this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
18 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7106 readers
333 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social & Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
18
The new Canadian Mortgage Charter explained (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, we've been purchasing a thing for years, we have not been saving. We can sell that thing, but it is under no obligation to be valued higher than when we bought it.

What do you mean "no", I never said "people who bought houses must get a higher return on money spent", i said a policy like this would ignore those people.

What i said originally:

I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike...

Was in response to:

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

This policy would ignore anyone in a house. That also seems shitty

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I policy like this may ignore them, but housing prices can reduce on their own without any government intervention...

I've sold at a loss twice. It sucks. But that's a risk of ownership. I could have avoided that risk by renting.

Your house is only worth however much the next person will pay for it. They are under NO obligation to pay you more than you paid.

Artificially reducing building supply while people cannot afford to rent or purchase is pretty fucking shitty. "Oh hi Bob, it really sucks that you are spending 60% of your income on a place to live; but the ethereal value of this thing I bought keeps going up, and I would love for it to continue going up, even though the future is completely speculative and the whole thing could go tits up and skyrocket again no matter what we do; so I'm going to keep supporting policies that keep the line going up"

Bonus point for undertaxed homes, and suburban regions that survive on pushing the ponzi scheme further out or leeching on city core taxes; for LVT is a whole other kettle of fish.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I policy like this may ignore them, but housing prices can reduce on their own without any government intervention...

This is all i was saying, it is not a simple thing, as the original post said

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

Makes it sound like "hey it's simple we just fuck 65% of people in canada" is not a winning political strategy.

Stagnation might be the only reasonable solution. I'm all for taxing home speculation by companies, and raising taxes on secondary/rentals. Hell, i'd be for a subsidies for buying houses even to the poorest people. I want to live in a pleasant place, part of that means everyone lives and works comfortably.

Artificially reducing building supply while people cannot afford to rent or purchase is pretty fucking shitty

I don't know who's doing this or how it relates to the original post

I've sold at a loss twice. It sucks. But that's a risk of ownership.

Presumably prices were also cheaper when you bought in that market, so there's some

Bonus point for undertaxed homes, and suburban regions that survive on pushing the ponzi scheme further out or leeching on city core taxes; for LVT is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't know anything about this

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fine. New policy.

We restrict the sale of new cars. We can make car zoning, so only SUVs can be purchased in some places, only trucks in another. Maybe in some small areas we'll allow sedans. Well Make sure that auto manufacturers can build the cars people want, or on the numbers they want them. Want a bicycle instead? Too bad, only cars are allowed here. People are walking? We'll just replace sidewalks with more road for cars.

Sure cars will become way more expensive, bit everyone who already owns a car can watch the value of their car go up!