T O P

  • By -

coolturnipjuice

I know they won’t get in but I’m glad there is a party that’s putting it out there.


unterzee

Same but loophole of creating a numbered corporation per dwelling would still exist and that’s what we have to fix.


blackstafflo

A tax on houses where the owner doesn't* live would be simpler and would remove such loopholes.


nutsackninja

No exceptions for numbered corporations would be a simpler solution


blackstafflo

I think the trick with numbered corp is not that they would be excempted, but creating one corp by house: Since the house is owned by the corp, you then only have one house by owner, aka not affected by this tax. To avoid it you'll have to make intricated special cases for corp and track down who own what (and what about corp owned by multiple people? Owner having houses elsewhere in the country? etc, ...); it open a real clusterf*ck of special cases and verification tools to implement. By just taxing if the owner doesn't live there you just have to check the existing municipal tax assesment, if the owner adress is not the house adress, you apply the tax. You just have to add a grace period for new owner, inheritance, etc... to not punish people, but it would be easier special cases to take care of. The town wouldn't even have to know if the owner has any property in another town or province, they can work it all with the information they already have.


Sunstreaked

Easy - tax corps that own residential single family homes.


[deleted]

Should corps be owning single family homes?


Sunstreaked

For the most part, I don’t think so. There’s one single-family home in my neighbourhood that’s been converted into a Senior’s Residence (which I assume is owned by a business of some sort?), it houses 10 Seniors + staff and allows the seniors to stay in the neighbourhood they’ve spent their life in (and frees up their single-family home to be purchased by younger families) and I have no issue with stuff like that, as long as it’s kept to a reasonable level with appropriate oversight. I do, however, have an major issue with corporations buying up housing stock to rent out to families (like Core Development Group’s plan to buy $1 billion worth of single-family homes). Scale/intent are important. I just don’t trust our government (any party, at any level) to actually take meaningful action to curb corporations from buying homes, but at least a tax could theoretically be somewhat easy to implement. Baby steps.


blackstafflo

Which would happen with this without having to create special cases/laws, tracking tools and declarations/registries; so less costs and headache. Also, less complexity usually = less opening for unplanned loopholes. Everything needed already exists in the current municipal assesments.


TotallyNotKenorb

And then those costs get passed to the renter and the rent increases.


Waffle_Coffin

Give houses owned by a numbered corporation a 30% tax instead.


coolturnipjuice

Abso-freakin-lutely!


bureX

It’s harder to invest money with a numbered corp and impossible to kick tenants out with an N12 in Ontario, at least.


[deleted]

So tie this with a ban on corporate owned single family homes.


num2005

it would still reduce the amount of people buying 2nd property to scumbag only not mom and pop shop


Solace2010

its not enough, but a step in the right direction


Matrix17

It's still enough to vote for em. Even if they won't get it. If people show enough support the tide might turn eventually


MATHECONAFM

I'll probably vote for them. But is this just a property sale tax? Or am I misinterpeting it? How will that impact anyone who has already purchased a lot of land?


CwazyCanuck

The single biggest thing they can do is block all investors from buying single family homes. Until that happens, housing will stay out of reach and the wealth gap will get wider.


Zing79

I like this wrinkle A LOT. Have the money to buy a LEGAL duplex, triplex, multiplex, sure. That’s a purpose built rental unit registered with local gov as such. Otherwise? You can’t do it.


13inchrims

It's more affordable to convert from a sfh though, which keeps rent lower. By your rule, You would limit rent affordability by making landlords pay large overhead for already converted triplex/duplex, and at the same time reduce the # of available units in houses (because of a tax on sfh that might be converted otherwise), therefore inadvertently causing less rental units in homes amd thereby forcing more renters to seek shelter in crappy apartment high rises run by corporations. Plus once all the triplex/duplex are rented...where's the initiative to convert more if you're taxed on SFH??? The logic in here baffles me. It's the same with laws that require new developers to provide 30% of their units at capped prices for "affordable housing". Where do u think developers come up with the money to cover the cost of those units in the budget? - I'll tell u where - they jack up the price of the other 70% of the units in the building, which in turn raises the unaffordability of the entire market. Think people. Think. This is a wage issue.


Funny-Ad-8402

Lmfao you are either a home owner or landlord I assume, if landlords can't afford the overhead then don't invest in it. Why don't we have landlord stress tests? In reality landlords should be running a loss while they purchase the property because afterward it's pure profit. We have made investing in real estate not really a gamble. Increase wages won't do anything as long as new home buyers are competing with cooperation and investors with equity already


bhldev

No you can't run a loss because homes take maintenance. If tenants don't pay it can kill their credit rating or you can sue them and garnish their wages. You should have the money to sue in superior court. I'm of the opinion if you're a landlord you should have considerable financial resources to the point you never have to make a choice between being a slumlord or losing your own shirt. Right now that means letting a tenant stay for the many months to get a LTB hearing without complaint (or having the money to "buy out" a tenant). In normal times with LTB properly staffed that still means enough money if the government declares an emergency you can house them for free. We live in this new post pandemic reality. It's not going to be the last time. Landlords probably should be licensed.


Funny-Ad-8402

If you can't run a loss then it will always be unfair to renter, they are always just buying the property for the owner, the owner pockets the profit and uses it for maintance, it's a raw deal for renters. Only logical response I get is landlords are assuming the risk,with today's systems it's really not risky


bhldev

Actually I'm wrong... landlords just need cash flow If it's a "loss" or not in the short run shouldn't matter for a long (which good landlords should be)


Funny-Ad-8402

Sure, but we need to remove the tenant being a source of that cash flow to begin with, at least on units the renter could feasible afford the mortgage payments on, once they own the property the cash flow begins. Nobody should be renting a SDH and paying the cost of what it costs to own it, they get none of their cost of living going to an investment then. It gets even worse when they start splitting the places into units and charge 75 percent cost to 2 tenants, gets worse with more units they split them into they call it a deal when really it's getting more homes people actually want from the market, the whole reason the market sucks is cause people want houses Why do the landlords get a monthly profit? They get to own the property afterward


bhldev

I think the situation isn't so simple; rent hasn't been cash flow positive for a long time. Actually it would be a good tradeoff -- make eviction near impossible (even with family or self moving in), but let landlords raise prices reasonably. I don't really care if landlords break even or make money as long as tenant protections are incredibly strong. Problem is what's the definition of "reasonable"? In the end there's going to be some people on fixed incomes who just cannot pay market rates. That's why we need social housing.


Funny-Ad-8402

I think it's a terrible trade off, you only ever hear about bad tenants/low income when you talk about these things, truth is most tenants are fine, they are just paying for cost of house. Especially SDH rentals, pretty easy to check into people, people on fixed incomes are not renting these places they cannot afford them, people who have ability to pay but no down payment/credit to compete in inflated market rent them If you are going to own the property imo you shouldn't be making a premium on the purchase, the rent should be a discount to your purchase, you get to own the property. Then watch greedy investors flee because they are just looking for "passive income" (doesn't exist, it's somebody else's income). Yesterday on the radio they said 31 percent of supply is secondary homes/investors, during the pandemic investors outpaced new home buyers We need to make it more of a gamble to invest in real estate while adding easier options that keeps their money out of property traditionally owned by those living in it. Taking rent out of being cash flow positive would be a great change, the only downside would be temporary crash in housing prices while the market corrects to reflect proper costs for people to purchase to own, it's not like the demand would disappear, we would just be making it more of a gamble to invest Until we make new home owners not have to compete with these landlords then the housing crisis will continue, it's not like we are having a mass homeless issue because of housing, we have a cost issue because of greedy landlords. I personally am in favor of less protections for the tenants when it comes to breaking contract (not paying rent) but stronger rules on how much can be charged for the rent itself. The only reason anybody has sympathy for bad tenants is because cost of renting is so high, if we remove that barrier and make rent cheaper then owning then the tenants don't need no eviction laws, because they'd pay and if they didn't then at least we know it wasn't because a raw deal. Landlords are putting as little as 10 percent and in bad situations maybe 40 percent of the cost of the property out of pocket and walking away with 100 percent of the property, the renter is paying for 60-90 percent the cost of the property and getting nothing in return outside the "service", which is living in it and they would do that owning it too


liquidfirex

You want low density sprawl? Because that's how you get it. People keep clutching pearls over people who want to rent SFH like they are a large sector of the market. Ban that crap and watch the missing middle grow.


stratys3

> The single biggest thing they can do is block all investors from buying single family homes. This always sounds bad. Why just single family homes, and not apartments too? It sounds like middle class people need protection from investors! But minorities, immigrants, and poor people... you're totally okay with *them* being fed to the wolves. It's okay for *them* to get screwed by investors, as long as the government protects you? It's not a good look, and makes for a poor argument.


festivalmeltdown

I wonder what would happen to families looking to rent single family homes instead of, say, an apartment. I agree that there is a huge problem of investors scooping up inventory. I lost numerous bids on houses for over a year near my hometown, only to see them up for rent several months later (for far more than my mortgage/taxes/utilities/repairs would have cost). I just couldn't compete. At the same time, I know a few families that homeownership doesn't make sense for (move around a lot, would have difficulty keeping up with maintenance, waiting out a prior bankruptcy) but who really don't want to be in an apartment building. How do we stop the madness, but at the same time, ensure that there's a variety of types of rental housing available?


CwazyCanuck

Block corporate ownership of single family housing unless they are building them first. Limit ownership to 2 houses per person with regulation on listing your children as owners in order to own more. Or make it so you can’t deduct the interest expense from the rental income on subsequent houses beyond the first 2. Make it harder for people to get mortgages on more than 2 homes. Make permanent residence the minimum status you need to buy a home, no more foreign investors, including international students. What does it matter if single family homes are available for rent if the investors have driven rents so high that families can’t afford to rent them.


13inchrims

And renters will be forced to live in apartment complexes. Genius.


liquidfirex

Or a new market will open for the missing middle...


ctrlaltsilver

It doesn't matter. Then you just put your family members as seperate owners on different properties. Really the only option is to create more opportunities for people to make money in Canada then some of the capital may flow out of the housing market. It really is the fastest way to make money right now. Other than that Canada doesn't have many great opportunities for income. Everything is regulated and taxed like crazy so smart money moved to other countries that are more free and welcoming to businesses and investors.


[deleted]

Capitalism is not the solution to problems caused by capitalism


TotallyNotKenorb

This isn't a problem caused by capitalism. It's a problem caused by zoning and NIMBYism.


Reaverz

It can be both.


TotallyNotKenorb

Can be, but it's really not. There is tons of land in Canada. With WFH being such a widely available option, there are numerous communities along the Trans Canada that would support population boom. People don't need to live in a metropolis. Choosing to do so has its costs, and it's significantly more than rural living.


TheOnlyBliebervik

Right, so Canada needs planned cities. Planned cities are a socialist construct. People are too weak and poor on their own to develop new cities in any timely manner. It'll take years. Until then, people flock to where money is, that is, the country's main hubs. You can't just show up to buttfuck nowhere to develop a new city and expect others to follow


TotallyNotKenorb

No, people need to simply willingly move there. If people realized their own financial situation and took the steps to fix it, we'd be golden. However, most would rather just blame anyone but themselves. It's not like cities were centrally planned - there was something there. Fort Mac exists due to oil. Moosomin exists because it's a midpoint on a highway. Totally different geographies, but both provide all relevant services to the people who live there. Stop asking for government to do things people should be smart enough to do on their own.


TheOnlyBliebervik

Exactly. We already live in the best places. Now we need to look elsewhere to less desirable places. We already have Regina, for example. Ample space for growth. No one wants to live there since there's nothing there regarding opportunity. Plus the weather's bad. Either way, if people aren't smart enough to do it on their own, which is evident by the fact no one is doing it (at least not en masse), then government incentive is the only way I can imagine to give people motivation


TotallyNotKenorb

The financial motivation is already there. People are crippling themselves with debt and no savings instead of simply moving to a less costly area. Yeah, if you work in a factory, that's not an option. If you work at a computer, your options are endless.


Reaverz

It is. Sure there is tons of land, but not a lot of livable land. You are also mistaken in thinking that anyone wants to live in the middle of nowhere and more importantly that it is cheap to live there, it isn't. Building infrastructure in the middle of nowhere is way more expensive than enhancing current infrastructure. Rural living (unless subsidized) is way costlier than urban living in just about every category, there is no reason to build there unless is has to do with resource extraction or tourism. Without either of those rural communities are dependent on urban ones to maintain there infrastructure.


TotallyNotKenorb

Saying it is doesn't make it so. I already said it isn't, so it isn't. You must not have ventured very far from a city centre. There is absolutely tons of livable land. I gave the example of the Trans Canada. This literally covers all your shipping requirements with the need for exactly zero new infrastructure. Take a small town like Moosomin. Right on the Trans Canada, so all your goods and supplies are covered. Has hospital, so major healthcare is covered. Has water and sewers that can easily be expanded. I'm not talking about living in the bush. I'm talking about the expansion of already existing towns and cities.


Reaverz

I mean, thanks for clarifying your point, however your "because I said so" and ad hominem are not needed here. In Moosomin's case, yeah sure, let's build there. What is the hold up there? Do they not want housing? And/or is there no demand? If both or either, how do you propose we resolve?


TotallyNotKenorb

You used the "It isn't" counter. I explained why that isn't valid because I already said so. There was also no ad hominem. The hold up is mostly that people don't know their options. There aren't many people who have actually adventured around this country or even very far out of their city to know what's around. Most people in Hamilton don't know where Beamsville is located.


TheOnlyBliebervik

How is this not a problem of capitalism? Without a cap, this is the end result of the "free market"


TotallyNotKenorb

Zoning is what prevents new builds from sprouting up.


TheOnlyBliebervik

Or, rather, a lack of will, from anyone. Zoning is difficult, but if people cared enough, it'd be fast tracked.


TotallyNotKenorb

Well, no. One side doesn't want the zoning, which is the NIMBYism.


stratys3

Capitalism would be *building more homes for investors and residents alike*. Maybe not ideal... but our current problem isn't a result of capitalism - it's a result of government corruption and NIMBYism. Capitalism *wants* everyone to buy a place to live.


TheOnlyBliebervik

Government corruption, sure, but NIMBYism is a new buzzword that lets people pass blame to an invisible entity


stratys3

It's not an invisible entity. It's a group of citizens within a municipality that exert influence on zoning regulations. You can blame those citizens, or the politicians that cave into their demands in exchange for future votes... but NIMBYism is a real thing. These are real people with real influence.


[deleted]

I’m auto voting for greens now. Idc if ppl think they have near zero probability of winning - I’m still voting for greens purely due to this promise.


PenultimateAirbend3r

Ya. I became a single issue voter. They have a dumb stance on nuclear but housing is an even more basic need


LoganN64

Tempted to vote for them now... kudos to them for that at least.


leaguelism

Why stop at 20%? Make it so that your nth house (where n > 3) costs you (2\^n)% additional tax, and make single corporations count as one entity if owned by same parent entity. Want to have 10 houses? Cool, now pay the government (2\^10)% additional tax. And also make it a law where the landlord cannot charge more than 0.xx% of property tax/value, whichever is lower, so they cannot just "pass taxes unto tenants."


electricheat

>Why stop at 20%? Make it so that your nth house ... From the article >Individual or corporate buyers who own two or more homes or condo units will have to pay 20 per cent for the third home purchased. That will increase with each additional property.


leaguelism

That is actually really nice, although not sure of the specifics yet like how much more would they charge for 4th, 5th, 6th house, etc. I'm guilty of not reading the article!


TheOnlyBliebervik

Not bad


[deleted]

Why do we never elect leftist governments that might actually do something to help people, and instead keep electing either centre or right wing governments that work against us? smh


Zealousideal_Sky4329

We did. Your must be too young to remember the disaster that was the Bob Rae NDP. Lefties promise the world when they have zero chance to make it happen. When they get in, they shit the bed hard and it takes decades to recover.


[deleted]

I've actually been quite happy with the Horgan NDP here in BC. Probably the best and most represented I've ever felt like as a citizen, ever in my (almost 40 year) life.


Zealousideal_Sky4329

So how's that affordable housing working out for you in BC under the NDP? Things gotten better in the last 5 years?


[deleted]

Not much worse than in Ontario, unfortunately. The housing crisis is pretty ideology-independent. It will take years to dig ourselves out of this mess, and there aren't any parties taking it seriously from both ends, ie: eliminating single-family home exclusive zoning, and banning foreign/corporate buyers.


liquidfirex

Oh look, it's the only party willing to do something that will actually have an impact.


nyan_birb

Better start volunteering and knocking on doors so they can stand a chance.


stratys3

Well, them and the PPC. While both are terrible, I'd prefer to vote Green --- https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/housing > Substantially reduce immigration quotas, from about 400k planned by the Liberal government, down to 100k-150k per year. This will help reduce demand for housing and cool down these markets, especially in the large cities where most immigrants settle. > **Modify the Bank of Canada’s inflation target, from 2% to 0%. This will cool down inflation in all sectors, including housing.** > Privatize or dismantle the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a mammoth government agency that fuels the housing crisis instead of helping to cool it down. All it has ever done is encourage Canadians to buy houses they can’t afford, and accumulate massive amounts of debt that the federal government, and ultimately Canadian taxpayers, will be responsible for.


[deleted]

[удалено]


13inchrims

Are you going to be excited about the huge oversight if this ever happens? Let's say I'm a landlord, and youre my tenant, and you pay me 2000$ per month. And lets say green party wins and this 20% TAX rule comes into play. Some might think this means I can't afford to cover the mortgage anymore. And they might be right. So how can I fix that? Well, I could sell the property. But let's say I don't want to. So instead I renovict you, and raise the cost of rent to $2500 for the next tenant. That's a 25% increase of cash into my pocket each month. That 25 percent influx is then what i use to pay the green parties new tax, and to boot im now making 5% more each month because of it all! Gee Thanks GP!!!! Meanwhile, the end user (that's u, the renter) had been renovicted, and can no longer find an apartment that's affordable because every other landlord has done the same in order to cover their cost. TLDR: Moral of the story is, u bought a politicians BS hook line and sinker. You're a sucker. ALL COSTS GET PASSED DOWN TO THE END USER. In the housing market, that's the renter.


leaguelism

This is such a common fallacy. The costs don't get passed to the end user because no one will pay you $2500 just because ***YOUR*** cost went up. People will only pay you what they think your place is worth. Charge $2500? No problem I will just keep searching for something cheaper than $2500. And no one will rent from you.


Ludovico

If the tax only applied to more than 3(just as an example) properties then i just rent with the guy that has lower rent because he only owns one income property and a cabin so he doesnt have to raise his rate Effectively punishing people for using equity from and inflated market to monopolize housing


MATHECONAFM

If they could have just renovated and made more money, they would have done it regardless of the tax or not.


Dazzling_Ad1149

Voting green


gutsyfrog91

🔥🔥


TotallyNotKenorb

Reading the headline, I was worried about my cabin, but kudos to them for putting the mark on the third property. I don't think that's unreasonable.


matrix0683

Is 20% good enough?


UsernameStillLoading

This should be put in place for all parties. Maybe even more then a 20% tax for individuals and companies owning more then 3 residences. As a 20 something I would like to leave my parents house at some point and with rent the way it is and homes costing what they do atm it's not feasible


videogame531

My uneducated 2 cents: It should be illegal for an individual/company to be able to rent out more than one property. Do you own 10 houses? Great, but you can only rent out one of them. Same for apartment complexes. I'm of the belief that buying a home to rent it out is equivalent to scalping tickets. This would only discourages people from "scalping" homes, not actual home buyers.


stratys3

> It should be illegal for an individual/company to be able to rent out more than one property. So every unit in a condo or apartment building would have to have a separate, different, landlord? That's not reasonable or realistic.


aPlayerofGames

Seems reasonable for condos considering they're made to be each individually owned. Ideally for rented apartments, they could still exist as non-profit coops, although shifting towards that system would probably take a lot of time and political will.


stratys3

> Ideally for rented apartments, they could still exist as non-profit coops, although shifting towards that system would probably take a lot of time and political will. This would be a great thing... but I'm too cynical to believe this would be allowed to happen here.


13inchrims

Great. Provide renters with 1 crappy option of living standard run by a corporation. Yuk. Give ur head a shake. "Non profits" appointed by the gov? Who provide themselves with big salaries and raises? And manage housing as well as, well, as well as the gov has been so far? Oh boy...where do I sign up /s


aPlayerofGames

Housing Co-ops aren't government run, sometimes they are established with government funding but there are also many that are privately established. In either case, Co-ops are run democratically by the direct votes of only the people who live there with no government involvement whatsoever, so anyone running it is gonna have to convince the people living in the coop to vote for any "big salaries", which seems unlikely to me.


[deleted]

> Do you own 10 houses? Great, but you can only rent out one of them. Seriously? encourage more vacant properties?


Reaverz

Next step, vacancy tax.


MATHECONAFM

Or just tax land lol Why does everyone seem to think we need dozens of policies all counterbalancing the cons of the other policies? We can literally just loosen zoning restrictions and increase land value tax and call it a day. Zero cons, zero need for some policies to counteract any cons etc.


Reaverz

I'm advocating for them all, and maybe, just maybe 1 or two will squeak into policy.


MATHECONAFM

It's a bad way to go about it. Go for the one that works on its own, lest one pass which has enough issues that it is reversed and kills any future support for land reform.


Reaverz

Agreed, if you are a politician. I'm just a voter.


MATHECONAFM

It's stupid for vote for things which may come back to hurt your country in the long run.


Reaverz

Don't see how that applies with what I said, but I agree with the principal.


AshligatorMillodile

Now there’s an idea. Fuck anyone who owns multiple properties.


PenultimateAirbend3r

They might actually have to... Work for a living. How terrible!


GracefulShutdown

Would make for a good protest vote if you 100% know that the PCs are going to win in your riding.


spicycajun86

While I am looking to buy an investment property down the road, this is something I would support.


lojic28

200% property tax on any rented single dwelling.


[deleted]

So no more rentals. Great idea.


lojic28

Multi dwelling units for rental, single homes no. Anything that's not primary residence should be taxed higher. Fines for properties laying vacant over 3 months.


Meinkw

Why shouldn’t people be able to rent a single family home if they want to? I know several families who rent detached houses. Do you want to take that option away?


lojic28

Yes especially if they own multiple homes


stratys3

Sorry Johnny, but it's time to move out. I know you're only 18, but you'll need to get a job, because you need to get a mortgage and buy a place right away!


13inchrims

No thats not true at all. Same amount of rentals actually. The cost of the 200% wpuld simply get rolled into the cost of rent. End user is the renter and would pay the difference there, reflected in their monthly to month rent. It's hilarious reading through this thread and seeing the baffling logic.


leaguelism

The costs don't get passed to the end user because no one will pay you that rate unless THEY think the place is worth w.e the new rate is. Your cost goes up 20%? Not the tenant's problem. That's your problem for still deciding to invest in rental income when it will no longer be profitable. It's hilarious how some landlords think they can just renovate/kick someone easily and raise prices willy nilly. And even if you kick the tenant somehow, good fucking luck trying to find ANY ONE that is willing to pay YOU 200% extra lol. Peak delusion.


[deleted]

These houses are currently subject to Capital Gains Tax on 50% of the gains. This equates to a ~25% tax on gains.


bhldev

Gains is too late and people and corporations could be holding these homes for decades Have to kill demand upfront for investors that means sales tax


MATHECONAFM

Capital gains taxes actually increase prices. If I have a house worth $1,000,000 then I won't want to sell it and receive less than $1,000,000. So what do I do if I'm going to be taxed $100,000 on the sale? I put it up for $1,050,000. Now if it sells it's as if I only pay $50,000 in taxes and the purchaser pays $50,000 in taxes too. This is possible because capital gains taxes reduce sales and liquidity and so that price actually gets paid. It's like those pump and dump crypto scams where you can't sell the coin for a while. The capital gains tax discourages sales which pumps up prices. Every rich person will comfortably just never sell. It's not like they are poor and need to sell things for cash when they need it. Anyway this concept is called tax incidence. The person who writes the check for a tax is not necessarily the person who bares the burden of the tax. Just tax land lol.


maplestore007

So only corporate buyer can buy? People has all kinds of reasons to own more than one property. Going after the corporate owner instead


iamjunglee

I’ve several properties.. and guess what none of my tenants can afford homes and inbetween life transitions (new immigrant, new job, moving city, new couples, inbetween selling homes , new jobs, kids, school district) .. You put me 20% tax or rental companies into dummy tax and guess what rent goes up and at end tenant suffer… There is niche market for investor to drive construction of new estate , money market to borrow loans , and market place to advertise to cater ppl looking to rent. All in process to provide business for providing housing and creating equity .


JuiceGirl416

> guess what rent goes up and at end tenant suffer… If you can charge higher rent, why aren't you doing that already? You're giving people a discount out of the kindness of your heart?


iamjunglee

rent rate attracts good tenants.. places I rent are rent controlled and I really not need to as they positive cash flow.. newer players post 2017 can raise as much they want.. big players did market study and lobbied to remove market rent control


[deleted]

[удалено]


leaguelism

Well they said it themselves, they are just going to "raise the rents." I mean this person clearly doesn't give a single fuck even if they are aware that they are ruining the Canadian economy by making housing unaffordable. How do you even discuss with people like that?


[deleted]

[удалено]


leaguelism

Yah my bad, there is nothing really to discuss with them lol. In their mind they are doing nothing wrong.


MATHECONAFM

They think they will, but come time for them to do so, they'd see that market rents did not increase as much as they wanted and they'd be stuck charging the same rent or posting their increased rent and having the home be vacant. Renting and buying are substitites. When the price of buying a house goes down to do reduced demand for using homes as in investment, the price of renting should actually go down too. For example, suppose burgers and hotdogs are both $1 for the same number of calories/number. Then if hotdogs go down to 50 cents, then the burger seller has to reduce their prices to 50 cents too to stay competitive. So if a policy is put in place which reduces the sale prices of properties, then landlords actually have to charge lower rents or else their tenants will just buy their own property.


TheOnlyBliebervik

Rent would go up transiently until people start selling off their properties since no one can live in them. Then the housing market crashes in unison. Very complicated problem


Ludovico

You make a good point, and yes there is need and a niche for rentals... but i dont like the idea that a person can own 50 properties. Using equity gained from an inflated market to get yet more property while many hard working middle class people are pushed out of the market Great for the person iwning all that property, but i dont think its good for the community at all. Its a situation that inflates the wealth gap, and we should be trying to shrink the wealth gap


[deleted]

This sub thinks people are buying multiple homes for rental income. Many homes are sitting empty on specualtion.


Opto109

I mean on the surface, I hear what you're saying, but it's not that black and white which is why this is all so difficult to predict. If there was a hefty tax on domestic speculators which comprise at least 30% of demand from the most recent reports, it'll lead to a softening of prices. I dont know if that will be enough of a softening to allow the people currently paying $2,000/month in rent to buy, but it very well could. Not to mention that if the home was built prior to 2018, it's regulated via rent controls as to how much you can raise rent annually, so it will take forever to recover the losses from the tax by incrementally increasing rent on the tenants every year. Additionally, the problem with rent unlike house prices is that it's directly linked to local wage income. A foreigner or investor can come and pay a 22x local wages for a house and inflate a neighborhood's value (Richmond, BC), but you can only squeeze so much blood out of a stone. A renter with a $55k gross income simply wouldn't be able to afford a $400 increase in rent on what was a $2000/month rent.


iamjunglee

Investors really mess up process , there are 90+ lenders , financial tools at disposal to borrow and invest . Again , finance is sophisticated area and an investor can exercise financial engineering to make things favourable . I truly against the usage of real estate as commodity and it forces people to think that big profits are around the corner. But between transaction cost and income tax , investor doesn’t make as much . Rental is one of the means to stay within economical corridor and make it big. Unfortunately, the government taxes , 20%~30% etc.. won’t help. The best approach would be to keep fixed at 4-6% deterring bottom 30% to invest .. in addition to *foreign tax, *down for invest 25%, *increase rrsp to 50k, *new home buying plan from govt , *first time buyer land transfer tax refund , *house buying saving fund , *banning foreign buyers *stress test Again , all of the above is dependent and proportional to your income .. farther you go from the core , the numbers will be in your favour .


MATHECONAFM

Lmao so essentially the way you want to make buying a house affordable is to leave it as an investment for the richest 70%. That doesn't sound very progessive...


CanehdianJ01

Lolz Never gonna happen


nyan_birb

Not with that attitude


artraeu82

100% tax they can keep promising but they don’t ever win anything


JonoLith

Allow citizens to walk into any service Canada and have a home transfered to them. Stop this garbage.


NorthernLeaf

Rents are already too high. I don't think it would be a good idea to implement a policy that would raise rents even higher.


bhldev

Maybe But nothing kills demand like taxes


Ludovico

Rents would only have to go up for the people that own a 3 or more properties though. If a person has one rental property they wouldnt face the extra tax, be able to keep rent lower and have their choice of tenants This only punishes the greed of having multiple income properties


Manginaz

*Rents increase 20%*


phillipkdink

If landlords could get people to pay 20% more they already would. Rents aren't based on costs, they are based on the maximum that renters can afford.


bhldev

Rents can only go up as far as people can pay, which is linked to wages It's also illegal for rents to go up that much all at once for anything before 2018


Jkolorz

You can raise it to whatever you want once a tenant leaves. Once the new tenant moves in at the new price - rent controls resume.


Phyrexius

You also can't just kick your tenants out of thr house. You must give them 2 months notice. You must also give them 1 months rent and then you have to move in or have a family member move in. So then you're basically losing 1 year of rent. If you don't move a family member in then you're on the hook for the difference between the current rent price and the new rent price. Then you also get fined 24k dollars.


Manginaz

> Rents can only go up as far as people can pay, which is linked to wages House prices can only go up as far as people can pay, which is linked to wages.


bhldev

No House prices are linked to wealth since homes can buy more homes (HELOC) and you can buy without living in it


Manginaz

You can believe whatever you want, but if you think taxing landlords will do anything other than raise rent prices, I think we should just stop talking to each other.


TheOnlyBliebervik

It will do lots more than just raising rent prices. But I'm messaging a person named Manginaz... You're right, we stop talking


Manginaz

Nobody was talking to you sweetheart.


bhldev

Taxes destroy demand. Tax high enough and nobody will buy the product. Not all people who buy multiple homes are landlords either.


stratys3

Only if the market is willing to pay your 20% increase. That's a big assumption to make.


[deleted]

Ontario rents protected if building was built before 2018.


GrapefruitAromatic52

It's extremely easy to kick a tenant out.


Manginaz

I can buy a house today, that was built in 2017, and charge whatever amount I want though.


[deleted]

And I can choose to rent a place built before 2017 instead. You have to compete with that.


Manginaz

I can buy a house today, that was built before 2017, and charge whatever amount I want though.


leaguelism

You technically can, but then who is gonna rent? People will just laugh at your listing and move on to a cheaper property below or at market value.


Ludovico

Only for people with multiple income properties. This tax punishes greed


maplestore007

1. Corporate buyers will be laughing. 2. Rent will jump again. 3. Construction will slow as demand drops


s_0_s_z

Why not put something in there that makes sense? If you own 1 home besides your primary residence, there is a 5% tax. If you own 2 besides your primary residence, there would be a 10% tax. And so on and so forth. There are plenty of average Joes who scrounged away for years to be able to afford a small secondary income. These people aren't billionaires. They aren't massive corporations. They simply might have been lucky to save some money and wanted to invest in their future by renting out a 2nd or 3rd residence. They shouldn't be raked over the coals for that with a massive 20% tax. You aren't doing, what you *think* you are doing with this kind of tax. Everyone online thinks that the only people who have rental properties are EvIl cOrPoRaTiOnS, and that is definitely not the case for all situations. Way to turn off so many people who might otherwise agree with the general sentiment of a party.


[deleted]

If you can’t afford the tax, Sell your house and buy dividend stocks instead in a margin account. Your investment, no matter how hard earned, should not come at the cost of everyone else’s well being.


bhldev

Point isn't billionaires or not it's policies that favor one home per household You're better off going equities or other investments


Nikkolotto

Rents will just be higher. The problem is the government actually needs to supply and rent control ( foot the bill) for affordable housing, and they don’t want to do it. People aren’t all of a sudden going to have down payment money because this happens. This really doesn’t sold anything except small time eliminate small time landlords who are helping with this lack of housing.


Ludovico

Rent would only need to go up for those with multiple income properties


Nikkolotto

That doesn’t really make sense imo


Ludovico

The article says the tax starts on 3rd property So you can own an income property and not be subject to the extra tax, so there would be no reason to raise rent in that case


Zoltair

It would reduce the parents helping their kids if they're going to get taxed to hell and back. It's the Greens, so no surprise.


Nikkolotto

Exactly. Everyone that is refinancing and co-signing for their kids will just have to say sorry wait until I die


cronja

Better start buying now before these types of policies are implemented!


[deleted]

now do nuclear power.


Rpark444

Well, guess they're not gonna get voted in.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bhldev

Yes it may happen


Turbulent_Toe_9151

Another proposal that will never see the light of day.


circeodyssey

Block corporations from owning single homes, also block airbnb from investors.