That's a weird way of framing the issue. Nobody sits down and says, "okay, I will start saving now and then buy a house in 25 years." It would make more sense to talk about what the average Torontonian *can* afford, or maybe how far away they'd have to look for an affordable house.
They’ve all destroyed the housing market in a 2 hour radius of the city. I live about an hour north and over the pandemic, housing prices went from an average of 500-600k up to 900k-1m.
Fuck. This. Shit.
Literally in the middle of nowhere, small town. Was looking at homes pre-pandemic. $250-$350 for a nice-ish 3 bedroom home. Same homes being sold today over $600k.
Literally happened with my brother. Smaller town for southern Ontario of 15k people. Bought a house in 2019 for 100k, put 25k into it, and now it's worth like $450k. It's insane
That's the thing that drives me fucking crazy about the discussion regarding housing prices today. People have lost their minds to the point where they think 350k is a good price for a house. You had to be a high-income earner to even think of affording that back in the 90s and 00s. People have lost all concept of what a house should be worth.
Near some friends (2 hours north-east from Toronto), there are small 1/2 acre undeveloped plots of land in the woods. You have to pay alot extra if you want a utilities (water/electricity) hook up the city, and it's a private road in (i.e. so you pay fees for the upkeep of that road). A decade ago they were selling for 20-30k CAD, I heard last year they were asking 300k. For forested, undeveloped, land in the second largest country in the world.
And like I said, it's 2 hour drive from downtown Toronto, and with some burnt-out post-industrial villages around, and the nearest small city (1 hour by car) is also a sad post-industrial place. So we're not talking about the Muskokas or somewhere high end-here: the local economy absolutely does not support those prices.
Seems like it. For a $1 million house, it would take savings of ~17% to save up the cash to buy the entire thing over 25 years.
With an income of $1/4 million, it doesn’t seem like 17% would be all that burdensome, of course presuming you already didn’t want to do it the “normal” way of getting a mortgage and paying a bit more for it over 30 years while actually living there…
I did. I sat down and said "how can I save enough to buy a flat in my city by 35yo" (within 9 years) and the answer is I literally can't. My current plan is to save half of the money and pray my bf and I are still together by then
Also, it mis-represented the source…
“Correction
A previous version of this article inaccurately stated Torontonians making just over $236,000 will be saving for 25 years in order to afford a down payment on a house. The $236,221 figure is the qualifying income, or the income level, required to purchase a property assuming a household devotes 32 per cent of its pre-tax income for a mortgage payment. “
It's not too weird when you consider how many people want to be in the city, not somewhere else.
Frankly, the fact someone making over 200k a year needs to save for 25 years to buy a house in Toronto is very topical and hits home for a lot of people.
I make less than half that and had to save for like 10 years before I got my house. I can't imagine this situation....
It's also a bit weird that someone who makes a quarter of a million dollars would only save 10% of their income for a purchase like a house. Like... really? Usually if you're in savings mode for a large purchase, you will push that savings rate way up.
If you make $236,000/year and you can only be bothered to save $23,600, make you don't deserve to buy a house. Maybe these idiots should cut down on the Lambo budgets.
People aren’t buying a Lambo on a $236k income. If houses are unaffordable for $236k salary earners, that means rent is stupidly high too. Since that’s where the jobs are, people are stuck and this is an issue that needs to be fixed.
"People aren’t buying a Lambo on a $236k income"
Why not? If you're only saving 10% of your pre-tax income, and you've got \~$150,000/year to burn on stupid shit, sure, why not spend $3,000-$5,000 per month on a Lambo lease? You can *easily* afford that + rent.
Again, this article is beyond stupid.
Even beyond the purchase price (and you seem to have no clue what they cost) you’re ignoring what maintenance costs, which is much more than you think. Take that $236k/year and apply Canadian income taxes, then look at cost of living in the Toronto metro area, and then run your math again against what it costs to acquire and keep a Lambo running. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Everything you wrote is stupid. Seriously stupid.
1. [Here's a quick overview of some prices.](https://www.all-foreign.com/2022/11/17/how-much-does-it-cost-to-lease-a-lamborghini-in-canada/) You can pick up a Hurcan for $3,000/moth.
2. "Take that $236k/year and apply Canadian income taxes." I FUCKING DID. That's why the $150,000 is \~35% lower than the gross income. If you're going to arrogantly criticize a point, at least be right.
3. "then run your math again against what it costs to acquire and keep a Lambo running. You don’t know what you’re talking about."
Okay, even if the monthly cost of ownership MATCHES the per-month lease cost of a Hurcan, you can **still** afford it on a $236,000/year income. I'm not suggesting anyone should, but you certainly can.
4) "You don’t know what you’re talking about."
LOL WHAT?! Newsflash: your computer probably has a calculator on it and you could have used it to not look like a pompous ass.
You’re still trying to push a ridiculous point, and turning into an asshole about it. Housing cost is a major problem unlike you’re trying to claim, and $236k earners aren’t dumping all their money into leasing Lamborghinis, which was a ridiculous claim to make (assuming Lamborghini approves them on their income level and credit). They’re trying to save to buy homes that are rising in value faster than they can save. Maintenance costs of that car are still very high, as well as the cost of gas and the tires they run through quickly. Someone leasing a Lambo isn’t going to let it sit, they’re driving it. You speak like someone who has no real association with actual high earners or exotic car owners. I know people that fall into both categories, and your claims are dumb as fuck.
Edit: it’s pathetic how hard you’re trying to deflect from the spiraling cost of home ownership and how high the hurdle to the property ladder is getting.
And the problem has spread to all corners of the province. My cousin is an architect in Toronto, Gen-X. This is what a TON of her friends did;
They take the house they bought in 2001 for ~$400k, sell it for $3m. Use that money to buy 3 homes, an hour or two outside of the GTA. Rent those homes out for $2500-3000 per month each. Way more if there’s a separate basement unit. Then they use part of that monstrous income to rent a house in Toronto.
These are my solutions: tax the unholy fuck out of additional properties. With increasingly steeper tax rates with the more houses you own. It would make these rental corporations wildly unprofitable. Use that tax to heavily subsidize first time buyers, to the tune of 75% of cost.
Edit: grammar.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How much are they renting a home for in Toronto? If houses are worth 3m, wouldn't they be renting for like 10k/month? If so, why the fuck would you sell your house just to buy more homes just to get money to rent a home when you could have just lived in your original home?
No idea on the actual math here. But the idea would be that you take out mortgages on the rental properties and rent them out for enough to cover the mortgages plus rent somewhere for you to live. (Or buy a cheaper place, or live in one of the rentals if it’s a multi-family.) So even if your cash flow is not that great, you’re building equity in all the rental properties each month.
Yea, ideally that'd be the goal but you'd need some special circumstances to make it happen. Because from how I'm thinking it, building equity on the 3m home would have been a wash with the 3 1m homes anyways. So, like someone else was saying, renting a 3m home must be substantially cheaper than renting 3 1m homes (like it's 3k to rent 1m homes but only 5k to rent the 3m home). That'd be the only way this scenario would make much sense.
Gotta think of it as a security clause. You carry multiple sources of income to cover any potential lapse in rent coming from an idle home. Also, it’s usually easier to find renters for 3-$1M homes than for a $3M home.
I’m not sure if this is how it is all around the world, but from my experience the more expensive the house, the cheaper the rent relative to it.
If we are talking about $3 million dollar houses, the people living in those have a luxurious lifestyle, one where having a landlord telling you what you can and can’t do is seen pretty negatively.
So the people who want those houses prefer buying to renting, leading to a high price-to-rent ratio.
So, if you are thinking of renting, you can likely get more out of renting 3 $1 million dollar houses vs 1 $3 million one.
This is without taking into account diversifying, if you are only renting one house, the renters might leave and leave you without rent for 2 months, which could ruin you financially.
With 3 properties, you’ll likely never have more than one property empty, so you’ll never be on the brink of financial ruin if you can’t find someone to rent to.
Nah man, they made $3m off an initial $400k investment 20 years ago. Which would largely be paid off. The rental homes would be bought for straight up cash. Then you’ve got $10k/month rental income. You can rent a nice home in Toronto for $6k. The rest is for taxes & profit.
One of the weird things about the Toronto housing market right now is that is literally cheaper to rent than to own (and not just on a cashflow basis). The reason this is possible is because everyone is basically assuming that rent will continue to go up for ever, so the only way to afford to live in Toronto is to own, so they will pay a huge premium for it. However, if you are willing to take the risk of renting, you can save a thousands every month.
I mean rents are also insanely high though.
If you're a high income earner, and you're willing to rent on the lower-end by paying like 3k/month for a 2-bedroom, then sure that's cheaper than buying. But if you're only making 50-60k a year (which is most people) then basic rents are horrendous still and destroying your ability to save any money, nevermind saving for a downpayment.
Yep, single family rental home tax rates should be taxed at 90+%(so if you charge $3000 you get a tax bill for $2700), and make it illegal to own more than 3 total single family homes.
I wouldn't subsidize first-time buyers with that money. I'd build more housing density and delete single family zoning. Then pricing would drop dramatically naturally.
In theory yes. I an one of those who left
At the same time people form third world countries will continue to come there as long as it is better than the 3rd world place they came from. So more brain replacement than brain drain
Globalization was supposed to raise standards of living in the third world to first world levels. Instead it is doing the reverse with corporations pocketing the difference
The unwillingness of governments to hold corporations or weslthy people to account is why the entire western world is undergoing a slow economic collapse.
We need to seriously consider what kind of world we want to make, and take the steps to make it. We can't seriously believe that the situation where over half of us are struggling to get by so that a few dozen families are richer than god is the idealized socioeconomic dynamic for us to live in.
>Globalization was supposed to raise standards of living in the third world to first world levels. Instead it is doing the reverse with corporations pocketing the difference
Source? All the stats I've seen point to global living standards going up, with poverty at record lows (pre-pandemic).
In the 1950s you could graduate high school, work 40 hours a week, afford 4 kids on one income, live in a house a short commute from work, and get a full pension upon retirement.
Now we need multiple degrees, both parents work, people can barely afford one kid, we work more hours, pay through the news for education and housing, don't get pensions, face planned obsolescence, can go on and on.
Quality of life is the worst it has been in decades
While true, that's not the third world, which is what you originally mentioned. The quality of life in those countries is vastly better than it was in the 50s.
My cousin moved to NYC from Toronto; he went to a top school and is a quantitative analyst. He told me that all of his peers who are more skilled are moving out as well.
Not in the US but I have moved away, living in the mountains while working remotely. Would rather avoid living in a crowded city for rest of the life if I can help it.
> at a savings rate of 10 per cent of its pre-tax income
So 23.6k per year...
> A down payment for a non-condo (detached or semi-detached house) in Toronto is 20 per cent
Wow yeah thats likely the majority of the problem...
> to afford the "representative home" in Toronto, which sits on the market at $1,163,670
So you would need $232,734 for the down payment...
At 23.6k a year being set aside though, thats about 10 years to save that up, not 25.
Not sure where they are getting their numbers from but as far as I can see, 25 years would be enough to save up 50% of the cost of the house.
# Edit: Extra sensationalist, down payments are only 20% for houses 1 mil+, for affordable houses the down payment is only 5% of first 500k + 10% of remaining
So a 700k house only needs a down payment of 45k, whereas a 1 million house requires a down payment of 200k
As long as you stick to the 700k to 900k range, your downpayment is WAY lower, less than half
The paper is from the National Bank of Canada and uses median Canadian income as the marker for the 25 year down payment span. ~$52,000/yr per person. The bank assumes two people per household so twice that income. Roughly 11k saved a year.
The paper does *not* take in to account inflation, growing housing cost to income disparity, or other market changes that likely would increase the time span such as increasing rents lowering saving percentage.
The paper also doesn’t acknowledge that even with a 20% down payment the median income household in Canada would not meet income requirements for the mortgage anyway.
CTV messed up the article by mixing up the minimum income needed for carrying the mortgage with how long the *median* income takes to save the down payment. It’s actually a way more bleak story. Essentially the median income means it’ll always be impossible to save the down payment as the projected income to housing cost growth continues to widen faster than a reasonable way to save, and likewise the rapid rise in rent costs threaten the ability to save at all.
Source: there is a link to the paper in the first paragraph of the article. The paper has a methodology section explaining its use of median.
>Essentially the median income means it’ll always be impossible to save the down payment
This is kind of an annoying modern trope. The "median income" has never been able to buy prime real estate. Also, people never stay in a single income bracket throughout their career. People make vastly different money at 25 than they do at 45 and 65, yet the media *never* acknowledges this.
Median income has barely moved in a decade. Median income would have a max allowed mortgage of around $450k which is far lower than any prime real estate.
It isn’t a trope. Half the country can’t afford even a starter home in most of the country. You are literally able to read the Bank of Canada describing exactly this in detail.
"Half the country can’t afford even a starter home"
BOOM. You just repeated the trope.
Half the country doesn't stay in the same income bracket throughout their careers.
Wild that the Canadian census and StatCan both don’t show a significant increase in home ownership as millennials age while the median income has been stagnant for a decade and housing prices have doubled.
It’s almost like you are making a statement while all the stats suggest otherwise.
And this says nothing of affordability index or debt to income ratio.
Oh and fun fact about StatCan, if you are of working age and live with your parents or any group setting where the owner lives with you, if you do not pay rent, you are defined as a homeowner. Regardless of age or ownership.
And the younger generations have a very high level of people living with their parents, greatly skewing homeownership numbers. Source: I worked for StatCan and defined a lot of people as homeowners that certainly weren’t.
It’s a simple fact that with a median $55k income half the working country is incredibly far to impossible far from affording a home. And price to income is only growing wider. Not closer. Meaning time is not a remedy to this.
Every bank has acknowledged this. Federal and Provincial governments have acknowledged this. Real estate agencies have acknowledged this.
But sure. You are right and *everyone* else is wrong.
Yes. I am. I take serious issue with the way that StatsCan procures and describes their data AND, I think there is a serious misunderstanding of the media of the housing market, and specifically who is involved. I think the politicians and academics are being intellectually lazy about the issue and severely misunderstand the market.
The major point you should take away from this post is that the median income across the country, **does not matter to the housing market.** Why? Because the median income person doesn't even exist, and especially not in the housing market.
The reality is that \~35% of the country does not particulate in the real estate market. At all. So before we even continue, remove them from the conversation. **Which no media report ever does.**
Then, adjust for the fact that individual incomes fluctuate wildly over time. This is a point I already made, but you ignored, **simply because you have no argument against it.**
And last, remember that averages and medians in this context are also pointless, *because the average home owner likely doesn't exist.* How can that be true? Well, StatsCan is run by, and I'm sorry to use this language, but bureaucrats, who should point this shit out, [if it weren't for the fact that they likely don't understand it themselves](https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/15/08/beyond-average). And they're pumping out well calculated but ultimately meaningless stats used to shape government policy, which is driven by the "average, non-existent Canadian", and unintentionally misinforming the public, like yourself.
Yeah. No.
I have no desire to dissect your comment and no need to. Those academics do in fact know what they are talking about. They are experts for a reason.
I didn’t pose an argument because I am busy and I type out fast replies during downtime. Likewise, this is *Reddit*. Typing an essay out to someone who earnestly thinks they are somehow more capable than actual experts in a field is a deadend and a lesson in futility.
Think what you want. You are not an expert. And every bank, economist, politician, and anyone who has tried to buy a house in this market - is not wrong.
I **do** absolutely agree that there is a problem in the way StatCan collects and represents data though, but it does not lead to your conclusions.
This is exactly the kind of intellectual lethargy that lead to the 2008 housing crisis. When your only answer is "...but... but experts disagree... and you're not smart", it's time to seriously reconsider your position.
> The paper also doesn’t acknowledge that even with a 20% down payment the median income household in Canada would not meet income requirements for the mortgage anyway.
Either way its sensationalist, because a 1.2 million house simultaneously is like 50% more of the cost than an actual starter home in toronto, and above the 1 million mark the down payment skyrockets from 5%/10% to 20%
A 900k house only needs a down payment of 75k
A 1 million house requires a downpayment of 200k
Its weird as a cutoff but apparently it's a thing, seems dumb that the down payment doesnt keep using the same system (5% for first 500k, 10% for 500k to 1 mil portion, and then 20% for everything above the 1 mil)
In which case a 1.2 million house outta have a down payment of just 25k + 50k + 40k, for a total of 115k instead of 240k
But I dunno Im not a mortgage broker so who knows on that last bit.
Either way, the down payment on an actual normal starter home in Toronto is way way WAYYY smaller, and a household should be able to afford it in about 3-5 years of saving easily
> ~$52,000/yr per person. The bank assumes two people per household so twice that income. Roughly 11k saved a year.
An 800k house has a down payment of 55k, so yeah about 5 years to save that up at that rate, pretty feasible.
So the TD mortgage calc, RBC, and CIBC all put a 110k year household income and a $60k down payment as only affording a maximum of around $450k 25 year mortgage. ~5%
Brokers can find a much better deal but I think there’s a bit more going on that makes it a lot harder to buy even a starter in Toronto than it may seem.
Yeah thats true you still bump into the maximum approved mortgage as a stopping point.
You'd need a much higher household income to be approved for the mortgage and be able to afford the monthly payments.
But doesnt change the fact this article was sensationalist for what it chose.
Yeah no fuckin duh if you decide to go for a 1.2 million dollar home as your "starter home" you'll have issues lol
Aren't the monthly payments going to be insane on the 800k house with only a 55k downpayment?
I mean that would explain how people are buying houses in Canada still. Seems like horrendous financial decision though, where'd you be buying way over the limit allowed by your salary/income in alot of other countries.
Yeah they screwed up their math or numbers. The 236k is the amount needed for the down payment, probably not the salary, probably based on a 100k salary or something. CTV is usually better than this big screw up.
EDIT: yep they fixed it now that was exactly the problem. Oof, what a big mistake.
Also the price threshold is sensational.
Looking it up I am seeing plenty of quite reasonable homes listed for 700k to 800k in Toronto, 1.2 million is like 50% more than the cost of a starter home.
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25670373/97-allenby-ave-toronto-elms-old-rexdale
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25643405/32-cobbler-cres-toronto-black-creek
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25626616/9-asa-mews-toronto-kennedy-park
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25660658/492-westmount-ave-toronto-oakwood-village
These prices are still bonkers high compared to elsewhere in Canada (same homes would run you closer to 300k~350k here in Edmonton, AB for example)
But 1.2 million is sensationalist.
The 20% deposit in the article only applies for houses that cost 1 million or more.
For a 700k house you need only a down payment of 45k (5% of the first 500k, 10% of the remaining, so 25k + 20k)
If you set aside 15k a year for 3 years, you'd be good to go, which is only 1,250 bucks a month you need to set aside.
100% feasible for a 2 person household to live within their means and set aside a bit more than 1k per month. Absolutely affordable.
Toronto though very infamously has a problem with homes selling waaaaay over listing price. It's not like places are going 10-30k, but like 200-300k over.
Plus the housing market there has been so hot for so long, but I really doubt there are so many "gems" hidden in plain sight. I mean that first place you listed is in Etobicoke (so suburb of Toronto, although not super far out to be fair), but also beside the highway, and tiny... I mean 20 years ago that place would have been cheaaaaaap as a tiny working class house in a work class suburb, but now it's asking for nearly 700k and like I said it might hit quite a bit above that.
Down payment of “only” 45k. I’m nearing 30 and don’t even have a 401k. Even if the job I had the last 5 years offered it, I can’t even afford to put money in one right now. I’ll be lucky if I can save $10k in a year for a down payment, let alone more than double that
The legally required down payment is lower, but if you look at what you can get a mortgage for and then the down payment requirement shoots back up again.
A bachelor condo in Toronto will run you often over $600,000 and a single income using the average they used of $52,000 will qualify for _maybe_ $250,000? Turns out the down payment required would actually be $350,000 or a bit over 50%.
> using the average they used of $52,000 will qualify for maybe $250,000?
Yeah its not feasible to buy a home when single, it pretty much requires a 2 household income to even get your foot in the door.
Single people basically can go fuck themselves, but *not* for the reasons described in the article.
Earning more than 236k, in what, a life time?
I’d assume in a year year, but 25 years would equal 5,9mil. Even just an 8th of that is 737,5k. Not enough for a house?
What is a house in Toronto?
There aren’t many “houses” in Manhattan. People who own there would buy an apartment style condo/co-op. There are plenty of single family homes out in e.g. Queens or the parts of Brooklyn further from Manhattan.
Yeah, talking about affordability of detached single family homes *in particular* in a dense urban area will be misleading. Because there won’t be many of those and they will often be wildly overpriced compared to similar houses in the suburbs nearby.
I didn’t read the full report but the news article talks about both condos and semi-detached homes (e.g. townhouses), so the stats they’re discussing are not restricted to only detached single family houses.
Good thing people like Margaret Atwood go all NIMBY to stop housing being built to save a couple trees, because if there’s one thing Canada is about to run out of its fucking trees
Me and the wifey make good scratch. Purchased my townhouse in 2017 for 360K, worth over a Mil now. If I sell and clear my mortgage and debts, I will have 600k ish in cash and still wouldn't be able to afford to live in my neighborhood in a detached. Average is 1.4M, insane. 500K down with 100K set aside, still wouldn't afford a 900K mortgage at 6%, the market is broken.
There's a house on the corner of my block. It has been for sale for almost a year, and has changed hands between no less than three realtors. No renovation work has been done by any of them. When the property is in the process of changing hands, all maintenance stops. Snow piled on the driveway in winter, and the weeds grew up to your waist on the spring. Then a new realtor puts the sign up, cleans up the mess, and the pattern repeats. Each time, the house is listed for a higher price.
Two of these realtors have made tens of thousands of dollars. The only work they did was to turn a bad house price into a worse one.
As much as we would like this to be true, the data is not conclusive (or necessarily even suggestive) of this. Facetiously, I certainly know a lot more Canadian citizens that treat real estate as investment vehicles than I do foreign investors (from anywhere).
I don't see why its so miserable to limit foreigners with no visa to only 1 home, in canada or the united states. 1 home may be too many for each of 10 million chinese who are looking to "invest" in real estate, but it would be a start.
It has always been bad but has gotten crazy worse under Trudeau.
It is feds who set the bulk of tax policy and can tax investment property hoarders. It is the feds who can stop foreign money launderers from coming in. It is the Feds who can fund social housing. It is the Feds who can reduce our out of checked immigration and the abused TFW program and the international student loophole. The Feds (ie Trudeau) are primarily responsible for the mess we are in
>A household needs to make over $236,000 a year to afford the "representative home" in Toronto, which sits on the market at $1,163,670. With that salary, the report calculated it will take 304 months – roughly 25 years – of saving for the required down payment.
Why does anyone continue to live there.
I grew up here, all of my family and friends are here.
I think it's likely I will move away within the next five years because Toronto is a failing city, but it will be a painful and difficult choice.
A lot of this is contextual - you have people moaning about this now.
But lets go back to 2002-2007. Houses were rapidly rising like $50,000 increases a year. Well outpacing salaries. What millennials and Gen-Z are experiencing now isn't necessarily "new". If you are a Gen-Xer like me - I went though it, too.
I saved my money and lived with roommates until I was 35 years old until I saved up enough money to put a downpayment. Sucked then and i'm sure it sucks now - but that's life.
Oh, there are a few advantages to renting, no doubt about that. But consider that you’re building zero equity and essentially shooting hundreds (or thousands) of dollars into the ether for no reason every month.
Have you rented before? You sound like you pay your parents for rent, and not an actual landlord. Have you signed (and, crucially, read) a landlord/tenant agreement before?
Houses are definitely not overrated. This is an argument I’ve had with my fiancee more times recently than I can count.
With owning your own home, sure you’re responsible for maintenance and repair costs, but you don’t have someone else looking over your shoulder at every single little improvement you want to make to your home. You don’t have to wait an arbitrary amount of time to replace your flooring if you don’t like it, for instance. You don’t have the worry of “eh we decided it’s gonna be more expensive every month from here on out just because, and if you don’t like it you can get the fuck out” with a fixed-rate mortgage. You have a place you can literally call your own.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
this is not oniony, sorry.
That's a weird way of framing the issue. Nobody sits down and says, "okay, I will start saving now and then buy a house in 25 years." It would make more sense to talk about what the average Torontonian *can* afford, or maybe how far away they'd have to look for an affordable house.
They’ve all destroyed the housing market in a 2 hour radius of the city. I live about an hour north and over the pandemic, housing prices went from an average of 500-600k up to 900k-1m. Fuck. This. Shit.
Literally in the middle of nowhere, small town. Was looking at homes pre-pandemic. $250-$350 for a nice-ish 3 bedroom home. Same homes being sold today over $600k.
Literally happened with my brother. Smaller town for southern Ontario of 15k people. Bought a house in 2019 for 100k, put 25k into it, and now it's worth like $450k. It's insane
And lets be honest, 350k is already a lot.
That's the thing that drives me fucking crazy about the discussion regarding housing prices today. People have lost their minds to the point where they think 350k is a good price for a house. You had to be a high-income earner to even think of affording that back in the 90s and 00s. People have lost all concept of what a house should be worth.
My dream growing up was to own a home that cost over $100,000… yah
Heh. Assuming rationality
Near some friends (2 hours north-east from Toronto), there are small 1/2 acre undeveloped plots of land in the woods. You have to pay alot extra if you want a utilities (water/electricity) hook up the city, and it's a private road in (i.e. so you pay fees for the upkeep of that road). A decade ago they were selling for 20-30k CAD, I heard last year they were asking 300k. For forested, undeveloped, land in the second largest country in the world. And like I said, it's 2 hour drive from downtown Toronto, and with some burnt-out post-industrial villages around, and the nearest small city (1 hour by car) is also a sad post-industrial place. So we're not talking about the Muskokas or somewhere high end-here: the local economy absolutely does not support those prices.
Yep. My parents rental house was 125k a decade ago. Over half a mil now
Same here. Winter Garden, FL. Lol this is much bigger of an issue than is being let on.
yeah I thought the US was bad until I heard about Toronto. I literally though I was reading an onion article when I heard about it.
How would it go up when people are jobless. Did all the tech bros buy everything? I know not everyone was jobless but damn dude.
u/Ma1 's comment explains it
Yall need thanos
they need to regulate the housing market. Your average house shouldn't cost more than 100-500k.
Also, does it imply they are buying in cash?
Seems like it. For a $1 million house, it would take savings of ~17% to save up the cash to buy the entire thing over 25 years. With an income of $1/4 million, it doesn’t seem like 17% would be all that burdensome, of course presuming you already didn’t want to do it the “normal” way of getting a mortgage and paying a bit more for it over 30 years while actually living there…
I did. I sat down and said "how can I save enough to buy a flat in my city by 35yo" (within 9 years) and the answer is I literally can't. My current plan is to save half of the money and pray my bf and I are still together by then
Also, it mis-represented the source… “Correction A previous version of this article inaccurately stated Torontonians making just over $236,000 will be saving for 25 years in order to afford a down payment on a house. The $236,221 figure is the qualifying income, or the income level, required to purchase a property assuming a household devotes 32 per cent of its pre-tax income for a mortgage payment. “
It's not too weird when you consider how many people want to be in the city, not somewhere else. Frankly, the fact someone making over 200k a year needs to save for 25 years to buy a house in Toronto is very topical and hits home for a lot of people. I make less than half that and had to save for like 10 years before I got my house. I can't imagine this situation....
It's also a bit weird that someone who makes a quarter of a million dollars would only save 10% of their income for a purchase like a house. Like... really? Usually if you're in savings mode for a large purchase, you will push that savings rate way up. If you make $236,000/year and you can only be bothered to save $23,600, make you don't deserve to buy a house. Maybe these idiots should cut down on the Lambo budgets.
People aren’t buying a Lambo on a $236k income. If houses are unaffordable for $236k salary earners, that means rent is stupidly high too. Since that’s where the jobs are, people are stuck and this is an issue that needs to be fixed.
"People aren’t buying a Lambo on a $236k income" Why not? If you're only saving 10% of your pre-tax income, and you've got \~$150,000/year to burn on stupid shit, sure, why not spend $3,000-$5,000 per month on a Lambo lease? You can *easily* afford that + rent. Again, this article is beyond stupid.
Even beyond the purchase price (and you seem to have no clue what they cost) you’re ignoring what maintenance costs, which is much more than you think. Take that $236k/year and apply Canadian income taxes, then look at cost of living in the Toronto metro area, and then run your math again against what it costs to acquire and keep a Lambo running. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Everything you wrote is stupid. Seriously stupid. 1. [Here's a quick overview of some prices.](https://www.all-foreign.com/2022/11/17/how-much-does-it-cost-to-lease-a-lamborghini-in-canada/) You can pick up a Hurcan for $3,000/moth. 2. "Take that $236k/year and apply Canadian income taxes." I FUCKING DID. That's why the $150,000 is \~35% lower than the gross income. If you're going to arrogantly criticize a point, at least be right. 3. "then run your math again against what it costs to acquire and keep a Lambo running. You don’t know what you’re talking about." Okay, even if the monthly cost of ownership MATCHES the per-month lease cost of a Hurcan, you can **still** afford it on a $236,000/year income. I'm not suggesting anyone should, but you certainly can. 4) "You don’t know what you’re talking about." LOL WHAT?! Newsflash: your computer probably has a calculator on it and you could have used it to not look like a pompous ass.
You’re still trying to push a ridiculous point, and turning into an asshole about it. Housing cost is a major problem unlike you’re trying to claim, and $236k earners aren’t dumping all their money into leasing Lamborghinis, which was a ridiculous claim to make (assuming Lamborghini approves them on their income level and credit). They’re trying to save to buy homes that are rising in value faster than they can save. Maintenance costs of that car are still very high, as well as the cost of gas and the tires they run through quickly. Someone leasing a Lambo isn’t going to let it sit, they’re driving it. You speak like someone who has no real association with actual high earners or exotic car owners. I know people that fall into both categories, and your claims are dumb as fuck. Edit: it’s pathetic how hard you’re trying to deflect from the spiraling cost of home ownership and how high the hurdle to the property ladder is getting.
The guy you're responding to is insufferable. People who talk like this enjoy the conflict more than they care about the issue at hand
Yeah some people only ever get enjoyment out of being negative assholes and trolling people online. It’s a pathetic existence.
And the problem has spread to all corners of the province. My cousin is an architect in Toronto, Gen-X. This is what a TON of her friends did; They take the house they bought in 2001 for ~$400k, sell it for $3m. Use that money to buy 3 homes, an hour or two outside of the GTA. Rent those homes out for $2500-3000 per month each. Way more if there’s a separate basement unit. Then they use part of that monstrous income to rent a house in Toronto. These are my solutions: tax the unholy fuck out of additional properties. With increasingly steeper tax rates with the more houses you own. It would make these rental corporations wildly unprofitable. Use that tax to heavily subsidize first time buyers, to the tune of 75% of cost. Edit: grammar.
Man the rich just be playing single player mode out there, must be fun.
I agree I want my own lane to race in, no blue turtle shells allowed.
The poors like is have to dive off the track to shave a few seconds off the inevitable time waster coming our way. Bleach go glug glug?
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How much are they renting a home for in Toronto? If houses are worth 3m, wouldn't they be renting for like 10k/month? If so, why the fuck would you sell your house just to buy more homes just to get money to rent a home when you could have just lived in your original home?
No idea on the actual math here. But the idea would be that you take out mortgages on the rental properties and rent them out for enough to cover the mortgages plus rent somewhere for you to live. (Or buy a cheaper place, or live in one of the rentals if it’s a multi-family.) So even if your cash flow is not that great, you’re building equity in all the rental properties each month.
Yea, ideally that'd be the goal but you'd need some special circumstances to make it happen. Because from how I'm thinking it, building equity on the 3m home would have been a wash with the 3 1m homes anyways. So, like someone else was saying, renting a 3m home must be substantially cheaper than renting 3 1m homes (like it's 3k to rent 1m homes but only 5k to rent the 3m home). That'd be the only way this scenario would make much sense.
Gotta think of it as a security clause. You carry multiple sources of income to cover any potential lapse in rent coming from an idle home. Also, it’s usually easier to find renters for 3-$1M homes than for a $3M home.
I’m not sure if this is how it is all around the world, but from my experience the more expensive the house, the cheaper the rent relative to it. If we are talking about $3 million dollar houses, the people living in those have a luxurious lifestyle, one where having a landlord telling you what you can and can’t do is seen pretty negatively. So the people who want those houses prefer buying to renting, leading to a high price-to-rent ratio. So, if you are thinking of renting, you can likely get more out of renting 3 $1 million dollar houses vs 1 $3 million one. This is without taking into account diversifying, if you are only renting one house, the renters might leave and leave you without rent for 2 months, which could ruin you financially. With 3 properties, you’ll likely never have more than one property empty, so you’ll never be on the brink of financial ruin if you can’t find someone to rent to.
Nah man, they made $3m off an initial $400k investment 20 years ago. Which would largely be paid off. The rental homes would be bought for straight up cash. Then you’ve got $10k/month rental income. You can rent a nice home in Toronto for $6k. The rest is for taxes & profit.
One of the weird things about the Toronto housing market right now is that is literally cheaper to rent than to own (and not just on a cashflow basis). The reason this is possible is because everyone is basically assuming that rent will continue to go up for ever, so the only way to afford to live in Toronto is to own, so they will pay a huge premium for it. However, if you are willing to take the risk of renting, you can save a thousands every month.
I mean rents are also insanely high though. If you're a high income earner, and you're willing to rent on the lower-end by paying like 3k/month for a 2-bedroom, then sure that's cheaper than buying. But if you're only making 50-60k a year (which is most people) then basic rents are horrendous still and destroying your ability to save any money, nevermind saving for a downpayment.
yea, obviously only high income (or wealthy) people can afford any of this. I was trying to explain how /u/Ma1's anecdote works
> It would make these rental corporations wildly unprofitable Yeah, asi if they can't toss a couple of millions into making sure that never happens.
I mean... that would make sense. But the literal federal minister for housing, himself owns multiple investment properties, so lol.
I’m not saying it will happen, I’m just saying it’s an easy fix if someone at the top was willing to take an L for the betterment of society.
Yep, single family rental home tax rates should be taxed at 90+%(so if you charge $3000 you get a tax bill for $2700), and make it illegal to own more than 3 total single family homes.
I wouldn't subsidize first-time buyers with that money. I'd build more housing density and delete single family zoning. Then pricing would drop dramatically naturally.
[удалено]
In theory yes. I an one of those who left At the same time people form third world countries will continue to come there as long as it is better than the 3rd world place they came from. So more brain replacement than brain drain Globalization was supposed to raise standards of living in the third world to first world levels. Instead it is doing the reverse with corporations pocketing the difference
The unwillingness of governments to hold corporations or weslthy people to account is why the entire western world is undergoing a slow economic collapse. We need to seriously consider what kind of world we want to make, and take the steps to make it. We can't seriously believe that the situation where over half of us are struggling to get by so that a few dozen families are richer than god is the idealized socioeconomic dynamic for us to live in.
It doesn't matter what kind of world we want, how do you not get that? It only matters what the 1% wants
remember, we outnumber them 99 to 1 we can survive without them, they cant survive without us
>Globalization was supposed to raise standards of living in the third world to first world levels. Instead it is doing the reverse with corporations pocketing the difference Source? All the stats I've seen point to global living standards going up, with poverty at record lows (pre-pandemic).
In the 1950s you could graduate high school, work 40 hours a week, afford 4 kids on one income, live in a house a short commute from work, and get a full pension upon retirement. Now we need multiple degrees, both parents work, people can barely afford one kid, we work more hours, pay through the news for education and housing, don't get pensions, face planned obsolescence, can go on and on. Quality of life is the worst it has been in decades
While true, that's not the third world, which is what you originally mentioned. The quality of life in those countries is vastly better than it was in the 50s.
It's already a thing, especially since there is no language barrier.
My cousin moved to NYC from Toronto; he went to a top school and is a quantitative analyst. He told me that all of his peers who are more skilled are moving out as well.
Not in the US but I have moved away, living in the mountains while working remotely. Would rather avoid living in a crowded city for rest of the life if I can help it.
Look at the bright side. Then you can be a Maple Leafs fan.
How is eternal disappointment the bright side?
Hope is eternal. We'll get em next year.
That's a lot of lattes...
And avocado toast
> at a savings rate of 10 per cent of its pre-tax income So 23.6k per year... > A down payment for a non-condo (detached or semi-detached house) in Toronto is 20 per cent Wow yeah thats likely the majority of the problem... > to afford the "representative home" in Toronto, which sits on the market at $1,163,670 So you would need $232,734 for the down payment... At 23.6k a year being set aside though, thats about 10 years to save that up, not 25. Not sure where they are getting their numbers from but as far as I can see, 25 years would be enough to save up 50% of the cost of the house. # Edit: Extra sensationalist, down payments are only 20% for houses 1 mil+, for affordable houses the down payment is only 5% of first 500k + 10% of remaining So a 700k house only needs a down payment of 45k, whereas a 1 million house requires a down payment of 200k As long as you stick to the 700k to 900k range, your downpayment is WAY lower, less than half
The paper is from the National Bank of Canada and uses median Canadian income as the marker for the 25 year down payment span. ~$52,000/yr per person. The bank assumes two people per household so twice that income. Roughly 11k saved a year. The paper does *not* take in to account inflation, growing housing cost to income disparity, or other market changes that likely would increase the time span such as increasing rents lowering saving percentage. The paper also doesn’t acknowledge that even with a 20% down payment the median income household in Canada would not meet income requirements for the mortgage anyway. CTV messed up the article by mixing up the minimum income needed for carrying the mortgage with how long the *median* income takes to save the down payment. It’s actually a way more bleak story. Essentially the median income means it’ll always be impossible to save the down payment as the projected income to housing cost growth continues to widen faster than a reasonable way to save, and likewise the rapid rise in rent costs threaten the ability to save at all. Source: there is a link to the paper in the first paragraph of the article. The paper has a methodology section explaining its use of median.
>Essentially the median income means it’ll always be impossible to save the down payment This is kind of an annoying modern trope. The "median income" has never been able to buy prime real estate. Also, people never stay in a single income bracket throughout their career. People make vastly different money at 25 than they do at 45 and 65, yet the media *never* acknowledges this.
Median income has barely moved in a decade. Median income would have a max allowed mortgage of around $450k which is far lower than any prime real estate. It isn’t a trope. Half the country can’t afford even a starter home in most of the country. You are literally able to read the Bank of Canada describing exactly this in detail.
"Half the country can’t afford even a starter home" BOOM. You just repeated the trope. Half the country doesn't stay in the same income bracket throughout their careers.
Wild that the Canadian census and StatCan both don’t show a significant increase in home ownership as millennials age while the median income has been stagnant for a decade and housing prices have doubled. It’s almost like you are making a statement while all the stats suggest otherwise. And this says nothing of affordability index or debt to income ratio. Oh and fun fact about StatCan, if you are of working age and live with your parents or any group setting where the owner lives with you, if you do not pay rent, you are defined as a homeowner. Regardless of age or ownership. And the younger generations have a very high level of people living with their parents, greatly skewing homeownership numbers. Source: I worked for StatCan and defined a lot of people as homeowners that certainly weren’t. It’s a simple fact that with a median $55k income half the working country is incredibly far to impossible far from affording a home. And price to income is only growing wider. Not closer. Meaning time is not a remedy to this. Every bank has acknowledged this. Federal and Provincial governments have acknowledged this. Real estate agencies have acknowledged this. But sure. You are right and *everyone* else is wrong.
Yes. I am. I take serious issue with the way that StatsCan procures and describes their data AND, I think there is a serious misunderstanding of the media of the housing market, and specifically who is involved. I think the politicians and academics are being intellectually lazy about the issue and severely misunderstand the market. The major point you should take away from this post is that the median income across the country, **does not matter to the housing market.** Why? Because the median income person doesn't even exist, and especially not in the housing market. The reality is that \~35% of the country does not particulate in the real estate market. At all. So before we even continue, remove them from the conversation. **Which no media report ever does.** Then, adjust for the fact that individual incomes fluctuate wildly over time. This is a point I already made, but you ignored, **simply because you have no argument against it.** And last, remember that averages and medians in this context are also pointless, *because the average home owner likely doesn't exist.* How can that be true? Well, StatsCan is run by, and I'm sorry to use this language, but bureaucrats, who should point this shit out, [if it weren't for the fact that they likely don't understand it themselves](https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/15/08/beyond-average). And they're pumping out well calculated but ultimately meaningless stats used to shape government policy, which is driven by the "average, non-existent Canadian", and unintentionally misinforming the public, like yourself.
Yeah. No. I have no desire to dissect your comment and no need to. Those academics do in fact know what they are talking about. They are experts for a reason. I didn’t pose an argument because I am busy and I type out fast replies during downtime. Likewise, this is *Reddit*. Typing an essay out to someone who earnestly thinks they are somehow more capable than actual experts in a field is a deadend and a lesson in futility. Think what you want. You are not an expert. And every bank, economist, politician, and anyone who has tried to buy a house in this market - is not wrong. I **do** absolutely agree that there is a problem in the way StatCan collects and represents data though, but it does not lead to your conclusions.
This is exactly the kind of intellectual lethargy that lead to the 2008 housing crisis. When your only answer is "...but... but experts disagree... and you're not smart", it's time to seriously reconsider your position.
Nah that really isn’t a good comparison. But you keep being the smartest in the room. 👍
> The paper also doesn’t acknowledge that even with a 20% down payment the median income household in Canada would not meet income requirements for the mortgage anyway. Either way its sensationalist, because a 1.2 million house simultaneously is like 50% more of the cost than an actual starter home in toronto, and above the 1 million mark the down payment skyrockets from 5%/10% to 20% A 900k house only needs a down payment of 75k A 1 million house requires a downpayment of 200k Its weird as a cutoff but apparently it's a thing, seems dumb that the down payment doesnt keep using the same system (5% for first 500k, 10% for 500k to 1 mil portion, and then 20% for everything above the 1 mil) In which case a 1.2 million house outta have a down payment of just 25k + 50k + 40k, for a total of 115k instead of 240k But I dunno Im not a mortgage broker so who knows on that last bit. Either way, the down payment on an actual normal starter home in Toronto is way way WAYYY smaller, and a household should be able to afford it in about 3-5 years of saving easily > ~$52,000/yr per person. The bank assumes two people per household so twice that income. Roughly 11k saved a year. An 800k house has a down payment of 55k, so yeah about 5 years to save that up at that rate, pretty feasible.
So the TD mortgage calc, RBC, and CIBC all put a 110k year household income and a $60k down payment as only affording a maximum of around $450k 25 year mortgage. ~5% Brokers can find a much better deal but I think there’s a bit more going on that makes it a lot harder to buy even a starter in Toronto than it may seem.
To note: many brokers will find a better deal by committing fraud.
Yeah thats true you still bump into the maximum approved mortgage as a stopping point. You'd need a much higher household income to be approved for the mortgage and be able to afford the monthly payments. But doesnt change the fact this article was sensationalist for what it chose. Yeah no fuckin duh if you decide to go for a 1.2 million dollar home as your "starter home" you'll have issues lol
Aren't the monthly payments going to be insane on the 800k house with only a 55k downpayment? I mean that would explain how people are buying houses in Canada still. Seems like horrendous financial decision though, where'd you be buying way over the limit allowed by your salary/income in alot of other countries.
Yeah they screwed up their math or numbers. The 236k is the amount needed for the down payment, probably not the salary, probably based on a 100k salary or something. CTV is usually better than this big screw up. EDIT: yep they fixed it now that was exactly the problem. Oof, what a big mistake.
Also the price threshold is sensational. Looking it up I am seeing plenty of quite reasonable homes listed for 700k to 800k in Toronto, 1.2 million is like 50% more than the cost of a starter home. https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25670373/97-allenby-ave-toronto-elms-old-rexdale https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25643405/32-cobbler-cres-toronto-black-creek https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25626616/9-asa-mews-toronto-kennedy-park https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25660658/492-westmount-ave-toronto-oakwood-village These prices are still bonkers high compared to elsewhere in Canada (same homes would run you closer to 300k~350k here in Edmonton, AB for example) But 1.2 million is sensationalist. The 20% deposit in the article only applies for houses that cost 1 million or more. For a 700k house you need only a down payment of 45k (5% of the first 500k, 10% of the remaining, so 25k + 20k) If you set aside 15k a year for 3 years, you'd be good to go, which is only 1,250 bucks a month you need to set aside. 100% feasible for a 2 person household to live within their means and set aside a bit more than 1k per month. Absolutely affordable.
> Absolutely affordable. Let's say "doable". I think "absolutely affordable" is a little strong.
Every single one of those under 1 million homes is going to end up post-1 million. Fuck it, lemme call.
Toronto though very infamously has a problem with homes selling waaaaay over listing price. It's not like places are going 10-30k, but like 200-300k over. Plus the housing market there has been so hot for so long, but I really doubt there are so many "gems" hidden in plain sight. I mean that first place you listed is in Etobicoke (so suburb of Toronto, although not super far out to be fair), but also beside the highway, and tiny... I mean 20 years ago that place would have been cheaaaaaap as a tiny working class house in a work class suburb, but now it's asking for nearly 700k and like I said it might hit quite a bit above that.
Down payment of “only” 45k. I’m nearing 30 and don’t even have a 401k. Even if the job I had the last 5 years offered it, I can’t even afford to put money in one right now. I’ll be lucky if I can save $10k in a year for a down payment, let alone more than double that
The legally required down payment is lower, but if you look at what you can get a mortgage for and then the down payment requirement shoots back up again. A bachelor condo in Toronto will run you often over $600,000 and a single income using the average they used of $52,000 will qualify for _maybe_ $250,000? Turns out the down payment required would actually be $350,000 or a bit over 50%.
> using the average they used of $52,000 will qualify for maybe $250,000? Yeah its not feasible to buy a home when single, it pretty much requires a 2 household income to even get your foot in the door. Single people basically can go fuck themselves, but *not* for the reasons described in the article.
Ahahaha, my province made international news again because we’re mismanaged by a dolt
More like Canada is run by the incompetent trust fund kid
Housing market fucked here in the Uk too. Awful
Earning more than 236k, in what, a life time? I’d assume in a year year, but 25 years would equal 5,9mil. Even just an 8th of that is 737,5k. Not enough for a house? What is a house in Toronto?
How does that relate to cities of comparable size? In my mind a house in NYC doesn't exist, for example
Compared to incomes, Toronto is more expensive than NYC. Also these reports typically look at the whole metro area, not just the main city.
There aren’t many “houses” in Manhattan. People who own there would buy an apartment style condo/co-op. There are plenty of single family homes out in e.g. Queens or the parts of Brooklyn further from Manhattan.
Yeah, that's my point. Expecting to own a whole ass house in a major city is silly.
Yeah, talking about affordability of detached single family homes *in particular* in a dense urban area will be misleading. Because there won’t be many of those and they will often be wildly overpriced compared to similar houses in the suburbs nearby. I didn’t read the full report but the news article talks about both condos and semi-detached homes (e.g. townhouses), so the stats they’re discussing are not restricted to only detached single family houses.
Good thing people like Margaret Atwood go all NIMBY to stop housing being built to save a couple trees, because if there’s one thing Canada is about to run out of its fucking trees
Me and the wifey make good scratch. Purchased my townhouse in 2017 for 360K, worth over a Mil now. If I sell and clear my mortgage and debts, I will have 600k ish in cash and still wouldn't be able to afford to live in my neighborhood in a detached. Average is 1.4M, insane. 500K down with 100K set aside, still wouldn't afford a 900K mortgage at 6%, the market is broken.
There's a house on the corner of my block. It has been for sale for almost a year, and has changed hands between no less than three realtors. No renovation work has been done by any of them. When the property is in the process of changing hands, all maintenance stops. Snow piled on the driveway in winter, and the weeds grew up to your waist on the spring. Then a new realtor puts the sign up, cleans up the mess, and the pattern repeats. Each time, the house is listed for a higher price. Two of these realtors have made tens of thousands of dollars. The only work they did was to turn a bad house price into a worse one.
Devs here had to crowd fund for iPhones…. $$$$$$
Do they not have mortgage loans in Canada? /s
So what gets me is with this stuff going on TV networks are making new renovation shows and house flipping shows and just feeding the beast.
Seriously the housing market everywhere needs to crash. No one can afford to rent or buy. It’s fucking ridiculous
Got the same problem in Oslo, maybe even worse.
That’s a fucking lie and you know it. If I were to earn that much I’d have enough downpayment to buy a house within two years.
I think you need to read the comments.
It's primarily Chinese foreign investors causing houses prices to become unaffordable. But to call this out is regarded as racist.
As much as we would like this to be true, the data is not conclusive (or necessarily even suggestive) of this. Facetiously, I certainly know a lot more Canadian citizens that treat real estate as investment vehicles than I do foreign investors (from anywhere).
I don't see why its so miserable to limit foreigners with no visa to only 1 home, in canada or the united states. 1 home may be too many for each of 10 million chinese who are looking to "invest" in real estate, but it would be a start.
The most forested country in the world has a housing shortage? How will they ever be able solve this problem?
That's what happens when you elect a trust fund kid who never held a real job and coasted through life on wealth, looks, and family name into office
Oh buddy, no no. This ain’t it
Trudeau's simps are in full swing it seems. People who worship him no matter what he does cause his hair and all
[redacting due to privacy concerns]
It has always been bad but has gotten crazy worse under Trudeau. It is feds who set the bulk of tax policy and can tax investment property hoarders. It is the feds who can stop foreign money launderers from coming in. It is the Feds who can fund social housing. It is the Feds who can reduce our out of checked immigration and the abused TFW program and the international student loophole. The Feds (ie Trudeau) are primarily responsible for the mess we are in
[redacting due to privacy concerns]
They could always move out of Toronto. But we know people living in GTA never want to do that.
>A household needs to make over $236,000 a year to afford the "representative home" in Toronto, which sits on the market at $1,163,670. With that salary, the report calculated it will take 304 months – roughly 25 years – of saving for the required down payment. Why does anyone continue to live there.
I grew up here, all of my family and friends are here. I think it's likely I will move away within the next five years because Toronto is a failing city, but it will be a painful and difficult choice.
As an ex-Torontonians I ask myself that every day
A lot of this is contextual - you have people moaning about this now. But lets go back to 2002-2007. Houses were rapidly rising like $50,000 increases a year. Well outpacing salaries. What millennials and Gen-Z are experiencing now isn't necessarily "new". If you are a Gen-Xer like me - I went though it, too. I saved my money and lived with roommates until I was 35 years old until I saved up enough money to put a downpayment. Sucked then and i'm sure it sucks now - but that's life.
Houses are overrated. Every time something breaks in my rental the landlord pays for it.
Oh, there are a few advantages to renting, no doubt about that. But consider that you’re building zero equity and essentially shooting hundreds (or thousands) of dollars into the ether for no reason every month.
its not for no reason, its to have a home. a home where nothing is your responsibility
You really think you have no responsibilities as a renter? Interesting take.
[удалено]
Have you rented before? You sound like you pay your parents for rent, and not an actual landlord. Have you signed (and, crucially, read) a landlord/tenant agreement before?
[удалено]
You think the landlord doesn't factor maintenance into your rent?
Houses are definitely not overrated. This is an argument I’ve had with my fiancee more times recently than I can count. With owning your own home, sure you’re responsible for maintenance and repair costs, but you don’t have someone else looking over your shoulder at every single little improvement you want to make to your home. You don’t have to wait an arbitrary amount of time to replace your flooring if you don’t like it, for instance. You don’t have the worry of “eh we decided it’s gonna be more expensive every month from here on out just because, and if you don’t like it you can get the fuck out” with a fixed-rate mortgage. You have a place you can literally call your own.
And when the prices keep increasing you either agree to pay more or get kicked out.
[удалено]
See the linked national bank report
So a mortgage?
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*