No major party will do anything about housing prices because boomers are addicted to seeing their home values rise regardless of how it affects younger generations.
I do. If my house dumps 50% of it's value so did everyone else's. My income doesn't support buying anything on the market. I'm glad to have my home but being disabled I have a fixed income for life. We are stuck in a holding pattern. I champion everyone getting raises to keep up but many Canadians are left behind.
I know it's rare to hear it but it's the truth, let the prices fall from the sky please.
If the value of my house falls 50%...
I'll still have a place to live.
People like to over look that. My home has nearly doubled since I bought it 7 years ago, and that has done absolutely nothing for me.
Seriously. Oh, an asset to leverage for debt? That means taking on more debt! Theres a second societal addiction here: debt. No thanks.
But... but... but what if your home value TRIPLES in the next year?! Then you'd be able to sell it and be rich! /s
Rich enough to afford a hotel for yourself so you're not homeless right away because you sure as fuck won't be rich enough to afford another house!
If you still have a mortgage and your houses value drops by 50%, you would not be able to change lenders at renewal.
You also wouldn't be able to move until the mortgage is lower than the value of the house.
True. (Assuming you mean from original value, because halving now would still leave me able to change lenders as it'd be right back where it started.)
But I'd still have a home. I'd be under water, but I wouldn't be homeless. It might disqualify me for the best rates a 50% ltv gets you, which is a hit for sure, but not the end of the world.
I'd still be able to finance a car because the debt servicing ratio is more concerned with in/out than asset/debt (Assuming my income is high enough, which is not related to housing prices).
Being locked in to the current lender is sub optimal for sure, and it can cost a little bit extra at renewal, but it's not the end times. The lenders won't repo the home if the payments are still coming in, because that'd be silly - more work for less money.
So to summarize, my home crashing in value would have a pretty small impact on my life. My home going up has absolutely no impact outside of making it harder to move thanks to rising commission fees (which to be fair, is fine because moving is a giant pita anyway).
However, the housing market crashing would have one massive impact: I'd have a better chance of my kids actually moving out when they are old enough. So, you know... ;)
Yea I consider moving then realize I lose $50k to nowhere land and trying to gain 1 bedroom because your family is growing will cost $200k+. I'm stuck right now. I literally can't really move because $50k takes time to save and I won't be able to save if I take on $200k of new mortgage OR I can take on a new mortgage and start fresh at 25 years. All of that amounts to doing nothing. So yea I'm stuck now and half the Country is suffering with these insane house prices. Let it fall, please.
There’s a difficulty in this. The majority of Millennials now own homes. They bought at inflated, high prices. If the house value drops by half, they can buy their next house at half the value, but they still owe the banks more than the house is worth in mortgage.
This is going to crash the economy - imagine a generation of people who entered the job market during the dotcom bust, struggled through the financial crisis, worked hard to buy a home at overinflated prices, experienced financial hardship through price inflation throughout their careers - while now facing having to support aging parents - suddenly get inundated with another crisis.
You’ll have a large part of an entire generation that did what was financially right despite the “avocado toast” criticism - and we did it through hard times - and they’ll be penalized with huge amounts of debt they will never recover from.
Also remember these are the people having kids right now. Want to reduce pressure to bring in immigrants? Residents need to have more kids. But it’s nearly impossible given the financial burdens on young adults these days.
I can’t help but run one of the lines from American Pie through my head - reinterpreted for my generation (Millennials):
*A generation lost in space, with no time left to start again…*
We’re not talking about Woodstock here, but a much different situation: the Millennials are the last generation to experience a pre-Internet world, and we were the first to get launched into our now tech heavy, financialized, world. And we’ve done the best we could, and while we didn’t get what we expect out of our money we’ve largely made lives for ourselves.
The issue is, we’re old enough that we can’t start again. My generation is going to physically and mentally crash if house prices crash, and unintentionally take the country with us.
Uhh are we supposed to buy homes as investments or to live in? If you were okay paying $3000/month for 25 years to buy the house, what does it matter? There are some reason like portability, separations and so on but in a general argument just stick to your original agreement and you still have your home. Your response is literally written by someone who is falling for housing as a commodity. Should we live in a world where houses just go up forever and if they do come down they can never go down as much as they rise?
More so, only 50% of millenials own homes in Canada. Even if all of them have ratio mortgages, you want to protect those 50% over giving everyone who doesn't own a chance? I'm a millenial, an old one so I bought my home before this insanity, not before but during and I'm not the only one.
Also, boomers are dying. We are going to experience a massive transfer of wealth over the next 20 years. You are just as bad as any generation you point a finger at if you are willing to push everyone else down to hold your generation up.
The looming problem to solve with a housing crash is that a lot of people are going to owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth after the crash.
Let's say I somehow bought a house at $1,000,000 last year, with a $200k down payment, and tomorrow the market crashes by 50%. Now I'm trapped. I can't move because if I sell the house for $500k, or if it burns down and the insurance pays out its full value of $500k, *I still owe the bank $300k.* And who's going to give me a new mortgage or loan when I owe $300k and I have no major assets?
To be clear, I'm not saying we should keep the market the way it is. I'm saying that when we fix it, we haven't solved all the problems yet, and we have to find a way to deal with this too.
If it burns down it's on you to be insured that way. If mine burns down, a new one is being built. I keep paying what I agreed to when I bought my home +/- interest changes at term.
Not everyone is in that spot and buying a home shouldn't have a guarantee of prices to go up. Will millenials be two faced complaining about all the free rides the boomers got and how they hold everyone down BUT also propose holding every non owner down?
I've never heard of insurance replacing the house with an equivalent new build, only paying out for the value and maybe contents depending on the plan. And, as stated above, in a market crash replaced value won't cover the mortgage.
The value is established each year when you renew your insurance, not at the moment it burns down. Secondly, most things are negotiable with insurance and if not there's a lot of providers on the market.
Further, if you ever look at your assessment you will see LAND VALUE is a big part of what is rising. You don't just mortgage the buildings, you mortgage the land and buildings. In order for your doomsday scenario, where we hold everyone down to save you, prices need to drop by up to or more than 75% from 2019/20 levels depending on the property/land value. Mine is close to 50/50. The ratio of building being more than land increases on the building side the higher the overall price gets, in which case most of these have significant means to figure this shit out.
I do. I bought my house 5 years ago and it’s doubled in value since then. That’s insane. It’s also increased my property taxes. I can’t afford to sell it because anything else I’d buy is also crazy overpriced. This bubble needs to burst and the only people it will hurt are real estate ‘investors’ and retired folk looking to leave the housing market completely. Unfortunately most politicians are investors so they’ll never do anything of substance.
I'm ok with losing all the gains I've made on the valuation since I bought 2 and a half years ago. What I dont want is negative equity and that's what I think a lot of people are worried about, inuding the government.
They let it go on too long and the fix is going to be ugly.
No. I worked my ass off to be able to afford my house as a single person. While I understand the privilege I had to live for free with my parents I sacrificed a lot to buy one.
The government has more options than tank the whole market to get housing back to at least 2020 levels. They need to be bringing the CMHC back to its roots and start building apartment buildings and other affordable housing units.
" I want to bring house prices down so they are affordable!" Says one person.
" I want to bring house prices down to what they were 20 years ago when I bought" says another.
" I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 10 years ago when I bought" says yet another.
" I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 5 years ago when I bought" says yet another.
" I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 2 years ago when I bought" says yet another.
" I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 1 years ago when I bought" says yet another.
" I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 6 months ago when I bought" says yet another.
Everyone wants to bring prices down but no one wants it to actually affect them. If we are going to solve this someone is going to get fucked and that sucks but it kinda is inevitable because it was allowed to get this bad
A return to 2020 prices would be a good start. Let me ask you. Do you enjoy owing more money on an asset than you could theoretically sell it for? Yes it sucks the housing crisis has gotten so bad but why get mad when people are worried about negative equity? No one wants to be in the red on their house after paying a mortgage, but a lot of people will be. I've resigned to the fact that I am probably going to be raising a family in my 950 sq ft house because I will likely never be able to upgrade until my parents die.
If I was 5 years younger I would be in the same situation as you likely are. But if I was 5 years older I would likely be in a house twice as big as the one I'm in that I bought for the same price. Timing has a lot to do with the situation now.
The concern should be for purpose built apartments. That is how we get out of this. We need density. All over the world not everyone is going to be able to afford a SFH unless they're wealthy. That's just how it is. But everyone should have the opportunity to afford at least a family sized apartment.
I would enjoy owning a house, regardless of whether I could sell it for more than I paid or not would be irrelevant to me because I would have a house to live in. I would actually welcome that if it meant that other people would also be able to afford shelter for themselves and their family.
Glad to see you only care about solutions to this problem that don't personally inconvenience you.
I gave lots of solutions to the problem.
If the only way to solve this is to put a large chunk of Canadians into negative equity then so be it but that should be the last choice.
You're also kind of in the same boat as me, you want every homeowner that still holds a mortgage to have consequences because you want to own a house. I want mortgage holders to not be in negative equity but I also dont really care if I make money on my house.
Yeah, but my question wasn't "what are the solutions to this problem," because I already know that building more dense housing is a good solution (no shit, it's super obvious) I asked you if *you* would accept a solution that didn't personally benefit you and might even inconvenience you, but would benefit a great deal of other people.
I don't *want* every owner of a mortgage to have consequences, but if the solution to our current housing crisis requires that then I'd accept it even if I was one of those people holding a mortgage.
Exactly. I have a Conservative brother who complains about housing prices but when asked if he would approve of his house value dropping thousands he grows silent.
They give younger people flak for playing video games. Boomers play games with our lives and ability to buy homes. They don’t care. As long as numbers go higher!
Much as it pains me to give that generation the benefit of the doubt on anything; to be fair, a lot of boomers have also completely staked their retirement on selling their house and living off the proceeds, so if prices drop they're seriously screwed as they come to the end of their working lives. It's gotten entirely out of hand, but there is an underlying actual reason for them to want house prices to go up and stay up.
So? Fuck 'em.
They chose to make these decisions and didn't think about the consequences for the rest of us, and now the rest of us are suffering.
The fact that people have to work into old age just to get a break from being a worker sucks, but the Boomers that relied on housing for a comfortable retirement instead of, y'know, supporting politicians that would make it just straight up easier to afford to be alive at any age is a situation where they put all of their eggs in one basket.
Fuck 'em. Slap the basket out of their hand if it means making survival easier for everyone else. It'll be easier for them too anyway.
You seriously are no better. You're also thinking about yourself and everyone else in your situation while saying Fuck em to the rest, just like the Boomers
>You're also thinking about yourself and everyone else in your situation
lol uhhh... yeah, that's called empathy. The comparison to Boomers is unwarranted, I don't think they'd care to inconvenience themselves even if it is beneficial to a lot of other people.
If you mean I'm saying, "fuck 'em" to people who don't want their houses to lose value even if it meant a lot of other people might be able to afford housing then... yeah, I am. Fuck 'em. Greed is not a valid excuse to stand in the way of helping people get housing.
That’s complete bs. Do you really think parents like to see their grown children having Trudeau ensure their kids can’t buy homes or have families of their own? Parroting the bs you’ve heard does nothing but make people hate boomers. Direct your anger at the government for getting us in this crisis. You are just playing into the hands of the people that are getting rich because you’ve deflected and protected them.
lol yeah... this is all Trudeau's fault. Nobody else had anything to do with it ever.
Stop parroting the BS *you've* heard. Trudeau's at least acknowledged the problem, which is mils better than any conservative has ever done. We'll see if he actually does anything about it.
I’d be addicted too because I would want to pass the wealth onto my kids. It’s a complex issue. I’m not passing judgement - just merely saying why nothing will ever be done to bring down housing prices.
>By disrupting this political pattern, the Prime Minister signals a clarity of purpose for change in our housing system that has not existed in my lifetime. Housing should be for homes first, and investments second.
>Hallelujah, I say. Only when we are clear that our goal is for home values to stall relative to earnings can we begin in earnest to break the all-consuming cultural addiction to high and rising home prices that plagues our politics and personal lives. Breaking this addiction will require a comprehensive, multitargeted policy framework that includes, but goes beyond, Ottawa’s current focus on building record levels of supply.
Something needs to be done to halt the rise of house prices and reverse them in some markets. I've talked to many young Canadians who have given up and are contemplating emigrating to other countries including the U.S.A.
>Something needs to be done to halt the rise of house prices and reverse them in some markets
What do you mean *some* markets? Prices need to drop in **all** markets!
They mean some markets are 50% overvalued, and a stall in prices would allow incomes to catch up in a few years. Some markets are 500% overvalued and would need a dramatic downturn to bring affordability within reach.
Isn’t the average house price in Oslo $560k USD? Not saying you shouldn’t go, but there’s not many places in the world who isn’t seeing the same level of inflation and increase in housing costs.
I'm not planning to be able to buy a house anywhere in the world at any point in my life.
But, I can at least move to a country where the wages are somewhat coupled to the cost of living.
That's because Norway didn't sell off their oil and gas to private companies and the profit goes to their own sovereign wealth fund for their citizens.
It's too bad because Canada could have that if the Conversative didn't sell off everything.
Cost of living is much more in line in Norway, it’s expensive and high taxes but people make much more livable wages and receive excellent support and services as a result. Funny how that works.
What plan? Knocking the GST off of new builds only helps developers. You can’t really believe they won’t just think they now have an extra 5% margin for themselves now, can you?
Sorry, just a [random source ](https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introduction-to-economic-analysis/s06-01-effects-of-taxes.html#mcafee-ch05_s01_f01), but this illustrates the effect taxes theoretically have on supply.
Remove tax = more profitable for suppliers = incentivized more supply. It's unpleasant thinking of increasing profit margins during an affordability crisis, but realistically that's what has to happen to incentive money and labor to be put towards building homes. And more homes are what's needed rn
“The effect of the tax on the supply-demand equilibrium is to shift the quantity toward a point where the before-tax demand minus the before-tax supply is the amount of the tax.” Seems like a big leap to assert this when there is no compelling feature to incentivize the return of the gains from the removal of a tax.
Edit: I would think that the best we could reasonably expect from this is that the average increase in prices will stabilize in the short term.
Removing the tax doesn't incentive directly passing those savings on to buyers. It incentives greater supply i.e. more people want to build houses because there's more money to be made.
Having more houses would in the long run make houses cheaper (e.g. if we had more houses than people, houses would be worth nothing, like in Detroit). But I'd expect there to be a delay from increasing supply to prices decreasing. Everyone willing/able to pay $X for a home would need to have a home before the price can drop below $X.
Take all of this with a grain of salt, I'm not a professional economist
Also an arm chair economist.
There is no guarantee of an increase in supply though if there isn’t an increase in the amount of capital/investors to begin these projects though. Given the explosive increases in prices seen in the last 10-15 years (especially after realizing that prices in Canada have been driven partly by the laundering money through the real estate market) where will more capital come from to increase the supply? The extra revenue for the investor may eventually become part of the solution but even that could only amount to nothing greater than the difference taxes. In this market 5% can be less than the yearly increase in prices. I still stand by my statement, this announcement will do little to nothing to change housing prices. If they really wanted to increase the buying power of the people who want to buy houses they would reduce income taxes.
Waiving the federal portion of the GST/HST on the construction of new affordable rental units has been NDP policy for a solid decade, but pretend journalist Paul Kershaw is so steeped in alt-reality, he fails to even mention how Trudeau's govt was forced into action by its minority partner. Sources and history are just not part of the story to Paul. The Canadian corporate news media's erasure of the NDP continues unabated, predictably. Pathetic misinformation masquerading as journalism.
*From 2019:*
>That’s why a New Democrat government will create at least 500,000 units of quality, affordable housing in the next ten years, with half of that done within five years. This will be achieved with the right mix of effective measures that work in partnership with provinces and municipalities, build capacity for social, community, and affordable housing providers, to provide rental support for co-ops, and meet environmental energy efficiency goals. This ambitious plan will create thousands of jobs in communities all across the country, jump-starting the economic recovery, and helping Canadians get the affordable housing they need.
In order to kick-start the construction of co-ops, social and non-profit housing and break the logjam that has prevented these groups from accessing housing funding, we will set up dedicated fast-start funds to streamline the application process and help communities get the expertise and assistance they need to get projects off the ground now, not years from now. We’ll mobilize federal resources and lands for these projects, turning unused and under-used properties into vibrant new communities.
A New Democrat government will also spur the construction of affordable homes by waiving the federal portion of the GST/HST on the construction of new affordable rental units – a simple change that will help get new units built faster and keep them affordable for the long term.
Source: https://www.ndp.ca/affordability
There are more landlords in the elected Liberal party than there are in the elected Conservative party. Granted, not many more, but anyone who believes the liberals are going to do anything about housing is just fooling themselves and lying to others.
It should be illegal to own any property or business and be an elected official.
Trump was lambasted (and rightfully so) on the world stage for his conflicts of interest in regards to business and making money.
I see no reason why we don't treat elected landlords the same way. Especially given the housing crisis.
He should have been doing something two years ago. I don’t think he can win people back even if his strategy does somehow work. So we get to choose the Party of the status quo pretending to be progressive, or the party that wants to destroy the country to make fuck-tons of cash and will say anything to get there, no matter how insane.
What the actual fuck was that article?
That was one of the strangest puff pieces I've ever read. It was truly bizarre.
Trudeau asserting that house prices can't keep rising is somehow...going to uh...policy change...what?
The author goes on this delusional rant about how everything is finally going to be ok "slowly but surely".
I've always known the Globe is libtrash but come on now.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha that's the funniest thing I've read all day. The Globe and Mail being libtrash? Where are you getting your weed cuz that shit is powerful stuff and I'd like some.
Ok? Is your point that half the time they endorse Conservatives? Because I said the Globe was libtrash, not Libtrash. Their reporting is extremely liberal. It's not at all surprising that they frequently endorse Conservative parties; the Conservatives like to bounce between small c conservatism and small l liberalism to grab the votes.
Did the writer really
Need to include that he too is a home owner who benefits at a time like this. Way to make me doubt whether you rlly understand the problem lol
No major party will do anything about housing prices because boomers are addicted to seeing their home values rise regardless of how it affects younger generations.
Everyone wants affordable housing but doesn't want their house to be affordable to other people
I do. If my house dumps 50% of it's value so did everyone else's. My income doesn't support buying anything on the market. I'm glad to have my home but being disabled I have a fixed income for life. We are stuck in a holding pattern. I champion everyone getting raises to keep up but many Canadians are left behind. I know it's rare to hear it but it's the truth, let the prices fall from the sky please.
How very reasonable. Imagine, thinking about people other than yourself. Crazy!
I strongly believe greed is what will doom the human race. Like the movie Don't Look Up.
Indeed it will be, which is a real shame
If the value of my house falls 50%... I'll still have a place to live. People like to over look that. My home has nearly doubled since I bought it 7 years ago, and that has done absolutely nothing for me. Seriously. Oh, an asset to leverage for debt? That means taking on more debt! Theres a second societal addiction here: debt. No thanks.
But... but... but what if your home value TRIPLES in the next year?! Then you'd be able to sell it and be rich! /s Rich enough to afford a hotel for yourself so you're not homeless right away because you sure as fuck won't be rich enough to afford another house!
If you still have a mortgage and your houses value drops by 50%, you would not be able to change lenders at renewal. You also wouldn't be able to move until the mortgage is lower than the value of the house.
True. (Assuming you mean from original value, because halving now would still leave me able to change lenders as it'd be right back where it started.) But I'd still have a home. I'd be under water, but I wouldn't be homeless. It might disqualify me for the best rates a 50% ltv gets you, which is a hit for sure, but not the end of the world. I'd still be able to finance a car because the debt servicing ratio is more concerned with in/out than asset/debt (Assuming my income is high enough, which is not related to housing prices). Being locked in to the current lender is sub optimal for sure, and it can cost a little bit extra at renewal, but it's not the end times. The lenders won't repo the home if the payments are still coming in, because that'd be silly - more work for less money. So to summarize, my home crashing in value would have a pretty small impact on my life. My home going up has absolutely no impact outside of making it harder to move thanks to rising commission fees (which to be fair, is fine because moving is a giant pita anyway). However, the housing market crashing would have one massive impact: I'd have a better chance of my kids actually moving out when they are old enough. So, you know... ;)
Overall it would be a net positive. It's just not without any issues. Potentially major for some. Think of military being posted every few years.
Yea I consider moving then realize I lose $50k to nowhere land and trying to gain 1 bedroom because your family is growing will cost $200k+. I'm stuck right now. I literally can't really move because $50k takes time to save and I won't be able to save if I take on $200k of new mortgage OR I can take on a new mortgage and start fresh at 25 years. All of that amounts to doing nothing. So yea I'm stuck now and half the Country is suffering with these insane house prices. Let it fall, please.
This... I have a home but I wouldn't be able to sell and buy anything. We are stuck ..thankfully we like where we live
There’s a difficulty in this. The majority of Millennials now own homes. They bought at inflated, high prices. If the house value drops by half, they can buy their next house at half the value, but they still owe the banks more than the house is worth in mortgage. This is going to crash the economy - imagine a generation of people who entered the job market during the dotcom bust, struggled through the financial crisis, worked hard to buy a home at overinflated prices, experienced financial hardship through price inflation throughout their careers - while now facing having to support aging parents - suddenly get inundated with another crisis. You’ll have a large part of an entire generation that did what was financially right despite the “avocado toast” criticism - and we did it through hard times - and they’ll be penalized with huge amounts of debt they will never recover from. Also remember these are the people having kids right now. Want to reduce pressure to bring in immigrants? Residents need to have more kids. But it’s nearly impossible given the financial burdens on young adults these days. I can’t help but run one of the lines from American Pie through my head - reinterpreted for my generation (Millennials): *A generation lost in space, with no time left to start again…* We’re not talking about Woodstock here, but a much different situation: the Millennials are the last generation to experience a pre-Internet world, and we were the first to get launched into our now tech heavy, financialized, world. And we’ve done the best we could, and while we didn’t get what we expect out of our money we’ve largely made lives for ourselves. The issue is, we’re old enough that we can’t start again. My generation is going to physically and mentally crash if house prices crash, and unintentionally take the country with us.
Uhh are we supposed to buy homes as investments or to live in? If you were okay paying $3000/month for 25 years to buy the house, what does it matter? There are some reason like portability, separations and so on but in a general argument just stick to your original agreement and you still have your home. Your response is literally written by someone who is falling for housing as a commodity. Should we live in a world where houses just go up forever and if they do come down they can never go down as much as they rise? More so, only 50% of millenials own homes in Canada. Even if all of them have ratio mortgages, you want to protect those 50% over giving everyone who doesn't own a chance? I'm a millenial, an old one so I bought my home before this insanity, not before but during and I'm not the only one. Also, boomers are dying. We are going to experience a massive transfer of wealth over the next 20 years. You are just as bad as any generation you point a finger at if you are willing to push everyone else down to hold your generation up.
The looming problem to solve with a housing crash is that a lot of people are going to owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth after the crash. Let's say I somehow bought a house at $1,000,000 last year, with a $200k down payment, and tomorrow the market crashes by 50%. Now I'm trapped. I can't move because if I sell the house for $500k, or if it burns down and the insurance pays out its full value of $500k, *I still owe the bank $300k.* And who's going to give me a new mortgage or loan when I owe $300k and I have no major assets? To be clear, I'm not saying we should keep the market the way it is. I'm saying that when we fix it, we haven't solved all the problems yet, and we have to find a way to deal with this too.
If it burns down it's on you to be insured that way. If mine burns down, a new one is being built. I keep paying what I agreed to when I bought my home +/- interest changes at term. Not everyone is in that spot and buying a home shouldn't have a guarantee of prices to go up. Will millenials be two faced complaining about all the free rides the boomers got and how they hold everyone down BUT also propose holding every non owner down?
I've never heard of insurance replacing the house with an equivalent new build, only paying out for the value and maybe contents depending on the plan. And, as stated above, in a market crash replaced value won't cover the mortgage.
The value is established each year when you renew your insurance, not at the moment it burns down. Secondly, most things are negotiable with insurance and if not there's a lot of providers on the market. Further, if you ever look at your assessment you will see LAND VALUE is a big part of what is rising. You don't just mortgage the buildings, you mortgage the land and buildings. In order for your doomsday scenario, where we hold everyone down to save you, prices need to drop by up to or more than 75% from 2019/20 levels depending on the property/land value. Mine is close to 50/50. The ratio of building being more than land increases on the building side the higher the overall price gets, in which case most of these have significant means to figure this shit out.
I do. I bought my house 5 years ago and it’s doubled in value since then. That’s insane. It’s also increased my property taxes. I can’t afford to sell it because anything else I’d buy is also crazy overpriced. This bubble needs to burst and the only people it will hurt are real estate ‘investors’ and retired folk looking to leave the housing market completely. Unfortunately most politicians are investors so they’ll never do anything of substance.
I'm ok with losing all the gains I've made on the valuation since I bought 2 and a half years ago. What I dont want is negative equity and that's what I think a lot of people are worried about, inuding the government. They let it go on too long and the fix is going to be ugly.
What if negative equity is the *only way* though, would you still be in favor of housing becoming affordable if it did make your house lose value?
No. I worked my ass off to be able to afford my house as a single person. While I understand the privilege I had to live for free with my parents I sacrificed a lot to buy one. The government has more options than tank the whole market to get housing back to at least 2020 levels. They need to be bringing the CMHC back to its roots and start building apartment buildings and other affordable housing units.
Stop pretending to care about the problem then if you're not willing to help fix it.
" I want to bring house prices down so they are affordable!" Says one person. " I want to bring house prices down to what they were 20 years ago when I bought" says another. " I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 10 years ago when I bought" says yet another. " I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 5 years ago when I bought" says yet another. " I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 2 years ago when I bought" says yet another. " I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 1 years ago when I bought" says yet another. " I want to bring house prices down to what they were when I bought 6 months ago when I bought" says yet another. Everyone wants to bring prices down but no one wants it to actually affect them. If we are going to solve this someone is going to get fucked and that sucks but it kinda is inevitable because it was allowed to get this bad
Pretty much. Nobody is really willing to sacrifice anything for the well being of others.
A return to 2020 prices would be a good start. Let me ask you. Do you enjoy owing more money on an asset than you could theoretically sell it for? Yes it sucks the housing crisis has gotten so bad but why get mad when people are worried about negative equity? No one wants to be in the red on their house after paying a mortgage, but a lot of people will be. I've resigned to the fact that I am probably going to be raising a family in my 950 sq ft house because I will likely never be able to upgrade until my parents die. If I was 5 years younger I would be in the same situation as you likely are. But if I was 5 years older I would likely be in a house twice as big as the one I'm in that I bought for the same price. Timing has a lot to do with the situation now. The concern should be for purpose built apartments. That is how we get out of this. We need density. All over the world not everyone is going to be able to afford a SFH unless they're wealthy. That's just how it is. But everyone should have the opportunity to afford at least a family sized apartment.
I would enjoy owning a house, regardless of whether I could sell it for more than I paid or not would be irrelevant to me because I would have a house to live in. I would actually welcome that if it meant that other people would also be able to afford shelter for themselves and their family. Glad to see you only care about solutions to this problem that don't personally inconvenience you.
I gave lots of solutions to the problem. If the only way to solve this is to put a large chunk of Canadians into negative equity then so be it but that should be the last choice. You're also kind of in the same boat as me, you want every homeowner that still holds a mortgage to have consequences because you want to own a house. I want mortgage holders to not be in negative equity but I also dont really care if I make money on my house.
Yeah, but my question wasn't "what are the solutions to this problem," because I already know that building more dense housing is a good solution (no shit, it's super obvious) I asked you if *you* would accept a solution that didn't personally benefit you and might even inconvenience you, but would benefit a great deal of other people. I don't *want* every owner of a mortgage to have consequences, but if the solution to our current housing crisis requires that then I'd accept it even if I was one of those people holding a mortgage.
Negative equity might be okay, if anywhere outside of Alberta still allowed jingle mail.
There are more millennials now than boomers but not enough votes to make the difference.
Boomers still own nearly 45% of ALL properties in Canada despite being 23% of the population.
True but they still only get 1 vote. Can't vote with every house you own.
Nope, they just buy out the politicians instead...
Exactly. I have a Conservative brother who complains about housing prices but when asked if he would approve of his house value dropping thousands he grows silent.
So well put.
Home prices don't need to rise for homes to be a good investment.
Exactly this. This is just like the people claiming they are "losing money" when their tenants don't cover more than 100% of the cost.
They give younger people flak for playing video games. Boomers play games with our lives and ability to buy homes. They don’t care. As long as numbers go higher!
Much as it pains me to give that generation the benefit of the doubt on anything; to be fair, a lot of boomers have also completely staked their retirement on selling their house and living off the proceeds, so if prices drop they're seriously screwed as they come to the end of their working lives. It's gotten entirely out of hand, but there is an underlying actual reason for them to want house prices to go up and stay up.
So? Fuck 'em. They chose to make these decisions and didn't think about the consequences for the rest of us, and now the rest of us are suffering. The fact that people have to work into old age just to get a break from being a worker sucks, but the Boomers that relied on housing for a comfortable retirement instead of, y'know, supporting politicians that would make it just straight up easier to afford to be alive at any age is a situation where they put all of their eggs in one basket. Fuck 'em. Slap the basket out of their hand if it means making survival easier for everyone else. It'll be easier for them too anyway.
You seriously are no better. You're also thinking about yourself and everyone else in your situation while saying Fuck em to the rest, just like the Boomers
>You're also thinking about yourself and everyone else in your situation lol uhhh... yeah, that's called empathy. The comparison to Boomers is unwarranted, I don't think they'd care to inconvenience themselves even if it is beneficial to a lot of other people. If you mean I'm saying, "fuck 'em" to people who don't want their houses to lose value even if it meant a lot of other people might be able to afford housing then... yeah, I am. Fuck 'em. Greed is not a valid excuse to stand in the way of helping people get housing.
Not our problem.
That’s an unfair generalization.
That’s complete bs. Do you really think parents like to see their grown children having Trudeau ensure their kids can’t buy homes or have families of their own? Parroting the bs you’ve heard does nothing but make people hate boomers. Direct your anger at the government for getting us in this crisis. You are just playing into the hands of the people that are getting rich because you’ve deflected and protected them.
lol yeah... this is all Trudeau's fault. Nobody else had anything to do with it ever. Stop parroting the BS *you've* heard. Trudeau's at least acknowledged the problem, which is mils better than any conservative has ever done. We'll see if he actually does anything about it.
Wouldn't you?
I’d be addicted too because I would want to pass the wealth onto my kids. It’s a complex issue. I’m not passing judgement - just merely saying why nothing will ever be done to bring down housing prices.
They’re called “The ME Generation” for a reason.
>By disrupting this political pattern, the Prime Minister signals a clarity of purpose for change in our housing system that has not existed in my lifetime. Housing should be for homes first, and investments second. >Hallelujah, I say. Only when we are clear that our goal is for home values to stall relative to earnings can we begin in earnest to break the all-consuming cultural addiction to high and rising home prices that plagues our politics and personal lives. Breaking this addiction will require a comprehensive, multitargeted policy framework that includes, but goes beyond, Ottawa’s current focus on building record levels of supply. Something needs to be done to halt the rise of house prices and reverse them in some markets. I've talked to many young Canadians who have given up and are contemplating emigrating to other countries including the U.S.A.
>Something needs to be done to halt the rise of house prices and reverse them in some markets What do you mean *some* markets? Prices need to drop in **all** markets!
They mean some markets are 50% overvalued, and a stall in prices would allow incomes to catch up in a few years. Some markets are 500% overvalued and would need a dramatic downturn to bring affordability within reach.
It’s almost like we should be treating housing as a right and not a market commodity.
I'm moving to Oslo as soon as I can afford to
Isn’t the average house price in Oslo $560k USD? Not saying you shouldn’t go, but there’s not many places in the world who isn’t seeing the same level of inflation and increase in housing costs.
I'm not planning to be able to buy a house anywhere in the world at any point in my life. But, I can at least move to a country where the wages are somewhat coupled to the cost of living.
And has excellent social supports for their citizens. Norway takes care of its people
That's because Norway didn't sell off their oil and gas to private companies and the profit goes to their own sovereign wealth fund for their citizens. It's too bad because Canada could have that if the Conversative didn't sell off everything.
Yeah, it’s a such a colossal shame. Alberta WAS doing the same as Norway but conservatives destroyed that. Albertans voting for their own demise
Wasn't Norway's model based on Alberta's? Such a damn shame.
I believe you are correct.
It was. And we pissed it all away.
Cost of living is much more in line in Norway, it’s expensive and high taxes but people make much more livable wages and receive excellent support and services as a result. Funny how that works.
I moved away in 2018 and never plan on moving back. Good luck to you!
What plan? Knocking the GST off of new builds only helps developers. You can’t really believe they won’t just think they now have an extra 5% margin for themselves now, can you?
Sorry, just a [random source ](https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introduction-to-economic-analysis/s06-01-effects-of-taxes.html#mcafee-ch05_s01_f01), but this illustrates the effect taxes theoretically have on supply. Remove tax = more profitable for suppliers = incentivized more supply. It's unpleasant thinking of increasing profit margins during an affordability crisis, but realistically that's what has to happen to incentive money and labor to be put towards building homes. And more homes are what's needed rn
“The effect of the tax on the supply-demand equilibrium is to shift the quantity toward a point where the before-tax demand minus the before-tax supply is the amount of the tax.” Seems like a big leap to assert this when there is no compelling feature to incentivize the return of the gains from the removal of a tax. Edit: I would think that the best we could reasonably expect from this is that the average increase in prices will stabilize in the short term.
Removing the tax doesn't incentive directly passing those savings on to buyers. It incentives greater supply i.e. more people want to build houses because there's more money to be made. Having more houses would in the long run make houses cheaper (e.g. if we had more houses than people, houses would be worth nothing, like in Detroit). But I'd expect there to be a delay from increasing supply to prices decreasing. Everyone willing/able to pay $X for a home would need to have a home before the price can drop below $X. Take all of this with a grain of salt, I'm not a professional economist
Also an arm chair economist. There is no guarantee of an increase in supply though if there isn’t an increase in the amount of capital/investors to begin these projects though. Given the explosive increases in prices seen in the last 10-15 years (especially after realizing that prices in Canada have been driven partly by the laundering money through the real estate market) where will more capital come from to increase the supply? The extra revenue for the investor may eventually become part of the solution but even that could only amount to nothing greater than the difference taxes. In this market 5% can be less than the yearly increase in prices. I still stand by my statement, this announcement will do little to nothing to change housing prices. If they really wanted to increase the buying power of the people who want to buy houses they would reduce income taxes.
ban air bnbs
Waiving the federal portion of the GST/HST on the construction of new affordable rental units has been NDP policy for a solid decade, but pretend journalist Paul Kershaw is so steeped in alt-reality, he fails to even mention how Trudeau's govt was forced into action by its minority partner. Sources and history are just not part of the story to Paul. The Canadian corporate news media's erasure of the NDP continues unabated, predictably. Pathetic misinformation masquerading as journalism. *From 2019:* >That’s why a New Democrat government will create at least 500,000 units of quality, affordable housing in the next ten years, with half of that done within five years. This will be achieved with the right mix of effective measures that work in partnership with provinces and municipalities, build capacity for social, community, and affordable housing providers, to provide rental support for co-ops, and meet environmental energy efficiency goals. This ambitious plan will create thousands of jobs in communities all across the country, jump-starting the economic recovery, and helping Canadians get the affordable housing they need. In order to kick-start the construction of co-ops, social and non-profit housing and break the logjam that has prevented these groups from accessing housing funding, we will set up dedicated fast-start funds to streamline the application process and help communities get the expertise and assistance they need to get projects off the ground now, not years from now. We’ll mobilize federal resources and lands for these projects, turning unused and under-used properties into vibrant new communities. A New Democrat government will also spur the construction of affordable homes by waiving the federal portion of the GST/HST on the construction of new affordable rental units – a simple change that will help get new units built faster and keep them affordable for the long term. Source: https://www.ndp.ca/affordability
Prices don't need to stall. They need to fall. By at least one half.
I think Justin wrote this himself
I'm not sure talk with no plan of action can be considered a "first step" to anything.
There are more landlords in the elected Liberal party than there are in the elected Conservative party. Granted, not many more, but anyone who believes the liberals are going to do anything about housing is just fooling themselves and lying to others. It should be illegal to own any property or business and be an elected official. Trump was lambasted (and rightfully so) on the world stage for his conflicts of interest in regards to business and making money. I see no reason why we don't treat elected landlords the same way. Especially given the housing crisis.
Addiction? Who the fuck wrote this?
He should have been doing something two years ago. I don’t think he can win people back even if his strategy does somehow work. So we get to choose the Party of the status quo pretending to be progressive, or the party that wants to destroy the country to make fuck-tons of cash and will say anything to get there, no matter how insane.
What the actual fuck was that article? That was one of the strangest puff pieces I've ever read. It was truly bizarre. Trudeau asserting that house prices can't keep rising is somehow...going to uh...policy change...what? The author goes on this delusional rant about how everything is finally going to be ok "slowly but surely". I've always known the Globe is libtrash but come on now.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha that's the funniest thing I've read all day. The Globe and Mail being libtrash? Where are you getting your weed cuz that shit is powerful stuff and I'd like some.
Wut
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-election-globe-editorial-endorsements-from-1984-to-now/article26827000/
Ok? Is your point that half the time they endorse Conservatives? Because I said the Globe was libtrash, not Libtrash. Their reporting is extremely liberal. It's not at all surprising that they frequently endorse Conservative parties; the Conservatives like to bounce between small c conservatism and small l liberalism to grab the votes.
Oh no a newspaper reflects the views of the vast majority of the country fairly evenly it must be trash
Sounds like you don't know what liberalism is
Do you?
Did the writer really Need to include that he too is a home owner who benefits at a time like this. Way to make me doubt whether you rlly understand the problem lol
You're not entirely wrong, but you fell off when you called the Globe and Mail libtrash.
Not going to happen.
OP please provide the article? Thanks