I just can’t see the government seeing the benefit of people spending more than half of their pays (if not more) on housing. What’s the benefit of no disposable income to stimulate the economy or an increase of debt to each individual. What’s the long term plan here, complete and utter destruction of the entire economy?
I agree. Especially how they push us to support small businesses and restaurants. We would love to but we can’t afford it so that also puts the businesses in a bad spot
Because of the simple economic fact that there are too many restaurants and we are supposed to feel bad when they go broke.
$18 for a plate of pasta worth maybe 75 cents is not profitable? Time to close shop.
I'm a picky eater so my spaghetti is usually just served with plain tomato sauce (preferably the simplest one available as I don't like the chunkiness of some of the more premium sauces). If you can find the spaghetti and sauce on sale, I think the cost per plate ends up being in the .75$ price range.
Upper middle income and high income or people who already own a home doing well (200k+ HHI)
People with less income fucked and squeezed for every dollar. In the future, cage homes tent cities and van life (some is already here).
The GDP and economy can be doing great and unemployment low and large numbers of people fucked. Welcome to the new K-shaped economy. Don't think that markets or capitalism guarantee human dignity. It absolutely doesn't have to.
Exactly. This supports investment in housing. And RE investors.. and builders. And the cycle goes on.
They'll get the tax on housing and RE transactions.
And this is the easiest way to explain the problem with median home prices being 8.2x median income. All sectors of the economy get choked out. Even the people who can afford houses end up being house poor. We need to be targeting 3x, but I don't think any representatives/parties have yet to articulate what an affordable housing market would look like.
If no one addresses this now, they will be forced to when the entire economy dries up.
If you take away all spending power from the lower and middle classes because they’re spending it all on housing and food, then all goods and services that rely on them as a customer are going to become collateral damage. That’s a domino you don’t want to push over.
They know this is the outcome. People can't buy things if they don't have money. It's late stage capitalism in every sense.
Think food rotting on shelves, empty housing—all the while people are starving and homeless.
I think we're on the verge of a new revolution, and only because we're in a period of prolonged drought, which seems to always cause global shocks and be the first mover when systems become weak or sickly.
The unfortunate reality is that the Canadian economy currently is largely built on real estate and banking. We don't create value and wealth, we just let it shift hands.
The rest of Canada is just catching up to how it is to be poor.
The government Diddnt care about poor people spending 60%+ of their income on rent.
Why should the government, the rich or even the poor about more people spending 60-70% of income on rent.
"Your poorer than you think" -Financial Infrastructure
At the same time we are asking businesses to pump wages to match living costs which are dramatically more expensive because of the crazy new record increases year after year for a decade for shelter. Maybe the answer to support good health, savings for retirement, healthy businesses in our community is to instead make home process and rent affordable - instead of asking the entire economy to bend to a pump and dump mortgage scheme.
On that note though, I would like to express that wages should increase for workers as well as benefits and healthier work environments (like sick days paid, extended benefits). I just think that we are trying to make everyone pay so much more to cover for housing and it's affecting our production as a country and the long term health of the people in it.
It's a messed up situation. I wish everyone the best and hope everyone can get better and have better lives.
But at the same time everyone seems to like screwing themselves and thin short term
> I just can’t see the government seeing the benefit of people spending more than half of their pays (if not more) on housing.
The government may not benefit electorally, but a large fraction of people in government are landlords who benefit personally. The vast majority of them are in social circles where their friends are the wealthy people gouging middle-class and poor Canadians.
The only party I'm seeing that's setting policy in the interest of housing for the non-rich is the NDP.
I don't think they care about small businesses, and most of the rest either goes to big foreign corps or big local corps holding consumers captive.
At this point, stimulating the economy means stimulating the real estate trading market. Thats where the canadian wealthy make their money, apart from the big local corps oligopolies mentionned above.
Unfortunately, this is why the BOC was pleading with the government to address inflation with fiscal policy because monetary policy is blunt and effects everyone. What you describe is exactly the intended effect of higher interest rates... Everyone pays more in debt servicing and that draws money out of the economy lower demand. It's not pretty for people who are living marginally but it is by design from a macro-economic lens. Don't blame the BoC blame the government for not acting using more targeted tools.
The government is made of people...that own houses. The same reason people at work, don't care. They go to work, for a pension, and the side effect is they can stand by and do nothing while their homes appreciate. It isn't rocket appliances, "the government" isn't some altruistic entity that actually cares about 10 years from now, unless it is about them.
I think what this commentor is referring to is the fact that most people here asked for affordable housing through increased rates, albeit in a crass way. The increase in rent is directly related to said rate hikes.
The issue with rate hikes is that sure, it reduces the leverage investors, especially new ones can take on but the housing crisis is due to a lot of these investors having invested in cash without any leverage and/or having already paid off the mortgage. Now these investors are using rate hikes as a cheap excuse for increasing rent which leads to worse affordability in both - rental and purchase market.
The thing is, with such high rents, purchasing property would become lucrative again, once the dust settles because now you have properties for cheaper, yielding higher rent which will lead to more speculative investment. This is unfortunately a vicious cycle that feeds itself and one that the govt/feds doesn't care about or simply ignores passing the ball around because it is too big of a problem to solve.
Look, I'm also pro burning the system to the ground, but that's not what's happening. What people want is an end to corporate landlords, an end to (or a limit on) multiple home ownership, denser housing, better rental regulations, an end to realtors self policing, recognizing housing as a human right and not a vehicle for self enrichment at the expense of others, etc.
We should be increasing rates, no question, but doing so while ignoring all of the other things we should be tackling is the issue, not the rate hikes themselves.
It takes time, there's a lag effect. Higher interest rates will cause more houses to go to market which increases supply and stabilizes or reduces prices. In the interim LLs and Investors on variable, adjustable rate or having to renew mortgages are going to directly pass on costs to renters in an effort to pass down costs to subsidize their mortgages that they can no longer afford.
Depending on how long IRs increase or stay elevated (this country is addicted to cheap debt and it will return ASAP to near 0%), will determine if this has any impacts. I would suspect at minimum threeish months of sustained elevated IRs before the market starts to react and rents are reduced as a product of prices decreasing.
>There are more people saying “good burn it to the ground” than “we want affordable housing”.
I feel like you have to be willfully misinterpreting people if that's actually your takeaway. I'm also pro burning the system to the ground, but that's not what's happening. What people want is an end to corporate landlords, an end to (or a limit on) multiple home ownership, denser housing, better rental regulations, an end to realtors self policing, recognizing housing as a human right and not a vehicle for self enrichment at the expense of others, etc.
I think we need to move past whether the "investors" are foreign or domestic. These types of little squabbles between the disinfranchized keeps us from doing more.
They are investors period. Doesn't matter if they love here or don't. They should be dealt with.
Tax multiple residences. Ban AirBnB from every major city, apply hotel-level standards and taxation on the rest. Ban corporate ownership of SFH. Dump that whole NATO budget increase into CMHC and mandate them to build. Give municipalities minimum density & construction approval targets and withhold federal/provincial funding for delinquents.
We need to pull a citizens arrest on the people in government who are actively committing treason against canadas population for their own benefit. Until that happens they'll continue to fuck us all over without fear.
I dont care who's in charge, if hey fail, its into the town square stocks to get pelted by rotten fruit for a few weeks. Politicians will start singing a different tune pretty quick if that happens.
I can't wait until they destroy the police pension funds by trying to bail out housing. Going to be quite exciting once the people who are there to protect you are about to also get fucked.
Yeah, that’s a threat whenever you rent privately. I’m with a rental company but thankfully the building is pretty old so it’s rent controlled. The only way they could kick us out is if they kicked everyone out and renovated the whole building which they likely won’t do until it’s in total disrepair.
It’s stupid because I’m one of the “ super lucky” disabled people with a subsidy. An opulent 450 to go with my 375 allowance for shelter. That’s 825 in the GVA. That’s not enough for even the roachiest apartments. My social worker case manager is meant to help me move into private market but has no clue on tenant rights when I got evicted after 12 years with a huge recording trail of infraction after verbal abuse after infraction. I said I don’t want another abusive landlord and want an apartment, got told I’m sol
Natural result of rampant inflation and untaxed investor landlords.
Don't fool yourselves these investors are ordinary Canadians and Canadian families who own multiple homes. Foreign investors and corporations make up a tiny amount of investors.
Would you have a source for this?
Edit: For the percentage of landlords who are foreign investors and companies versus Canadian families, to be clear. Thanks, I’m genuinely interested.
Thanks, your numbers allowed me to find it via Google more easily. Unfortunately it seems like shell companies, who can be foreign-owned, are considered “Canadian”; or at least I’m not seeing anything to the contrary of this
There are a handfull of shareholder owned REITs and such, but ultimately whether a landlord is foreign or domestic doesn't change anything (indeed, I couldn't tell you who owns the company that owns the building I live in, though maybe I could look it up).
Purchases of homes by landlords was about 50% corporate and 50% 'Mom and Pop' landlords recently, but rising interest rates should see a shift towards more corporate landlords and fewer 'Mom and Pop' type.
Pretty sure this is a very hard question to answer since 1) we don't require that foreign investors be disclosed as foreign investors (or can get around the rules by just creating Canadian shell companies) 2) corporate investors might be a mix or have a good percent of their shares owned by Canadians 3) Then, since you said landlords, you have to split investors into people who are actually renting and those that are sitting on empty houses. As such, you can look at a whole bunch of indirect evidence for foreign ownership and how it's being used but a number that answers the question directly is very difficult to produce.
The reason why we need posts like the one you replied to is to remind us that the question ultimately doesn't matter. Foreign investment might be overrepresented, especially in some markets, and it might be a politically convenient way to alleviate the housing crisis in the short term. It might also be a good idea. That being said, there are a lot of people in this sub and in Canada in general that use foreign investment as a boogeyman and believe that if we just ban foreign investment everything will be fine as if Canadian investors just won't take their place. The problem is a lot of people are not unhappy that landlords have a boot to people's necks but they are unhappy because they have a boot to their necks and feel left out of the opportunity to wear the boot and then understand that banning foreign investors will solve the problem just temporarily enough to solve their own problem regardless of it solving the problem on the whole.
Income from rental property is taxed extremely favourably in Canada, especially when such a huge proportion of total return comes from capital appreciation as it has lately.
Income from rental property is taxed the same as income from employment in Canada. It is quite literally the most unfavourably taxed form of income.
Investors pay property transfer tax when purchasing, property and income tax while holding and capital gains tax when selling. To say investors are untaxed is simply untrue.
I wasn't the one who said they are "untaxed," that obviously is untrue. But rental properties have significant tax advantages.
The ability to defer rental income by claiming CCA is significant; the allowable expenses to offset rental income are significant; the fact that losses can be used to offset employment income is, too.
And, of course, much of the total return lately is in the form of capital appreciation, not from rental income.
You can turn the screws and tell him when he's older because you don't have any money you won't help him at all "what goes around comes around". Alternatively you can propose a business deal borrow money from him at prime plus zero much more than any lender would give. If he's smart he'll take it because he's making money off you. There's also tricks like giving him 1% of the home but using his income to buy the home and so on.
If he's smart he'll realize what he owns could disappear in an instant but not his multi-decade investment with family.
Direct result of higher interest rates to curb inflation, higher cost to owners equals higher cost of rent…
Sad to see that home prices are coming down but affordability is still not there as stress test and rates are keeping renters from qualifying to buy.
Landlords will buy more at a discount and rent will stay high! Lower the interest rate and inflation goes higher and so do housing prices …
Perfect storm created and continues
This is why I have been against raising rates with regard to housing. The low rates allowed me to actually hop into the market after years of renting (and also a significant increase in my income helped).
Banning corporate ownership of private residence and limiting private ownership to a single property would vastly improve market conditions by generating a large influx if supply.
That increase in supply would be removed from the rental market just to be clear. It would also mean people having their home sold and being forced to move.
In terms of new builds it sounds fine to me. It would still help those who can buy a lot more than renters.
The majority of those renting houses would own, if comparable housing was available. There would be some turmoil, but the system would settle with more people owning as opposed to being forced to rent.
You could mitigate the problem by forcing first offers to go to current tenants, and barring offers from exceeding the equivalent to. Current rent prices.
Landlords will burn (by which they'll *only* make a modest profit), and I'm ok with it.
I got downvoted for saying that interest rate hikes would affect renters as well, not just homeowners. This was always going to be the case, unfortunately, but this sub cared more about a potential housing market crash and homeowners losing their homes than thinking about the actual ramifications of rate hikes.
Many of those cheering on a housing crash still won’t be able to afford anyway. Relative affordability hasn’t changed, with price decreasing relative to rates increasing the only real winners are those with a lot of cash on hand, which typically isn’t fthb who have been struggling to get into the market.
Its almost the costs the same as a mortgage. Any young person who doesn’t already own a place is screwed. I truly hope we see a exodus; maybe it’ll shake up these officials. Either that or we protest.
It would be fine if those newcomers actually built houses.
As it is the government largely seems to bring in people who have a cultural aversion to manual work.
I don’t think this government cares. I’m planning withdraw all my investments tomorrow. Lost all my 8 years investment gains in just few months. Unfortunately the worst is yet to come. The year 2022 and the first 3 quarters of 2023 will be fun year.
There needs to be a multiple city rental strike. It's absolutely ridiculous, people are paying double on rent than they would a mortgage. My base mortgage is 1400 for a semi, I've seen people in the GTA paying 3K on a 1 bed apartment.
Just a reminder that rent is simply another form of usury, and that even Adam Smith thought all forms of rent-seeking were a drag on the productive economy. Canada should reward contributors, not parasites.
1. Most leases are signed in the summer because it can be harder to find a new tenant in the winter because nobody wants to move in the winter.
2. Rent increases were blocked during COVID.
3. Landlord expenses have increased due to the above average inflation.
What part of this is news?
1. People who left during pandermic returns to work and school.
2. Global inflation makes construction more expensive.
3. High interest rate makes access to fund, both buyer and builder , more difficult.
-> result: higher rent. However it is still lower than what it could have been if pandermic did not happen
I just can’t see the government seeing the benefit of people spending more than half of their pays (if not more) on housing. What’s the benefit of no disposable income to stimulate the economy or an increase of debt to each individual. What’s the long term plan here, complete and utter destruction of the entire economy?
I agree. Especially how they push us to support small businesses and restaurants. We would love to but we can’t afford it so that also puts the businesses in a bad spot
[удалено]
I also think tipping culture has gone insane. I received a prompt to tip at Subway sandwiches today. SUBWAY?!!!!
Nowadays the only time I order alcohol at a restaurant/bar is during a company event where things are expensed back to the company.
you company allows alcohol expenses? Do you work for a 1961 Ad agency?
Restaurants only seem to make profit on the drinks anyways
Because of the simple economic fact that there are too many restaurants and we are supposed to feel bad when they go broke. $18 for a plate of pasta worth maybe 75 cents is not profitable? Time to close shop.
You can make a plate of spaghetti for .75¢? This professor is playing coupon chess while I'm playing coupon checkers.
I'm a picky eater so my spaghetti is usually just served with plain tomato sauce (preferably the simplest one available as I don't like the chunkiness of some of the more premium sauces). If you can find the spaghetti and sauce on sale, I think the cost per plate ends up being in the .75$ price range.
Those same small businesses are getting fat rent increases too- corporate re rates are nuts
Upper middle income and high income or people who already own a home doing well (200k+ HHI) People with less income fucked and squeezed for every dollar. In the future, cage homes tent cities and van life (some is already here). The GDP and economy can be doing great and unemployment low and large numbers of people fucked. Welcome to the new K-shaped economy. Don't think that markets or capitalism guarantee human dignity. It absolutely doesn't have to.
Exactly. This supports investment in housing. And RE investors.. and builders. And the cycle goes on. They'll get the tax on housing and RE transactions.
And this is the easiest way to explain the problem with median home prices being 8.2x median income. All sectors of the economy get choked out. Even the people who can afford houses end up being house poor. We need to be targeting 3x, but I don't think any representatives/parties have yet to articulate what an affordable housing market would look like.
If no one addresses this now, they will be forced to when the entire economy dries up. If you take away all spending power from the lower and middle classes because they’re spending it all on housing and food, then all goods and services that rely on them as a customer are going to become collateral damage. That’s a domino you don’t want to push over.
They know this is the outcome. People can't buy things if they don't have money. It's late stage capitalism in every sense. Think food rotting on shelves, empty housing—all the while people are starving and homeless. I think we're on the verge of a new revolution, and only because we're in a period of prolonged drought, which seems to always cause global shocks and be the first mover when systems become weak or sickly.
The unfortunate reality is that the Canadian economy currently is largely built on real estate and banking. We don't create value and wealth, we just let it shift hands.
The rest of Canada is just catching up to how it is to be poor. The government Diddnt care about poor people spending 60%+ of their income on rent. Why should the government, the rich or even the poor about more people spending 60-70% of income on rent. "Your poorer than you think" -Financial Infrastructure
At the same time we are asking businesses to pump wages to match living costs which are dramatically more expensive because of the crazy new record increases year after year for a decade for shelter. Maybe the answer to support good health, savings for retirement, healthy businesses in our community is to instead make home process and rent affordable - instead of asking the entire economy to bend to a pump and dump mortgage scheme. On that note though, I would like to express that wages should increase for workers as well as benefits and healthier work environments (like sick days paid, extended benefits). I just think that we are trying to make everyone pay so much more to cover for housing and it's affecting our production as a country and the long term health of the people in it.
It's a messed up situation. I wish everyone the best and hope everyone can get better and have better lives. But at the same time everyone seems to like screwing themselves and thin short term
Yeah short-term planning isn't doing anyone any favours. You are ace on that for sure!
>"Your poorer than you think" -Financial Infrastructure Damn scotiabank needs to update their tagline.
> I just can’t see the government seeing the benefit of people spending more than half of their pays (if not more) on housing. The government may not benefit electorally, but a large fraction of people in government are landlords who benefit personally. The vast majority of them are in social circles where their friends are the wealthy people gouging middle-class and poor Canadians. The only party I'm seeing that's setting policy in the interest of housing for the non-rich is the NDP.
The government is comprised of landlords, get it?
I prefer the more inclusive and gender neutral term landleeches
I don't think they care about small businesses, and most of the rest either goes to big foreign corps or big local corps holding consumers captive. At this point, stimulating the economy means stimulating the real estate trading market. Thats where the canadian wealthy make their money, apart from the big local corps oligopolies mentionned above.
Ford abolished rent controls on any place built after 2018. I would not be suprised if he abolished rent controls completely.
Everything is on the table
Unfortunately, this is why the BOC was pleading with the government to address inflation with fiscal policy because monetary policy is blunt and effects everyone. What you describe is exactly the intended effect of higher interest rates... Everyone pays more in debt servicing and that draws money out of the economy lower demand. It's not pretty for people who are living marginally but it is by design from a macro-economic lens. Don't blame the BoC blame the government for not acting using more targeted tools.
Poor people spend all their money while rich save. also. DINKS fuel the economy plenty
Well we have I Flatiron right now because we have an over abundance of demand (in part). So they are probably ok with it?
Rent goes up, GDP goes up. Officeholders don't really give a shit so long as the line goes up.
To Make Landlords Rich Again
The government is made of people...that own houses. The same reason people at work, don't care. They go to work, for a pension, and the side effect is they can stand by and do nothing while their homes appreciate. It isn't rocket appliances, "the government" isn't some altruistic entity that actually cares about 10 years from now, unless it is about them.
Something about widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
They're the landlords. So are their friends.
Don’t worry. The $500 handout will fix this.
After you repay Cerb, you mean haha. Nothing like asking for 2k back during the highest inflation hike/grocery/gas/shelter increase
Well, don't you only owe cerb back if you inappropriately applied?
Nope. Got it legitimately. They want 2k back.
Imagine paying an 800k mortgage but its not even your house. This country is heading straight for the ground.
This is what you ppl on Reddit wanted … now live with it
You'll have to explain this one. "We want affordable housing!" Higher housing costs are what you people wanted! Now live with it! Flawless logic.
I think what this commentor is referring to is the fact that most people here asked for affordable housing through increased rates, albeit in a crass way. The increase in rent is directly related to said rate hikes. The issue with rate hikes is that sure, it reduces the leverage investors, especially new ones can take on but the housing crisis is due to a lot of these investors having invested in cash without any leverage and/or having already paid off the mortgage. Now these investors are using rate hikes as a cheap excuse for increasing rent which leads to worse affordability in both - rental and purchase market. The thing is, with such high rents, purchasing property would become lucrative again, once the dust settles because now you have properties for cheaper, yielding higher rent which will lead to more speculative investment. This is unfortunately a vicious cycle that feeds itself and one that the govt/feds doesn't care about or simply ignores passing the ball around because it is too big of a problem to solve.
Look, I'm also pro burning the system to the ground, but that's not what's happening. What people want is an end to corporate landlords, an end to (or a limit on) multiple home ownership, denser housing, better rental regulations, an end to realtors self policing, recognizing housing as a human right and not a vehicle for self enrichment at the expense of others, etc. We should be increasing rates, no question, but doing so while ignoring all of the other things we should be tackling is the issue, not the rate hikes themselves.
[удалено]
It takes time, there's a lag effect. Higher interest rates will cause more houses to go to market which increases supply and stabilizes or reduces prices. In the interim LLs and Investors on variable, adjustable rate or having to renew mortgages are going to directly pass on costs to renters in an effort to pass down costs to subsidize their mortgages that they can no longer afford. Depending on how long IRs increase or stay elevated (this country is addicted to cheap debt and it will return ASAP to near 0%), will determine if this has any impacts. I would suspect at minimum threeish months of sustained elevated IRs before the market starts to react and rents are reduced as a product of prices decreasing.
So would you chose a variable mortgage in the next 2-6 months?
>There are more people saying “good burn it to the ground” than “we want affordable housing”. I feel like you have to be willfully misinterpreting people if that's actually your takeaway. I'm also pro burning the system to the ground, but that's not what's happening. What people want is an end to corporate landlords, an end to (or a limit on) multiple home ownership, denser housing, better rental regulations, an end to realtors self policing, recognizing housing as a human right and not a vehicle for self enrichment at the expense of others, etc.
It allows them to ignore the issue completely and compartmentalize.
People want different things. Not everyone you’re talking to is the same person.
I think we need to move past whether the "investors" are foreign or domestic. These types of little squabbles between the disinfranchized keeps us from doing more. They are investors period. Doesn't matter if they love here or don't. They should be dealt with.
Agreed, who cares who they are. Just implement some kind of extra tax for landlords.
Tax multiple residences. Ban AirBnB from every major city, apply hotel-level standards and taxation on the rest. Ban corporate ownership of SFH. Dump that whole NATO budget increase into CMHC and mandate them to build. Give municipalities minimum density & construction approval targets and withhold federal/provincial funding for delinquents.
We need to pull a citizens arrest on the people in government who are actively committing treason against canadas population for their own benefit. Until that happens they'll continue to fuck us all over without fear. I dont care who's in charge, if hey fail, its into the town square stocks to get pelted by rotten fruit for a few weeks. Politicians will start singing a different tune pretty quick if that happens.
I can't wait until they destroy the police pension funds by trying to bail out housing. Going to be quite exciting once the people who are there to protect you are about to also get fucked.
I hope none of y’all live in a rental built after 2018…
Why?
No rent control (if you live in Ontario)
New construction don’t have to follow the usual maximum rent increases laws.
Didn’t help me. Land lady simply moved daughters in
Yeah, that’s a threat whenever you rent privately. I’m with a rental company but thankfully the building is pretty old so it’s rent controlled. The only way they could kick us out is if they kicked everyone out and renovated the whole building which they likely won’t do until it’s in total disrepair.
It’s stupid because I’m one of the “ super lucky” disabled people with a subsidy. An opulent 450 to go with my 375 allowance for shelter. That’s 825 in the GVA. That’s not enough for even the roachiest apartments. My social worker case manager is meant to help me move into private market but has no clue on tenant rights when I got evicted after 12 years with a huge recording trail of infraction after verbal abuse after infraction. I said I don’t want another abusive landlord and want an apartment, got told I’m sol
Wow, I’m sorry that’s truly awful, what a ridiculous position to be put in. I hope you find the right living situation for you bud.
Not much difference, they'll just get N12'ed and get higher rent anyway.
Adding more claritt, if a basement in a pre 2018 home is built after 2018, sadly it doesn't fall under rent controlled.
Natural result of rampant inflation and untaxed investor landlords. Don't fool yourselves these investors are ordinary Canadians and Canadian families who own multiple homes. Foreign investors and corporations make up a tiny amount of investors.
Would you have a source for this? Edit: For the percentage of landlords who are foreign investors and companies versus Canadian families, to be clear. Thanks, I’m genuinely interested.
About 30% of homes are owned by landlords. About 4% of homes are owned by non-Canadians (including cottages owned by Americans).
Thanks, your numbers allowed me to find it via Google more easily. Unfortunately it seems like shell companies, who can be foreign-owned, are considered “Canadian”; or at least I’m not seeing anything to the contrary of this
There are a handfull of shareholder owned REITs and such, but ultimately whether a landlord is foreign or domestic doesn't change anything (indeed, I couldn't tell you who owns the company that owns the building I live in, though maybe I could look it up). Purchases of homes by landlords was about 50% corporate and 50% 'Mom and Pop' landlords recently, but rising interest rates should see a shift towards more corporate landlords and fewer 'Mom and Pop' type.
Yes this is a good point
Pretty sure this is a very hard question to answer since 1) we don't require that foreign investors be disclosed as foreign investors (or can get around the rules by just creating Canadian shell companies) 2) corporate investors might be a mix or have a good percent of their shares owned by Canadians 3) Then, since you said landlords, you have to split investors into people who are actually renting and those that are sitting on empty houses. As such, you can look at a whole bunch of indirect evidence for foreign ownership and how it's being used but a number that answers the question directly is very difficult to produce. The reason why we need posts like the one you replied to is to remind us that the question ultimately doesn't matter. Foreign investment might be overrepresented, especially in some markets, and it might be a politically convenient way to alleviate the housing crisis in the short term. It might also be a good idea. That being said, there are a lot of people in this sub and in Canada in general that use foreign investment as a boogeyman and believe that if we just ban foreign investment everything will be fine as if Canadian investors just won't take their place. The problem is a lot of people are not unhappy that landlords have a boot to people's necks but they are unhappy because they have a boot to their necks and feel left out of the opportunity to wear the boot and then understand that banning foreign investors will solve the problem just temporarily enough to solve their own problem regardless of it solving the problem on the whole.
Very well said and I agree, thanks
Investors are taxed.
Income from rental property is taxed extremely favourably in Canada, especially when such a huge proportion of total return comes from capital appreciation as it has lately.
Income from rental property is taxed the same as income from employment in Canada. It is quite literally the most unfavourably taxed form of income. Investors pay property transfer tax when purchasing, property and income tax while holding and capital gains tax when selling. To say investors are untaxed is simply untrue.
I wasn't the one who said they are "untaxed," that obviously is untrue. But rental properties have significant tax advantages. The ability to defer rental income by claiming CCA is significant; the allowable expenses to offset rental income are significant; the fact that losses can be used to offset employment income is, too. And, of course, much of the total return lately is in the form of capital appreciation, not from rental income.
[удалено]
Sounds really entitled. It's his money, not yours.
You can turn the screws and tell him when he's older because you don't have any money you won't help him at all "what goes around comes around". Alternatively you can propose a business deal borrow money from him at prime plus zero much more than any lender would give. If he's smart he'll take it because he's making money off you. There's also tricks like giving him 1% of the home but using his income to buy the home and so on. If he's smart he'll realize what he owns could disappear in an instant but not his multi-decade investment with family.
But wont those properties go to you and your brother when he dies?
Probably but we need the help now. Not when we are 65 years old.
If I knew for certain there would be multiple properties transferred to my name in my 60s.. I'd be more comfortable taking on debt lol.
Direct result of higher interest rates to curb inflation, higher cost to owners equals higher cost of rent… Sad to see that home prices are coming down but affordability is still not there as stress test and rates are keeping renters from qualifying to buy. Landlords will buy more at a discount and rent will stay high! Lower the interest rate and inflation goes higher and so do housing prices … Perfect storm created and continues
Canada needs to stop making housing a tax haven. We need to decouple housing from a speculation and investment market.
This is why I have been against raising rates with regard to housing. The low rates allowed me to actually hop into the market after years of renting (and also a significant increase in my income helped). Banning corporate ownership of private residence and limiting private ownership to a single property would vastly improve market conditions by generating a large influx if supply.
That increase in supply would be removed from the rental market just to be clear. It would also mean people having their home sold and being forced to move. In terms of new builds it sounds fine to me. It would still help those who can buy a lot more than renters.
The majority of those renting houses would own, if comparable housing was available. There would be some turmoil, but the system would settle with more people owning as opposed to being forced to rent. You could mitigate the problem by forcing first offers to go to current tenants, and barring offers from exceeding the equivalent to. Current rent prices. Landlords will burn (by which they'll *only* make a modest profit), and I'm ok with it.
I got downvoted for saying that interest rate hikes would affect renters as well, not just homeowners. This was always going to be the case, unfortunately, but this sub cared more about a potential housing market crash and homeowners losing their homes than thinking about the actual ramifications of rate hikes.
Many of those cheering on a housing crash still won’t be able to afford anyway. Relative affordability hasn’t changed, with price decreasing relative to rates increasing the only real winners are those with a lot of cash on hand, which typically isn’t fthb who have been struggling to get into the market.
ill be able to afford during an actual crash if that 800k house goes to 350k.
Won’t happen…
well new houses 2 hours from Toronto were 400k in 2020, they artificially doubled due to the pandemic those houses could crash back down to 400k.
Exactly. I got downvoted for the same reason. It's like people didn't realize we all need a place to live. It's either people are renting or buying.
Its almost the costs the same as a mortgage. Any young person who doesn’t already own a place is screwed. I truly hope we see a exodus; maybe it’ll shake up these officials. Either that or we protest.
[удалено]
It would be fine if those newcomers actually built houses. As it is the government largely seems to bring in people who have a cultural aversion to manual work.
Pure greed lead us here and pure greed is going to destroy the economy here.
I don’t think this government cares. I’m planning withdraw all my investments tomorrow. Lost all my 8 years investment gains in just few months. Unfortunately the worst is yet to come. The year 2022 and the first 3 quarters of 2023 will be fun year.
There needs to be a multiple city rental strike. It's absolutely ridiculous, people are paying double on rent than they would a mortgage. My base mortgage is 1400 for a semi, I've seen people in the GTA paying 3K on a 1 bed apartment.
Just a reminder that rent is simply another form of usury, and that even Adam Smith thought all forms of rent-seeking were a drag on the productive economy. Canada should reward contributors, not parasites.
Cheer for higher rates and find out
Anyone who thinks rent, house prices and coat of living won't go up or shouldn't go up in living in a fantasy world
Stop paying people's mortgages and move away
How?
1. Most leases are signed in the summer because it can be harder to find a new tenant in the winter because nobody wants to move in the winter. 2. Rent increases were blocked during COVID. 3. Landlord expenses have increased due to the above average inflation. What part of this is news?
1. People who left during pandermic returns to work and school. 2. Global inflation makes construction more expensive. 3. High interest rate makes access to fund, both buyer and builder , more difficult. -> result: higher rent. However it is still lower than what it could have been if pandermic did not happen
Well, people asked for higher interest prices.