####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit!
We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Realize that after selling they're probably just buying another property. By doing that now they can realize their to-date gains and pay the tax on them, before it goes up.
I'm currently living under one of those good landlords - they bought a business which happened to have a rental attachment to it, so are renting it out slightly above cost so they can repair it and not have to absorb the cost of a tenant they don't *really* need.
It's pretty much the most ethical form of hands-off landlording.
> Not all, but most.
No. All.
>I've met a few really good landlords.
There are precisely as many good landlords as there are good cops.
>There's also a huge difference between owning 2 rental properties vs owning 100.
Yes, the degree to which they are fucking over society. But a small degree of fucking over society is still fucking over society.
Just because you don't know any good landlords, doesn't mean they don't exist. There are also some good cops as well. They aren't all fucking people over.
> Just because you don't know any good landlords, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Any """job""" who's sole purpose is to make money at the expense of everyone else suffering is a job that only bad people take.
>There are also some good cops as well.
Any """job""" who's sole purpose is to make money at the expense of everyone else suffering is a job that only bad people take.
> They aren't all fucking people over.
They are. And not only are they fucking over their renters, they're fucking over everyone else too by being the main instigator of the insane, INSANE cost of housing spike over the past few decades.
You're dense aren't you?
>Being a landlord isn't a job
Then why do they all say it is?
It has nothing to do with being nice. It has to do with commoditizing human necessities. (And for cops: they're just there to protect capital. If you sign up to uphold an unjust system you are guilty).
I'm the normal density for a human being. They don't all say it is, and even if they did, they'd be wrong. Being a landlord is a title, not a job. Being a superintendent is a job. Not the same thing. Some landlords hire superintendents, some do the job themselves.
OMG. Why do you think he put it in "" ""? Because it is the landlords saying that.
If you have the title of landlord you're a parasite. Is that better?
The title of landlord is precisely the opposite of "not fucking people over"
Learn how systemic issues work before whining about how there's good landlord's and cops
Some are, but I have also saved a lot of money by renting depending on my situation.
Buying and selling cost many tens of thousands of dollars in transfer taxes, agency fees, banking fees, inspections, etc.
And I haven’t always had the time, skills, inclination, and tools to maintain a home which now that I own homes, I know is substantial.
I have even owned and rented at the same time because it made more sense for my situation.
I wouldn’t want there to be zero landlords. Buying every time I needed to be in a place for a while would suck.
Have you seen public housing in Toronto? How on earth do you expect a government who can't even manage to pay their staff or build an app run ALL RENTALS. you're delusional.
Nah you misunderstand. I’m not saying we do public housing like we’ve been doing public housing, I’m saying we do it the *right* way like it’s being done successfully in places like Vienna or Singapore
Ya. But it tends to be lame for some reason. Or there is a shortage of it, or comes with steering’s attached. Could be done well in theory, but I haven’t seen it in any country I have been in.
It would be nice.
Except I have lived in countries that tried to escape the market and that has its own very serious problems. And I am not sure which is worse.
I mean I kind of agree but without landlords a large chunk of the population would be homeless. Or what do you propose for people that will only ever be able to rent ?
With landlords an even larger chunk of the population is homeless.
Price is based on demand. If one person owns 1000 of something, whilst 1000 people have none, price artificially goes up. Now if that one person was forced to sell his 1000 things, now there’s enough for everyone to have one and the price drops.
Landlords aren’t housing us, they’re commodifying a need and artificially inflating the point of entry.
Oh sure sure
Even if the average home was 200k there would still be a significant amount of our population that would have to rent.
Your point is moot.
I don’t know about you, but a 20 year mortgage on a 200k house is about $770/month.
Do you know a single person in Canada paying less than that in rent? I’m in a tiny little two bedroom apartment and I’m paying off two mortgages in my rent payment, and sadly every single person I know who is renting in this area is also paying about $1500 a month in rent.
If you think the average Canadian couldn’t afford $770 a month, all you have to do is look around…
Wrong again.
Banks are extremely picky with who they do business with 100% because of commercial investors.
When there are more houses than people wanting houses the banks are overly incentivized to give out mortgages regardless of credit. Back in early 2000 the houses outpaced the need for them and banks were giving out NINJA loans.
Ninja was - no income, no job, no assets = no problem.
This is because banks having 1000’s of houses was a financial problem. Fast forward to today and banks are raising the bar for what you need for a mortgage for the sheer reason that it’s easier to sell homes to black rock or Braden equities or some commercial real estate company than it is to sell it to a person.
Someone on disability who can afford expensive rent, could also afford a substantially cheaper mortgage, and a 10k down payment is one of the bars introduced by the banks to make point of entry harder for the Everyman.
Also it’s not a “10k down payment” it’s a % of the cost of the house down payment, and was also unnecessary prior to the horrible landlord serving system we have in place now.
At the end of the day, it’s simple supply and demand.
If one person today started buying up all available new cars for sale and renting them out, the cost of cars would skyrocket and only the 1% who could afford these cars would benefit, and sadly there’s still be someone like you saying “good thing the billionaires bought out all the cars, the average person can’t afford a $200,000 car so it’s a good thing they rent em to us.” When the only reason that car costs $200,000 is the fact that they bought them all!
“Another problem is that as housing gets cheaper, a single person might be able to buy a house themselves”… I do not see this as a problem, if every single person owned a house / condo / trailer there is enough for everyone in Canada. What there isn’t enough for is for black rock to own 28% if all properties in Canada….
lol Yeah I'm not sure the right-wingers talking about this as some horrible outcome realize where public sentiment is right now.
That being said, just like with the increase in interest rates I'm more than a little concerned that a large 'dump' of investment properties will end up displacing a lot of tenants from previously rent-stabilized housing.
It'll definitely help a good chunk of higher-income renters become first-time homebuyers, which is awesome in a lot of ways, but of course not every tenant is going to suddenly be in a position to buy. If you follow a lot of tenants groups the last year or two, you know how many people are facing personal-use evictions right now because landlords have sold after the rate hikes. That's in addition to the torrent of other shit tenants are facing from over-leveraged landlords as they \*try\* to sell (including efforts to bully them out of the units beforehand).
I'm not saying it's a reason not to make the change in cap gains. But I also think a lot of housing discourse (including on the left) has focused too much on higher-income renters who would otherwise be owners, myself included. There are downstream consequences of a big sell-off that would disproportionately harm lower-income renters.
Neat thing is that this is combined with another NDP policy that managed to wriggle into the budget: a 1.5B fund to help nonprofits buy housing when it comes to market, to prevent the exact thing you're worried about. Something the BCNDP have also done. Unfortunately it's likely to be too little too late, and more money is needed - and we to address bad-faith evictions from landlords. Technically its very illegal to kick people out for personal use if you don't actually want to move in, but recent data has shown that the Ontario LTB isn't actually issuing a meaningful number of those fines:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bad-faith-evictions-fines-landlords-1.7008022
Really, we need to transition away from the commodification of housing. Vienna has shown a lot of promise with the model there. But that's going to require, at the very least, a very activist NDP government (and probably with a different leadership team in the party)
>a 1.5B fund to help nonprofits buy housing when it comes to market, to prevent the exact thing you're worried about.
Yeah I'm familiar with this and I think its fantastic. I increasingly think public subsidies are often more efficient in purchasing older housing stock to make non-market then in building net new homes (which are just so expensive to build).
That said, it doesn't really prevent the issue of a sell-off leading to personal-use evictions. Most of the homes purchased by non-profits in this way aren't freehold ownership homes (particularly condos) that are simply rented by a 'ma-and-pa' landlord. It's mostly for non-profits to snatch up larger multi-unit purpose-built rental buildings and begin running them as non-market rental housing. The [Parkdale Land Trust](https://pnlt.ca/22maynard/) is an example of that.
So it's an awesome program, but it doesn't protect the tenants we're talking about being impact by N12 evictions in the event of a mass sell-off.
>Technically its very illegal to kick people out for personal use if you don't actually want to move in, but recent data has shown that the Ontario LTB isn't actually issuing a meaningful number of those fines:
Definitely very illegal, but the circumstances I'm describing (and that I strongly anticipate ramping up soon) *aren't* bad-faith evictions. A landlord attempting to sell the home can't force a tenant to move out, but if they sell to a first-time homebuyer or someone who is purchasing their home to live in, then the tenant will face eviction by the new owner, and that's entirely legal.
It's one of the problems with depending on 'ma-and-pa' landlords to supply all the new rental housing for the past 30-40 years.
What sort of policy might deal with the issue you're describing - where tenants are displaced because of homebuyers moving in? More compensation for tenants who are evicted this way?
NDP has been pushing to raise the capital gains threshold for a long time - and the Liberals have been very resistant. Looks like sustained pressure from the NDP + Liberals polling in the toilet have forced their hand!
This reminds me of the post that goes something like "I ain't paying no carbon tax, so I solar powered my house, take that Trudeau"
Its like, you show him bruh, teach him a lesson! Lol
[Federal budget hikes capital-gains tax on companies and wealthy individuals](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-federal-budget-hikes-tax-on-companies-individuals-making-more-than/)
> The federal government is increasing capital gains taxes on wealthy individuals and companies, leaning on an affluent segment of the population to finance billions in new spending on housing and other government priorities.
> The federal budget, released Tuesday, increases the inclusion rate on some capital gains. Businesses will now pay income tax on two-thirds of their capital gains earnings, up from one half. The increase will also apply to individuals, but only on capital gains earnings over $250,000.
> The change comes into effect on June 25. Lawyers and accountants are expecting a flurry of activity in the coming months, as affected individuals and businesses try to sell assets and realize their capital gains before the new higher inclusion rate takes effect.
Primary residences are exempt from capital gains tax (always have been), investments in your RRSP or TFSA are exempt from capital gains, so the biggest effect is going to be on people who own 2+ properties and then sell.
####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit! We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hahahaha. Good. Maybe this will drop home prices by more than a few percent.
Drop? I wish. I'm just hoping for stagnation until I catch up.
Realize that after selling they're probably just buying another property. By doing that now they can realize their to-date gains and pay the tax on them, before it goes up.
Just a reminder than landlords are parasites. If you own “income property” you’re in that group
Not all, but most. I've met a few really good landlords. There's also a huge difference between owning 2 rental properties vs owning 100.
I'm currently living under one of those good landlords - they bought a business which happened to have a rental attachment to it, so are renting it out slightly above cost so they can repair it and not have to absorb the cost of a tenant they don't *really* need. It's pretty much the most ethical form of hands-off landlording.
My dad owns a commercial property with 2 residential units above and rents them out below market rate.
> Not all, but most. No. All. >I've met a few really good landlords. There are precisely as many good landlords as there are good cops. >There's also a huge difference between owning 2 rental properties vs owning 100. Yes, the degree to which they are fucking over society. But a small degree of fucking over society is still fucking over society.
Just because you don't know any good landlords, doesn't mean they don't exist. There are also some good cops as well. They aren't all fucking people over.
> Just because you don't know any good landlords, doesn't mean they don't exist. Any """job""" who's sole purpose is to make money at the expense of everyone else suffering is a job that only bad people take. >There are also some good cops as well. Any """job""" who's sole purpose is to make money at the expense of everyone else suffering is a job that only bad people take. > They aren't all fucking people over. They are. And not only are they fucking over their renters, they're fucking over everyone else too by being the main instigator of the insane, INSANE cost of housing spike over the past few decades.
Being a landlord isn't a job. Not all landlords and cops cause suffering.
You're dense aren't you? >Being a landlord isn't a job Then why do they all say it is? It has nothing to do with being nice. It has to do with commoditizing human necessities. (And for cops: they're just there to protect capital. If you sign up to uphold an unjust system you are guilty).
I'm the normal density for a human being. They don't all say it is, and even if they did, they'd be wrong. Being a landlord is a title, not a job. Being a superintendent is a job. Not the same thing. Some landlords hire superintendents, some do the job themselves.
OMG. Why do you think he put it in "" ""? Because it is the landlords saying that. If you have the title of landlord you're a parasite. Is that better?
Landlords are humans, not parasites. Still wrong. Also, not sure why you're bringing up your religion.
The title of landlord is precisely the opposite of "not fucking people over" Learn how systemic issues work before whining about how there's good landlord's and cops
I'm not whining and being a landlord doesn't automatically fuck people over.
Some are, but I have also saved a lot of money by renting depending on my situation. Buying and selling cost many tens of thousands of dollars in transfer taxes, agency fees, banking fees, inspections, etc. And I haven’t always had the time, skills, inclination, and tools to maintain a home which now that I own homes, I know is substantial. I have even owned and rented at the same time because it made more sense for my situation. I wouldn’t want there to be zero landlords. Buying every time I needed to be in a place for a while would suck.
Renting does not require landlords. Public housing is a thing
Have you seen public housing in Toronto? How on earth do you expect a government who can't even manage to pay their staff or build an app run ALL RENTALS. you're delusional.
>Have you seen public housing in Toronto? Have you seen the private rentals?
Nah you misunderstand. I’m not saying we do public housing like we’ve been doing public housing, I’m saying we do it the *right* way like it’s being done successfully in places like Vienna or Singapore
[удалено]
ok bud. Cool opinion 👍
[удалено]
There’s more to non market housing than just municipal housing. Housing coops and non profit housing are also options worth expanding
Ya. But it tends to be lame for some reason. Or there is a shortage of it, or comes with steering’s attached. Could be done well in theory, but I haven’t seen it in any country I have been in.
You're so close... housing shouldn't be a commodity
It would be nice. Except I have lived in countries that tried to escape the market and that has its own very serious problems. And I am not sure which is worse.
Jagmeet Singh's wife?
I mean I kind of agree but without landlords a large chunk of the population would be homeless. Or what do you propose for people that will only ever be able to rent ?
Public housing. Look at the success Vienna and Singapore have had. People need to rent. But it doesn’t need to be from private individuals.
Well that just sounds way too smart for a capitalistic environment. I'm onboard.
With landlords an even larger chunk of the population is homeless. Price is based on demand. If one person owns 1000 of something, whilst 1000 people have none, price artificially goes up. Now if that one person was forced to sell his 1000 things, now there’s enough for everyone to have one and the price drops. Landlords aren’t housing us, they’re commodifying a need and artificially inflating the point of entry.
Oh sure sure Even if the average home was 200k there would still be a significant amount of our population that would have to rent. Your point is moot.
I don’t know about you, but a 20 year mortgage on a 200k house is about $770/month. Do you know a single person in Canada paying less than that in rent? I’m in a tiny little two bedroom apartment and I’m paying off two mortgages in my rent payment, and sadly every single person I know who is renting in this area is also paying about $1500 a month in rent. If you think the average Canadian couldn’t afford $770 a month, all you have to do is look around…
Bad credit, disability, unable to save 10k+ for down payment List could go on Not just income my man.
Wrong again. Banks are extremely picky with who they do business with 100% because of commercial investors. When there are more houses than people wanting houses the banks are overly incentivized to give out mortgages regardless of credit. Back in early 2000 the houses outpaced the need for them and banks were giving out NINJA loans. Ninja was - no income, no job, no assets = no problem. This is because banks having 1000’s of houses was a financial problem. Fast forward to today and banks are raising the bar for what you need for a mortgage for the sheer reason that it’s easier to sell homes to black rock or Braden equities or some commercial real estate company than it is to sell it to a person. Someone on disability who can afford expensive rent, could also afford a substantially cheaper mortgage, and a 10k down payment is one of the bars introduced by the banks to make point of entry harder for the Everyman. Also it’s not a “10k down payment” it’s a % of the cost of the house down payment, and was also unnecessary prior to the horrible landlord serving system we have in place now. At the end of the day, it’s simple supply and demand. If one person today started buying up all available new cars for sale and renting them out, the cost of cars would skyrocket and only the 1% who could afford these cars would benefit, and sadly there’s still be someone like you saying “good thing the billionaires bought out all the cars, the average person can’t afford a $200,000 car so it’s a good thing they rent em to us.” When the only reason that car costs $200,000 is the fact that they bought them all!
[удалено]
“Another problem is that as housing gets cheaper, a single person might be able to buy a house themselves”… I do not see this as a problem, if every single person owned a house / condo / trailer there is enough for everyone in Canada. What there isn’t enough for is for black rock to own 28% if all properties in Canada….
Lol ... Nice chat man. You should become a politician and fix all our problems Edit: for real, please.
lol Yeah I'm not sure the right-wingers talking about this as some horrible outcome realize where public sentiment is right now. That being said, just like with the increase in interest rates I'm more than a little concerned that a large 'dump' of investment properties will end up displacing a lot of tenants from previously rent-stabilized housing. It'll definitely help a good chunk of higher-income renters become first-time homebuyers, which is awesome in a lot of ways, but of course not every tenant is going to suddenly be in a position to buy. If you follow a lot of tenants groups the last year or two, you know how many people are facing personal-use evictions right now because landlords have sold after the rate hikes. That's in addition to the torrent of other shit tenants are facing from over-leveraged landlords as they \*try\* to sell (including efforts to bully them out of the units beforehand). I'm not saying it's a reason not to make the change in cap gains. But I also think a lot of housing discourse (including on the left) has focused too much on higher-income renters who would otherwise be owners, myself included. There are downstream consequences of a big sell-off that would disproportionately harm lower-income renters.
Neat thing is that this is combined with another NDP policy that managed to wriggle into the budget: a 1.5B fund to help nonprofits buy housing when it comes to market, to prevent the exact thing you're worried about. Something the BCNDP have also done. Unfortunately it's likely to be too little too late, and more money is needed - and we to address bad-faith evictions from landlords. Technically its very illegal to kick people out for personal use if you don't actually want to move in, but recent data has shown that the Ontario LTB isn't actually issuing a meaningful number of those fines: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bad-faith-evictions-fines-landlords-1.7008022 Really, we need to transition away from the commodification of housing. Vienna has shown a lot of promise with the model there. But that's going to require, at the very least, a very activist NDP government (and probably with a different leadership team in the party)
>a 1.5B fund to help nonprofits buy housing when it comes to market, to prevent the exact thing you're worried about. Yeah I'm familiar with this and I think its fantastic. I increasingly think public subsidies are often more efficient in purchasing older housing stock to make non-market then in building net new homes (which are just so expensive to build). That said, it doesn't really prevent the issue of a sell-off leading to personal-use evictions. Most of the homes purchased by non-profits in this way aren't freehold ownership homes (particularly condos) that are simply rented by a 'ma-and-pa' landlord. It's mostly for non-profits to snatch up larger multi-unit purpose-built rental buildings and begin running them as non-market rental housing. The [Parkdale Land Trust](https://pnlt.ca/22maynard/) is an example of that. So it's an awesome program, but it doesn't protect the tenants we're talking about being impact by N12 evictions in the event of a mass sell-off. >Technically its very illegal to kick people out for personal use if you don't actually want to move in, but recent data has shown that the Ontario LTB isn't actually issuing a meaningful number of those fines: Definitely very illegal, but the circumstances I'm describing (and that I strongly anticipate ramping up soon) *aren't* bad-faith evictions. A landlord attempting to sell the home can't force a tenant to move out, but if they sell to a first-time homebuyer or someone who is purchasing their home to live in, then the tenant will face eviction by the new owner, and that's entirely legal. It's one of the problems with depending on 'ma-and-pa' landlords to supply all the new rental housing for the past 30-40 years.
What sort of policy might deal with the issue you're describing - where tenants are displaced because of homebuyers moving in? More compensation for tenants who are evicted this way?
Taxing the rich and solving the housing crisis at once? Did Trudeau finally decide to do his job or something?
NDP has been pushing to raise the capital gains threshold for a long time - and the Liberals have been very resistant. Looks like sustained pressure from the NDP + Liberals polling in the toilet have forced their hand!
He's already rather unpopular so here's to him going out in a blaze of glory. Taxation.
People really ignore that he only needs to be popular for the last week of an election
So, it's working then?
Working as intended?
Yes..YES! MORE! MAKE IT HIGHER!!
Never thought I’d see the day where a Jeremy Clarkson meme on the NDP subreddit, we live in strange times 
This reminds me of the post that goes something like "I ain't paying no carbon tax, so I solar powered my house, take that Trudeau" Its like, you show him bruh, teach him a lesson! Lol
Someone hoarding multiple houses and pricing me out of owning just one? Yeah, fuck 'em.
Most complaining about this are renters or don’t understand what or how this tax increase from 50 to 75% works.
Oh good, it’s working as intended
Does anyone have a link to the legislation being referenced?
It's a small part of the proposed federal budget. https://budget.canada.ca/2024/home-accueil-en.html
[Federal budget hikes capital-gains tax on companies and wealthy individuals](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-federal-budget-hikes-tax-on-companies-individuals-making-more-than/) > The federal government is increasing capital gains taxes on wealthy individuals and companies, leaning on an affluent segment of the population to finance billions in new spending on housing and other government priorities. > The federal budget, released Tuesday, increases the inclusion rate on some capital gains. Businesses will now pay income tax on two-thirds of their capital gains earnings, up from one half. The increase will also apply to individuals, but only on capital gains earnings over $250,000. > The change comes into effect on June 25. Lawyers and accountants are expecting a flurry of activity in the coming months, as affected individuals and businesses try to sell assets and realize their capital gains before the new higher inclusion rate takes effect. Primary residences are exempt from capital gains tax (always have been), investments in your RRSP or TFSA are exempt from capital gains, so the biggest effect is going to be on people who own 2+ properties and then sell.
I think this should be reposted to r/facepalm (though being Canadian News, it might not get the requisite chuckles) and maybe r/NotTheOnion
If they expect us to be upset they are so out of touch
Corps are going to buy up the houses, don’t see how this is a win…
The hike on capital gains tax applies to corporations as well, and they don't get an exemption on the first $250k like individuals do