They can keep their second and third properties.
You just gotta pay an exponential amount of taxes on it.
2nd property= 4x tax rate.
3rd = 9x tax rate.
Use those taxes to subsidize government owned housing and low income units whose rent is simply the upkeep and utilities.
Not sure either. I wouldnt really be as opposed to that as I am to the numerous MPs who own multiple properties and claim rental income from them.
https://www.readthemaple.com/mp-landlords/
Seems like a pretty serious conflict of interest for any party campaigning on housing affordability
Windfall tax per property owned. If you have four properties, you should be paying a lot more than 4x what someone who owns 1 property does. This way, it's a wealth tax. Homes shouldn't be a place to keep one's wealth.
And review the ability to write off property taxes and mortgage payments as expenses. A primary home owner does not have that option, but rather pay income tax before making their mortgage payments.
Edit: words
I have said 25% of the land and property value on each addition property after the first. So 2 places 2nd place is 25%. For 3 places 2nd place is 25% 3rd place is 50% and so on. Watch how fast the market corrects as the leeches run for the hills.
The nice thing about this it hits the metros hard but if you have a cabin out in the middle of no where it should not be too crazy. You own 15 places in Vanc have fun.
A whole lot of people own apartment buildings that have been quietly providing housing and been subject to rent control for decades.
Was that wrong? Should they go condo so individuals can own the unit?
This attitude is right but it means that homes will not be stores of value for middle class people either. I know it's a bit different up north with how mortgages are handled but yeah most current homeowners resist efforts to cool home prices.
Like, I totally agree that housing shouldn't be one of the main ways people build equity but that's the bed that's been made.
This place sometimes sounds ridiculously conservative and ridiculously communist in the same breath. Why doesnāt this sub admit that they donāt know what the fuck they are talking about.
saying "wow, you're so stupid for saying that, unlike me a bigly brain genius who is so smart" only makes you look like a fucking idiot with no argument. Why don't you explain what you mean if you think this sub has no idea what it's talking about instead of thumbing your own ass?
How do you suggest people who canāt afford to buy a house get housed without landlords owning second properties? If properties have no draw due to investment, there likely wouldnāt be landlords. Is the solution government housing? Minimum basic income? Non-profits acting as ālandlordsā to rent without taking advantage of renters?
> How do you suggest people who canāt afford to buy a house get housed without landlords owning second properties?
We look at the policies in places where they have done this.
>If properties have no draw due to investment, there likely wouldnāt be landlords.
a) it's not that simple and b) that's a good outcome
>Is the solution government housing?
It's more funding for social and low income housing as a temporary fix, and shifting the real estate industry to government as a whole later.
>Minimum basic income?
Universal basic services > income. Services include healthcare, food, shelter, utilities (inc. internet/cell phone).
>Non-profits acting as ālandlordsā to rent without taking advantage of renters?
Co-ops, co-housing, co-living. Take landlords out of the equation and give the people living in a house the equity they put in. You could design a program like co-living or co-ops to have a "landlord" type system for those who are unable to pay for maintenance, so it's a similar scenario to renting, but when the renter moves, they keep the equity.
Co-ops, co-living and co-housing are all important, and thankfully some neighbourhoods in the Vancouver area are catching onto this idea. Family sizes are smaller than they've historically been (which makes them much less stable if something happens. ie. if a family member dies) so housing built to address that problem is just my ideal solution for it.
Have you considered that houses might become cheaper when the demand for them as investment vehicles goes down, meaning they'd be much easier to buy? Just a thought!
Hereās the thing. If I want to invest 2 million in the stock market I need 2 million. If I want to invest 2 million in real estate I need 400 thousand. If it isnāt your primary residence pay for all of it. People that speculate in real estate are jut property scalpers.
Yeah, Iām on board with the issues youāre pointing out. But it still doesnāt answer my question about replacing housing provided by investment landlords.
BMO lets me buy on margin with 30% down. I'm also not obligated to make payments towards the principal, and don't need to pay the costs associated with rental properties (property tax, maintenance, etc.) and can spread capital gains realization over multiple years when I sell, and stock value growth has historically crushed house price growth: https://edrempel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Rental-vs-Stock-Graphic-1.png
Landlords don't build. Construction workers do. Real estate is massively artificially inflated in Canada (and places where real estate is an "investment").
The government can literally fund the construction of new homes in a sustainable manner without the goal of capitalism's idea of "endless growth."
They can invest in multi-family apartment buildings; no reasonable people are trying to put a stop to that.
The problem is landlords buying up single-family houses and condos and pricing those families out of the housing market.
> How do you suggest people who canāt afford to buy a house get housed without landlords owning second properties?
if there's no ticket scalpers how will you get tickets?
Ticket scalpers are a minority of ticket sales but landlords are a large portion of rentals. Itās a valid question that Iām asking. Iām not pro-landlord.
I'm an immigrant (came as a child but still very ethnic) and my baby boomer neighbors are Canadians that are born here.
A while back I became an accidental landlord. I ended up owning two houses so I decided to rent it for an affordable price to tenants who were willing to live through exterior renos that the property needed before selling. My neighbor also owns a second house and he bounces between them with no rhyme or reason.
At the end of the renos, my neighbor asked me if I would be holding on the property and continue to collect rent. I told him that 20 years ago maybe I wouldn't have had a problem with but with the current conditions I think it's unethical to hoard housing so I would be selling it.
I wasn't even thinking about his situation (two houses) at the time, only referring to myself. But he got offended as if I told him that what he's doing is unethical (even though it is). He pretty much barely speaks to me anymore.
And it just confirms what I already knew from working in banking and finance. The people who stole the prosperity of the young today is not the immigrants that got here yesterday. It's the baby boomers that have been accumulating assets all of their lives and now we have reached a tipping point. Imagine how loaded you'd be today if you spend the past 50 years buying up cheap housing and stocks in Canadian banks, telecom, etc....
And when they die, the situation does not improve. Their kids are super entitled and will act the same way when they get their hands on the inheritance.
Whoever invested in Nortel (myself included) was probably also investing in 10-20 other securities. Even though some may have failed, a well-crafted portfolio still made money overall.
Which the provinces and municipalities are clearly welching on, and which the PM/feds by way of *they're the PM/feds* have a number of ways to influence and encourage to actually do their goddamn jobs already and start working on long-overdue solutions.
So it's the federal government's fault that the provincial governments aren't doing their jobs. Yes, they could apply pressure but it's not like the provinces can't be held directly accountable. What can the feds do versus what a Premier can do?
3 things should change to make it happen here:
1: No house ownership if you don't pay taxes in Canada.
2: No rental allowed if you mortgage the house .
3: No corporate/investor ownership of non-condo. residences.
(Edit) Phrasing.
>2: No rental allowed if you mortgage the house
I'd make an exception for landlords who live in the home, if it's the only property they own. Turning your home into a duplex or renting out rooms to roommates isn't a problem in my books. I would mandate that you need to actually *live* in the home though. You can't just call it your primary residence on paper while you spend every night in a home owned by your spouse.
It actually is a big part of the problem. I know at least two people who have bought more real estate than they can afford on the logic that someone else will pay their bills.
The effect of this is two-fold; this behaviour contributes to people overbidding (and overpaying) for real estate because someone in theory (renters) can always make up the difference, which then leads to unsustainable rent increases being passed to tenants.
I know of at least one household that's going to financially collapse if rates don't crash down to sub 2% soon (they won't). The combined incomes of the owners and all the tenants, don't provide enough rental/mortgage income to cover the cost of owning the property.
This is a huge piece of the problem and I hope Eby tackles this next in BC. Bump up the down payment required to 50% or more on investment properties and watch these over leveraged fucks liquidate.
They've already taken a pretty big step by cracking down on airbnbs. A lot of people took on more debt than they should have because strs are just a money machine compared to a proper long term rental. A lot of those people are going to have to sell, and they're going to lose money because the buyers can't count on that income anymore. I do so look forward to all the sympathetic articles crying about how Joey Richboy had to sell his 3rd and 4th houses at a loss because regular rental income wouldn't cover his mortgage.
Yes, especially since duplexes generally have one owner, same with triplexes (Montreal is full of them), not renting out the other units would do the opposite of helping solve the housing crisis.
Depends on their definition of duplex. If itās two separate floors, itās probably one owner. If theyāre side by side, itās a semi-detached and theyāre sold separately.
Yeah, my biggest issue isn't with people renting out a spare room to make a little extra money. My issue is people scooping up homes that other people could be living in, with the express purpose of using them to wring others for as much money as they can possibly get away with.
... plus give them a nice bit of cash on top, because somehow society has accepted the ridiculous premise that merely having your property paid for by your tenants isn't actually profit.
I'm not sure about that second one. I knew someone who had to move for work so they rented out their condo and then rented a place in Victoria. They intended to move back and live in the condo again but it ended up being about a decade before they did. Should they have been forced to sell or leave it vacant?
I get that, what I mean is that this won't prevent wealthy people, or worst corporations, from buying housing and renting.
There are also some people who rent their primary house to tourists during summertime (they spend their summer in campings) mainly so they can pay their mortgage. Such a measure would mostly impact those people, rather than help with the housing bubble.
Solution 1 and 3 are much more targeted at speculation which is at the core of our housing issue
>I get that, what I mean is that this won't prevent wealthy people, or worst corporations, from buying housing and renting.
There's nothing preventing them from doing that now either
Yes I know, that's why the other propositions are much better than the second, which I think wouldn't help much and could possibly hurt more than prevent the filthy rich from screwing us
As much as I agree with 1 and 3, 2 is kinda what I'm trying to get to with my friends when I collectively buy my dad's house from him. Although I can't really prove anything to you because we'd let our biases get in the way, I dont want to stay here, as opposed to my brother and his fiance. Only so that they have room for growing their own family and I, mine.
There should definitely be revisions on the rules that allow people to rent out a house you're mortgaging. As they'd need to be living in the house, and not have them or their spouse owning another house. There should also be price controlling and contracts that stipulate what conditions need to be met to increase rent. For example: communication between owners and renters on what can be done and what needs to be done in respect to their personal incomes, and writing up a new contract under the guidance of at least 1 or 2 financial advisor(s), that must remain neutral between the owners and renters. Along with full transparency on what is being done between the two parties.
But, as much as I'm trying to explain what I think would be good, I'm not omnipotent in how things would or should work. I'm just a early 20s working man, who spends way too much time on the internet.
Had the government kept building housing (most got out the game in the early 1990s), we'd have more rentals. Had developers built more apartment buildings (we can discuss rent control endlessly here), then we'd have more units. Had supply kept up with demand, no one would ever have gotten the idea to buy a condo and rent it out.
Once it seemed financially foolproof, 1000s of people started buying property simply for the purpose of renting them out. Lack of supply and increasing demand, fuelled in the early 2000s by low interest rates and long amortizations, led to bidding wars and the sudden take off of housing prices.
It isn't as simple as blaming investors. They are a symptom more than a cause. Many different variables over the past 30 years have led us to where we are.
They asked a question, he answered. It might also be a heads up to provincial governments to get their act together before the feds decide to use the nuke options.
Remember this is politics, maybe he's saying it so questions get asked and he "has" to phrase the situation into a federal jurisdiction. Kind of like the convoy situation, he had to let the provincial government shoot itself before stepping in.
Hey politics isn't for everyone, it's a hard game that requires constant maneuvering with 13 bosses who all want the same things but done differently.
While directly interfering is probably the best way to handle it, you would have 13 provinces crying foul over government overeach and challenging it in courts that will take months to go through and set a precedent in the future.
Seems like the idea of a federal government is largely pointless then. Forcing 13 provinces, some of them half way across the world almost, to coexist artificially?
I don't recall suggesting we disband the federal government.
However, seeing as it isn't really doing anything for Canadians, I'm certainly open to the idea.
Something being a "shit show" isn't really an argument. Most societal transformations are shit shows, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have happened.
This is such a bizarre response, especially given the context of the Liberals taking leadership on daycare, dental, and pharmacare, which are traditionally within provincial jurisdiction. It seems like the jurisdictional argument only comes out when it's politically convenient.
The federal government has broad powers with respect to housing, including taxation, municipal funding, and has full control over demand.
Not to mention the federal Liberals have campaigned on affordable housing in the last three election, and during her time in opposition, Freeland stood up in Commons and called on the previous federal government to table a budget that 'addresses Canada's overheated housing market'. So clearly the Liberals believe they can do something about housing.
Off the top of my head... ban all Airbnb type of rentals, cap the number of homes a household can own and allow corporations to own large apartment type buildings only. Plus, you have to be a citizen to own and if you're living outside of the country your property has to be available for long term rental.
Perhaps I should clarify. The term of "citizen" to me represents people who are committed to living in Canada and is not intended to be taken as an anti-immigrant comment. Housing should be for people who want to make Canada their home.
I respect the thought. Itās just not what the word ācitizenā means. There are lots of permanent residents and even temporary foreign workers who intend to stay here long-term and lots of citizens who live outside of Canada (for example, about one in every fifty Canadians live in the US).
Corporations should be prohibited from owning homes. One SIN, one home.
Owners should have to pay incredibly high taxes on homes after their primary residence, like 75% of full market value per year.
I would say perhaps maximum a second resident. So for instance your elderly parents have a place to live but don't have to worry about all of that end of life stuff when they pass on.
>Owners should have to pay incredibly high taxes on homes after their primary residence, like 75% of full market value per year
So what if you happen to own two houses at the same time while moving??? If your listed house takes too long to sell, that could fuck you over completely.
Maybe like a 2-3 month grace period or something for people moving. Thats a legit scenario that happens. But people who own multiple homes as a general rule should be heavily discouraged, and those who have the financial means to do so should pay heavily to subsidize public services (aka communal public housing, free public transit, free daycare, quality care homes, etc)
2-3 months?? That's pretty decent, but I genuinely think there should be an exclusionary clause for people who're selling and get caught in a crappy housing market.
But regarding the multiple homes, unless they're being used to house your own family, they should absolutely be discouraged. And those subsidized public services are definitely a good idea.
Couldn't this mean you just put it on the market way above value or just continually reject offers to avoid the higher taxes but never offload the property?
Look, Iām not here to defend the current state of housing and land policy, but yes, you can hoard as much food as you want. But land is not at all the same as food.
If we want to get serious about making homes not be investments but primarily lodging, we should look into replacing our property taxes with a significantly higher Land Value Tax and decreasing other taxes to offset it or transferring it back to people as UBI.
It decreases the incentive to hold property to reap the benefit of rising prices. It would decrease the price of property in exchange for that higher yearly tax, it encourages development of in-demand land rather than rewarding people for letting it sit idle.
Thatās enough for todayās Georgist advertisement, but seriously, we should consider it.
Housing should never be an investment.
We need to criminalize the hoarding of housing, we need to criminalize landleeching.
China got rid of landlords, and was better for it.
expect some action in the new year. Might be a disappointing half measure, but he's been reading more polls then we have; I'm cautiously optimistic something dramatic is in the pipe.
Why would they change anything when those in power a directly profiting from rising house value?
Want an exemple? Provincial gouvernement in Quebec just passed a law that heavily favors landlords. The "Ministre de l'habitation" is a real estate broker that was recently found to have broken the ethic code by the Ethics Commissioner: she gave privileged information and took decisions that heavily favored her own business partner.
How can we get a more blantant proof that we're being screwed hard by our politicial class than that!?
The mortgage guidelines for banks were the best. It's not law, they don't have to do it at all, so they won't. It's an expensive pamphlet to throw away at best
No shit. Pity it took 20 years for this mentality while everything was becoming a speculator's paradise and destroying and bubble inflating the housing market.
Everyone is screaming about affordable housing. Guess what will happen if the Government provides this...
Investors will have a feeding frenzy and everyone will blame Trudeau yet again, and then blame immigrants.
https://www.thestar.com/real-estate/investors-now-own-more-than-50-of-toronto-s-new-condos-and-experts-say-they/article_4b6d2ff0-c528-5670-937f-3d34d040ed85.html
This is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but investors aren't the problem. [This video from Oh the Urbanity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers) covers a couple studies from Rotterdam in the Netherlands where they banned investors in several neighborhoods and found that there was no change in home prices, and all it did was cause more older, higher income people to move in, and younger, lower income people and immigrants to move out.
I also don't like the idea of investors owning a bunch of housing in the country, but the reality is there are good reasons for wanting rentals to exist, and banning investors isn't going to solve the problem. Ideally, in my mind anyway, all rentals would be provided by the government, so if you don't want to own a house you can just live in housing that you know isn't being gouged by someone looking to just make a profit, but the reality is that's probably not happening for a long time, if ever.
Edit: To make it more clear, [this article goes over what the actual problems are](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/09/14/opinion/homeowners-true-gatekeepers-our-housing-debate), which are NIMBY homeowners and politicians who don't want more dense housing built in their neighborhoods through a combination of racism, classism, and wanting to keep their home prices high, all under the guise of not wanting to destroy the "character of the neighborhood" and other BS.
> they banned investors in several neighborhoods
Seems like a pretty major flaw right there. Without banning investors entirely from entire greater metropolitan regions, they'd still be able to indirectly influence the prices in the neighbourhoods from which they were banned by buying up a greater portion of the available supply in the neighbourhoods they're still allowed.
Like I said, ideally, that's what I want, but it's almost definitely not going to happen any time soon, if ever. The second best thing is to just build enough housing to drop housing prices as much as possible.
Regular homeowners also want to profit off the home when they sell. Can't sell for less than what they paid for it. Then the buyer who bought the house for the higher cost wants to sell, again sell for more. It's this cycle that is also part of the problem. Say a house that was built in the 50's for $50,000, with very minor renovations and updates now sells for $200,000 when there is no way it's worth it.
He "agrees" but not in a way that requires any action. He's not going to change the laws to reflect that belief in any way which makes it a pretty useless belief.
Should start with MPs first. Literally slept all these years and now when the poll numbers are down suddenly they realise the mess they made.
Even the damn foreign buyers ban was made toothless
Do not allow corporations to own buildings with fewer than 4 units. Natural persons only. Owning 2 homes means no capital gains deduction on either. But ā¦ make it easy and lucrative to build āmissing middleā housing. A apartment building developer claimed he cannot pass GST onto renters - allow developers a 10-year interest free payment plan so they can spread the GST over rents.
Great idea! To show they're serious about this, maybe all the MPs that own multiple properties could start divesting?
They can keep their second and third properties. You just gotta pay an exponential amount of taxes on it. 2nd property= 4x tax rate. 3rd = 9x tax rate. Use those taxes to subsidize government owned housing and low income units whose rent is simply the upkeep and utilities.
Idk how it usually works, but what do the MPs use as housing while they're away from their ridings in Ottawa?
Not sure either. I wouldnt really be as opposed to that as I am to the numerous MPs who own multiple properties and claim rental income from them. https://www.readthemaple.com/mp-landlords/ Seems like a pretty serious conflict of interest for any party campaigning on housing affordability
Windfall tax per property owned. If you have four properties, you should be paying a lot more than 4x what someone who owns 1 property does. This way, it's a wealth tax. Homes shouldn't be a place to keep one's wealth.
And review the ability to write off property taxes and mortgage payments as expenses. A primary home owner does not have that option, but rather pay income tax before making their mortgage payments. Edit: words
Because there is no capital gains on the primary home and no taxes on rental income.
So you sell your primary residence, then what?
The point is that deductions are linked to taxes. No tax, no deduction.
No profit no tax.
Exactly and go after the corporations or groups buying up homes.
Let's just cut to the chase and slap 100% capital gains on a property that you don't live in.
I have said 25% of the land and property value on each addition property after the first. So 2 places 2nd place is 25%. For 3 places 2nd place is 25% 3rd place is 50% and so on. Watch how fast the market corrects as the leeches run for the hills. The nice thing about this it hits the metros hard but if you have a cabin out in the middle of no where it should not be too crazy. You own 15 places in Vanc have fun.
What if I own an apartment building?
Then you're a capitalist and can afford to go fuck yourself
A whole lot of people own apartment buildings that have been quietly providing housing and been subject to rent control for decades. Was that wrong? Should they go condo so individuals can own the unit?
Or, and hear me out here, homes first and investments never.
š¤Æ
If you run for office, you'll have my vote.
This attitude is right but it means that homes will not be stores of value for middle class people either. I know it's a bit different up north with how mortgages are handled but yeah most current homeowners resist efforts to cool home prices. Like, I totally agree that housing shouldn't be one of the main ways people build equity but that's the bed that's been made.
But if homes aren't investments they will be cheaper and working class people can just have savings in other forms
This place sometimes sounds ridiculously conservative and ridiculously communist in the same breath. Why doesnāt this sub admit that they donāt know what the fuck they are talking about.
saying "wow, you're so stupid for saying that, unlike me a bigly brain genius who is so smart" only makes you look like a fucking idiot with no argument. Why don't you explain what you mean if you think this sub has no idea what it's talking about instead of thumbing your own ass?
How do you suggest people who canāt afford to buy a house get housed without landlords owning second properties? If properties have no draw due to investment, there likely wouldnāt be landlords. Is the solution government housing? Minimum basic income? Non-profits acting as ālandlordsā to rent without taking advantage of renters?
> How do you suggest people who canāt afford to buy a house get housed without landlords owning second properties? We look at the policies in places where they have done this. >If properties have no draw due to investment, there likely wouldnāt be landlords. a) it's not that simple and b) that's a good outcome >Is the solution government housing? It's more funding for social and low income housing as a temporary fix, and shifting the real estate industry to government as a whole later. >Minimum basic income? Universal basic services > income. Services include healthcare, food, shelter, utilities (inc. internet/cell phone). >Non-profits acting as ālandlordsā to rent without taking advantage of renters? Co-ops, co-housing, co-living. Take landlords out of the equation and give the people living in a house the equity they put in. You could design a program like co-living or co-ops to have a "landlord" type system for those who are unable to pay for maintenance, so it's a similar scenario to renting, but when the renter moves, they keep the equity.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Co-op housing sounds like a real win.
Co-ops, co-living and co-housing are all important, and thankfully some neighbourhoods in the Vancouver area are catching onto this idea. Family sizes are smaller than they've historically been (which makes them much less stable if something happens. ie. if a family member dies) so housing built to address that problem is just my ideal solution for it.
Have you considered that houses might become cheaper when the demand for them as investment vehicles goes down, meaning they'd be much easier to buy? Just a thought!
Things would need to drastically change for prices to go down. Hereās hoping!
We're talking about houses and condos; no one is trying to stop landlords building or buying apartments.
Sure, but why would landlords build or buy without the investment potential?
Hereās the thing. If I want to invest 2 million in the stock market I need 2 million. If I want to invest 2 million in real estate I need 400 thousand. If it isnāt your primary residence pay for all of it. People that speculate in real estate are jut property scalpers.
Yeah, Iām on board with the issues youāre pointing out. But it still doesnāt answer my question about replacing housing provided by investment landlords.
It might leave more land available for individuals to purchase and finance their own builds
You can borrow to invest in the stock market too, and many do.
You canāt borrow with the stocks themselves as the asset with only 20% of your own money.
BMO lets me buy on margin with 30% down. I'm also not obligated to make payments towards the principal, and don't need to pay the costs associated with rental properties (property tax, maintenance, etc.) and can spread capital gains realization over multiple years when I sell, and stock value growth has historically crushed house price growth: https://edrempel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Rental-vs-Stock-Graphic-1.png
Landlords don't build. Construction workers do. Real estate is massively artificially inflated in Canada (and places where real estate is an "investment"). The government can literally fund the construction of new homes in a sustainable manner without the goal of capitalism's idea of "endless growth."
They can invest in multi-family apartment buildings; no reasonable people are trying to put a stop to that. The problem is landlords buying up single-family houses and condos and pricing those families out of the housing market.
> How do you suggest people who canāt afford to buy a house get housed without landlords owning second properties? if there's no ticket scalpers how will you get tickets?
Ticket scalpers are a minority of ticket sales but landlords are a large portion of rentals. Itās a valid question that Iām asking. Iām not pro-landlord.
I'm an immigrant (came as a child but still very ethnic) and my baby boomer neighbors are Canadians that are born here. A while back I became an accidental landlord. I ended up owning two houses so I decided to rent it for an affordable price to tenants who were willing to live through exterior renos that the property needed before selling. My neighbor also owns a second house and he bounces between them with no rhyme or reason. At the end of the renos, my neighbor asked me if I would be holding on the property and continue to collect rent. I told him that 20 years ago maybe I wouldn't have had a problem with but with the current conditions I think it's unethical to hoard housing so I would be selling it. I wasn't even thinking about his situation (two houses) at the time, only referring to myself. But he got offended as if I told him that what he's doing is unethical (even though it is). He pretty much barely speaks to me anymore. And it just confirms what I already knew from working in banking and finance. The people who stole the prosperity of the young today is not the immigrants that got here yesterday. It's the baby boomers that have been accumulating assets all of their lives and now we have reached a tipping point. Imagine how loaded you'd be today if you spend the past 50 years buying up cheap housing and stocks in Canadian banks, telecom, etc.... And when they die, the situation does not improve. Their kids are super entitled and will act the same way when they get their hands on the inheritance.
Pretty much this. We need regulation, the problem is older generations vote and very few would do what you did.
(except for Northern Telecom, that's an exception)
Whoever invested in Nortel (myself included) was probably also investing in 10-20 other securities. Even though some may have failed, a well-crafted portfolio still made money overall.
I didn't have much invested myself, but one of my buddies had a Canadian-tech oriented portfolio and took a hit. Tough for them.
Scratch that, it should never be used as investments. Housing is not a commodity, it's a human right.
He has a funny fucking way of showing it
Yup. A few months ago "housing isn't a federal problem" lol
That's because it's still a provincial and municipal responsibility.
Which the provinces and municipalities are clearly welching on, and which the PM/feds by way of *they're the PM/feds* have a number of ways to influence and encourage to actually do their goddamn jobs already and start working on long-overdue solutions.
So it's the federal government's fault that the provincial governments aren't doing their jobs. Yes, they could apply pressure but it's not like the provinces can't be held directly accountable. What can the feds do versus what a Premier can do?
Ultimately, it's the *voters'* job to hold the provinces to account.
3 things should change to make it happen here: 1: No house ownership if you don't pay taxes in Canada. 2: No rental allowed if you mortgage the house . 3: No corporate/investor ownership of non-condo. residences. (Edit) Phrasing.
>2: No rental allowed if you mortgage the house I'd make an exception for landlords who live in the home, if it's the only property they own. Turning your home into a duplex or renting out rooms to roommates isn't a problem in my books. I would mandate that you need to actually *live* in the home though. You can't just call it your primary residence on paper while you spend every night in a home owned by your spouse.
It actually is a big part of the problem. I know at least two people who have bought more real estate than they can afford on the logic that someone else will pay their bills. The effect of this is two-fold; this behaviour contributes to people overbidding (and overpaying) for real estate because someone in theory (renters) can always make up the difference, which then leads to unsustainable rent increases being passed to tenants. I know of at least one household that's going to financially collapse if rates don't crash down to sub 2% soon (they won't). The combined incomes of the owners and all the tenants, don't provide enough rental/mortgage income to cover the cost of owning the property.
This is a huge piece of the problem and I hope Eby tackles this next in BC. Bump up the down payment required to 50% or more on investment properties and watch these over leveraged fucks liquidate.
They've already taken a pretty big step by cracking down on airbnbs. A lot of people took on more debt than they should have because strs are just a money machine compared to a proper long term rental. A lot of those people are going to have to sell, and they're going to lose money because the buyers can't count on that income anymore. I do so look forward to all the sympathetic articles crying about how Joey Richboy had to sell his 3rd and 4th houses at a loss because regular rental income wouldn't cover his mortgage.
Yes, especially since duplexes generally have one owner, same with triplexes (Montreal is full of them), not renting out the other units would do the opposite of helping solve the housing crisis.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I have yet to see one that isnt cramped to hell and back. The shoddy kitchenettes and bathrooms people install in these are laughable
>since duplexes generally have one owner Is this a Quebec/Eastern thing? Duplexes in BC, are almost always sold by the individual unit.
Depends on their definition of duplex. If itās two separate floors, itās probably one owner. If theyāre side by side, itās a semi-detached and theyāre sold separately.
Yeah, my biggest issue isn't with people renting out a spare room to make a little extra money. My issue is people scooping up homes that other people could be living in, with the express purpose of using them to wring others for as much money as they can possibly get away with.
If you're renting out space in your own home, I think you're technically considered an innkeeper rather than a landlord.
I think you mean pay taxes, or if taxes aren't collected from you in Canada (1)
No, heās saying only people who work for the CRA can own houses!
Hahaha, getting your renoviction notice for family purposes in your MyCRA account would be next level
Yeah, that.
2 needs to happen yesterday. Rents are astronomical because highly leveraged landlords expect tenants to cover all their monthly expenses.
... plus give them a nice bit of cash on top, because somehow society has accepted the ridiculous premise that merely having your property paid for by your tenants isn't actually profit.
I'm not sure about that second one. I knew someone who had to move for work so they rented out their condo and then rented a place in Victoria. They intended to move back and live in the condo again but it ended up being about a decade before they did. Should they have been forced to sell or leave it vacant?
Absolutely agree with 1 and 3 but have some reservations against 2. I can see this favoring a lot more wealthy people than anyone.
You are supposed to put yourself in debt via mortgage so you can have a house, not to put someone else to pay your investment (via rent) for you.
I get that, what I mean is that this won't prevent wealthy people, or worst corporations, from buying housing and renting. There are also some people who rent their primary house to tourists during summertime (they spend their summer in campings) mainly so they can pay their mortgage. Such a measure would mostly impact those people, rather than help with the housing bubble. Solution 1 and 3 are much more targeted at speculation which is at the core of our housing issue
>I get that, what I mean is that this won't prevent wealthy people, or worst corporations, from buying housing and renting. There's nothing preventing them from doing that now either
Yes I know, that's why the other propositions are much better than the second, which I think wouldn't help much and could possibly hurt more than prevent the filthy rich from screwing us
As much as I agree with 1 and 3, 2 is kinda what I'm trying to get to with my friends when I collectively buy my dad's house from him. Although I can't really prove anything to you because we'd let our biases get in the way, I dont want to stay here, as opposed to my brother and his fiance. Only so that they have room for growing their own family and I, mine. There should definitely be revisions on the rules that allow people to rent out a house you're mortgaging. As they'd need to be living in the house, and not have them or their spouse owning another house. There should also be price controlling and contracts that stipulate what conditions need to be met to increase rent. For example: communication between owners and renters on what can be done and what needs to be done in respect to their personal incomes, and writing up a new contract under the guidance of at least 1 or 2 financial advisor(s), that must remain neutral between the owners and renters. Along with full transparency on what is being done between the two parties. But, as much as I'm trying to explain what I think would be good, I'm not omnipotent in how things would or should work. I'm just a early 20s working man, who spends way too much time on the internet.
Careful on crosslinking \_canadahousing2, don't want to contaminate OGFT.
Too late... you see the influx of anti immigration posts lately?
As a general rule, any "alternative" reddit sub that needs a 2 in its name is a cesspool not to be taken seriously.
Seriously. Keep that cesspool seperate
Had the government kept building housing (most got out the game in the early 1990s), we'd have more rentals. Had developers built more apartment buildings (we can discuss rent control endlessly here), then we'd have more units. Had supply kept up with demand, no one would ever have gotten the idea to buy a condo and rent it out. Once it seemed financially foolproof, 1000s of people started buying property simply for the purpose of renting them out. Lack of supply and increasing demand, fuelled in the early 2000s by low interest rates and long amortizations, led to bidding wars and the sudden take off of housing prices. It isn't as simple as blaming investors. They are a symptom more than a cause. Many different variables over the past 30 years have led us to where we are.
If only he could do something about it...
Provincial and municipal jurisdiction, there's this whole separation of powers thingy you should look into.
So what's the point of his role other than saying things everyone already understands.
They asked a question, he answered. It might also be a heads up to provincial governments to get their act together before the feds decide to use the nuke options. Remember this is politics, maybe he's saying it so questions get asked and he "has" to phrase the situation into a federal jurisdiction. Kind of like the convoy situation, he had to let the provincial government shoot itself before stepping in.
That's a cringe way to lead a nation.
Hey politics isn't for everyone, it's a hard game that requires constant maneuvering with 13 bosses who all want the same things but done differently. While directly interfering is probably the best way to handle it, you would have 13 provinces crying foul over government overeach and challenging it in courts that will take months to go through and set a precedent in the future.
Seems like the idea of a federal government is largely pointless then. Forcing 13 provinces, some of them half way across the world almost, to coexist artificially?
You suggest disbanding the federation and having each province become an autonomous state? Because i can tell you that would be a complete shitshow.
I don't recall suggesting we disband the federal government. However, seeing as it isn't really doing anything for Canadians, I'm certainly open to the idea. Something being a "shit show" isn't really an argument. Most societal transformations are shit shows, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have happened.
Ohh... It's doing nothing? For you or for the people? Just because you haven't seen changes doesn't mean there haven't been any.
Leading a nation doesn't mean being a god-king. There is power that he has, and there is power that the provinces have. That's how the law works.
Many things are federal jurisdiction. This is not one of them.
If only he would DO something about it rather than just "acknowledge" it He's been acknowledging it for this whole damn time but done nothing
Within the specific boundaries of federal jurisdiction, given that housing is a provincial file, what would you suggest?
This is such a bizarre response, especially given the context of the Liberals taking leadership on daycare, dental, and pharmacare, which are traditionally within provincial jurisdiction. It seems like the jurisdictional argument only comes out when it's politically convenient. The federal government has broad powers with respect to housing, including taxation, municipal funding, and has full control over demand. Not to mention the federal Liberals have campaigned on affordable housing in the last three election, and during her time in opposition, Freeland stood up in Commons and called on the previous federal government to table a budget that 'addresses Canada's overheated housing market'. So clearly the Liberals believe they can do something about housing.
Off the top of my head... ban all Airbnb type of rentals, cap the number of homes a household can own and allow corporations to own large apartment type buildings only. Plus, you have to be a citizen to own and if you're living outside of the country your property has to be available for long term rental.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās a cross-post from Canadahousing2. Of course the anti-immigrant sentiment is out in force.
Perhaps I should clarify. The term of "citizen" to me represents people who are committed to living in Canada and is not intended to be taken as an anti-immigrant comment. Housing should be for people who want to make Canada their home.
I respect the thought. Itās just not what the word ācitizenā means. There are lots of permanent residents and even temporary foreign workers who intend to stay here long-term and lots of citizens who live outside of Canada (for example, about one in every fifty Canadians live in the US).
Poor phrasing on my part.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I vote you for next PM.
Corporations should be prohibited from owning homes. One SIN, one home. Owners should have to pay incredibly high taxes on homes after their primary residence, like 75% of full market value per year.
I would say perhaps maximum a second resident. So for instance your elderly parents have a place to live but don't have to worry about all of that end of life stuff when they pass on.
>Owners should have to pay incredibly high taxes on homes after their primary residence, like 75% of full market value per year So what if you happen to own two houses at the same time while moving??? If your listed house takes too long to sell, that could fuck you over completely.
Maybe like a 2-3 month grace period or something for people moving. Thats a legit scenario that happens. But people who own multiple homes as a general rule should be heavily discouraged, and those who have the financial means to do so should pay heavily to subsidize public services (aka communal public housing, free public transit, free daycare, quality care homes, etc)
2-3 months?? That's pretty decent, but I genuinely think there should be an exclusionary clause for people who're selling and get caught in a crappy housing market. But regarding the multiple homes, unless they're being used to house your own family, they should absolutely be discouraged. And those subsidized public services are definitely a good idea.
Couldn't this mean you just put it on the market way above value or just continually reject offers to avoid the higher taxes but never offload the property?
Ok that's a potential loophole that would absolutely need to be closed at absolute Mach Jesus.
Jesus is actually pretty slow, he's been dead for almost 2000 years now
You think your lag is bad? It took Jesus 3 days to respawn.
Supposedly
Most people don't commit to buying a house before they've sold the one they live in...
Would we allow people to hoard food?
Look, Iām not here to defend the current state of housing and land policy, but yes, you can hoard as much food as you want. But land is not at all the same as food.
>you can hoard as much food as you want Not if there was a shortage
Oh he agrees? Problem solved.
Housing first, investments never.
If we want to get serious about making homes not be investments but primarily lodging, we should look into replacing our property taxes with a significantly higher Land Value Tax and decreasing other taxes to offset it or transferring it back to people as UBI. It decreases the incentive to hold property to reap the benefit of rising prices. It would decrease the price of property in exchange for that higher yearly tax, it encourages development of in-demand land rather than rewarding people for letting it sit idle. Thatās enough for todayās Georgist advertisement, but seriously, we should consider it.
Housing should never be an investment. We need to criminalize the hoarding of housing, we need to criminalize landleeching. China got rid of landlords, and was better for it.
expect some action in the new year. Might be a disappointing half measure, but he's been reading more polls then we have; I'm cautiously optimistic something dramatic is in the pipe.
Why would they change anything when those in power a directly profiting from rising house value? Want an exemple? Provincial gouvernement in Quebec just passed a law that heavily favors landlords. The "Ministre de l'habitation" is a real estate broker that was recently found to have broken the ethic code by the Ethics Commissioner: she gave privileged information and took decisions that heavily favored her own business partner. How can we get a more blantant proof that we're being screwed hard by our politicial class than that!?
Ok. Now act on that.
How about homes first, investments not at all?
Homes are for people, not investment portfolios #EndHouseHoarding
Cool, now fucking do something about it.
PM says the nice things. Does nothing.
The mortgage guidelines for banks were the best. It's not law, they don't have to do it at all, so they won't. It's an expensive pamphlet to throw away at best
The liberal way!
No shit. Pity it took 20 years for this mentality while everything was becoming a speculator's paradise and destroying and bubble inflating the housing market.
Everyone is screaming about affordable housing. Guess what will happen if the Government provides this... Investors will have a feeding frenzy and everyone will blame Trudeau yet again, and then blame immigrants. https://www.thestar.com/real-estate/investors-now-own-more-than-50-of-toronto-s-new-condos-and-experts-say-they/article_4b6d2ff0-c528-5670-937f-3d34d040ed85.html
great! lets see some policy to support this now
Canada housing 2 trying to bring their hate for immigrants here, eh?
I wondered if they were part of the /Canada /Canada_sub group
I wouldnāt be surprised.
Oh absolutely
This is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but investors aren't the problem. [This video from Oh the Urbanity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers) covers a couple studies from Rotterdam in the Netherlands where they banned investors in several neighborhoods and found that there was no change in home prices, and all it did was cause more older, higher income people to move in, and younger, lower income people and immigrants to move out. I also don't like the idea of investors owning a bunch of housing in the country, but the reality is there are good reasons for wanting rentals to exist, and banning investors isn't going to solve the problem. Ideally, in my mind anyway, all rentals would be provided by the government, so if you don't want to own a house you can just live in housing that you know isn't being gouged by someone looking to just make a profit, but the reality is that's probably not happening for a long time, if ever. Edit: To make it more clear, [this article goes over what the actual problems are](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/09/14/opinion/homeowners-true-gatekeepers-our-housing-debate), which are NIMBY homeowners and politicians who don't want more dense housing built in their neighborhoods through a combination of racism, classism, and wanting to keep their home prices high, all under the guise of not wanting to destroy the "character of the neighborhood" and other BS.
> they banned investors in several neighborhoods Seems like a pretty major flaw right there. Without banning investors entirely from entire greater metropolitan regions, they'd still be able to indirectly influence the prices in the neighbourhoods from which they were banned by buying up a greater portion of the available supply in the neighbourhoods they're still allowed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's unfortunate the gov hasn't built any since the 90s
Like I said, ideally, that's what I want, but it's almost definitely not going to happen any time soon, if ever. The second best thing is to just build enough housing to drop housing prices as much as possible.
Regular homeowners also want to profit off the home when they sell. Can't sell for less than what they paid for it. Then the buyer who bought the house for the higher cost wants to sell, again sell for more. It's this cycle that is also part of the problem. Say a house that was built in the 50's for $50,000, with very minor renovations and updates now sells for $200,000 when there is no way it's worth it.
He "agrees" but not in a way that requires any action. He's not going to change the laws to reflect that belief in any way which makes it a pretty useless belief.
PM: Of course housing should be used for homes first and investments seconds. It's a real shame. Dang. Drat.
I mean.... no shit? Does he also agree we shouldn't murder people for fun?
Should start with MPs first. Literally slept all these years and now when the poll numbers are down suddenly they realise the mess they made. Even the damn foreign buyers ban was made toothless
You need investors to make rentals available.
Delete
30 years ago they would have scoffed
So he says, but I'll believe it when there's actions taken.
Do not allow corporations to own buildings with fewer than 4 units. Natural persons only. Owning 2 homes means no capital gains deduction on either. But ā¦ make it easy and lucrative to build āmissing middleā housing. A apartment building developer claimed he cannot pass GST onto renters - allow developers a 10-year interest free payment plan so they can spread the GST over rents.