New Canadian Politics Thread

[WellPlayed]

this seems like a bad idea...

Every "solution" to housing is just a bandaid vote-buy that juices demand and contributes to the insane prices.

We needed supply side solutions 15 years ago, but I'll settle for now. Form a commission that includes feds, provinces, municipalities or whoever the fuck, and figure it out already.

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

this seems like a bad idea...

It is. But the banks don't care. They just want to push product. They don't care if you later go bankrupt.

 

[MindzEye]

Every "solution" to housing is just a bandaid vote-buy that juices demand and contributes to the insane prices.

We needed supply side solutions 15 years ago, but I'll settle for now. Form a commission that includes feds, provinces, municipalities or whoever the fuck, and figure it out already.

We're into needing legit drastic measures here. Like repurposing the TFW program to bring in building trades and only building trades for the next bunch of years. I'm pro immigration but Tim Horton's getting an endless supply of cheap labour shouldn't be the point of the program when we have very real problems it could be pushing the ball forward on.

 

[Wayward DP]

I mean this is what happens when you spend years bringing record numbers of new people into Canada (which I strongly support) without building or providing any additional housing or infrastructure. or not nearly enough.

 

[trujaysfan]

I saw that something like 23.5% of housing in ontario is owned by investors.

Solution: individuals (as UBOs) can only own 3 total properties. Primary, vacation/cottage, investment. No corporate ownership of single family homes.

 

[MindzEye]

I saw that something like 23.5% of housing in ontario is owned by investors.

Solution: individuals (as UBOs) can only own 3 total properties. Primary, vacation/cottage, investment. No corporate ownership of single family homes.

So drastic!

 

[LeafGm]

I saw that something like 23.5% of housing in ontario is owned by investors.

Solution: individuals (as UBOs) can only own 3 total properties. Primary, vacation/cottage, investment. No corporate ownership of single family homes.

Yeah. This is 100% the biggest problem. Big corporations hoovering up the single-family homes and then turning around and renting them to the individuals they bullied out of the market at ridiculous prices.

I also have nothing but loathing for real estate bros who make their living entirely off the rental income from their ever-expanding portfolio of properties. These are also usually the same people who parcel up a single house into a dozen illegal & dangerous “apartments” that they rent out room-by-room.

My take is that corporate ownership of single-family homes should be banned outright, and individuals (single person or married couples) should only be allowed to own two residential properties. One primary residence, plus a second that can either be a vacation home or an investment/income property.

 

[trujaysfan]

So drastic!

I know, homes for people and not corporations.

 

[axlsalinger]

It is. But the banks don't care. They just want to push product. They don't care if you later go bankrupt.

I love how every issue is described the same way, reduced to a single entity (the banks) as if it's 1 person and not thousands of people who make decisions, and their opinion reduced to a single thought (they don't care) as if there wasn't thousands of pros, cons, and opinions, and reduced to a single explanation (they just want to push product) rather than thousands of mitigating factors, laws, and outcomes.

 

[MindzEye]

I saw that something like 23.5% of housing in ontario is owned by investors.

Solution: individuals (as UBOs) can only own 3 total properties. Primary, vacation/cottage, investment. No corporate ownership of single family homes.

Investment properties should be required to be multi family. Want to own a sixplex and be a professional landlord? Fill your boots. Want to buy a single family property home and rent it out...no.

Want to make money off of a single family property? Cool. You can rent out portions of your primary residence (rent your basement, legal garden suite, whatever). But single family homes shouldn't be seen as investment properties imo. It does nothing but signal to the market to build more subdivision housing instead of higher density stuff.

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

I love how every issue is described the same way, reduced to a single entity (the banks) as if it's 1 person and not thousands of people who make decisions, and their opinion reduced to a single thought (they don't care) as if there wasn't thousands of pros, cons, and opinions, and reduced to a single explanation (they just want to push product) rather than thousands of mitigating factors, laws, and outcomes.

I worked in banking and so did my brother. My late uncle was a Senior VP at RBC and my late great uncle ran the banking system for the British in the Bahamas during the war. I know about the banking industry. Trust me when I tell you that they don't give a shit about anything other than hitting their numbers. They don't give you financial advice, they try to sell you shit. That's all they do anymore. If a 30 or 35 year amortization helps them sell more mortgages, they're happy. They're also happy to push mortgages on to people who they know damn well can't really afford them. Whatever gets them to their number. But know this: any mortgage of more than 25 years is tempting fate. If the stress test says you can't afford a 25 year mortgage but you can afford one at 30 or 35 years you should not be getting a mortgage, full stop. And any bank that tells you otherwise is doing so because (say it with me) they don't give a god damn whether you live or die.

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

Investment properties should be required to be multi family. Want to own a sixplex and be a professional landlord? Fill your boots. Want to buy a single family property home and rent it out...no.

Want to make money off of a single family property? Cool. You can rent out portions of your primary residence (rent your basement, legal garden suite, whatever). But single family homes shouldn't be seen as investment properties imo. It does nothing but signal to the market to build more subdivision housing instead of higher density stuff.

And no corporation should be owning single family houses either. All they do is hoard real estate to drive up the price. A house exists to be a place to live in, not a thing to make money from through endless flipping. Buy A house, live in THAT house, sell THAT house.

 

[WellPlayed]

It is. But the banks don't care. They just want to push product. They don't care if you later go bankrupt.

I worked in banking and so did my brother. My late uncle was a Senior VP at RBC and my late great uncle ran the banking system for the British in the Bahamas during the war. I know about the banking industry. Trust me when I tell you that they don't give a shit about anything other than hitting their numbers. They don't give you financial advice, they try to sell you shit. That's all they do anymore. If a 30 or 35 year amortization helps them sell more mortgages, they're happy. They're also happy to push mortgages on to people who they know damn well can't really afford them. Whatever gets them to their number. But know this: any mortgage of more than 25 years is tempting fate. If the stress test says you can't afford a 25 year mortgage but you can afford one at 30 or 35 years you should not be getting a mortgage, full stop. And any bank that tells you otherwise is doing so because (say it with me) they don't give a god damn whether you live or die.

Holy fuck that's a lot of keystrokes on the evil banks when this was a policy decision made by the federal government.

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

Holy fuck that's a lot of keystrokes on the evil banks when this was a policy decision made by the federal government.

And who owns the government?

 

[CH1]

No reason 75% of Toronto is zoned to prevent duplexes, triplexes, etc. Can’t get density nor affordable housing without more building more shit

 

[WellPlayed]

And who owns the government?

 

[manny]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MDIy2CtBdmY

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MDIy2CtBdmY

That's about the knowledge level of the average investment advisor at most local bank branches. They're not in finance, they're just in sales and whether it's a car, a dishwasher or a mortgage, to them it's just a thing they happen to sell. What they actually know about the product they're selling is minimal. They're in the job to push products.

 

[trujaysfan]

That's about the knowledge level of the average investment advisor at most local bank branches. They're not in finance, they're just in sales and whether it's a car, a dishwasher or a mortgage, to them it's just a thing they happen to sell. What they actually know about the product they're selling is minimal. They're in the job to push products.

That's true of many people who work in similar areas (financial planners, insurance etc.)

I had to take a marriage course and they brought in a financial planner on day 2 at 8am. He had the balls to tell a group of people that he advises clients who are in debt trouble to pay off the smallest amount regardless of the interest rate first. I had to tell him he was wrong and he argued with me. Then I had to sit down with my wife and tell her to unlearn anything that moron had said.

 

[Deckie007]

That's true of many people who work in similar areas (financial planners, insurance etc.)

I had to take a marriage course and they brought in a financial planner on day 2 at 8am. He had the balls to tell a group of people that he advises clients who are in debt trouble to pay off the smallest amount regardless of the interest rate first. I had to tell him he was wrong and he argued with me. Then I had to sit down with my wife and tell her to unlearn anything that moron had said.

That actually makes phycological sense, but less so financially. Debt snowball vs debt avalanche. Depends on the person.