karlhungus

I can't imagine it's actually like this, im guessing their just surrounded by pro oil propaganda. So they rationalize making gobs of money by believing that they aren't doing harm.

It's probably really easy when everything in their life rewards them being pro oil.

I think I favour building lots of (hopefully well made) public housing, and taxes on non primary dwellings. I'm not in any way an expert though.

I don't really understand why the statements in your second paragraph are true.

If you bought your house for $600k you should hopefully be prepared to pay that $600k over time, whether or not interest rates go up.

Unfortunate reality is sometimes rates jump, predicting 10 years out what your income will be, and how interest rates change is sort of impossible. IMO a lot of this uncertainty on the part of the buyer is mitigated by history, while the banks only have to take that risk in 5 year chunks (idk if there are longer renewal periods).

faster by kicking people out and foreclosing

short googling seems like people tend to declare bankruptcy first in canada. It all around seems like a terrible situation -- and not one we'd want to encourage, hence: we probably shouldn't actively lower existing housing prices to pandemic or 2010 prices.

Selling and purchasing aren't the only time you'd feel it. Any time interest rates go up you'd also feel it (now you get to pay more on large amount). With very large principals you'd be paying it for longer. Anytime the mortgage goes up for renewal no bank would want to touch you, or maybe they'd love you, just with really unfavorable terms (idk much about banks).

Having a large mortgage when the asset tanks can be thought of having a big debt where the collateral for that debt is suddenly with way less.

No dead cells. risk of rain 2 at 71? nahhh

I finally see what you are trying to say. You wouldn't mind losing value in your house, so "the statement remains false" for you.

All i was saying originally is: lowering housing prices would be hard to pull off politically because there will be a significant portion of the 65% of canadians that own houses, that would mind losing that value.

Stagnation is way different then reduction, I'd also be fine with that, as i suspect would be other home owners.

Tank "to suffer rapid decline, failure, or collapse" is different from stagnate. The OP 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.

This jives with tank, but not with stagnate.

The statement was all home owners want prices to increase.

This statement was never made.

I could care less if it tanks

If you have a mortgage, you should care, you should probably care if you don't.

Lets imagine that a $656,6253 house were to go back to it's 2010 price, about $339,030.

If you have a mortgage you now have about 600k in debt on an asset worth 340k.

https://media.tenor.com/GxfSlJG_H7AAAAAC/confusion-visible-confusion.gif

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

I remain unconvinced the original statement is false. I don't care about being correct.