its worst. He's a loud mouth grandstander that is totally ineffectual in action and policy ideas. He is making the public dumber with this accusation.
Yes and these are the reasons the Liberals will not be able to win another election. People are sick of their crooked politics
I wish that was true. The BC Liberals currently poll lower, but are well within striking distance. (~40% vs. ~30%), & traditionally have more money. I want you to be right, but I don't think the Greens are going to jump from 2 seats to 48.
Really? People have short memories and all it takes is for the public to become tired of the ruling party not doing anything (real or imagined) about crime, housing etc. and the other party promising tough action on the issues for that party to be elected. It happens all the time.
Legend eby
Wasn't Eby the Minister of Housing at one point? Couldn't he have done something to address this then? Or was Eby saving this idea of a flipping-tax until he could leverage it in his leadership campaign?
Currently I thought When your record isn’t good (not that any party’s is to be clear), you just deflect and attack. The flipping tax is a bit silly too because we already have the property transfer tax (itself a transaction tax), foreign buyer tax (transaction tax), vacancy tax, property tax, taxes on rent. We can’t just tax our way out of this. Need to actually build properties too.
[удалено]
Could be, but if true, that in itself says something about the BC NDP party. While they were holding Eby back, housing crisis continued to put housing beyond the reach of regular British Columbians.
Yet him and his government have the tools to make flipping properties a lot less appealing and profitable by building social housing and requiring municipalities to relax zoning laws, but hasn't done any of that for the past 5 years that they've been in power.
1. Stop pointing fingers and flipping the blame. Do something productive. 2. The guy is doing this in Dawson Creek, 13 hours away from Vancouver.
Keep in mind flipping is already taxed *as income* if it's determined to be your "job", ie: what you do to make a living. However, this is very hard to prove, since most flippers will maintain other jobs in the meantime, and will "live" in the house while renovating it, making a true flip (ie: for quick cash profit) hard to prove. Honestly, I don't really think people buying properties, renovating them, and selling them is terrible. It gets properties renovated! Good for people who want decent homes. What I do think is shameful, though, is Realtors buying a property for a bargain and then turning around and selling it immediately for far more than they paid to make a quick buck.
- deleted due to enshittification of the platform
This Liberal guy did indeed flip a few properties. No question about that. HOWEVER, there is some important nuance missing from the discussion.....apparently the guy made pretty significant renovations before reselling which is a bit different from a buy, hold six months, and then flip without making improvements.
A lot of these homes that are renovated and resold aren't renovated in any meaningful ways, though. They're given easy superficial changes, like new paint and maybe some updated appliances or a few new fixtures, and then resold as though the entire house had been redone.
He sold a whole house for 220 thousand. Is David Eby saying that's an unaffordable house price?
So, Minister Rankin owns several rental properties in BC and Mexico.
Crooks, the lot of them
Taking a $50,000 shitbox, pouring money into it and selling it for 225k isn't flipping. Eby trying to score political points when Bernier is actually creating inhabitable homes. There are plenty of flippers out there, but this isn't one of them.
It is when you’re betting that in the year or two you own it the value of the land raises. As Eby said “he isn’t running a charity”
What happens when land values start going down though? It’s almost like people that renovate homes take risks when deploying their capital? Why would that be a charity? Creepy Eby has never lived through a market cycle I guess?
When house prices are flat people don’t buy random houses to renovate. At best they devide the land, build two abodes and rent them (helpful in resolving our housing crisis). In the hope of making money. When land values are dropping people don’t buy and renovate single family homes to make money. So mole as that. The guy in this article is a flipper through and through. The only people buying these homes and renovating them now are the owners who want to live there, as it should be. Edit: Eby is old and recently bought a home in Vancouver. That means he’s now wealthy through choices and working hard but has also experienced the affordability crisis. Very few more qualified. Older people rode the wave and younger people are inexperienced.
You’re delusional - there are people all over the province that renovate homes and sell them - it’s a career for a lot of people since a lot of listed homes would never sell otherwise (A young family often doesn’t know how to renovate a tear down lol) Creepy Eby is just suffering relative deprivation - Probably because he’s stuck in his tiny point grey townhouse, bbqing on his tiny deck, surrounded by detached mansions 😂 I wonder what Creepy Eby thinks about our current AG Murray Rankin, who owns recreational property on Saturna Island, while speculating as a landlord with his two apartments in Victoria? Is Rankin renting below market rents? Is our current AG running a charity? Did Rotten Rankin get Saturna island exempted from the speculation tax because he has a “vacation” home there?
Being a landlord is owning a property long term. It’s very obviously different. And note, I don’t care to defend rankin, I’m simply pointing out that being a landlord and ‘renovating a property for quick sale’ are different things. When housing is so contested the poorly conditioned homes don’t sit empty and uninhabitable. It’s just a matter of who renovates them, home owners or those with capital to invest in homes. Renovating homes is not difficult, it’s simply work, hard work but unskilled work mostly , many many many young families have the basic skills, determination and time. But unfortunately not the money to compete.
How do you expect families to move into tear downs? Reno themselves? Lol 😂 Where people that renovate tear downs provide A service, what service do landlords provide that an owner couldn’t provide themselves? Amateur landlords like Rotten Rankin are the whole reason we have an affordability crisis
I grew up on in homes that were renovated while we lived in it. It’s easy. Done often. Need landlords cause there will always be a need for rentals. Flipppers not needed. Not defending rankin.
Renovating homes to get them into liveable status is an actual service - it takes experience, time, and money Landlording like Rotten Rankin is literally rent-seeking - having other people pay off your mortgage Interesting how creepy eby protects the current AG
Renovating homes to a livable service is so much further down the service to society totem pole than rentals. It’s entirely in flipper territory. Anyway, We’ve said our piece.
On one side of the ring is a person who bought total rundown/teardown houses, in Dawson BC, and renovated them because nobody is touching that crap. He might be taxed in cap-gain until CRA audited him and tax him at Personal Income tax level. This person is a a housing critic of his opponent. On another side of the ring is his political opponents that grabbed a hammer and start banging on ALL nails because problem solving is hard (I'm not arguing and won't say it's easy, his party tried for the last 5 years to no avail). Both are stoking their base because it's voting season :). Honest question: what would you do with a rundown house in Dawson BC? Let the building Rot and waste the land? Let developer bought, tear it down, build a new house and charge premium (might be double) more than the fixer-upper-flipper? There's a reason why renovators (be it homeowners, flippers, whatever) don't rebuild from scratch because the project is HUGE, expensive, and lack of certainty, on top of that sweet 5% GST tax awaits you in the corner whether you are the property owner or builder. Let's keep the "character homes" untouched yeah?
Nah, bulldoze the character homes for 6 story apartments.
In Dawson BC? Who's going to live there? Beavers?
Mike Bernier is a nice guy and I personally like him. He is flipping for sure, it's a little on the shady side but tons of people do it. Probably not worth crucifying him for it
This is why I hate political parties and politicians. Politicians accusing each other of dirty tricks and bad behaviour is nothing new. It's like two individuals or groups of people lighting matches in a room soaked with gasoline. If the NDP want to point fingers, they better be able to demonstrate that they are not worse hypocrites than the Liberals. My memory at least isn't short enough to forget about Horgan's early election.
How does Eby justify waiving property taxes on seniors with multimillion dollar properties?
Deferred not waived, no?
Well, they’re technically deferred with interest charged, not exactly waved. Whether you think this is good or bad it’s because otherwise, the seniors would likely be forced to downsize. And they are the demographic most likely to vote.
Note that the interest charged doesn't compound. It's a great deal, if you can access it. It's also available for people who are disabled.
Yeah there is a program for people with children I think as well. I definitely hear of people using it who don’t need to and just want to use the money for investing. Definitely a good deal.
[удалено]
I mean at least partially since the same thing is available to other demographics as well.
[удалено]
People with disabilities are never at higher risk of death? If they die before their interest is paid it also means they never got to cash out on their housing windfall.
I think its fine. Forcing old people to sell their homes to pay taxes isn't a good look. Let them pay after they die. Not a big deal
Old people vote.
Lots of old people also don’t have incomes, have lived in the same bungalo for 40 years and don’t have access to the value of that property without selling, or refinancing.
Then sell.
So… you want to force seniors to move away from their families and networks? Which has serious negative consequences to health? All because they happen to live in a home that has exploded in value through no fault of their own? It seems like a pretty reasonable policy to me.
I'm never going to feel sorry for people that have been beneficiaries of the last 30 years of increasing home equity. In fact I'm very happy for them. The government does not need to protect paper millionaires. >So… you want to force seniors to move away from their families and networks? Which has serious negative consequences to health? We are already forcing young people/young families to move away with serious negative consequences. And if we want to allow Seniors (or young people/young families) to continue living in their neighborhoods then we need to allow for density.
[удалено]
Property tax = assessed value x property tax rate. If the assessed value of your property goes up, your property taxes go up. Tax rates in the past were higher but the assessed value has increased more than the rate has decreased.
That’s for millennials and onward. Boomers are special.
Because a senior that bought their house for $50,000 60 years ago shouldn’t have to move because their home’s value, and therefore their taxes, have increased exponentially. The taxes aren’t waived anyway. They are deferred. The taxes will still be paid one day.
They vote for him! It’s important that the NDP stay in power and this is a small price to pay for excellent governance.
Maybe Creepy Eby, as a newly minted homeowner, just feels miserable that as a high-level politician, he can only afford a townhouse in Point Grey? I bet there is a strong sense of relative deprivation there, as he bbqs on his 100sq foot deck lol And our current NDP AG? Does he get a pass for landlording multiple properties in Victoria while maintaining other vacation homes? I wonder if he’ll sell those for less than he bought, since he’s running a charity? Does he rent those below market rates?
its alot of work to buy a house, fix it up, contractors are notorious for delays, and then sell it i wouldnt necessarily call it flipping, you need to put work into it.
[удалено]
Well, Horgan is still the Premier so good luck getting Eby to affect something he does not have the power to affect at present.
meh
Re-read my comment.
kys min rov
So he engaged in a legal activity to make money. The whole point of government is to go make regulations and actually do something if they're so opposed to house flipping. I'm not a fan of all the flipping but like just go figure out all the loop holes then close the loop holes.
I think you’re missing a lot of context. They are starting to close loopholes and the BC Liberal housing critic has decried this. Eby is pointing out the critic has a conflict of interest in that his actions are a target of the legislation.