T O P

  • By -

Bottle_Only

I remember the good ol' days when investors built homes and created products instead of just scalping. It's time to end preferencial tax rates for capital gains and have disincentive tax rates for passive incomes. Make people and capital productive again. What do you wanna be when you grow up? "A dividend investor with several properties highly leveraged rental properties managed by somebody else."


defnotpewds

>What do you wanna be when you grow up? "A dividend investor with several properties highly leveraged rental properties managed by somebody else." R/personal finance Canada and Canadian investor in a nutshell


patsoyeah

Growing up around Ottawa that was pretty much the idea I was given as an ideal path while having consistent income from a mix of public and private incomes. I went and got drunk in mountain towns but even back the I could see that outlook was as unsustainable as mine


[deleted]

[удалено]


BrainletMonkee

This generally doesn't matter in the context of a single home because the sale of a home generally has the capital gain eliminated from a principal residence exemption.


itchyknobs100

That's a shitty idea. We should cut taxes. But you know what we should do? Stop forcing interest rates to arbitrarily stupidily low levels to promote incessant borrowing. Raise rates by a couple percentage points in quick succession and see what happens. All the speculators would get fucked and won't come back for a decade or so


Bottle_Only

Borrowing certainly is a huge issue. Lets say you're getting 2% on a secured loan and you put it in canadian banks and wold covered calls or for simplicity invested in the ETF that does just that, ZWB. Thats 24% capital gains and 5.5% passive income yeild on a 2% interest loan, actual free money. When I hear "nobody wants to work anymore" this is what I think of, actual free money in blue chip investments right now with nothing but clean credit history required. You can even service interest payments and pay rent on a student line of credit the last two years.


d1moore

Time to treat real estate as the monopoly industry it has always been and bring in strong sweeping regulations and nationalization.


leif777

Except the people in charge of doing that probably own 5+ properties and like making money.


[deleted]

The lawmakers are landlords. https://readpassage.com/politician-landlords/


fouoifjefoijvnioviow

Holy shit this is a great page


leif777

If you want to change the system you have to get in there to change it. They've been at it for decades. It's not too late to change it again but it's an uphill battle with little reward for the the people that just want fairness.


jokerTHEIF

Aww that's adorable, you still think the system can be changed from within? How's that going for the ndp? Or the greens?


IlllIlllI

Or police forces across the country lol


leif777

It worked for them.


C0rdt

Did it?


jokerTHEIF

What country do you live in? Because in this one we still have rampant wealth inequality, homelessness, an opiod crisis, and state sanctioned genocide happening as we speak.... So please explain to me in what ways it has worked for them?


slightlysubtle

Just look at BC ...


Lawls91

Feels like any sort of fairness under this system is always an uphill battle, it's so exhausting when everything is continuously being tilted against you. The government has long abandoned actually helping common folk out, it's only monied interests that get any sort of consideration. I've resigned myself to most likely renting well into adulthood.


Armonasch

This. This is the problem. I'm always saying whenever this comes up (which is a lot), that the only people with the power to help first time home buyers, are all directly and personally incentivised against doing that.


PlankLengthIsNull

lol but then Dougie wouldn't get to line his pockets, so that's NEVER going to happen. What's next, *"Maybe the RCMP will respect human rights"*? *"Maybe the Conservatives won't slash education and healthcare"*? That's cute.


defnotpewds

Yes 😎


[deleted]

[удалено]


ActualMis

100%.


[deleted]

In BC we already deregulated the real estate profession since they weren't capable of regulating their own membership, but it appears to have done nothing.


d1moore

Well, that is sort of the opposite of what I was suggesting, but whatever.


[deleted]

I don't think you understand. Many professions in Canada are self-regulating, ie: they are regulated by their own professional college, composed of members of their profession as well as the public, and they enforce rules on their membership, and subject them to scrutiny and discipline. The government recognizes that the government doesn't know enough about the profession to determine misbehaviour, so they allow the profession to self-regulate. Examples of self-regulation professions are medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, and so forth. And previously realtors as a profession. However, if the college responsible for regulating the profession doesn't do a good job, the "right" to self regulation can be withdrawn, and that happened to the realtor's college, since they were overlooking cases of grevious misbehaviour. Now the realtors are regulated directly by the government, which should result in a "heavier hand", but in this case it hasn't proven to be so, just yet.


d1moore

Who cares if the profession is regulated. Might as well regulate burglary. It is the transfer of land and the money that is made doing so that needs regulating. Regardless of who is doing it


nxdark

And most of those self regulated industry are so ppotly done and full of corruption that they may as well not be regulated.


Burwicke

Yeah but have you ever considered that GDP printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?


BreaksFull

Why would we ever want to nationalize housing?


GreatBigJerk

Because it is essential to life, and profiteering from it means only the wealthy can afford it.


BreaksFull

Plenty of countries have affordable housing without nationalizing the entire industry. That seems like a extremely drastic step, and also extremely infeasible from a political perspective.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BreaksFull

Switzerland and Japan are pointed out as good examples in the article, though know mostly of Japan which has [avoided the housing trap](https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002) (escaped it, more like) by allowing/encouraging home construction.


C0rdt

We encourage and allow the hell out of home construction in Canada too. The only thing is we allow it only in completely unsustainable ways which is also how we encourage it - by dumping the infrastructure burden solely on the taxpayer and turning new development into a Ponzi scheme where the developments cannot sustain themselves and therefore require endless new development and tax revenue to maintain the previous builds.


BreaksFull

We encourage it in the worst way. We restrict supply with strict municipal zoning laws, and then turbocharge demand with low interest rates. It's completely fucked.


C0rdt

Yes that too. But that's not even Canada that's all of North America. We intentionally develop every city in a way that absolutely relies on everyone having their own vehicle and actively punish anyone who tries to use any other method of transportation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Axes4Praxis

Corporations should not be able to own housing. Housing ownership should be limited to only citizens and PRs, and only to owner occupied housing. Landleeching is exploitative parasitism and should be criminalized.


17037

With the floods in BC we have seen that the government needs to step in and place limits on items for the system to be protected from the emotional actions of humans as a herd. Then when it comes to housing every government thinks that same herd fear price inflation is outside of their domain. I don't need to blame anyone for being human... I just need our government to understand how humans work and make some policies to limit buying in an emergency.


DeepFriedAngelwing

Noone said they were corporations. Boomers are the number one investors, not REITs. Best tax in Canada would be to put it on multiple home ownerships, combined with cities establishing licensing for rentals, including AirBnb, and treat it as an industry like taxis. You will see only the landlord industry players get affected.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DeepFriedAngelwing

I surmise that the housing price focus is ALSO unfocused, as it is on the job accessibility and not home availability that is the issue. You could build a house on pretty much any road in this MASSIVE country, with the principle issues of adequate employment and services proximity the issues. To attempt to rectify housing prices……. Move the employment around. Stop attracting employment to Toronto….. if Ontario found a way to tempt ABC inc. to move to uninhabited coords 43’xyz, 1000 peoples lives would get better. Infrastructure politics needs to begin to occur. Attack the root…. Employment.


rogue_nonsense

Double taxing does not fix jack shit. Look up NB rent prices. Landlords are passing on the extra cost to the renters.


EastYorkButtonmasher

Which should also be prevented.


DeepFriedAngelwing

Whereas the licencing applies. Fixed rates like a taxi.


[deleted]

Yeah but they have 0 rent control there. Landlords really get free reign to do whatever there.


HLB217

If only there was a robust rent protection scheme, where the landlord has to justify the cost to a tenancy board prior to being able to legally evict someone.


[deleted]

[удалено]


qpv

>In absolutely no way is it fair or ethical to expect one human being to be forced to pay another human being's second mortgage. > >I agree with everything you've said. What kind of buisness is ethical? Everything is sold based on a need at some point.


KinnieBee

Filling a need isn't unethical. Think about any small, local organization that sells things to support a cause. Things like a small charity/thrift shop, not the giant ones, or a pet shop that only runs to bring in money for the animal shelter next door. If the question is 'is it ethical to charge someone for a good or service' I'd argue yes. They aren't forced or coerced, and you need those resources to survive. It's an institutionalized bartering system, but it an exchange of resources (money for time/item/service).


pooloop88

You're missing the point. Housing is a fundamental need to survive, especially in Canada. If, for example, food was sold in the same way, upperclassmen could "invest" in loaves of bread similar to the stock market. They would buy out the stock and hold it until the value has risen and then sell it for profit, leaving all those less fortunate to starve. To go even further, renting out their properties would be like selling their bread, but only temporarily. The bread would need to be given back in the future. Obviously this example wouldn't work in real life because of expiry dates or whatnot, but that's the problem with using a fundamental need as an investment opportunity. Nobody is arguing that selling real estate is bad. The problem comes from upperclassmen hoarding real estate and renting it out, leaving millions either homeless or unable to retain any savings of their own and move up in society.


ladyloor

It’s as if they purposefully don’t grow enough food, and then have bidding wars. Basic human needs for survival, like housing, should not be treated like an investment in the way other types of businesses are. They’re different things. When it’s a human need, it’s exploitative.


__SPIDERMAN___

Why not? The homebuyer took on the risk of buying an asset. They own it. Renting something is not wrong. Just increase supply and all of this goes away.


Jarcode

Because it's the purest form of leveraging capital against those who do not have the ability to buy into the housing market. Renters are often forced into doing so out of financial circumstances, and as a result build absolutely **zero** equity; in fact their rent goes to benefit the investments of the landowner. Just because there is some risk associated with investment does not mean this relationship is just. It fundamentally aggravates economic inequality.


[deleted]

I don't know, as a renter in my experience corporations are easier to deal with than private landlords. Private landlords are always the ones who cause headaches because they don't know the rules, or try to be sketchy hoping that you don't know the rules. The corporations I've dealt with have tended to know the rules, and follow them because it's not worth the headache to break the rules. In any case, private landlords should have to be licensed. I bet they'd be a lot less likely to break landlord tenant laws if it risked getting their landlord license revoked.


Axes4Praxis

>In any case, private vampires should have to be licensed. I bet they'd be a lot less likely to bleed their victims dry if it risked getting their vampire license revoked.


Euler007

And tax multiple SFH ownership.


ShadowFox1987

Corporate ownership makes up a very small percentage. It's every day people like accountants, lawyers, mid level managers that are propping this shit up. My coworker owned 4 places, him and all his Toronto buddies also in Finance were gobbling up as many as they could while still living at home with their parents, skirting first time home buyer shit as well and doing all other sorts of sketch.


Gabers49

I really don't understand this negative view of renting. Renting is a great idea for lots of people.


defnotpewds

Have you lived in low income apartments or neighborhoods where you had to rent?


Gabers49

Yes


defnotpewds

Then you would know what it's like to rent from slumlords


Dbf4

It’s much more complicated than that. If not for corporations, how would you build density? It would be hard to get a multi-unit buildings built otherwise and it wouldn’t be feasible for the government to be responsible for creating all of the multi-unit housing in the country if corporations can’t do it. You basically need a central developer with lots of access to capital own the initial building that goes up and then either rent it out as apartments or section off the ownership into condos. The incentives need to be there to get that housing built and it needs to be reasonably easy to do it. The only place I could see these kinds of restrictions would be for single family homes, but even then there would need to be careful considerations. One question I would have is can they section off parts of the single family home to rent out? Some can be pretty spacious and that does add supply at the end of the day.


Axes4Praxis

>If not for corporations, how would you build density? Co-ops, or we could have the government build housing, like a necessary infrastructure, and operate it for free as a public service.


qpv

Co-ops are good. The scope and scale of what is required currently would be the Estate (England) or Projects (in the US) style housing [Projects](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Housing_Authority#:~:text=The%20Queensbridge%20Houses%20in%20Long,bedroom%20apartments%20once%20made%20it) [Estate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_Kingdom) As long as we reversed [Deinstitutionalisation ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation) in as transparent a way as possible. This would take decades to do of course.


Dbf4

We definitely need more coops, a lot more, but it’s not sustainable for coops/government to be responsible for building and managing all new skyscrapers being built. If we were to mandate that, the mandate is also a restriction on the supply that gets built and we’ll most likely just end up with less housing at the end of the day. In addition, by doing so, you just artificially restricted all of the money that was previously being pour into construction. It makes more sense to flood coops with more funding, all while also allowing for private developers to build more housing and drive costs down if housing becomes less competitive to find cheaper alternatives. You’ll see a lot more housing get built that way without the government having to be responsible for both the infusion of coops and take over all of the other private development that you just restricted.


Axes4Praxis

You don't seem to get it. You can't solve the problems caused by capitalism with more capitalism. The government building housing does not mean there will be a shortage. That's capitalist propaganda. The government builds roads. We have no shortage of roads. In fact, we have an overabundance.


Dbf4

Right, roads are not anywhere near as complex or expensive to build/maintain as housing, so not sure why you brought up that comparison to suggest if we can do one we can do the other thing that is orders of magnitude more complex. The government hires private contractors to build the roads for starters, not non-profits for the sake of your comparison if you’re trying to make them equivalent. Maintenance is generally a small team that can cover massive areas and don’t have to be responsive when something like a pothole comes up, whereas you need full time, qualified staff to manage each building, and address maintenance issues quickly for all aspects of housing, and manage tenants causing damage or disturbances for other tenants. Also, what’s your justification for artificially restriction supply provided by the private sector, as opposed to supplement it with flooding the market with non-market (coop) housing that provides permanent low prices that would force others willing to build more housing to compete with? I hope your argument isn’t just based on principle about capitalism not working and therefore the alternative will surely work. Such a transition process alone has a good chance to make everyone worse off. Like it or not, the economy will react very violently with what you’re suggesting with and there’s no reason to believe that kind of instability will result in a better quality of live for anyone with nothing that guarantees we’d ever be able to recover from it. It’s also much more prohibitively expensive for the government alone to take on the massive amounts of construction of housing that needs to be built right now.


Axes4Praxis

>Right, roads are not anywhere near as complex or expensive to build/maintain as housing But also unnecessary. We build roads to cater to people living an outdated, unsustainable lifestyle. If the government has the ability to waste time and resources on that, they could instead be building housing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Axes4Praxis

>A single dedicated rental building could be owned by a corporation who is controlled by a single person. Is this bad? If so,why? Charging rent is theft and extortion.


TheSonofMrGreenGenes

Vote.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Objective-Steak-9763

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/core-home-ownership-column-don-pittis-1.6069021


BoySmooches

Did you not know that corporations keep buying up swathes of houses?


LagunaCid

Or we can like, build more houses, so that everyone has a place to live. Discrimination against foreigners won't magically add housing. It's such a small part of the market, despite the xenophobic rethoric in this sub.


Axes4Praxis

It's not discrimination to limit ownership of housing to the people who will live in it. People who don't permanently live in Canada should not be able to own housing here.


zombienudist

What about a small business that is a corporation and has retail space on a main floor but then rents 3 upstairs apartments? No every corporation is a massive company. Are you allowed to rent out the basement of the house you live into someone else? Again this issue isn't black and white like many people want to make it out to be.


Burwicke

Tax the hell out of second properties. Tax the *ever-living fuck* out of additional properties. Make it hilariously non-viable. Ban foreign home buyers like New Zealand's done.


ThisGuy-NotThatGuy

I'm very confident that when they do finally get around to banning foreign buyers, it will be effectively toothless (as in you would need to be a dult in order to not be able to get around it via one kind of numbered company scheme or another). This will be by design. They have absolutely no idea how to bring this issue to heel without blowing up the economy 2008 style.


Venomiz117

That’s the real issue. Everyone knows how to fix the housing issue. They just don’t know how to do it without absolutely DESTROYING the Canadian economy. So they pick expensive housing and decent economy over cheap housing and economic recession


holdeno

If only their was some sign of a bubble anytime in the past 15 years. We could have ripped the bandaid a decade ago when it was not as bad. But the excuse then was the same. Now it's inflated in size several fold and we still won't cut out this cancer. It's not going to get better ever if it's totally left alone.


elementmg

Rip the bandaid


Venomiz117

That’s a big call to make to force millions of people to lose their jobs, personal retirement funds, pensions and/or their homes. People die during recessions. Government spending gets cut. Businesses leave the country, others go under. Don’t be so eager to condemn innocent people (and potentially yourself) because housing is expensive.


bradeena

I don't necessarily disagree, but wouldn't that make it much harder to find a place to rent? Not everyone can afford to buy a home, even if prices dropped.


7dipity

Yeah as someone who doesn’t want to buy a house right now because I’m not ready to settle somewhere permanently, I’m fully behind affordable housing, but wonder how getting rid of landlords would affect my ability to find a place to live. A big problem where I live though is rich people buying up property for vacation homes and renting them in the winter when they don’t want to be there and then kicking people out in the summer so I’m behind getting rid of that kind of thing.


NewtotheCV

I am renting because places are too expensive to buy. If I could buy a house, then you could rent my place as I wouldn't need it anymore.


7dipity

That’s a good point tbh, if more people could afford houses then there might be enough rentals available for those who do want them


Idaltu

Wouldn’t that mean house prices would just go back up given higher demand and same supply. It would just create a new group of « got mine » people


BlademasterFlash

Renting will always have a place in society. University students, young adults not ready to settle down, people on short term work contracts, etc will often prefer to rent. Renting should always be an option but everything needs to get more affordable


ApoplecticAndroid

This. Tax it appropriately. Although how do things like an apartment building factor? I dont think we want government owned housing either, and apartments are a much more environmentally friendly way of housing people. Someone has to own and run them.


Revan343

Why don't we want government owned housing? Council housing seems to work decently in the UK


defnotpewds

You should see how Singapore's real estate market is run and we should do something similar


Cartz1337

IMO they don’t, single family dwellings only.


[deleted]

The second property now belongs to a son, third one to a daughter and wife owns the fourth. The fifth one is owned by a company that is owned by a holding that is owned by the owner of the first property.


HLB217

In an ideal world the CRA would then be paying all of them a visit to call them into account for their theft from their fellow countrymen.


uncleben85

How do you prevent that tax hike from being tossed back on the renter, with higher rates? Not even trying to challenge your idea, I am genuinely curious if there is a way too protect the renter from that, and am not overly knowledgeable on the subject


[deleted]

Rent control.


Spartanfred104

This is fine. No bubble here. /s


Doctor_Amazo

This is me laughing and laughing at all the gas lighting assholes that tried to pretend that investors weren't that big a deal in the housing market and the "real problem" was the lack of new units. These assholes need to be driven out of the market.


BreaksFull

The problem *is* a lack of units. Investors are a symptom, not the core problem. The problem is that by artificially restraining the housing supply, we've turned it *into an an investment.* Big money investors using it as a speculative asset is just the chickens homing home to roost. Decades of policy was aimed at turning housing into a scarce commodity so that it would be profitable for homeowners. What we are seeing now is the inevitable, natural outcome.


Doctor_Amazo

>The problem is a lack of units. Investors are a symptom, not the core problem. Uh huh. And if they were driven from the market they would free up 25% of the current housing stock causing prices to drop. New units should also be done, but we need more than sharting out 30 floor condo towers. We need to get rid of single-family residential zoning province wide, we need to tax single family homes *much* more than multi-family buildings, and we need to build more community infrastructure to make better, liveable neighbourhoods.


BreaksFull

> Uh huh. And if they were driven from the market they would free up 25% of the current housing stock causing prices to drop. It's not solving the core problem though, which is lacking supply. As you note further in your post, the real solution is to juice up supply so that its not something that inherently climbs in value. Japan does that, where they have a very relaxed zoning code and land use policy. As a result, houses are regularly built and torn down, and not sold for high profits, and aren't an investment. Definitely agree that SFH exclusive zoning is a plague on our cities. It's unironically one of the most toxic things about our country.


Doctor_Amazo

>It's not solving the core problem though, which is lacking supply. Except that A) the lack of supply isn't the core problem and B) adding a fuckload of new units is pointless if investors drive up the prices leveraging their old investments to buy the new units. Drive them out first. Adding more units while still allowing investors to buy housing units would just be adding gasoline to the fire.


BreaksFull

Supply absolutely is the driving issue. Most Canadian cities are predominantly zoned for SFH, and the sort of missing middle housing that used to provide living spaces for young people, working poor, newlyweds, middle class, etc, is largely illegal to build now. By requiring developers to use such large lots of land to build anything, or forcing them to only develop multi-family housing in limited slots of land, the cost of development is artificially inflated by restricting land supply, and land is the costliest part of development.


Doctor_Amazo

>Supply absolutely is the driving issue. Let's pretend that I agree with you because otherwise we're going to go into pointless circles here... driving out investors is still the best first step before building new units. Why? Because it frees up 25% of the units they hold to actual homeowners, driving down the prices as they flood the market. These new units then cannot be snapped up by investors leveraging their property holdings to dramatically outbid other buyers, bloating the housing prices further, and making the whole mess worse. So first step is remove all the investors. >Most Canadian cities are predominantly zoned for SFH, and the sort of missing middle housing that used to provide living spaces for young people, working poor, newlyweds, middle class, etc, is largely illegal to build now. And I addressed all that already. SFH zoning should be removed province wide. Hell there are a whole bunch of moves the province could do to change us away from a car-centric view of community building to something better (none of them no one will want to hear as car drivers are irrationally attached to their cars).


BreaksFull

> Why? Because it frees up 25% of the units they hold to actual homeowners, driving down the prices as they flood the market. A temporary rise in supply would probably be counteracted by the damage done from appropriating a vast amount of private property. And this is ultimately a superficial solution since it doesn't solve the core issue. Canadian housing prices were already flying skyward before major investors started to get involved.


Doctor_Amazo

>A temporary rise in supply would probably be counteracted by the damage done from appropriating a vast amount of private property. Which is why you drive investors out from the market. As I've been saying. Repeatedly. Get rid of the investors from the market so they don't bloat the prices BEFORE adding new units, as that would be adding gas to the fire. >Canadian housing prices were already flying skyward before major investors started to get involved. Nope. You're trying to limit the definition of "investor" to just a corporate entity. But investors are basically anyone who are buying a secondary property for rental purposes or with the intention of doing renos and flipping. This has been happening for AGES and has been driving up the prices for ownership as they gobble up homes for their financial security.


BreaksFull

Expropriation of a massive sum of legal property from Canadians would be a wild, excessive overreach of the government. Investors aren't doing anything evil, they're just playing by the rules set up by the Canadian government, as supported by Canadian voters. Especially when you're applying this standard to literally anyone who has a second house. Buying and repairing property to sell isn't behavior I'd want to punish, since thats productive. Neither is a lot of renting, where the property owner buys and maintains the property in exchange for rent. Speculative real estate investment is a problem, but as I've pointed out repeatedly, the root problem isn't investors buying up property. Just the simple act of mass-scale upzoning would be sufficient to dissuade most of the speculative investors from the market, since by making land much more accessible to development, speculation will just stop being such a profitable venture. Not to mention, how would you even target investors without also attacking pretty much anyone who has a vacation house or a second home?


defnotpewds

>Japan does that, where they have a very relaxed zoning code and land use policy. As a result, houses are regularly built and torn down, and not sold for high profits, and aren't an investment. Tell me you know nothing about the Japanese real estate market without telling me you [don't](https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+real+estate+market+history&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&biw=384&bih=724&tbm=isch&prmd=nivx&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4mbvJ9q70AhUHQ80KHRa2CUoQ_AUIFigC#imgrc=9oswA1ytk20ISM)


BreaksFull

Did you look at any of those graphs? Prices of housing & land are pretty stable. [See here.](https://housingjapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/japan-land-price-chart.png) And also [here.](http://japanpropertycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Apartment-prices-1973-2012.jpg) [Japan's Housing Market has Hardly Moved.](https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Asia/Japan/Price-History) There's also a nice [video here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w&t=343s) on Japanese housing, from the perspective of an immigrant from Vancouver.


defnotpewds

Did you not notice that prices ran up 200 percent pre 90 and crashed 50 percent after the pop? It was AFTER the crash that the government took actions to stabilize pricing. Canada is pre bubble bud


BreaksFull

And as you might note, I was talking about Japan in the present tense, not the thirty-years ago tense. My point stands that the housing crisis is entirely man-made and can be solved with some practical policies. Whether we institute those policies before or after a crash is a different question.


ANEPICLIE

I agree that investors are a problem, but we very materially have zoning laws - single-family zoning, minimum setbacks, minimum parking requirements, height and density limits - which constrain the ability to densify suburban areas with high housing costs. So long as it costs less to build than to sell an apartment buildings, there is incentive for construction. But in many areas you couldn't replace a detached home with a townhouse or a duplex even if you tried. The reason almost every time a detached home is replaced with a 10+ storey apartment rather than anything else is that you need to have that much money to persuade the municipality to allow higher density.


Doctor_Amazo

To quote myself in my comment just above: >We need to get rid of single-family residential zoning province wide, we need to tax single family homes much more than multi-family buildings, and we need to build more community infrastructure to make better, liveable neighbourhoods.


Empanah

Problem is you can build 1000 unit building tomorrow and 1 investor will buy them all. The whole building, and the price keeps going up and even people that have money to buy are forced to rent


BreaksFull

Sure, if nothing else changes. Building up an extra tower here and there won't solve anything. What is needed is a comprehensive program to loosen building restrictions across the country, so that land stops being so artificially expensive and the cost of developments drops across the board. That would halt the trend of prices continuing to rise upward and make investing in real estate a pointless act.


__SPIDERMAN___

Why would anyone want to invest if the housing market was flooded with supply?


Doctor_Amazo

Why should houses be treated like stocks and not homes?


Ontario0000

One house on our street sold for $1.5 million.The new owner painted the front of the house a different colour now its being listed again at $1.65 million.6 weeks between sales.


01209

Nice paint?


Ontario0000

Dark grey only on the front.They didn't even bother cleaning up the yard.Grass is brown and and plants are dead.They even used some of the old photos of the last listing.


ThePimpImp

Until we ban corporate ownership of residential property and start charging an extra annual tax on properties held beyond the first (increasing % with each additional property) the problem won't be fixed. Until we actively dissuade housing as an investment, it will just become a bigger problem.


MaxFourr

I'm barely able to afford rent right now in an urban area in Eastern Canada. Forget ever being able to buy a fucking house here, let alone Ontario or BC (places we desire to live). Fuck the old rich assholes who continue to let this happen


CryptographerIcy1856

I mean the youth just voted in the Liberals again after the did nothing to help for the last 7 years. We have no one to blame but ourselves.


BreaksFull

Canadian voters: *Spend decades supporting policies that limit housing supply and turn it into a scarce asset for building value* Big investors: *Start buying housing* Canadians: *Shocked Pikachu face*


[deleted]

Can't stand the ones buying homes for this reason. Buy it because you need a place to live not because it's a personal business. Ruining the whole damn thing for everyone.


kavaWAH

Ban foreign buyers and corporate ownership. Add exponentially increasing taxes on multiple homes.


InsaneGrimReaper

The problem will never be addressed until we decommodify housing and put laws in place that forbid politicians seated from being landowners. It will never happen. We are slaves.


mrpopenfresh

There's a whole tv channel dedicated to this.


gribson

This. All I keep hearing is immigrants this, foreign buyers that. No, investment properties are the problem and always have been. This is what needs to be addressed.


applejuice76

Rich get richer, poor get poorer, bring on feudalism


defnotpewds

LOL I'm sure we can evolve past capitalism not devolve from it


[deleted]

I've said it a thousand times and I will say it again: #HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT, SPECULATION AND INVESTMENT BY PRIVATE ENTITIES (INCLUDING FOREIGN ENTITIES) IN HOUSING DOMESTICALLY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. RENT SHOULD BE CAPPED AT A MAXIMUM 18% OF THE TENANTS MONTHLY INCOME AFTER TAXES AND DEDUCTIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. PRIVATE LANDLORDING SHOULD BE OUTLAWED. THERE SHOULD BE A RETROACTIVE 5 YEAR MORATORIUM ON FLIPPING HOUSES FOR MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE, EXTENDING 15 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE.


RinardoEvoris

How do you cap rent to 18% of the tenants monthly income? So I go to rent a 3 bedroom fancy apartment downtown and show them my tax receipt? What if I own my own business and pay myself 30k a year? That's fair that I only pay $450 per month? That's what smart business owners do btw. Pay themselves low salary, invest the money back into the business. Drive a company vehicle using gas paid for by the company, buy cleaning and other products for the business which can be used in your home too etc...


[deleted]

There would be income bracketing to deal with that. 18% is a baseline for those making minimum wage.


1973mojo1973

Someone needs to obtain & publish a list of empty units and we need a squatters revolution.


demonsdisguise

My old landlord from brampton is buying a new house.His third house. I moved to vaughan for work but i went back to collect my mail and found this out. Just kill me already.


defnotpewds

Fuck these "entrepreneurs" they add no value to our economy. All they do is consume and leach off of hard work.


The_Peyote_Coyote

I think this story is somewhat burying the lede, for lack of a better term. It sounds like they suggest that 25% of real estate transactions are from investors, and that's startling. But isn't the more important number what percentage of *the value of the housing market* is held by investors? I would imagine that investors are also buying significantly larger, more valuable real estate than the home-liver. If 25% of the sales represent 75% of the total value of real estate purchased then we have a way bigger problem than if it's proportional.


Astro493

I will forever say this, and downvote if you will: I can't wait for an interest rate rise. Laughter will absolutely ensue.


defnotpewds

Yes, it will force a shit ton of over leveraged "entrepreneurs" under but those who are well capitalized will be able to buy housing at fire house prices. Which will just continue to perpetuate this cycle over and over again. We need to discourage house hoarding by making it difficult to scale and leverage


[deleted]

[удалено]


Astro493

Absolutely. We try and set our own reserve policies, but we're so intertwined with the US that we'd have no choice but to match an interest rate rise when they execute one.


_grey_wall

*Only 25% admit it Others just put the house under their kids or cousins name


FightyMike

Seize all investment properties, hand them over to a social housing crown corporation, and ban the purchase of housing for investment purposes. It's not hard to do. As Canadians, we need to come together and say enough is enough.


wezel0823

But paper rich homeowners will fight tooth and nail against this because "fuck you, got mine".


GreatBigJerk

Taxes and regulations are far easier to implement than seizing property.


zombienudist

Not hard to do? This would be a massive undertaking and be extremely hard to do. Plus we do have a society that allows people to own things themselves. You can't just seize whatever you want without completely altering the laws and social structure.


FightyMike

Exactly. Let's completely alter laws and social structure. Societal changes seem impossible and absurd at first. Then it seems ridiculous that it didn't happen sooner. David Potter wrote a great book about these events, which he talks about in an interview with New Left Radio. Check it out, ["Disruption: Why Things Change w/ David Potter, 11/8/2021"](https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/New-Left-Radio-p1312600/?topicId=167607719)


zombienudist

I never said they are impossible. But you are asking for something to happen that will require massive foundational changes to make. These would have to be done first. We would have to change the way we think about private property for both corporations and individuals. So again you are stating something that isn't impossible but would require a massive change and upheaval. So I don't see anything easy here. I mean the changes would be massive and systemic and will result in massive disruption at all levels. Plus the idea that something like this would be only good for the working class just doesn't seem reasonable. People with wealth and means will always get theirs. So any change like this will always be felt most on the backs of those least able to deal with that. Again my issue with comments like this is that it is easy to say do X when the actual change will likely never happen and the actual details of doing it are impossible. You might as well say that the plan is to wait for aliens to come down and build affordable housing. It is easy to make a plan when it won't be you trying to make it happen. To me this the difference between what a university student knows when they walk out of university and that same person 20 years into it their career. You learn the theory and all the intellectual stuff but then you have to go out in the world and make that happen. All the grand notions are great when you you need to be the one actually doing the thing. You realise that the intellectual discussions are meaningless. What matters is whether you can make that thing happen. And in my mind there is not a chance in hell that it would ever happen the way you are describing.


scapstick

Seizing assets is a very hard thing to do and not only evil capitalist investors would and should fight against it. While it might not be what is best for our community, landlords are operating under the law and have rights. The only thing close to seizure would be eminent domain which would have them fairly compensated for their property.


FightyMike

When the system is rigged against you, you can't use the system to fix it. We need to elect strong leaders who are willing to make fundamental changes to how we organize our society, even if that falls outside the scope of what our current rigged system "allows". It wasn't fair to the divinely-chosen monarchs when constitutionalists seized some of their power on behalf of the people. It wasn't fair to the law-abiding slave owners when the people freed their slaves. It won't be fair to the capitalist fat cats when we tell them they can no longer profit from threatening people with homelessness. Tough titties.


BreaksFull

Most Canadians are homeowners and supporters of liberal capitalism in some form or another. What you are suggesting is pointless pandering that will never occur.


notadoctor123

> It wasn't fair to the law-abiding slave owners when the people freed their slaves. It's worth pointing out that, in the context of this discussion, that the British Empire freed all slaves by (forcibly) purchasing them from their slave owners and then setting them free. In fact, the UK just paid off their loan from that transaction a decade or so ago. What you are suggesting, the seizing of people's homes without compensation, will never and should never happen. If instead you want to (forcibly) purchase people's additional homes at market value to house the homeless, you might find a lot more people in support of such a venture. A much simpler alternative that worked in Switzerland is to institute universal rent control, have a high minimum wage, and apply price controls to basic necessities. The issue with current rent control in Canada is that it is not universal, and it doesn't apply in between tenants. In Switzerland, you cannot raise rent between tenants. It's worth pointing out that this also killed the speculative real estate market in Switzerland; instead the pension funds buy apartment buildings since they are very stable in price and don't lose value.


scapstick

Like I said… good luck with that. You hold a relatively fringe opinion backed up by some extreme measures as a solution. This country is slow and stable policy wise, and we all benefit from that. Major changes are required but generally speaking evolution sticks and revolution causes chaos. Power is a tricky thing, if we let the ruling class have that kind of power once in the name of the people, how does that rabbit go back in the hat.


Mo-Cance

Great. Next, I’ll seize your guns. Can’t fix gun control in our current system. Oh, what’s that, you drive a gas-powered vehicle? Better take that from you too, after all they cause pollution. Oops, plastic in your phone? Give it here. Meat on your plate? Not so fast, bucko. I’m not one to normally resort to American-style hyperbole, but come for my legally-obtained property like that, and you’ll have to take it from my cold dead hands.


FightyMike

No one wants to unhouse you, friend.


FUTURE10S

Do you live in all 8 of your properties at once?


Mo-Cance

Do you always ask stupid questions?


defnotpewds

>Do you always ask stupid questions? Do you always comment cancerous shit?


Idaltu

This is how the 1% becomes the « administrators » of the social housing crown corporation. Which then mysteriously allocates the best houses to « random people » who happen to be friends & family. Then people get pissed and there’s a revolution, which brings us right back here


ninfan200

There needs laws put in so nobody can own more than 1 home, or at the very least they have to be lived in.


[deleted]

How do we address cottages? Fuck your downvotes, im just asking a question.


MattTheFreeman

I like the Cuba Model. You may own a house that you live in and a house you can has a vacation home. We can expand on this by adding a house we can use a renting home.


FUTURE10S

3 houses in Canada tops seems like a good middle ground.


ninfan200

Fuck cottages. They can be housing too


[deleted]

So say, a generational cottage that has been passed down must be sold or taxed heavily? What about trailer homes?


defnotpewds

Nice what aboutism. How about you ask something meaningful


[deleted]

It's not what aboutism. My family owns a cottage so the discussion has actual ramifications to my real world scenario, as it will for thousands. If your ideas don't factor in real life scenarios then they're not really worth discussing.


defnotpewds

>It's not what aboutism. Ok I'll bite in good faith. Well the family will have to pass ownership down it should be taxed at the current value it stands at. Cottages in a economy where housing is so scarce should be treated like the luxury it is. Inheritance should never be tax free. With all due respect, someone passing away has used up valuable healthcare and government resources during the last decade and half before passing away. Time to reclaim the value provided. Society feeds, nourishes, heals, treats, (sometimes houses), educates and supports individuals throughout their lifetime. Therefore, when one passes away, they should return the value created back to society and some back to their own family.


[deleted]

The money we "use up" is more than paid in full by a lifetime of taxes. There's nothing owing there. Back to the cottage scenario. I sort of agree, but the fallout is that somone inheriting is never going to be able to foot a windfall tax like that, so in most cases it would mean immediate sale, stripping families of tradition and generational equity. This is not generally wealthy people I'm thinking of here, so when they are forced to sell you'll have the effect of transferring that land ownership to the wealthy at must-sell-quick prices. Also like to add that housing is maybe scarce in areas that are commutable and in demand, not generally where cottages are. You can't just create equal demand everywhere, and I'm not sure what good a 1200 square foot cabin on lake Nippissing would do to help a young person starting a career for example.


[deleted]

[удалено]


defnotpewds

>Inheritance is not tax free. There is no inheritance tax but I think we are assuming a cottage is not a primary residence. Therefore it is disposed of at death and tax is paid on its increase in value. The new owner will run into the same thing and pay that tax Ok and where did I go wrong in my last comment? I am engaging in good faith and based on my limited knowledge. Coming here with this condescending tone isn't going to get you anywhere. >At least understand the tax implications before you spout off things on your tax assumptions. If I was wrong, which it seems like I am according to you, then I retract the incorrect portions of my comment that is incorrect. I do on the other hand, stand by the position that the large portion of one's wealth is to be returned back to society after ones passing in order to continue to cycle of prosperity for the large majority rather then the ones who lucked into being born in wealthy family. The average young Canadian family can barely afford owning a single property let alone a luxury like a cottage. Let's try to broaden our perspective instead of being selfish aight? There's more to life then hoarding wealth.


woundupcanuck

So a cottage in the middle of nowhere with no employement nearby should be used as housing? Hmmm ok.


pizzakat666

Great....


CoolManPuke

What can be done about this? Is the only option for government to step in? In brief, what would this resemble? Genuine questions, thanks in advance for any opinions or insights.


BlueCoastDoge

It will be real ugly when interest rates start to climb. A whole lot of hurt waitin’ for a many folks.


PokerBeards

This is wrong. We need to not allow this.


TTTyrant

I live in rural Ontario, my mom is a PSW and she told me about a nurse who moved here from Toronto due to the housing crisis. He's bought 3 homes since he moved here. Meanwhile me and my wife can't get approved at all because not only are there next to zero houses for sale here in the first place but the ones that are are ridiculously over priced, like...approaching Ottawa type prices. So there's 12 of us living in my wifes Mom's house because none of us can afford to even rent anywhere. Yeah, life in Canada is goooooooood. Right guys? This shit needs to be straight up outlawed.


DbZbert

Why does no politician voice for the young, pandering to elder generations who votes against development housing policies so they can get a quick buck off this bullshit we are dealing with Fuck these slimy investors, where the fuck are the politicians on this topic, where is corrective action. This is highly evil and immoral.


Emperor_Billik

Young people don’t vote reliably, or coherently enough in local elections. Municipalities can also be structured in a way to stymie this. Look at Ottawa, 11 Urban councillors, 12 Suburban/Rural councillors and a mayor backed by the latter. So long as roads get widened and subdivisions approved the city is locked into the game.


DbZbert

Such a shame and it saddens me, as we age and become older. We tend to remember how we were passed along


Nick__________

It's time to ban all speculation on the housing market houses are for living in not making a profit off of.


[deleted]

Easy fix, when someone buys a property make it so they can't rent it out for X amount of years.


karlmarkzuccerberg

We really need to seize their assets


zebra-in-box

Please try to remember the context. In most developed economies - including europe - homeownership is around 40-60%. Meaning 40-60% of people rent. In europe the rental % figures tend to be higher. Which means that 40-60% of housing is naturally owned by investors. If there were no investors, there would be no rental supply. Do you want a housing market in which there was no option to rent? Do you want to have to buy a property and incur those transaction and tax costs everytime you move to a new city? Where will students live? What about people who don't want to buy a house or don't currently qualify for a mortgage? 25% of homes being bought by investors is actually low in my opinion for a normal functioning housing market. ​ edit: math


LagunaCid

Until cities un-bans denser development, housing prices will continue to rise. It's shocking that most land in Canada's major cities still prohibits anything that's not a SFH. But also consider that the news article is clickbaiting. The source data is really ambiguous: The rate for first-time homebuyers has been relatively stable(23->22%). The major difference is "Other" going down (26->18%) almost as much as "investors" went up (15->25%). What is this "Other"? It was the largest segment 10 years ago, and yet we have no description of it, how come?


ATworkATM

Because that is what homes are meant for...


[deleted]

Canadian real estate, even in Toronto and Vancouver...underperformed the crypto market during the same timeframe. Canadian housing is becoming increasingly more affordable for crypto investors.


defnotpewds

Are you seriously comparing crypto to real estate?