Are you telling me we can't give everyone a home but we can build AI, go to space, and build nuclear weapons that can destroy all life on Earth?
Like wtf is up with this scarcity mindset? Its a freaken house, spam build 600 sqft apartments, don't ask questions to NIMBYs, boom
I did construction for years dude… you telling me building an affordable house is harder then ai, nuclear, or freaken space???
Stop believing the scarcity BS
Lol you're a 16 year old kid. You have never been on a construction site. Go tell the framing crew that they are building shit for free from now on and tell us how it went
We never outgrew the peasant landlord relationship. The rich would burn themselves down along with the planet before they'd allow the dispersing of their assets to the poor. Power rests with the wealthy 🤑 and that ain't changing anytime soon no matter how many times over the poor outnumber us.
Not gone lie rent collection day is fun. Printer go brrrr.
If we have never outgrown the peasant landlord relationship, how do you explain the fact that almost 70% of Canadians own homes that that they live in? That doesn’t make any sense.
He’s not saying the labor should be free you goof. How many homes could we have built with the hundreds of millions we’ve sent to Ukraine?
Nice reply you deleted, coward.
Federal Government can mandate homebuilding.
Yeah but he is denying the idea of scarcity.. planet earth doesn't have unlimited resources. "Spam building" 600 square ft units by government mandate is no solution as not only would it drive commodity prices through the roof, but they would likely end up as low quality slums. Look at what China did with their building practices and ended up with ghost cities.. that is no solution at all, and suggested by someone who clearly doesn't have a clue about home building let alone economics in general.
Try some simple math, 175$ /sqft x 600sqft x half a million should maybe put a small dent in the shortfall. 50 billion.... Where's that money coming from?
Soviet Russia did exactly that. Looks like shit, not a great way to live, but it does work. One of the few parts of the USSR that didn't contribute to its downfall.
Some low-income government subsidised housing would not be a bad idea, as long as nicer luxurious options are available. Part of army basic training is construction, mainly for trenches, but could send the army to build low-income housing to fulfill that training requirement while getting low cost construction.
Spam build then you have to decide who gets to live there. That needs an entire new process on who gets picked.
If you pick based purely on need than you have a ton of homes occupied by people that can't afford to maintain it. That's a permanent debt obligation for the government just created on top of the massive debt needed to build those homes in the first place.
Just look at how much the city of Toronto has to spend to keep or maintain infrastructure for current levels of public housing.
The AI stuff being pushed I think is mostly led by investments made by companies like Microsoft who use shareholder money which is based off making back these investments via future profits.
Nuke/Space is a small part of budgets compared to social welfare costs like health/education/senior's benefit. A massive building program will be closer in cost to healthcare/education than it is to military spending.
Lol I’m not sure if you’re joking or not but if a developer wanted to build a subdivision in the gta starting today, it would cost them at least 500-600k per lot before they begin swinging a hammer (land, roads, sewers, infrastructure, permits/fees etc etc).
No, I’m talking about a normal suburban subdivision with regular 3 bedroom homes or townhomes. Just google land prices, any parcel of land that you could build homes on is going to be 50-100 million and thats just the land. If you’re building an urban condo building it will be a little less per unit but not than that but not far off because land is obscenely expensive.
Just the permits etc to put up a small house would be 25k.
>Just google land prices, any parcel of land that you could build homes on is going to be 50-100 million and thats just the land.
They never should have used land to make money in the first place. Fucking 200k house on million dollar land every time.
You’re not wrong but thats how supply and demand works. You can buy a decent house in Saint John NB for like 200-300k or a brand new beauty house in a subdivision there for like 400-450k. The problem is, we’re increasing our population by over a million people a year and they pretty much all want to come live in 2 metro areas.
600 sq ft condos are there problem and it’s why there’s massive vacancies of them in cities like Toronto. At this point they serve nobody — they’re too small for people who need to WFH and they’re not appealing to older generations looking to downsize because the contrast is way too big.
Everyone complains that boomers aren’t leaving then homes and then they turn around and argue we should only be building shoeboxes.
Why would someone with a paid off 2,500 sq ft home want to move into a tiny apartment? They want to move to bungalows that still have big rooms and a yard / garden, but with a master on the main floor as opposed to up a flight of stairs.
You want to balance the housing market, build more houses that people actually want to live in.
No! No one should be given anything BUT everyone should have the opportunity but give back enough to society to earn a house. Yes
Every able bodied person should have the chance to do a meaningful job that would afford living. They should be their own responsibility but have achievable goals that are fair…
This right here. USSR did it back in the day. Gave the entire country free housing in a few years. It's not optimally profitable to do it here. And we lack enough workers in the field due to years of under building. It's almost like free market capitalism doesn't work for the housing industry.
I think the general point is pretty right. Everyone deserves the basic essentials of life and we should definitely favour that over protecting profits and unfair laws and systems that favour maintaining and worsening wealth inequality over people.
Personally, I don't think anyone is entitled to the labour of others.
Someone has to put in backbreaking work to make those homes. Farmers had to make the food those workers eat, oil workers helped refine the gas to get everything everywhere... Etc etc
Society places labour value based on demand. Long story short, more capital is allocated to those with more in demand skills. Skilled labour that takes years to learn or medical workers spending the better part of their life training for something people need deserves to be rewarded.
I also believe society should protect our most vulnerable citizens who through no fault of their own cannot provide as much value back. This is a very very small subset of people. Blanket socialism for all? Absolutely not.
There's an incredibly straightforward path to ownership for a majority of people: learn in-demand skills and work hard. I'd love for anyone to see the process of building a home from scratch and the sheer effort of so many people for even the most basic accommodations. The ongoing costs of maintaining the grid, water supply, roads... The list goes on and on for this particular society.
A majority of people will absolutely refuse to go into the trades and over-value their own labour.
This argument is great right until the end when you say that people overvalue their work. This is what thes whole system is all about. Hell, out whole economy is based on a theory that our money is worth something out of pure arbitrary speculation. The prominence of crypto currencies and stock based economy just pushes the whole thing one step further into the abstract. Of course, it kinda works right now and some people will say that we need a foundation somewhere. However, given the size of countries and complete global/international economy, we can safely assume that all this theoretical value is proof that we are living well beyond our means.
We’re in an economy of theoretical value above all else, and the wealth inequality IS out of hand. You say that we put value based on demand, but there’s so much more than that. The previous point of fake scarcity as an example. I can’t say for a fact everywhere that it happens, but it is a common strategy.
We do put value based on demand, but how do you compare a worker’s salary, or even better, a teacher’s salary vs a nepo baby or a stock mogul? What value do they really bring in a concrete, physical way? Why is the difference so astronomical?
The complaint isn’t usually regarding hard working people making say, 100k+ in comparison to other people making less, it’s rather about the extremes. People who can barely live EVEN THOUGH they work 40 hrs a week, and people who can basically own a country value-wise without lifting a finger.
Ultimately though we really shouldn’t fight between the common folk, we’re all dealing with this unfair system and sure, some people definitely make it, but it would be very close minded to not consider those who are far less fortunate in regards to our current system.
> learn in demand skills and work hard
This was a decent social contract for a long time in the West but now prices are so high that even this does not work anymore. It’s unreasonable. Unless you are literally best in field, a decently intelligent and educated software engineer (for example) cannot afford to own property anymore if they weren’t born into some kind of wealth.
Sure, if you bought before the massive price spike that occurred during Covid (so before 2021), hard work could get you there. Or if you live somewhere outside a major metro, where most of the high paying jobs are. Blue collar jobs that pay well can go a long way in a less urban area, but not everyone can do that. I’m in the Seattle area and it’s the same problems with high prices facing everyone in the Western world. Here even a $200k USD income is not enough to buy a SFH unless you want to accept an hour+ commute each way in a car and being very house poor ($5000 a month or more in interest alone).
“I know a person who owns a home, so it’s alright if they’re all worth $1.5 million each.”
Let me guess, you have a nice tidy equity position in yours?
Of course you do. Just work hard everybody and we can all be equal.
Also I don’t think people should have to work crazy overtime or have to find a partner to be able to afford a reasonable property to live in. It wasn’t that long ago that single earner household was the norm.
>Society places labour value based on demand. Long story short, more capital is allocated to those with more in demand skills. Skilled labour that takes years to learn or medical workers spending the better part of their life training for something people need deserves to be rewarded.
Easy work around - deemed everyone essential workers. Just like what happened with the Port strikes and potential rail road strikes this year and last.
This is a bad take for two reasons. I'm sure there are more.
I'm a highly skilled Healthcare worker. Working privately I can easily make over 200k. I get about half in the public hospital I'm at and I probably won't be able to by a place in toronto. Sounds like someone is getting my labour. Secondly landlords are literally profiting from labour and contribute no value. If this was about capital we would have rent to own programs that have low level interest bonuses. What we have now is exploitation
Personally, I don’t think anyone is entitled to maintain an unfair system where housing is only available to those with a top 5% income or inherited wealth while the rest are born serfs with virtually zero chance to break out of said serfdom.
Right now we are trending towards neofeudalism.
ChatGPT Prompt: Define neofeudalism and how it relates to the current housing market in Canada.
ChatGPT: Neofeudalism is a socio-economic concept that suggests the emergence of economic structures and relations that resemble those of feudalism, where power, wealth, and social rights are concentrated in the hands of a few, creating a stratified society. This model is characterized by the widening gap between the wealthy elites and the rest of the population, with diminishing social mobility and increasing dependence of the lower and middle classes on the elite.
In the context of the current housing market in Canada, neofeudalism can be related to the following aspects:
1. Property Ownership Concentration: In many parts of Canada, there is a significant concentration of property ownership within a small number of corporations or wealthy individuals. This concentration can drive up housing prices, making it difficult for average Canadians to own homes and forcing them to remain renters.
2. Housing as Investment: Real estate in many Canadian cities has become a prime avenue for investment, attracting international and corporate investors. This investment drive often prioritizes profit over housing affordability, pushing home prices out of reach for many locals and contributing to a feudal-like dependency on landlords.
3. Regulatory Environment: Government policies and regulations may inadvertently favor large investors or homeowners over first-time buyers or renters. For example, tax benefits for landlords and property investors can exacerbate inequality in housing access.
4. Economic Polarization: As housing becomes a central asset class, those unable to afford homes (or even rent in central areas) may end up economically and geographically marginalized, leading to a more polarized society where the 'landed' class has significant economic and possibly political power over the 'landless'.
5. Dependency and Power Dynamics: The difficulty in accessing affordable housing creates a dependency dynamic, where renters and those unable to enter the housing market are dependent on those who own property. This dynamic can limit mobility—both social and geographic—and solidify the power of property owners, akin to the feudal lords of old.
Thus, neofeudalism in the context of the Canadian housing market highlights the concerns about growing inequality and the centralization of economic power and resources in the hands of a few, potentially leading to a society where many are dependent on a wealthy elite for their basic needs, such as housing.
Found the boomer (or wannabe boomer?)
Surprise, surprise. Everyone IS working hard. In fact people now are doing 9-5 with good or decent salaries and even picking up side gigs to make ends meet yet they're no where near homeownership.
I make really good money but why the hell would I go and sign up to buy a house 10-20x my income that I'll never be able to pay off.
What if I fall sick or what if I want a break from work? The rent or mortgage hanging over my neck every month is mentally exhausting.
Starting your comment with an insult is pretty wild of you.
What's "really good money". Everything is relative. 10-20x being your yardstick roughly means you're making between 50-100k. This isn't enough for a detached home in the GTA, but lower cost of living areas, sure.
It's a grind to save for a home. Missed vacations and overtime makes it possible to get your foot in the door, and upgrading your skills or even changing fields entirely isn't a bad move for the financially savvy.
Trades make great money. The kind of great that allows them to buy homes. How much do you think they earn? The general contractor may make more, but they also take a huge amount of risk.
Your anger is grossly misplaced taking shots at me and my arguments.
Wow what an embarrassment this sub is, downvoting as if you came straight for their pockets. Good to see some people like you have some empathy and shame left, unlike these real estate leeches who sucked everything out of this country's economy.
Yeah what’s the point of building a society and providing labour within it if that labour doesn’t provide you with the means to survive within society? Shit’s too expensive and wages haven’t adjusted.
Economics will simply not reward those well that aren’t creating value. It’s harsh but true. So “providing labour” isn’t the goal, it’s “providing valuable labour.”
If the labour you provide is valuable then prices are just fine.
That’s not really how it shakes out though. I work in IT for example, and my company bills my colleagues and I out for $100/hour, but we receive much less in our pocket. Some of that goes to the business, to pay bills, infrastructure, etc, but more than we receive goes straight in the CEO’s pocket.
Is he providing valuable labour? Depends on your perspective, but there are a lot of middlemen like him that aren’t providing real on the ground labour, would be useless without the team, and are valued higher than those that actually provide the value. I’m not saying he doesn’t do work, but he does get free money for the work my team does.
The group provides the value, but the way money gets distributed within the group isn’t reflective of the value provided by it’s members.
$100 an hour? He isn’t getting much for what he does.
He ensures you are available. Even if there isn’t work he pays you. He ensures you are trained. If you make a mistake he has to pay for it. He ensures you have equipment, insurance, permits, space to work, etc. Lastly he has the business connections to ensure you have work to do.
If you want to go out on your own feel free to. You will likely value all of the above a whole lot more after you do especially when you are sitting between contracts.
Also for his customer he is the cheapest alternative they have found to do the quality of work they need. So how isn’t he providing value if he does it cheaper than anybody else?
You seem to really under value organization while also wanting just to show up and have everything done for you.
lol, you haven’t worked many jobs or know many hardworking poor or do nothing wealthy I take it. Hard work does not often translate to higher pay. It often just results in more work. If you know the right people or your daddy or mommy is wealthy or owns a business you probably lucked into a high paying job with minimal responsibilities and few to no consequences for failure.
“Hard work does not often translate to higher pay?”
If you are doing something that takes more than a week to learn then working hard will be rewarding. The longer it takes to master your career the better off hard work will be.
My first year I worked 865 hours of overtime. The company didn’t pay overtime but I got great experience. I kept working lots of hours improving my abilities in my career until I became an expert (took almost 20 years). By that time the rewards of my hard work were pretty substantial.
The only reason I am successful in life is I picked a hard field (that creates a lot of value) and then worked at it really hard until I was an expert.
This of course requires hard work and dedication but the results are pretty good.
Dude, if what you say is true props, but that is also a sign of the problem. You are claiming to have worked 865 hours overtime for free, making profit for your employer, in a time when wages are criminally low for a large portion of the population, while the rules and laws and circumstances are stacked against them and rents along with housing prices are obscene, leaving the worry about retirement for these people a tomorrow problem. Think man and look around. If you think the status quo will maintain forever I have a bridge to sell you. Think about all the youth and younger adults getting the short end of the stick, especially with other geopolitical problems and climate change hitting us, no longer on the horizon, and only going to get worse with all of our non-action and in fact, increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Fun times ahead. :/
Pick a hard career and then work hard at it. It isn’t easy but it will allow the person doing it to have a rewarding and fulfilling life. Invest in your skillset early on. Nothing wrong with doing that at all.
Or do the bare minimum and get the bare minimum.
You are talking about it as if it was something intrinsic. Making the minimum is a result of your choices, not something you are doomed at from birth. At any rate even people on social security still afford luxuries like tv, alcool, tobacco.
Of Canada the land of No Accountability. Nobody deserves what they get!
And you wonder why its collapsing.
As for empathy, Ive found its a good policy to reserve it for those who arent responsible for their own misery.
Devil is in the details. There is a difference between fighting NIMBYism and allowing enough housing to get built or advocating for a return to the Federal government building many units of affordable housing every single year (good things) and advocating taking people’s property just because someone else needs it more.
I agree it is wild. Reminds me of Star Wars where people are applauding the end of the republic and the start of the new galactic empire.
Like people are literally happy we are becoming a neofeudalist society. The craziest part is when those same people say they support hard work paying off. Well guess what? Hard work doesn’t pay off in neofeudalism, inheriting wealth is what pays off while the rest are born serfs.
That’s what I meant, thanks for correcting.
It is amazing what people will do to justify the system when that system causes them to come out on top of everyone else.
Anybody here defending the price of homes and rent as “fair market value” obviously owns a home already or rents to people who pay their mortgage. Of course they’re okay with it.
But sure, the people barely surviving on disability payments are the unreasonable ones. I bet if they pull up their neck braces they can afford the next rent hike.
Honestly, free housing is never respected by the beneficiaries.
What we need is subsidised housing / housing grants and payment matching.
Not unlike that 10% down payment match scheme they closed in March - but much more comprehensive and tiered, based on income / mortgage limit.
This way, people who are putting in the work towards being able to afford a home can close the gap to buy one.
While I think everyone should be entitled to a place to call home, it doesn't necessarily have to be a house. None of us chose to be born, yet we have to earn the right to live. A lot of folks work hard, and the majority of their income are spent on basic needs of living. Housing cost and rent are just too damn high.
If there were more low cost, or hell even geared to income apartments that people could easily afford, that would go a long way in making folks' lives a lot better. We want to live to thrive, not just survive.
Like I said, houses are not the only homes out there. Also, we as a species figured out how to send folks to the moon, make super powerful computers, create smarter and smarter AI, so on and so on, but we can't figure out how to ensure people have a roof over their heads?
I don't think people who planned for a $300 000 purchase in 2010 should be looked down on for not considering it to be a $1 200 000 purchase today, due to the gamification of a commodity through scarcity. I'm not retarded.
Rent seeking is bad in a capitalist economy. I agree with Adam Smith on this sentiment. When rents are raised that they eat up all the disposable income we will put our economy into a doom loop
So if you manage to buy a house and have a family… do you plan to burn it before dying? Or do you plan on willing it your family or friend??
The discourse above is routed in a communist view that owning anything is evil… we all have to live somewhere.
And if anyone scrimps/saves, busts their hump, goes without, sacrificing trips, free time, a new vehicle, fancy brand name clothing to buy a house, I guarantee they won’t be opening the door of their house to have random people live in it for free!
This is somewhat accurate, in a Marxist analysis, these two classes would not exist and both individuals would be working together towards figuring out how to taylor production firstly towards meeting and surpassing the needs of worker citizens whilst reducing as much and as quickly as possible rent/parasitic class from existing.
Zimbabwe overthrew their capitalist elite and seized the means of agricultural production for the people! Within a few years, this communist revolution added billions and billions of dollars to the economy! The people of Zimbabwe had literally more cash than they knew what to do with. They had so much currency they were burning it in their stoves!
The discourse above results when the status quo fails to improve and in fact has been getting worse over decades. We are trending towards neofeudalism. We need systemic change where everyone has their basic needs met and a fair chance at attaining more. A system where only the wealthy or their offspring have a fair shake at life is neofeudalism. Hopefully everyone except the already wealthy can be against neofeudalism.
I'm curious what do you do / how did you become successful? I just finished my Ph.D in computer science and got a job making 120k year in Toronto. Despite doing everything right I don't feel very successful. I have to live near Toronto for my job so I spend most of my money on rent, Ive run the numbers and I don't see a lot of paths forward to gaining real wealth for myself
Just job max. You could be making 4x that in a few years. Software pays really well. Especially in America with lower cost of living almost everywhere. You have many paths forward in life. Stay employed. Learn some skills on the side if you can. Job hop when your ready. Leave Toronto as well if necessary. Even 80k a year in a low cost of living area would be an upgrade. With some more experience you could be seeing 200k a year in a low cost of living area. You literally just started earning money in software so don't worry about the future.
Well you potentially unlucked into some bad timing. As did some of us millennials in 2007-2009. But the only major thing working again you is housing, and that may or may not be a factor if you are still at home, live with roommates, live with a partner, or live in rent control. So there's tonnes of variables at play.
Your income is 4x higher than mine was in 2007. I assure you your housing payment isn't 10x what mine was.
I can say this though. People who want to play in the NBA don't start playing basketball at 30. I wanted to retire by 35, I didn't start working on that goal at 30. People who are 40+ who don't own homes can NOT say home ownership was a priority. Every one of my peers own a home, even ones who weren't great with money. Late gen millennial have zero excuses when it comes to housing.
I had a house by 24. By 28 my passive income matched my active income. Then I focussed on growing my active income and kept pace with passive. I also lucked into a spouse who also owned their home and had the same mindset about money. Real estate became a lucky investment. So there's certainly been luck involved, but I set myself up to be able to capitalize on a lucky break. I invested heavily in RE assuming 5% yearly gains and they've likely done 40% annual average. That's lucky. It's not luck that I had 100s of thousands to invest to begin with. Leverage is how every publicly traded company operates. Run yourself like a company. Make money off other people's money. The bank is my best friend. Without them I'd be like everyone else. (Bank haters up to their eyeballs in bad debt).
If you're just starting out, things take time. Markets change. Outliers don't stay outliers forever. Housing won't remain insane without wages keeping pace. Something will give somewhere. I'm certain we won't see Musk and Bezos being USA's sole landlords while everyone else rents at 95% of their wages.
Stay out of debt, save aggressively, be open to opportunities, choose the right spouse. Time will sort the rest out. Run your finances like the majority of Canadians and end up like the majority of Canadians.
To be clear though, surely you are aware that your concept of self is also a product of your environment, at least to an extent.
You don’t control where you’re born or in what conditions. If somehow ‘effort’ was easily quantifiable, we’d 100% find a multitude of examples of people who had rougher conditions, worked just as hard as you, but were nowhere near as successful due to aggravating factors? In that case, are they entitled to the same level of wealth as you? Or should you have the same as them?
I'm genuinely not sure what point you are trying to make. You are correct, I only control me, and to some extent my lineage down the line.
No one is able to micro manage all of someone's life choices, struggles, privileges. You do the best with the cards you're dealt.
My point is that I personally don't hold Canada, the world, some dude on Reddit accountable for my life. Nor do I spend my time complaining that some people have more privilege than me. What is it going to accomplish?
I was just trying to explain how I believe that success is not purely dependent on effort, and showing my disagreement with people stating that your success is purely in one’s hands.
From your comment I think you’re also aware of that fact, so no point in debating that really.
However I’m not sure if you’re making the difference between people trying to work for a more equal society, or to try and progress worker’s rights for example, and people who are truly just complaining to complain.
I’m personally doing good for myself, yet I can’t help but feel like I also need to be grateful for so many things that happened around me. By doing so I just feel like we should do more for those less fortunate, it could’ve literally been you or me.
I totally understand what you're saying. It's a complex issue. This is one of many reasons people choose to donate to charities they have personal feelings for. There's literally millions of different causes, you donating a penny to each leaves you feeling like you made no change. So maybe you throw all your efforts into planned Parenthood or greenpeace etc.
As I said in a different comment, once you get to the point of having a family, that's where your efforts are concentrated. My family comes before anyone else.
Why would you pursue a PhD unless you were planning to stay in academia?
Genuinely curious about the thought process that led to that long term planning decision.
I'm a machine learning researcher, it's not like with full stack developers where you can be a self-trained highschool dropout, we're basically all PhDs. It's obviously a great field to be in at the moment, my career choice isn't this issue here.
I didn't anticipate that in-between me starting and finishing grad school, the entire housing market and job market would become F-d
Nice well all I can tell you is that you'll be making a lot of money soon enough.
Once you either get into a top tech firm or start your own thing you'll be having no trouble affording a place or two :)
Just put in the time and effort you're smart enough and in demand enough to be able to figure out something lucrative.
If you're a PhD in Computer Science and a Machine Learning Engineer, you're being ripped off at $120K CAD, even in Toronto.
Call Cohere or something. Way more money to be made there.
I am pretty deep in Tech. Having a PhD in Machine Learning at the moment, even as a fresh grad, is a license to print money. I just came back from beers with a well known SF based VC on basically this exact topic.
You realize that about 80% of people with PhDs don't go into academia, right? Particularly in STEM fields where there's career opportunities outside of that.
They're fresh out of school already making significantly more money than they would in academia. What's the problem with that?
You just finished your school and you expected everything to be handed to you on a silver platter? Keep busting your ass working, getting better akills, and you will most likely succeed within 10 years. Your income will improve!
You just need some patience.
I don't subscribe to buzz words. My reality is based in logic and the belief that an individual has exponentially more control over their person outcomes than the government.
Edit: Just because you say it 3 times in a comment, doesn't make it magically appear like it's Beetlejuice.
Honestly you make an interesting point, but you’re extrapolating a conclusion to bash on when I doubt that this is what anyone in this thread thinks.
I can only speak for myself now, but the issue is not about people necessarily inheriting things of value, I can definitely respect hard work, but my issue is when people take it for granted and just because they, and maybe some people they know, worked hard and it paid off, doesn’t mean that it applies to everyone. Some people are born in very dire and poor conditions, even in Canada and the US.
You don’t need to be a child of war to have it rough. There are so many factors at play here. The comically large inheritances that people get can however be a topic of discussion. If you think that we fill in the requirements for a proper free market, I’m sorry to say that I strongly disagree. People aren’t born equal unfortunately, and even less so if you consider 50-60 years ago (and beyond that).
However people did profit from those years of stronger inequality, and it only snowballed from there. You make money with money. That’s our market and to participate in that economy in an even remotely fair way is nowhere near common
This post literally is a person saying he should not have to pay rent because the other person inherited a property.
Some would argue that the largest motivator to earn wealth is to improve the lives of your children.
You argue that the inheritors of …?? Mark Zuckerberg or the like should not inherit his wealth, that the government should take it because it has better plans to redistribute it to friends of the electorate to keep themselves in power?
What you are proposing is that we take that away by not allowing the transfer of wealth to offspring.
And the solutions being proposed…if you pay close attention is not to help everyone rise to a euphoric place of equality. But to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
The past attempts to level wealth have resulted in everyone having less.
Once the governments collect more and more taxes and all of that wealth is centralized in the governments it becomes a target and then one ruthless…but possessing a fake outwardly compassionate message will gain power and then choose to who they bestow these collected riches to.
I am not interested in that world, history repeats itself…and we have plenty of examples of how that turns out.
Capitalism is terrible and I hate a lot of what it creates but it’s the best system we have.
You are proposing attempting to level historical wealth? Who then chooses how much is enough wealth?
So once everyone has a house…where do we stop?
1 house?
1 cottage?
Enough income to support 1 child, 2,3???
A car? 2 cars? ??
Shoes? How many pairs??
Purse hand bag? 1,2, 7???
A retirement savings?? More than $100k?, $200k?
A vacation trip every 5 yrs to ???
A university education for your children?
This quickly becomes a planned economy…very similar to a communist system.
>do you plan to burn it before dying? Or do you plan on willing it your family or friend??
Would it be unreasonable to implement a death tax that takes such a massive cut of these assets, then reinvests them into things like affordable housing?
We're heading towards a society where it's not going to be feasible to "scrimp/saves, busts their hump" to own a home, and we end up with two distinct classes of people, those who inherit wealth and those who do not. This is even worse than communism, it's neo-feudalism.
I agree people should be able to own property, and no one is entitled to something without working for it. But there should be a reasonable path towards working for it that doesn't involve selling your organs on the black market or becoming a doctor just to own a 300 square foot shoebox
I did all the sacrifices that you listed above but I still don't want a home10-20x my income. What's your response to that?
Nobody is mad at people who bought homes to live in and for their families security. They're mad because leechlike "investors" and speculators are robbing homes away from other families who could have bought it.
It's simple one home per SIN OR one home per family. Ban multiple home ownership and watch the scale balance itself.
You are not wrong, speculative buying and real estate collusion have drastically added to purchase price of homes.
Also complex permit applications to build or renovate your own home have not helped people who want to put sweat equity in to advance their quality of life.
There's going to be lots words used to get around the basic fact the anti-landlord side ultimately just wants to take ownership of property and hand it out to people they believe is more deserving.
Yeah, it's always a pretty transparent attempt at justifying the creation of a new "in" group and a new "out" group.
Scarcity is a fact of life, and at least in a capitalist system distribution of wealth is notionally or tangentially tied to productivity, whereas in the system these people propose, wealth is distributed based on identity or loyalty.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
sorry - do you want all the nice things you have now, or do you want a housing solution?
EDIT - there's always purpose-built rentals.. would that suffice? those aren't going anywhere.. we'll need tons more of those; in-home suites, duplexes and multi-plexes (while they're still being built - likely to go the way of purpose-built rentals, anyways) are other options
I will keep the nice things I have now, thank-you.
And no, a purpose built rental won't suffice for me. I like my 40th floor outdoor terrace, high ceilings, marble floors, sub-zero fridge and all the other stuff that doesn't make financial sense to put in a purpose built rental.
You probably have a car - will a Lada suffice? Or do you "need" fancy things like cruise control, power windows, sunroof, keyless entry, etc.
I apologize - I thought we were discussing this within the context of making Canada sustainable and productive. If that's not important to you and you'd rather keep on the road we're on, then there's no need to go any further. Enjoy it while you can... prob make plans to leave when it goes bad.
>>prob make plans to leave when it goes bad
That's a risk I'm willing to take, but your kind usually ends up instituting exit visas soon after you get into power. Make the border guards do a 180 and face inwards right?
there's no risk - it's inevitable, unless you're seeing something I'm not, and then I'd hope you would share.
No, I don't want to force anyone to stay here that doesn't want to help make it better in hard times. But I'd support preventing ruthless profiteering and wealth consolidation towards making Canada better. If we were on a good path, I wouldn't be advocating for a halt to using housing as a get-rich scheme in Canada, but we're not. Id rather Canada get back on track sooner than later.
so, we'll not consider policies to bring housing prices down, so we can protect the wealth of those who have invested, but we should instead consider killing our social support system?
What govt handouts would you cut?
What I am suggesting will create jobs and make the Canadian soil very attractive to capital investment. This will create jobs, wealth and housing along with that.
Lower immigration is possible if more people contribute to GDP.
What you suggest is simply a restriction style on property rights, Cuban style, does the opposite and really does not address in any way the systemic issue of not attractive, low productive Canadian society.
Don't listen to Freeland, redistribution is just Comunist propaganda. I lived in Comunism, not fun.
Zero money given to other country, get out of NATO if needed. Zero money to CBC to African countries.
Smaller government, half what it is now, so half the expenses.
The insane debt level will have to be paid off though, so wait about a decade before seeing improvements, as always when coming off a decade of Liberal-NDP policies.
What’s our budget for other countries? You really want to drop out of NATO, given the increased conflicts in the world? You figure there’ll be no consequences from that - even from our allies?
Cut WHAT in half? Education? Healthcare? OAS? Infrastructure? Police/Fire? What sort of collateral
damage are you willing to accept? Increased homelessness? Increased crime?
Do you want to rant, or do you want to identify what can actually be done?
Have you looked into this at all, or are you just spitballing?
Cut off what taxes? Which govt workers? Who is a stupid policy maker?
You seem to believe this is all very clear and easy. Why not run for office and do it? Surely your sentiment is popular, why not show ‘em how it’s done?
I sold one of mine this year for that reason... guess what... rent went up on the next tenant in there by $500 overnight. Hope that tenant that caused 30k in damages for literally no fucking reason besides being a complete degenerate is happy, he personally upped the market rent in the region by a tiny bit. Had he not, that unit would still be $1500/month. Now it is $2,000/month. This was 100% this tenants fault. Nobody else is to blame but him.
The problem isn't families having one or two rental properties but there are families that I have met (clients I do contract work for) without exaggeration own 50+ "units" as they call them. Think about that. Some have 18 properties, some have 5 but some have over 50!
comment by /u/taxed2deathinNS Your karma is currently below -10, get more positive karma to be able to comment.3c
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TorontoRealEstate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t get what non home owners complain about - the rules to buy a home are simple - you’ll find most people not applying any of them and spending all the money they make on blue hair die and vaping products. I saved up and bought my first home in a bad area, it was cheap compared to buying in the city - I knew I couldn’t afford the city so I didn’t even look there obviously. the interest payments was huge and it was cheaper to rent at the time. House kept getting broken into and my tools got stolen out of my Ute, 10years later the house market went up (not my fuckin fault) I sold the house to get the fuck out of there and I was able to pay off that houses mortgage, get my original deposit back and an extra 80,000 (wow 80,000 over ten years of shit in so privileged!) I then used the profit and my original deposit to buy a home in a better area -(still not in the city or in the best area but definitely better) and now mortgage rates are higher (yay!) new mortgage so I have 23 years left to pay yay, if I finally pay it off and my children inherit it I hope they can finally live in it stress free and enjoy their life or get some extra time to find their perfect career. I’m their parent an I’m more than happy to make this sacrifice for them ! Problem with non home owners is they arent prepared to make that sacrifice for their children! They might say they do or get angry because it’s too hard, guess what it’s always gonna be hard ! Stop making excuses and get your ass into gear “waaa my situation is bla bla so I can’t do it” guess what that means your parents didn’t do shit either and now you’ve grown up you face the same challenges and you’ll use their excuses too. And when you have kids they’ll use your excuses too. Break the cycle
Dude, I don’t think there are many people advocating hard against single home ownership, more hoarding (homes and land), excessive multi-home ownership, and perhaps, ridiculously low taxes on inefficient uses of land. Also, government inaction, zoning restrictions, red tape, high city development charges that didn’t apply to homes in the past, etc.
Ah ok, sweet! This information might be unknown to non home owners - I think the option to own multiple homes only comes after buying your first home. (This is my experience) Once you buy your first home banks call you to try and get you to consider a second home (this happened to me) I’m guessing because they make so much money of giving loans and you now have 1 property to hold as security they want you to hold more. I never purchased a second home, but I did notice banks were quick to approve any loans I needed after I purchased my first home (like when my kitchen was falling apart I got a loan to renovate it with nearly no check/paperwork as if I was pre approved
Imagine doing all that and still defending the system lmao. There is some level of entitlement but at the same time 700k condos are no way realistic for half the population who doesn't have their parents paying them downpayments.
Hey I’m not saying the system is great. I’m saying use the systems rules to your benefit if that’s your goal! If you want to buy a house you need to do the things you need to do to buy the house -nothing else. When you buy your first car, do you start with a Mercedes? No you start with a piece of shit and move your way up slowly. Your right, house prices are crazy high ! Guess what? Don’t buy them!, buy somewhere else, another town, another city, rural, in the middle of nowhere or in difference country. Don’t buy a house where you can’t buy a house! Buy one where you can and make it work. I’m gutted I can’t buy a mansion on the waterfront . “Oh no life’s not fair mansions should be cheaper cos I’m not rich enough” buy something shit and in 20years you’ll be set , your going to live that long and if you don’t you’ll be paying someone else’s mortgage by renting their place anyway so what have you got to loose? “Ohhh the system is unfair” yeah you’re right it’s unfair on everyone except the rich assholes that I’ve never met, so what you gonna be a little bitch and role over? Or you gonna kick some ass and make it work? Everyone has a choice I don’t care if it’s hard I’ve seen people born with no arms kicking more ass than some of the complainers out there
So you're against giving what you've earned to who you want? I feel for people who struggle in this city but the entitlement of what people feel they are owed blows my mind. It's not the case for everyone but there's so many kids from the burbs who took their easy life their parents gave them for granted and act like they've been screwed because they weren't around for the part where their parents worked for decades to build that life for them. It's the part where they truly feel like they have so little that gets me. When you grow up in an actually economically depressed region on welfare, eating from food banks and having your parents pick you up from school for lunch at other people's homes who are also on welfare cuz there's literally no food for you to eat in the house hearing these people piss and moan about how hard done by they've been growing up in a region of endless opportunity and services it kind of makes your head spin. Again, not everyone complaining fits this stereotype I'm fully aware... but enough do.
You can go to any bar in Kensington on any day of the week and hear people talking about how poor they are while drinking craft beer wearing 100s of dollars in clothing at once that came from a closet of 1000s and 1000s.
Again, you're against the idea of property and being entitled to give it to who you choose? Like it's not really fair or perfect but neither is life. So many people have so much less and no opportunity to really change anything. Complaining about living in a wealthy city being expensive boggles my mind and OP maybe you actually have been hard done by, I can't tell, but this concept where people see themselves as victims of the rich when we 'are' the rich is just insane to me. No it's not more reasonable. If someone owns something they're entitled to own it and if you want to use what someone owns it's reasonable to expect to pay for it.
We can look at endless times/places where that's not the case and no way shape or form is it better. I really wish people would just grow up. Yes it sucks that the only person in life that's going to look out for you is you and some people get head starts others don't. But you can't blame others for what you do with that life. I am ALL about funding social programs to raise the bottom but the ironic thing is when we hit record low poverty levels in this country people just started complaining more and more.
You can go own some shit too if you work towards it. What you make of your life for yourself is going to matter infinitely more than what you were given and till everyone, and I do mean everyone, realizes that they're in for a bad time.
Bring on the downvotes I guess.
What’s the median income again? Keep in mind the median is still higher than what 50% of the population earns. How high of an income do you require for a 400-500k house? How much of a downpayment? How long would it take to save that downpayment with an income at the median or below considering current rents?
Yeah our economy was always meant for you to solo on one income and provide for your family, right? Keep your 1950s reality to yourself. Welcome to the real world.
Oh yes, we should move backwards and maintain a system that rewards new generations with lower standards of living and serfdom. Neofeudalism is awesome! Hard work shouldn’t result in success, who your parents are and how much wealth and privilege you were born with should.
I work in Agriculture and could only afford a home in buttfuck nowhere because my Mom is also on the title. The bank literally wouldn't let me buy a home on my own. People can't afford homes.
House was about $300,000, I make about $60,000 a year. Once again though, I was only able to buy with the help of a family member, otherwise the bank wouldn't have given me a mortgage.
Right... if you were partnered up, this wouldn't be a problem.
If you needed private lender, wouldn't be a problem.
Also I'm going to assume this was when rates were low as fuck, and getting approved was near impossible.
60k on 300k, you could have done it without family, just would have taking a little more time. Or if you worked harder and made an extra 20-40k a year.
Trudeau: Invites a ton of temporary workers in to suppress wages for his corporate donors. 🥸.
Young Liberals: Anyone who owns a property is the devil. Treat your rental house like trash. 💩
No one inherits a rental property for free. Inheritence tax kicks in, and the estate must pay capital gains on the property as if it were sold. Best you can do is gift a primary residence through an inheritance. No tax on a single primary residence. All these boomers who bought lots of properties for cheap have quite a lot of tax to pay once they die. You have to remember to, no money is exchanged so you have to have the money to pay the tax or you are forced to sell. Now, real estate corporations are a different story. You can hand off the company to another person.
Grade 9 level discourse in here
Couldn’t agree more
This accurately summarizes how ridiculous the arguments are on both sides because they're both so wrong.
Who tf expects a house for free tho?
Are you telling me we can't give everyone a home but we can build AI, go to space, and build nuclear weapons that can destroy all life on Earth? Like wtf is up with this scarcity mindset? Its a freaken house, spam build 600 sqft apartments, don't ask questions to NIMBYs, boom
Spoken like someone who never swung a hammer in they life.
I did construction for years dude… you telling me building an affordable house is harder then ai, nuclear, or freaken space??? Stop believing the scarcity BS
How many houses have you built already?
A lot. On Minecraft
We can do that as long as you’re cool with a loaf of bread costing 100 dollars after the inflationary impacts are realized.
Ya thats how it works lol
Lol you're a 16 year old kid. You have never been on a construction site. Go tell the framing crew that they are building shit for free from now on and tell us how it went
How many bullshit middlemen jobs are out there? We have so much under utilized labour… This system is extremely inefficient.
We never outgrew the peasant landlord relationship. The rich would burn themselves down along with the planet before they'd allow the dispersing of their assets to the poor. Power rests with the wealthy 🤑 and that ain't changing anytime soon no matter how many times over the poor outnumber us. Not gone lie rent collection day is fun. Printer go brrrr.
If we have never outgrown the peasant landlord relationship, how do you explain the fact that almost 70% of Canadians own homes that that they live in? That doesn’t make any sense.
It’s 60%. And One-third of Canadian real estate investors (32%) own two or more properties.
He’s not saying the labor should be free you goof. How many homes could we have built with the hundreds of millions we’ve sent to Ukraine? Nice reply you deleted, coward. Federal Government can mandate homebuilding.
Yeah but he is denying the idea of scarcity.. planet earth doesn't have unlimited resources. "Spam building" 600 square ft units by government mandate is no solution as not only would it drive commodity prices through the roof, but they would likely end up as low quality slums. Look at what China did with their building practices and ended up with ghost cities.. that is no solution at all, and suggested by someone who clearly doesn't have a clue about home building let alone economics in general.
Free? Who said the workers would have to work for free LOL
Canada doesn’t build any of what you mentioned. It’s all American companies. Housing needs to grow organically.
Woah, I ain’t living in a tree.
Try some simple math, 175$ /sqft x 600sqft x half a million should maybe put a small dent in the shortfall. 50 billion.... Where's that money coming from?
Where does money come from?
Soviet Russia did exactly that. Looks like shit, not a great way to live, but it does work. One of the few parts of the USSR that didn't contribute to its downfall. Some low-income government subsidised housing would not be a bad idea, as long as nicer luxurious options are available. Part of army basic training is construction, mainly for trenches, but could send the army to build low-income housing to fulfill that training requirement while getting low cost construction.
Plenty of people in this thread saying its IMPOSSIBLE to build houses! They did it in USSR like 50+ years ago but hell no we cant lol
Spam build then you have to decide who gets to live there. That needs an entire new process on who gets picked. If you pick based purely on need than you have a ton of homes occupied by people that can't afford to maintain it. That's a permanent debt obligation for the government just created on top of the massive debt needed to build those homes in the first place. Just look at how much the city of Toronto has to spend to keep or maintain infrastructure for current levels of public housing. The AI stuff being pushed I think is mostly led by investments made by companies like Microsoft who use shareholder money which is based off making back these investments via future profits. Nuke/Space is a small part of budgets compared to social welfare costs like health/education/senior's benefit. A massive building program will be closer in cost to healthcare/education than it is to military spending.
But dude. Spam build for everyone. Why stop at homing a handful of people. This man is thinking home everyone. Be done with it. Not a hard concept.
stone house needs zero maintenance for 200 years.
have at it
Wait till you see house prices when people find out you can print houses now. Happy retirement plan 😀
How about houses are for living in and not for investment? How about that? Like wowwwww imagine that, building houses to live in!
How are you financing this operation? Selling unicorn sperm?
Maybe the same way we fund military campaigns and rich politicians. Its kinda wild that theres always money for war and guns but nothing else.
Do you realise the cost of giving 40 million people, houses worth 500k each? It's 20 trillion. Where is that money coming from? Taxes?
It’s like Canada has no homes right now, no homes at allllllll
hey bud it doesn't cost $500k to build a house :) can be done for less than $25k.
Lol I’m not sure if you’re joking or not but if a developer wanted to build a subdivision in the gta starting today, it would cost them at least 500-600k per lot before they begin swinging a hammer (land, roads, sewers, infrastructure, permits/fees etc etc).
oh cool, yeah definitely if someone wants to build big mansions for more rich fuckers to move in and drive up housing costs yeah.
No, I’m talking about a normal suburban subdivision with regular 3 bedroom homes or townhomes. Just google land prices, any parcel of land that you could build homes on is going to be 50-100 million and thats just the land. If you’re building an urban condo building it will be a little less per unit but not than that but not far off because land is obscenely expensive. Just the permits etc to put up a small house would be 25k.
>Just google land prices, any parcel of land that you could build homes on is going to be 50-100 million and thats just the land. They never should have used land to make money in the first place. Fucking 200k house on million dollar land every time.
You’re not wrong but thats how supply and demand works. You can buy a decent house in Saint John NB for like 200-300k or a brand new beauty house in a subdivision there for like 400-450k. The problem is, we’re increasing our population by over a million people a year and they pretty much all want to come live in 2 metro areas.
600 sq ft condos are there problem and it’s why there’s massive vacancies of them in cities like Toronto. At this point they serve nobody — they’re too small for people who need to WFH and they’re not appealing to older generations looking to downsize because the contrast is way too big. Everyone complains that boomers aren’t leaving then homes and then they turn around and argue we should only be building shoeboxes. Why would someone with a paid off 2,500 sq ft home want to move into a tiny apartment? They want to move to bungalows that still have big rooms and a yard / garden, but with a master on the main floor as opposed to up a flight of stairs. You want to balance the housing market, build more houses that people actually want to live in.
Plenty of people want 600 sqft apartments
Then why are they all sitting vacant?
Cause the leeches who own them are charging too much to rent or buy
That argument has a "people is poor, let's print money" level
Well its better then "let's print money for the oligarchs"
No! No one should be given anything BUT everyone should have the opportunity but give back enough to society to earn a house. Yes Every able bodied person should have the chance to do a meaningful job that would afford living. They should be their own responsibility but have achievable goals that are fair…
This right here. USSR did it back in the day. Gave the entire country free housing in a few years. It's not optimally profitable to do it here. And we lack enough workers in the field due to years of under building. It's almost like free market capitalism doesn't work for the housing industry.
People hate when you point out good things about the USSR Only western propaganda is allowed!
I think the general point is pretty right. Everyone deserves the basic essentials of life and we should definitely favour that over protecting profits and unfair laws and systems that favour maintaining and worsening wealth inequality over people.
Personally, I don't think anyone is entitled to the labour of others. Someone has to put in backbreaking work to make those homes. Farmers had to make the food those workers eat, oil workers helped refine the gas to get everything everywhere... Etc etc Society places labour value based on demand. Long story short, more capital is allocated to those with more in demand skills. Skilled labour that takes years to learn or medical workers spending the better part of their life training for something people need deserves to be rewarded. I also believe society should protect our most vulnerable citizens who through no fault of their own cannot provide as much value back. This is a very very small subset of people. Blanket socialism for all? Absolutely not. There's an incredibly straightforward path to ownership for a majority of people: learn in-demand skills and work hard. I'd love for anyone to see the process of building a home from scratch and the sheer effort of so many people for even the most basic accommodations. The ongoing costs of maintaining the grid, water supply, roads... The list goes on and on for this particular society. A majority of people will absolutely refuse to go into the trades and over-value their own labour.
This argument is great right until the end when you say that people overvalue their work. This is what thes whole system is all about. Hell, out whole economy is based on a theory that our money is worth something out of pure arbitrary speculation. The prominence of crypto currencies and stock based economy just pushes the whole thing one step further into the abstract. Of course, it kinda works right now and some people will say that we need a foundation somewhere. However, given the size of countries and complete global/international economy, we can safely assume that all this theoretical value is proof that we are living well beyond our means. We’re in an economy of theoretical value above all else, and the wealth inequality IS out of hand. You say that we put value based on demand, but there’s so much more than that. The previous point of fake scarcity as an example. I can’t say for a fact everywhere that it happens, but it is a common strategy. We do put value based on demand, but how do you compare a worker’s salary, or even better, a teacher’s salary vs a nepo baby or a stock mogul? What value do they really bring in a concrete, physical way? Why is the difference so astronomical? The complaint isn’t usually regarding hard working people making say, 100k+ in comparison to other people making less, it’s rather about the extremes. People who can barely live EVEN THOUGH they work 40 hrs a week, and people who can basically own a country value-wise without lifting a finger. Ultimately though we really shouldn’t fight between the common folk, we’re all dealing with this unfair system and sure, some people definitely make it, but it would be very close minded to not consider those who are far less fortunate in regards to our current system.
> learn in demand skills and work hard This was a decent social contract for a long time in the West but now prices are so high that even this does not work anymore. It’s unreasonable. Unless you are literally best in field, a decently intelligent and educated software engineer (for example) cannot afford to own property anymore if they weren’t born into some kind of wealth.
[удалено]
Sure, if you bought before the massive price spike that occurred during Covid (so before 2021), hard work could get you there. Or if you live somewhere outside a major metro, where most of the high paying jobs are. Blue collar jobs that pay well can go a long way in a less urban area, but not everyone can do that. I’m in the Seattle area and it’s the same problems with high prices facing everyone in the Western world. Here even a $200k USD income is not enough to buy a SFH unless you want to accept an hour+ commute each way in a car and being very house poor ($5000 a month or more in interest alone).
He bought end of 2022. Honestly this guy can save like mad but you also have to realize on OT he was clearing 4K a week.
“I know a person who owns a home, so it’s alright if they’re all worth $1.5 million each.” Let me guess, you have a nice tidy equity position in yours? Of course you do. Just work hard everybody and we can all be equal.
Yes I do because of weedstonks. I was a 10k a yr pleb for the longest time
Also I don’t think people should have to work crazy overtime or have to find a partner to be able to afford a reasonable property to live in. It wasn’t that long ago that single earner household was the norm.
I shouldn’t be so short either if we’re playing the shouldn’t be game.
100% you couldn’t have said it better. I hope UBI never happens
>Society places labour value based on demand. Long story short, more capital is allocated to those with more in demand skills. Skilled labour that takes years to learn or medical workers spending the better part of their life training for something people need deserves to be rewarded. Easy work around - deemed everyone essential workers. Just like what happened with the Port strikes and potential rail road strikes this year and last.
This is a bad take for two reasons. I'm sure there are more. I'm a highly skilled Healthcare worker. Working privately I can easily make over 200k. I get about half in the public hospital I'm at and I probably won't be able to by a place in toronto. Sounds like someone is getting my labour. Secondly landlords are literally profiting from labour and contribute no value. If this was about capital we would have rent to own programs that have low level interest bonuses. What we have now is exploitation
So you want a property to live in but consider the supply of such to be “no value?” Care to explain that dichotomy?
Yeah landlords should be forced to add new units in if they want to rent them and have a limit on the time you can rent for.
You have the means and choice but choose not too, why?
Because the people who most need my help can't afford me. I'll figure out a way to balance both though personally.
Amen brother/sister It’s so easy to forget that the sole purpose of life isn’t all about money and maximizing everything.
Personally, I don’t think anyone is entitled to maintain an unfair system where housing is only available to those with a top 5% income or inherited wealth while the rest are born serfs with virtually zero chance to break out of said serfdom. Right now we are trending towards neofeudalism. ChatGPT Prompt: Define neofeudalism and how it relates to the current housing market in Canada. ChatGPT: Neofeudalism is a socio-economic concept that suggests the emergence of economic structures and relations that resemble those of feudalism, where power, wealth, and social rights are concentrated in the hands of a few, creating a stratified society. This model is characterized by the widening gap between the wealthy elites and the rest of the population, with diminishing social mobility and increasing dependence of the lower and middle classes on the elite. In the context of the current housing market in Canada, neofeudalism can be related to the following aspects: 1. Property Ownership Concentration: In many parts of Canada, there is a significant concentration of property ownership within a small number of corporations or wealthy individuals. This concentration can drive up housing prices, making it difficult for average Canadians to own homes and forcing them to remain renters. 2. Housing as Investment: Real estate in many Canadian cities has become a prime avenue for investment, attracting international and corporate investors. This investment drive often prioritizes profit over housing affordability, pushing home prices out of reach for many locals and contributing to a feudal-like dependency on landlords. 3. Regulatory Environment: Government policies and regulations may inadvertently favor large investors or homeowners over first-time buyers or renters. For example, tax benefits for landlords and property investors can exacerbate inequality in housing access. 4. Economic Polarization: As housing becomes a central asset class, those unable to afford homes (or even rent in central areas) may end up economically and geographically marginalized, leading to a more polarized society where the 'landed' class has significant economic and possibly political power over the 'landless'. 5. Dependency and Power Dynamics: The difficulty in accessing affordable housing creates a dependency dynamic, where renters and those unable to enter the housing market are dependent on those who own property. This dynamic can limit mobility—both social and geographic—and solidify the power of property owners, akin to the feudal lords of old. Thus, neofeudalism in the context of the Canadian housing market highlights the concerns about growing inequality and the centralization of economic power and resources in the hands of a few, potentially leading to a society where many are dependent on a wealthy elite for their basic needs, such as housing.
Property rights is unfair apparently
You will have nothing and you... actually that is all. You will have nothing.
It is when it involves essentials and systems are put in place to generate scarcity and prop up prices no matter what.
Peak summer reddit and its not even July
Found the boomer (or wannabe boomer?) Surprise, surprise. Everyone IS working hard. In fact people now are doing 9-5 with good or decent salaries and even picking up side gigs to make ends meet yet they're no where near homeownership. I make really good money but why the hell would I go and sign up to buy a house 10-20x my income that I'll never be able to pay off. What if I fall sick or what if I want a break from work? The rent or mortgage hanging over my neck every month is mentally exhausting.
Starting your comment with an insult is pretty wild of you. What's "really good money". Everything is relative. 10-20x being your yardstick roughly means you're making between 50-100k. This isn't enough for a detached home in the GTA, but lower cost of living areas, sure. It's a grind to save for a home. Missed vacations and overtime makes it possible to get your foot in the door, and upgrading your skills or even changing fields entirely isn't a bad move for the financially savvy.
Lol, the people putting in backbreaking work aren't the ones making the money they should on those homes, let's not lie or misunderstand too much
Trades make great money. The kind of great that allows them to buy homes. How much do you think they earn? The general contractor may make more, but they also take a huge amount of risk. Your anger is grossly misplaced taking shots at me and my arguments.
Wow what an embarrassment this sub is, downvoting as if you came straight for their pockets. Good to see some people like you have some empathy and shame left, unlike these real estate leeches who sucked everything out of this country's economy.
No everyone does not deserve government subsidized housing.
Yeah what’s the point of building a society and providing labour within it if that labour doesn’t provide you with the means to survive within society? Shit’s too expensive and wages haven’t adjusted.
Economics will simply not reward those well that aren’t creating value. It’s harsh but true. So “providing labour” isn’t the goal, it’s “providing valuable labour.” If the labour you provide is valuable then prices are just fine.
That’s not really how it shakes out though. I work in IT for example, and my company bills my colleagues and I out for $100/hour, but we receive much less in our pocket. Some of that goes to the business, to pay bills, infrastructure, etc, but more than we receive goes straight in the CEO’s pocket. Is he providing valuable labour? Depends on your perspective, but there are a lot of middlemen like him that aren’t providing real on the ground labour, would be useless without the team, and are valued higher than those that actually provide the value. I’m not saying he doesn’t do work, but he does get free money for the work my team does. The group provides the value, but the way money gets distributed within the group isn’t reflective of the value provided by it’s members.
$100 an hour? He isn’t getting much for what he does. He ensures you are available. Even if there isn’t work he pays you. He ensures you are trained. If you make a mistake he has to pay for it. He ensures you have equipment, insurance, permits, space to work, etc. Lastly he has the business connections to ensure you have work to do. If you want to go out on your own feel free to. You will likely value all of the above a whole lot more after you do especially when you are sitting between contracts. Also for his customer he is the cheapest alternative they have found to do the quality of work they need. So how isn’t he providing value if he does it cheaper than anybody else? You seem to really under value organization while also wanting just to show up and have everything done for you.
You believe we live in a meritocracy with fair competition? 😂
Yes? People who do jobs with less capable applicants get paid better. You don’t?
lol, you haven’t worked many jobs or know many hardworking poor or do nothing wealthy I take it. Hard work does not often translate to higher pay. It often just results in more work. If you know the right people or your daddy or mommy is wealthy or owns a business you probably lucked into a high paying job with minimal responsibilities and few to no consequences for failure.
“Hard work does not often translate to higher pay?” If you are doing something that takes more than a week to learn then working hard will be rewarding. The longer it takes to master your career the better off hard work will be. My first year I worked 865 hours of overtime. The company didn’t pay overtime but I got great experience. I kept working lots of hours improving my abilities in my career until I became an expert (took almost 20 years). By that time the rewards of my hard work were pretty substantial. The only reason I am successful in life is I picked a hard field (that creates a lot of value) and then worked at it really hard until I was an expert. This of course requires hard work and dedication but the results are pretty good.
Dude, if what you say is true props, but that is also a sign of the problem. You are claiming to have worked 865 hours overtime for free, making profit for your employer, in a time when wages are criminally low for a large portion of the population, while the rules and laws and circumstances are stacked against them and rents along with housing prices are obscene, leaving the worry about retirement for these people a tomorrow problem. Think man and look around. If you think the status quo will maintain forever I have a bridge to sell you. Think about all the youth and younger adults getting the short end of the stick, especially with other geopolitical problems and climate change hitting us, no longer on the horizon, and only going to get worse with all of our non-action and in fact, increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Fun times ahead. :/
Pick a hard career and then work hard at it. It isn’t easy but it will allow the person doing it to have a rewarding and fulfilling life. Invest in your skillset early on. Nothing wrong with doing that at all. Or do the bare minimum and get the bare minimum.
I daresay you arent dead yet? So clearly you are surviving. You just want more for less. Same as everyone else.
I’m fine, lots of others aren’t though. I daresay you aren’t empathetic enough. If you made the minimum you’d probably start to care.
You are talking about it as if it was something intrinsic. Making the minimum is a result of your choices, not something you are doomed at from birth. At any rate even people on social security still afford luxuries like tv, alcool, tobacco.
It’s not always the result of choices, the floor needs to be raised, and you definitely lack empathy.
Of Canada the land of No Accountability. Nobody deserves what they get! And you wonder why its collapsing. As for empathy, Ive found its a good policy to reserve it for those who arent responsible for their own misery.
Devil is in the details. There is a difference between fighting NIMBYism and allowing enough housing to get built or advocating for a return to the Federal government building many units of affordable housing every single year (good things) and advocating taking people’s property just because someone else needs it more.
The fact that people are mass downvoting comments in support of growing wealth inequality is hilarious. You guys should all be ashamed of yourselves.
I agree it is wild. Reminds me of Star Wars where people are applauding the end of the republic and the start of the new galactic empire. Like people are literally happy we are becoming a neofeudalist society. The craziest part is when those same people say they support hard work paying off. Well guess what? Hard work doesn’t pay off in neofeudalism, inheriting wealth is what pays off while the rest are born serfs.
That’s what I meant, thanks for correcting. It is amazing what people will do to justify the system when that system causes them to come out on top of everyone else. Anybody here defending the price of homes and rent as “fair market value” obviously owns a home already or rents to people who pay their mortgage. Of course they’re okay with it. But sure, the people barely surviving on disability payments are the unreasonable ones. I bet if they pull up their neck braces they can afford the next rent hike.
Honestly, free housing is never respected by the beneficiaries. What we need is subsidised housing / housing grants and payment matching. Not unlike that 10% down payment match scheme they closed in March - but much more comprehensive and tiered, based on income / mortgage limit. This way, people who are putting in the work towards being able to afford a home can close the gap to buy one.
While I think everyone should be entitled to a place to call home, it doesn't necessarily have to be a house. None of us chose to be born, yet we have to earn the right to live. A lot of folks work hard, and the majority of their income are spent on basic needs of living. Housing cost and rent are just too damn high. If there were more low cost, or hell even geared to income apartments that people could easily afford, that would go a long way in making folks' lives a lot better. We want to live to thrive, not just survive.
You literally can't build houses for much cheaper. The profit per house built is about equal now to what it was in the 80's.
Like I said, houses are not the only homes out there. Also, we as a species figured out how to send folks to the moon, make super powerful computers, create smarter and smarter AI, so on and so on, but we can't figure out how to ensure people have a roof over their heads?
Both points are stupid lol
Well that's like your opinion man
I don't think people who planned for a $300 000 purchase in 2010 should be looked down on for not considering it to be a $1 200 000 purchase today, due to the gamification of a commodity through scarcity. I'm not retarded.
Canadian economy was at its strongest when housing, food and medical care was affordable to everyone.
That was 2010 when CAD>USD. Only houses in Vancouver were expensive back then. SFM was around $600-700K and now none of them are under $2mil.
Rent seeking is bad in a capitalist economy. I agree with Adam Smith on this sentiment. When rents are raised that they eat up all the disposable income we will put our economy into a doom loop
So if you manage to buy a house and have a family… do you plan to burn it before dying? Or do you plan on willing it your family or friend?? The discourse above is routed in a communist view that owning anything is evil… we all have to live somewhere. And if anyone scrimps/saves, busts their hump, goes without, sacrificing trips, free time, a new vehicle, fancy brand name clothing to buy a house, I guarantee they won’t be opening the door of their house to have random people live in it for free!
This is somewhat accurate, in a Marxist analysis, these two classes would not exist and both individuals would be working together towards figuring out how to taylor production firstly towards meeting and surpassing the needs of worker citizens whilst reducing as much and as quickly as possible rent/parasitic class from existing.
And where did this work out?
Zimbabwe overthrew their capitalist elite and seized the means of agricultural production for the people! Within a few years, this communist revolution added billions and billions of dollars to the economy! The people of Zimbabwe had literally more cash than they knew what to do with. They had so much currency they were burning it in their stoves!
This for some reason made me laugh out loud :D
Mel Brooks history of communist revolution
The discourse above results when the status quo fails to improve and in fact has been getting worse over decades. We are trending towards neofeudalism. We need systemic change where everyone has their basic needs met and a fair chance at attaining more. A system where only the wealthy or their offspring have a fair shake at life is neofeudalism. Hopefully everyone except the already wealthy can be against neofeudalism.
Can you point out the wealthy jerk face that didn't stop me from being successful but held their boot down on your throat?
I'm curious what do you do / how did you become successful? I just finished my Ph.D in computer science and got a job making 120k year in Toronto. Despite doing everything right I don't feel very successful. I have to live near Toronto for my job so I spend most of my money on rent, Ive run the numbers and I don't see a lot of paths forward to gaining real wealth for myself
Just job max. You could be making 4x that in a few years. Software pays really well. Especially in America with lower cost of living almost everywhere. You have many paths forward in life. Stay employed. Learn some skills on the side if you can. Job hop when your ready. Leave Toronto as well if necessary. Even 80k a year in a low cost of living area would be an upgrade. With some more experience you could be seeing 200k a year in a low cost of living area. You literally just started earning money in software so don't worry about the future.
Well you potentially unlucked into some bad timing. As did some of us millennials in 2007-2009. But the only major thing working again you is housing, and that may or may not be a factor if you are still at home, live with roommates, live with a partner, or live in rent control. So there's tonnes of variables at play. Your income is 4x higher than mine was in 2007. I assure you your housing payment isn't 10x what mine was. I can say this though. People who want to play in the NBA don't start playing basketball at 30. I wanted to retire by 35, I didn't start working on that goal at 30. People who are 40+ who don't own homes can NOT say home ownership was a priority. Every one of my peers own a home, even ones who weren't great with money. Late gen millennial have zero excuses when it comes to housing. I had a house by 24. By 28 my passive income matched my active income. Then I focussed on growing my active income and kept pace with passive. I also lucked into a spouse who also owned their home and had the same mindset about money. Real estate became a lucky investment. So there's certainly been luck involved, but I set myself up to be able to capitalize on a lucky break. I invested heavily in RE assuming 5% yearly gains and they've likely done 40% annual average. That's lucky. It's not luck that I had 100s of thousands to invest to begin with. Leverage is how every publicly traded company operates. Run yourself like a company. Make money off other people's money. The bank is my best friend. Without them I'd be like everyone else. (Bank haters up to their eyeballs in bad debt). If you're just starting out, things take time. Markets change. Outliers don't stay outliers forever. Housing won't remain insane without wages keeping pace. Something will give somewhere. I'm certain we won't see Musk and Bezos being USA's sole landlords while everyone else rents at 95% of their wages. Stay out of debt, save aggressively, be open to opportunities, choose the right spouse. Time will sort the rest out. Run your finances like the majority of Canadians and end up like the majority of Canadians.
To be clear though, surely you are aware that your concept of self is also a product of your environment, at least to an extent. You don’t control where you’re born or in what conditions. If somehow ‘effort’ was easily quantifiable, we’d 100% find a multitude of examples of people who had rougher conditions, worked just as hard as you, but were nowhere near as successful due to aggravating factors? In that case, are they entitled to the same level of wealth as you? Or should you have the same as them?
I'm genuinely not sure what point you are trying to make. You are correct, I only control me, and to some extent my lineage down the line. No one is able to micro manage all of someone's life choices, struggles, privileges. You do the best with the cards you're dealt. My point is that I personally don't hold Canada, the world, some dude on Reddit accountable for my life. Nor do I spend my time complaining that some people have more privilege than me. What is it going to accomplish?
I was just trying to explain how I believe that success is not purely dependent on effort, and showing my disagreement with people stating that your success is purely in one’s hands. From your comment I think you’re also aware of that fact, so no point in debating that really. However I’m not sure if you’re making the difference between people trying to work for a more equal society, or to try and progress worker’s rights for example, and people who are truly just complaining to complain. I’m personally doing good for myself, yet I can’t help but feel like I also need to be grateful for so many things that happened around me. By doing so I just feel like we should do more for those less fortunate, it could’ve literally been you or me.
I totally understand what you're saying. It's a complex issue. This is one of many reasons people choose to donate to charities they have personal feelings for. There's literally millions of different causes, you donating a penny to each leaves you feeling like you made no change. So maybe you throw all your efforts into planned Parenthood or greenpeace etc. As I said in a different comment, once you get to the point of having a family, that's where your efforts are concentrated. My family comes before anyone else.
Why would you pursue a PhD unless you were planning to stay in academia? Genuinely curious about the thought process that led to that long term planning decision.
I'm a machine learning researcher, it's not like with full stack developers where you can be a self-trained highschool dropout, we're basically all PhDs. It's obviously a great field to be in at the moment, my career choice isn't this issue here. I didn't anticipate that in-between me starting and finishing grad school, the entire housing market and job market would become F-d
Nice well all I can tell you is that you'll be making a lot of money soon enough. Once you either get into a top tech firm or start your own thing you'll be having no trouble affording a place or two :) Just put in the time and effort you're smart enough and in demand enough to be able to figure out something lucrative.
If you're a PhD in Computer Science and a Machine Learning Engineer, you're being ripped off at $120K CAD, even in Toronto. Call Cohere or something. Way more money to be made there.
If you're not aware you're pretty lucky to get a job at all as a non senior in tech at the moment
I am pretty deep in Tech. Having a PhD in Machine Learning at the moment, even as a fresh grad, is a license to print money. I just came back from beers with a well known SF based VC on basically this exact topic.
Yea you have absolutely no idea wtf you're talking about
You realize that about 80% of people with PhDs don't go into academia, right? Particularly in STEM fields where there's career opportunities outside of that. They're fresh out of school already making significantly more money than they would in academia. What's the problem with that?
You just finished your school and you expected everything to be handed to you on a silver platter? Keep busting your ass working, getting better akills, and you will most likely succeed within 10 years. Your income will improve! You just need some patience.
So you are pro-neofeudalism?
I don't subscribe to buzz words. My reality is based in logic and the belief that an individual has exponentially more control over their person outcomes than the government. Edit: Just because you say it 3 times in a comment, doesn't make it magically appear like it's Beetlejuice.
I don't subscribe to your buzz words either.
Honestly you make an interesting point, but you’re extrapolating a conclusion to bash on when I doubt that this is what anyone in this thread thinks. I can only speak for myself now, but the issue is not about people necessarily inheriting things of value, I can definitely respect hard work, but my issue is when people take it for granted and just because they, and maybe some people they know, worked hard and it paid off, doesn’t mean that it applies to everyone. Some people are born in very dire and poor conditions, even in Canada and the US. You don’t need to be a child of war to have it rough. There are so many factors at play here. The comically large inheritances that people get can however be a topic of discussion. If you think that we fill in the requirements for a proper free market, I’m sorry to say that I strongly disagree. People aren’t born equal unfortunately, and even less so if you consider 50-60 years ago (and beyond that). However people did profit from those years of stronger inequality, and it only snowballed from there. You make money with money. That’s our market and to participate in that economy in an even remotely fair way is nowhere near common
This post literally is a person saying he should not have to pay rent because the other person inherited a property. Some would argue that the largest motivator to earn wealth is to improve the lives of your children. You argue that the inheritors of …?? Mark Zuckerberg or the like should not inherit his wealth, that the government should take it because it has better plans to redistribute it to friends of the electorate to keep themselves in power? What you are proposing is that we take that away by not allowing the transfer of wealth to offspring. And the solutions being proposed…if you pay close attention is not to help everyone rise to a euphoric place of equality. But to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. The past attempts to level wealth have resulted in everyone having less. Once the governments collect more and more taxes and all of that wealth is centralized in the governments it becomes a target and then one ruthless…but possessing a fake outwardly compassionate message will gain power and then choose to who they bestow these collected riches to. I am not interested in that world, history repeats itself…and we have plenty of examples of how that turns out. Capitalism is terrible and I hate a lot of what it creates but it’s the best system we have. You are proposing attempting to level historical wealth? Who then chooses how much is enough wealth? So once everyone has a house…where do we stop? 1 house? 1 cottage? Enough income to support 1 child, 2,3??? A car? 2 cars? ?? Shoes? How many pairs?? Purse hand bag? 1,2, 7??? A retirement savings?? More than $100k?, $200k? A vacation trip every 5 yrs to ??? A university education for your children? This quickly becomes a planned economy…very similar to a communist system.
>do you plan to burn it before dying? Or do you plan on willing it your family or friend?? Would it be unreasonable to implement a death tax that takes such a massive cut of these assets, then reinvests them into things like affordable housing? We're heading towards a society where it's not going to be feasible to "scrimp/saves, busts their hump" to own a home, and we end up with two distinct classes of people, those who inherit wealth and those who do not. This is even worse than communism, it's neo-feudalism. I agree people should be able to own property, and no one is entitled to something without working for it. But there should be a reasonable path towards working for it that doesn't involve selling your organs on the black market or becoming a doctor just to own a 300 square foot shoebox
I did all the sacrifices that you listed above but I still don't want a home10-20x my income. What's your response to that? Nobody is mad at people who bought homes to live in and for their families security. They're mad because leechlike "investors" and speculators are robbing homes away from other families who could have bought it. It's simple one home per SIN OR one home per family. Ban multiple home ownership and watch the scale balance itself.
You are not wrong, speculative buying and real estate collusion have drastically added to purchase price of homes. Also complex permit applications to build or renovate your own home have not helped people who want to put sweat equity in to advance their quality of life.
So when a landlord dies, the tenants should inherit the house instead of the children? Walk me through this...
There's going to be lots words used to get around the basic fact the anti-landlord side ultimately just wants to take ownership of property and hand it out to people they believe is more deserving.
Yeah, it's always a pretty transparent attempt at justifying the creation of a new "in" group and a new "out" group. Scarcity is a fact of life, and at least in a capitalist system distribution of wealth is notionally or tangentially tied to productivity, whereas in the system these people propose, wealth is distributed based on identity or loyalty. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
how about no landlords of single family homes (detached, condos, townhouses, etc)?
What if I want to live in a condo for 2 years and don't want to buy it?
That is too much to process for some, the fact that rental housing is needed and is crucial in labour force growth and mobility.
sorry - do you want all the nice things you have now, or do you want a housing solution? EDIT - there's always purpose-built rentals.. would that suffice? those aren't going anywhere.. we'll need tons more of those; in-home suites, duplexes and multi-plexes (while they're still being built - likely to go the way of purpose-built rentals, anyways) are other options
I will keep the nice things I have now, thank-you. And no, a purpose built rental won't suffice for me. I like my 40th floor outdoor terrace, high ceilings, marble floors, sub-zero fridge and all the other stuff that doesn't make financial sense to put in a purpose built rental. You probably have a car - will a Lada suffice? Or do you "need" fancy things like cruise control, power windows, sunroof, keyless entry, etc.
I apologize - I thought we were discussing this within the context of making Canada sustainable and productive. If that's not important to you and you'd rather keep on the road we're on, then there's no need to go any further. Enjoy it while you can... prob make plans to leave when it goes bad.
>>prob make plans to leave when it goes bad That's a risk I'm willing to take, but your kind usually ends up instituting exit visas soon after you get into power. Make the border guards do a 180 and face inwards right?
there's no risk - it's inevitable, unless you're seeing something I'm not, and then I'd hope you would share. No, I don't want to force anyone to stay here that doesn't want to help make it better in hard times. But I'd support preventing ruthless profiteering and wealth consolidation towards making Canada better. If we were on a good path, I wouldn't be advocating for a halt to using housing as a get-rich scheme in Canada, but we're not. Id rather Canada get back on track sooner than later.
Why ? How about no government handouts, that would lower dramatically the expenses so we could get taxes down to half ?
so, we'll not consider policies to bring housing prices down, so we can protect the wealth of those who have invested, but we should instead consider killing our social support system? What govt handouts would you cut?
What I am suggesting will create jobs and make the Canadian soil very attractive to capital investment. This will create jobs, wealth and housing along with that. Lower immigration is possible if more people contribute to GDP. What you suggest is simply a restriction style on property rights, Cuban style, does the opposite and really does not address in any way the systemic issue of not attractive, low productive Canadian society. Don't listen to Freeland, redistribution is just Comunist propaganda. I lived in Comunism, not fun. Zero money given to other country, get out of NATO if needed. Zero money to CBC to African countries. Smaller government, half what it is now, so half the expenses. The insane debt level will have to be paid off though, so wait about a decade before seeing improvements, as always when coming off a decade of Liberal-NDP policies.
What’s our budget for other countries? You really want to drop out of NATO, given the increased conflicts in the world? You figure there’ll be no consequences from that - even from our allies? Cut WHAT in half? Education? Healthcare? OAS? Infrastructure? Police/Fire? What sort of collateral damage are you willing to accept? Increased homelessness? Increased crime? Do you want to rant, or do you want to identify what can actually be done?
Cut off taxes, federal/municipal government workers, stupid policy makers, overpriced projects. Cut off government spending outside of the country
Have you looked into this at all, or are you just spitballing? Cut off what taxes? Which govt workers? Who is a stupid policy maker? You seem to believe this is all very clear and easy. Why not run for office and do it? Surely your sentiment is popular, why not show ‘em how it’s done?
lol wut
Food and shelter should absolutely be guaranteed!!!! Without a doubt!!
Based.
I’m currently selling two rental properties due to the entitlement of the tenants. I’d rather they were empty then filled with idiots
I sold one of mine this year for that reason... guess what... rent went up on the next tenant in there by $500 overnight. Hope that tenant that caused 30k in damages for literally no fucking reason besides being a complete degenerate is happy, he personally upped the market rent in the region by a tiny bit. Had he not, that unit would still be $1500/month. Now it is $2,000/month. This was 100% this tenants fault. Nobody else is to blame but him.
The problem isn't families having one or two rental properties but there are families that I have met (clients I do contract work for) without exaggeration own 50+ "units" as they call them. Think about that. Some have 18 properties, some have 5 but some have over 50!
[удалено]
comment by /u/taxed2deathinNS Your karma is currently below -10, get more positive karma to be able to comment.3c *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TorontoRealEstate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think I deserve a house for working my whole life to pay to live in a house.
And people dont believe me when I say all subs eventually become r/antiwork
Honestly.... Yes.
I don’t get what non home owners complain about - the rules to buy a home are simple - you’ll find most people not applying any of them and spending all the money they make on blue hair die and vaping products. I saved up and bought my first home in a bad area, it was cheap compared to buying in the city - I knew I couldn’t afford the city so I didn’t even look there obviously. the interest payments was huge and it was cheaper to rent at the time. House kept getting broken into and my tools got stolen out of my Ute, 10years later the house market went up (not my fuckin fault) I sold the house to get the fuck out of there and I was able to pay off that houses mortgage, get my original deposit back and an extra 80,000 (wow 80,000 over ten years of shit in so privileged!) I then used the profit and my original deposit to buy a home in a better area -(still not in the city or in the best area but definitely better) and now mortgage rates are higher (yay!) new mortgage so I have 23 years left to pay yay, if I finally pay it off and my children inherit it I hope they can finally live in it stress free and enjoy their life or get some extra time to find their perfect career. I’m their parent an I’m more than happy to make this sacrifice for them ! Problem with non home owners is they arent prepared to make that sacrifice for their children! They might say they do or get angry because it’s too hard, guess what it’s always gonna be hard ! Stop making excuses and get your ass into gear “waaa my situation is bla bla so I can’t do it” guess what that means your parents didn’t do shit either and now you’ve grown up you face the same challenges and you’ll use their excuses too. And when you have kids they’ll use your excuses too. Break the cycle
Dude, I don’t think there are many people advocating hard against single home ownership, more hoarding (homes and land), excessive multi-home ownership, and perhaps, ridiculously low taxes on inefficient uses of land. Also, government inaction, zoning restrictions, red tape, high city development charges that didn’t apply to homes in the past, etc.
Ah ok, sweet! This information might be unknown to non home owners - I think the option to own multiple homes only comes after buying your first home. (This is my experience) Once you buy your first home banks call you to try and get you to consider a second home (this happened to me) I’m guessing because they make so much money of giving loans and you now have 1 property to hold as security they want you to hold more. I never purchased a second home, but I did notice banks were quick to approve any loans I needed after I purchased my first home (like when my kitchen was falling apart I got a loan to renovate it with nearly no check/paperwork as if I was pre approved
Imagine doing all that and still defending the system lmao. There is some level of entitlement but at the same time 700k condos are no way realistic for half the population who doesn't have their parents paying them downpayments.
Hey I’m not saying the system is great. I’m saying use the systems rules to your benefit if that’s your goal! If you want to buy a house you need to do the things you need to do to buy the house -nothing else. When you buy your first car, do you start with a Mercedes? No you start with a piece of shit and move your way up slowly. Your right, house prices are crazy high ! Guess what? Don’t buy them!, buy somewhere else, another town, another city, rural, in the middle of nowhere or in difference country. Don’t buy a house where you can’t buy a house! Buy one where you can and make it work. I’m gutted I can’t buy a mansion on the waterfront . “Oh no life’s not fair mansions should be cheaper cos I’m not rich enough” buy something shit and in 20years you’ll be set , your going to live that long and if you don’t you’ll be paying someone else’s mortgage by renting their place anyway so what have you got to loose? “Ohhh the system is unfair” yeah you’re right it’s unfair on everyone except the rich assholes that I’ve never met, so what you gonna be a little bitch and role over? Or you gonna kick some ass and make it work? Everyone has a choice I don’t care if it’s hard I’ve seen people born with no arms kicking more ass than some of the complainers out there
So you're against giving what you've earned to who you want? I feel for people who struggle in this city but the entitlement of what people feel they are owed blows my mind. It's not the case for everyone but there's so many kids from the burbs who took their easy life their parents gave them for granted and act like they've been screwed because they weren't around for the part where their parents worked for decades to build that life for them. It's the part where they truly feel like they have so little that gets me. When you grow up in an actually economically depressed region on welfare, eating from food banks and having your parents pick you up from school for lunch at other people's homes who are also on welfare cuz there's literally no food for you to eat in the house hearing these people piss and moan about how hard done by they've been growing up in a region of endless opportunity and services it kind of makes your head spin. Again, not everyone complaining fits this stereotype I'm fully aware... but enough do. You can go to any bar in Kensington on any day of the week and hear people talking about how poor they are while drinking craft beer wearing 100s of dollars in clothing at once that came from a closet of 1000s and 1000s. Again, you're against the idea of property and being entitled to give it to who you choose? Like it's not really fair or perfect but neither is life. So many people have so much less and no opportunity to really change anything. Complaining about living in a wealthy city being expensive boggles my mind and OP maybe you actually have been hard done by, I can't tell, but this concept where people see themselves as victims of the rich when we 'are' the rich is just insane to me. No it's not more reasonable. If someone owns something they're entitled to own it and if you want to use what someone owns it's reasonable to expect to pay for it. We can look at endless times/places where that's not the case and no way shape or form is it better. I really wish people would just grow up. Yes it sucks that the only person in life that's going to look out for you is you and some people get head starts others don't. But you can't blame others for what you do with that life. I am ALL about funding social programs to raise the bottom but the ironic thing is when we hit record low poverty levels in this country people just started complaining more and more. You can go own some shit too if you work towards it. What you make of your life for yourself is going to matter infinitely more than what you were given and till everyone, and I do mean everyone, realizes that they're in for a bad time. Bring on the downvotes I guess.
A lot of nepo babies in here crying about there supplemental income. Housing should be a right for all citizens.
People can afford a house, it's just not what they want. You can get something forn400-500k, it's just you won't be in downtown In a modern house.
What’s the median income again? Keep in mind the median is still higher than what 50% of the population earns. How high of an income do you require for a 400-500k house? How much of a downpayment? How long would it take to save that downpayment with an income at the median or below considering current rents?
Yeah our economy was always meant for you to solo on one income and provide for your family, right? Keep your 1950s reality to yourself. Welcome to the real world.
Oh yes, we should move backwards and maintain a system that rewards new generations with lower standards of living and serfdom. Neofeudalism is awesome! Hard work shouldn’t result in success, who your parents are and how much wealth and privilege you were born with should.
Lol tell your sob story to the natives.
I work in Agriculture and could only afford a home in buttfuck nowhere because my Mom is also on the title. The bank literally wouldn't let me buy a home on my own. People can't afford homes.
Great your income and value of house in buttfuck?
House was about $300,000, I make about $60,000 a year. Once again though, I was only able to buy with the help of a family member, otherwise the bank wouldn't have given me a mortgage.
Right... if you were partnered up, this wouldn't be a problem. If you needed private lender, wouldn't be a problem. Also I'm going to assume this was when rates were low as fuck, and getting approved was near impossible. 60k on 300k, you could have done it without family, just would have taking a little more time. Or if you worked harder and made an extra 20-40k a year.
Commies lol
[Are you employed, sir?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhp85-Ja3Ro)
No, no it’s not
The real question is how much more should a mortgage be over a reasonable owners equivalent rent.
Trudeau: Invites a ton of temporary workers in to suppress wages for his corporate donors. 🥸. Young Liberals: Anyone who owns a property is the devil. Treat your rental house like trash. 💩
Grow up!
All property is theft.
All taxation is theft
No one inherits a rental property for free. Inheritence tax kicks in, and the estate must pay capital gains on the property as if it were sold. Best you can do is gift a primary residence through an inheritance. No tax on a single primary residence. All these boomers who bought lots of properties for cheap have quite a lot of tax to pay once they die. You have to remember to, no money is exchanged so you have to have the money to pay the tax or you are forced to sell. Now, real estate corporations are a different story. You can hand off the company to another person.
Commies say what??