• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

New Canadian Politics Thread

Preston said:
I have an idea that no one will like.
Click to expand...

Yes, apparently you do.

I'm going to bet that you have more than one as well.

Much easier solutions available though tbh. Even if you're unwilling to outlaw companies owning single family residences, create a special and cost prohibitive capital gains tax rate on property speculation. Don't worry about managing the carrying cost part of it, just impact the potential earnings out of the back end with something the federal government already does (income taxation...land tax is all muni, so complicated for the CRA to get involved with, set rates for, etc).

Make it a bad investment and investors will stop looking at it as an asset class.
 
Also Canada needs to work on its messaging on what a home looks like. If you're ever satisfied with a 3 bedroom detached home with a picket fence a garage you're going to have a hard time. Europe (and the rest of the world frankly save the US) has done a much better job of normalizing denser living as an ideal. It of course helps having that denser living placed in walkable, livable, cities full of 3rd places.
 
Cities are already targeting vacant units. That’s ok, but otherwise more taxes will just add to scarcity. Non-primary residences are already subject to capital gains taxes.
 
It’s supply and demand. Don’t bring in double the amount of people than the number new homes built per year.

Taxes just get passed on to the consumer. If anything get rid of property tax. That would decrease rent by 10-15%
 
leafman101 said:
If anything get rid of property tax.
Click to expand...

How do city services get paid for then?

I think you guys are galaxy braining this a bit in an attempt to try to get the system that caused this, to support the solution to this.

Carney is on to something here, but he needs to go a teensy step further.

Build a fuck ton of units -> create a housing crown corp to manage them -> rent them at more or less cost


We have a housing crisis, not a home ownership crisis. If people choose to go into debt to own their home, great, let them. But the role of government in this is to make sure that there is sufficient affordable housing available in the market, and the market has failed to provide that. So step in and provide it. Super common in lots of countries.
 
MindzEye said:
If you take a market driven approach....yes.

The market isn't going to fix this problem though. Profit motive is the opposite of the solution.
Click to expand...

I’m ok with a mixed approach for supply, but would be careful with how revenues are raised. Maybe some property tax, but would be wary of disincentives. Use some debt, use general revenues (income taxes.)
 
manny said:
Disagree if you’re taking specifically about rental properties. The additional costs will just be passed on to tenants.

Disagree more if you’re talking about all homes.
Click to expand...
The likely incorrect thesis is that there will be fewer rental properties and investors. Much like in many states in the US where there are high property taxes, there are fewer investors and homes are more likely to be purchased for living in, like they were designed to do. Which then impacts the cost of housing. So yeah, I mean for all properties.

Carrying costs are way too low in the GTA, this is why all of this wealth has poured into real estate here and we have 7 dudes buying up a quarter of the houses in particular area.

Plus, comparing home prices in Illinois vs Toronto ain't really an apples to apples comparison when the Illinois folks pay 30 grand per year more in property taxes than Toronto.
 
lecoqsportif said:
I’m ok with a mixed approach for supply, but would be careful with how revenues are raised. Maybe some property tax, but would be wary of disincentives. Use some debt, use general revenues (income taxes.)
Click to expand...

I don't think mixed works either.

The crisis is home affordability at current rates. A private investor expecting a rate of return isn't going to invest what is necessary to put units on the market currently and then rent them for an affordable price. What the market deems to be an "affordable" price is the core problem right now. The small levels of additional supply private investment would be able to bring online is never going to make a dent in the supply side of that equation. Government is the only bank account capable of doing it, and further, they're the only entity whose interest is directly tied into servicing the level of the housing market most in need of supply. Private investment will always tilt towards the higher end with high returns unless directed by regulation to act against their interests...and we've seen this movie play out at the provincial level over the last few years, with builders choosing to simply not build rather than build for less at provincial or municipal direction.
 
MindzEye said:
Yes, apparently you do.

I'm going to bet that you have more than one as well.

Much easier solutions available though tbh. Even if you're unwilling to outlaw companies owning single family residences, create a special and cost prohibitive capital gains tax rate on property speculation. Don't worry about managing the carrying cost part of it, just impact the potential earnings out of the back end with something the federal government already does (income taxation...land tax is all muni, so complicated for the CRA to get involved with, set rates for, etc).

Make it a bad investment and investors will stop looking at it as an asset class.
Click to expand...
I don't think 1 solution is a silver bullet. There are many things that go into it.
 
And for the record, this is what my real estate agents rich clients tell him. Toronto is highly investible for them because they have a fuckton of liquid wealth and the cost to carry the product is almost nothing compared to most semi desirable states in the US. So why buy there? The upfront cost in Toronto is easy for them to absorb. They care about the cost to carry, not the cost of the product.

But of course, I'm only talking about a solution for if you think homes are too expensive and you want to scare away investors. I don't necessarily think they are too expensive. I also don't think it's the best decision to force outmigration on the city's wealthiest.
 
Preston said:
I don't think 1 solution is a silver bullet. There are many things that go into it.
Click to expand...

I think there is a silver bullet. Direct government intervention into the housing market. We just watched for a decade as multiple levels of government tried to coax the homebuilding industry to do what they wanted it to with tax credits, density requirements, etc, etc, etc and none of it worked.

It's common in Europe for governments to control 15-20% of the rental housing supply. We need that here.
 
MindzEye said:
I think there is a silver bullet. Direct government intervention into the housing market. We just watched for a decade as multiple levels of government tried to coax the homebuilding industry to do what they wanted it to with tax credits, density requirements, etc, etc, etc and none of it worked.

It's common in Europe for governments to control 15-20% of the rental housing supply. We need that here.
Click to expand...
I'd vote for you and your bold ideas! Building drones and fixing housing. You do it all. But my only point is that the environment in the GTA is perfect for investors (high upfront cost, minimal carrying costs) and the opposite of that for people who just want to live. Obviously you don't just increase tax for no reason, have to have a plan for it. But we've seen plenty of pressures that high property taxes put on the real estate market in the US. It's investor-repellant. Granted, that's not necessarily a good thing in my opinion!
 
lecoqsportif said:
Need to focus, and some people on the left need to keep quiet for a little while.
Click to expand...

So we shouldn’t care about those two seagulls that like to snuggle where a nice low rise apartment building might be developed?

What about Margaret Atwood’s view from her 2nd floor balcony?
 
Except in the US high property taxes are a strategy to keep “them” out of your neighbour. It’s either that or zero taxes and the gated community.
 
Super complex issue. My preference is to significantly improve (not gut) the regulatory process and let the market work as best it can (I think it can do better) and push rental supply hard from government.

30 year olds shouldn’t be living with their parents because the rent is too damn high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top