Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[jg13]

Thank you all for your responses. I really appreciate you giving me your input!

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

That is GST builders pay.

We are talking about buyer paid GST which you or I pay whe purchasing a new home.

It’s the only mention of GST I’ve found in the Conservative platform. Maybe I missed something?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by GGG

Here he is pledging it on new homes under one million but you are right it’s not found on the website.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7365339

Thanks

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by jg13

Hello, I'm not going to go through the entire thread and I know the majority of CalgaryPuck posters are 45+ in age but 80% of the people I talk to and are within 5 years of my age (33) are all voting conservative without a second thought, myself included.

My question is:

I would like to know why those of you that are above 45 in age or older that own their own homes, think that Mark Carney will benefit us in our 30s over Pierre Polieivere. Pierre has stated he will cut immigration to the point where we're building more homes faster than we allow people into Canada and will allow first time home buyers to purchase their first homes without the 5% GST included in those homes.

The reason for the above question is because of 80% of the people I talk to in my age range (millenial) is because we're concerned about never being able to afford a home and if we're never able to afford a home, it affects many things specifically, like starting a family. From my understanding, Mark Carney wants to increase the Canadian population to 100 million by 2100 which is 800,000 a year when Canada has been known to build 200,000 places of living a year. He has publicly stated this.

If I currently owned a home this would be great for myself as my home would sky rocket in value. Please let me know on this particular issue, why as a millennial this is good for me.

Thank you in advance. Not looking to fight anyone. I want clarity.

The bolded is not true. It wasn't long ago when we were debating renting vs owning a home, and renting was winning the debate. People forget all the costs that come with purchasing and owning a home like real estate and legal fees, maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc.

I believe timing is very important. Although house prices tend to go up over long periods of time, they can go down over significant periods. With all that is going on these days with the tariffs, highly volatile stock market, job losses, falling house prices, who knows what the future holds for us. It was me, I would hang on to your money and wait for a better time to invest in a house.

As for who to vote for, everyone has their specific reasons. For me, the most important question is which leader's economic ideology is going to capitalize on our strength as a nation. IMO voting in the same old government, in spite of the new fancy leader, is just going down the same path, or even worse.

[Burn13]

Originally Posted by vegasbound

FYI, I'm 31; do not own a home either. Have voted federally for the Conservatives every election - I'm voting Liberal this election. Two of my friends that I will talk politics with are the same.



One of the big reasons I can't vote for PP is the fact that he won't get his security clearance.

lol 9 years of liberal scandals and this is your issue? Do you know why he hasn't?

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by GGG

Here he is pledging it on new homes under one million but you are right it’s not found on the website.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7365339

This is a terrible policy. I would never support this unless it is no GST on the first 1 million of all new homes.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Burn13

lol 9 years of liberal scandals and this is your issue? Do you know why he hasn't?

Nobody knows why, that's the reason it is a concern. FYI his nonsense excuses are not the reason why, they are a deflection to avoid telling us the real reason. We know this because his justifications have repeatedly been dismissed as not necessary by pretty much everyone but Thomas Mulcair.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by jg13

Hello, I'm not going to go through the entire thread and I know the majority of CalgaryPuck posters are 45+ in age but 80% of the people I talk to and are within 5 years of my age (33) are all voting conservative without a second thought, myself included.

I'm not in the 45+ age range, but I do think you should think a bit more critically (as should everyone) because some of what you wrote seems to be incorrect, and it's hard to make an informed decision on that basis.

My question is:

I would like to know why those of you that are above 45 in age or older that own their own homes, think that Mark Carney will benefit us in our 30s over Pierre Polieivere. Pierre has stated he will cut immigration to the point where we're building more homes faster than we allow people into Canada and will allow first time home buyers to purchase their first homes without the 5% GST included in those homes.

That's the Liberal policy you're talking about. First-time homebuyers are given a tax break on purchases under $1M, and because it's narrowly focused, it won't impact the market price of new houses (i.e. sellers can't try to inflate the market price as a result of an increase in buying power because they have to be able to attract non-tax exempt buyers too).

Whereas the Conservative policy removes GST for all purchases under $1.3M. So first time buyers are no longer given preferential treatment, so they have to compete with everyone else just like they do now. And because all units under that threshold would be tax exempt, developers may be able to use most of that tax break to pad their margins. So if someone could spend $1M now, they'd buy a 950K place and pay $50K GST; after the new policy, they could afford a $1M selling price for the same unit.

It's not quite that simple, and even the Conservarive policy would likely would improve affordability slightly, but it also comes at a significant cost in tax revenue. Whereas the Liberal policy is more narrowly focused at the people who need it the most (younger first-time homebuyers).

The reason for the above question is because of 80% of the people I talk to in my age range (millenial) is because we're concerned about never being able to afford a home and if we're never able to afford a home, it affects many things specifically, like starting a family. From my understanding, Mark Carney wants to increase the Canadian population to 100 million by 2100 which is 800,000 a year when Canada has been known to build 200,000 places of living a year. He has publicly stated this.

Do you have a source for the bolded? I've never seen any public statements from him to that effect, though I could be wrong. And you don't even seem sure yourself, going from "From my understanding..." to a categorical statement of fact.

But really, as mentioned above, 100M population by 2100 isn't particularly noteworthy growth. It's 1.2% a year, which is roughly in line to what we've had for the last 40 or so years, and significantly below what we had before that.

As for 800K a year, that's not how compound growth works. If you invest $100K in the stock market and project it'll be worth $4M in 40 years, that doesn't mean it's growing by $100K in year one. Population growth is similar. 1.2% growth would mean an increase of about 500K a year for the next decade or so, and it'd take until 2065 until the population was growing by 800K in a year.

Given Canada's average household size of 2.4 people per household, 500K a year growth means that 208K housing units would be needed to absorb that growth. Last year Canada had 245K housing starts. That's not to say we don't have a current housing deficit (which means units need to be constructed faster than population growth), but a 1.2% growth rate is something that should be easily absorbed with reasonable housing policy even accounting for that.

And to me at least, of the two parties, the Liberals seem to have a more credible plan for increasing construction by bringing back some of the policies that existed in the 1950s-1970s, when housing starts were at an all-time high relative to the population.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

As for who to vote for, everyone has their specific reasons. For me, the most important question is which leader's economic ideology is going to capitalize on our strength as a nation. IMO voting in the same old government, in spite of the new fancy leader, is just going down the same path, or even worse.

“The most important question for me is something I plan to ignore because the actual answer is the fancy leader in charge of the party I don’t like.”

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by jg13

Hello, I'm not going to go through the entire thread and I know the majority of CalgaryPuck posters are 45+ in age but 80% of the people I talk to and are within 5 years of my age (33) are all voting conservative without a second thought, myself included.

My question is:

I would like to know why those of you that are above 45 in age or older that own their own homes, think that Mark Carney will benefit us in our 30s over Pierre Polieivere. Pierre has stated he will cut immigration to the point where we're building more homes faster than we allow people into Canada and will allow first time home buyers to purchase their first homes without the 5% GST included in those homes.

The reason for the above question is because of 80% of the people I talk to in my age range (millenial) is because we're concerned about never being able to afford a home and if we're never able to afford a home, it affects many things specifically, like starting a family. From my understanding, Mark Carney wants to increase the Canadian population to 100 million by 2100 which is 800,000 a year when Canada has been known to build 200,000 places of living a year. He has publicly stated this.

If I currently owned a home this would be great for myself as my home would sky rocket in value. Please let me know on this particular issue, why as a millennial this is good for me.

Thank you in advance. Not looking to fight anyone. I want clarity.

Mark Carney has lead two central banks through two extremely volatile financial crises.

He organized the coordinated purchase and sell off of US treasury bonds with the EU and Japan to stop this trade war in its tracks - Trump now knows Canada can nuke the value of the US dollar whenever we want.

Like it or not, we are at war with the United States, and I’m
Not voting for a wartime leader who has to spend so much time explaining why he’s not like the fool responsible for this whole mess (after spending the last several years doing his best impression of el presitarde)

As for you affording a home, I’m 36 myself, and here’s the deal.

You can afford a home, you just can’t start with a detached house in suburbia. Or at least, that’s really hard.

You have to start with a condo - whatever you can afford. There are many reasons to do this. One, you’re not paying someone else’s mortgage. You have controlled your housing costs for the next 5 years.

Owning your own home also opens up access different credit products at lower rates than a credit card, making it easier for you to absorb unexpected expenses.

When it’s time to sell that place in 3-10 years, you have the down payment for your next place. That could be a townhome, it could be a house, it doesn’t matter - point is, you have to level up.

Whatever advantages our parents had when they bought, the house they started with is not likely to be the house they’re in today.

My parents moved through five houses before they settled where they are - they couldn’t have bought each house without having bought the previous one.

So if you’re thinking you won’t be able to buy because you can’t afford a down payment on an $800 grand house, you’re right. You won’t. But most people can’t, so don’t get yourself down.

You can, however, buy a condo with 5% down for between $2-300k.

Next, put a ring on it.

Not that economics is the only reason to get married, but consider:

However hard it is to save for a home, it’s half as hard if you buddy up.

Beyond that, if he is at all able, the father of your beloved is likely to provide some assistance with the purchase of a first home, because he probably wants his daughter, her husband and his grandchildren to grow up in a nice home in a nice area. Your own family is likely to do the same, because your parents recognize the barriers to entry are different than when they grew up.

What that man won’t do is just buy you someplace to #### his daughter.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Nobody knows why, that's the reason it is a concern. FYI his nonsense excuses are not the reason why, they are a deflection to avoid telling us the real reason. We know this because his justifications have repeatedly been dismissed as not necessary by pretty much everyone but Thomas Mulcair.

The only time a conservative has ever listened to Thomas Mulclair

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

I can’t vote Liberal after the scandals and debt. Transparency was non existent. The bad far outweighs the good over the last 8 years. Time for change.

I'd be in absolute agreement with you if we had another decent choice. But we've seen Canadian Conservatism take a turn for the worst and I'm not going to hop on that train.

If they still had a normal leader like O'Toole, it'd be a different story. No thanks to the populist shill they're shoving down our throats now.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I'd be in absolute agreement with you if we had another decent choice. But we've seen Canadian Conservatism take a turn for the worst and I'm not going to hop on that train.

If they still had a normal leader like O'Toole, it'd be a different story. No thanks to the populist shill they're shoving down our throats now.

If the United States wasn’t in the process of burning down the post-war global order, Pollievre would be our next prime minister.

Since they’ve declared economic war on the entire world, up to and including penguins, it’s gotta be the centrist technocrat banker.

[dammage79]

It's really a case of "better the devil you know" at this point. And anything resembling Trumpism outside of the U.S is a total poison pill.

Didn't far right euro parties get their butts handed to them as well in France and Germany post U.S election?

[Locke]

"No questions asked" is a problem.

1. Always ask questions.

2. Make Politicians work.

Your vote should always be for sale. Never blindly give it away or else you get nothing.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by dammage79

It's really a case of "better the devil you know" at this point. And anything resembling Trumpism outside of the U.S is a total poison pill.

Didn't far right euro parties get their butts handed to them as well in France and Germany post U.S election?

Not in Germany. The far right essentially doubled their seat count and vote share and have the second most seats, behind the conservative party.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by dammage79

It's really a case of "better the devil you know" at this point. And anything resembling Trumpism outside of the U.S is a total poison pill.

Didn't far right euro parties get their butts handed to them as well in France and Germany post U.S election?

Italy elected an outright fascist, Eastern Europe is essentially a nightmare hellscape, Germany I think is within touching distance of electing a far-right party, England is a political mess and France was about to elect a far-right party until the sitting Government formed a coalition.

France. One of the most liberal countries on the face of this planet. France.

Europe isn't exactly painting a pretty picture at the moment.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I'd be in absolute agreement with you if we had another decent choice. But we've seen Canadian Conservatism take a turn for the worst and I'm not going to hop on that train.

If they still had a normal leader like O'Toole, it'd be a different story. No thanks to the populist shill they're shoving down our throats now.

I think Canadians have been mostly shielded from the nonsense through a mixture of denial and many examples being an ocean away.

Trump’s first term was a fluke and nobody believed he would what he said he would do leading up to this past election. His threats were idle and never meant to come to fruition, simple trolling or some “art of the deal” nonsense to pressure countries into getting what he wants. Project 2025 was a “conspiracy theory.” The guardrails were strong. And at home in Alberta, one of the most destructive far right provincial governments in history was OK to vote for so long as their investigation into themselves came out clean.

These aren’t exaggerations, they’re things posters here have said and believed, people more politically engaged than the average person.

But there’s no denial of it any more. And while it’s excusable for the layman who only reads the national post and never gives much a thought about politics otherwise to miss what’s actually happening, if someone is having conversations about politics then they’re already at a place where ignorance is no longer excusable.

Modern conservatism is far right, incredibly destructive, and does not give one #### about the economy other than using unrealistic, populist economic narratives to attract unknowing people to their cause. It’s a tool to get what they want: which is to destroy democratic, social institutions and remake countries in their socially regressive vision and hurt as many people as possible.

It’s insane. And it’s infected every level of politics in Canada and many countries around the world.

Thankfully Canadians still have an opportunity to stand up to it and say “no thanks” and force this ideology back to the shadows. Unfortunately some are, instead, concerned that Carney didn’t cite every instance of a reference back in university.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't at all understand why no one has looked at arranging our economic system and population around a stable steady state. Growth causes expenses, complications, and pain all over society. Calgary was a better city at 700k than it is now, as far as being an enjoyable place to live.

Because asking the average Canadian to contribute as much in taxes in their lifetime as they will use in services is politically untenable. And that’s what you have to do to account for an aging population and declining birth rates - some combination of bringing in lots of new taxpayers through immigration, substantially increasing taxes on younger workers, and cutting health care and pensions for seniors.

Turns out voters hate all of those options. And that’s not just a Canadian thing - it’s true of every developed country in the world. We live in societies today where many people are retired longer than they worked. These unprecedented demographics present an unprecedented challenge to the delivery of public services, and no government in any country has figured it out. Which is one of the reasons why populism is on the rise everywhere.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

100 million people is really just the historical Canadian population growth rate.

It’s about 1.25% for 75 years. This equated 500k population growth. With 2.4 persons per household that’s 208,000 new houses required which is roughly what we build now. Which makes sense given how supply and demand work.

None of PPa housing policies will work because he is focusing on the cost side of the equation. With fixed inelastic demand Cost will always rise back up.

So no GST means 5% more expensive homes, tax breaks for cities who give tax breaks for developers means developers make more money at the same sale price. In theory you might have developers invest more if they can make more profit but that won’t actually happen because profit will be fixed because underlying land value will go up in value so the alternative of just selling the land increases in value.

So if you walk back all of the these cost reduction initiatives all they do is hold prices steady while bare land increases in value.

Now if you target initiatives at the first time buyer only (which Carney is and PP isn’t) now you create differential buying power so not all of the costs just rolled into the land costs. This has potential to help the first time buyer marginally but not really at the scale required.

So there are really only 2 possible ways to avoid this trap. The government builds or underwrites the profits of developers to rapidly increase supply. Carney has talked about this

Or

Tax undeveloped and underdeveloped land to make it more expensive to hold this lower cost of bare land land and encouraging development. In other words take a real close look at each of the platforms policies and evaluate if price just goes up to eat the benefit.

Also in Calgary the housing price has just tracked inflation since the last peak so many of us here bought post 2007 and paid current market pricing for housing. Outside of Toronto and Vancouver affordability is similar to the last peak.

Edit: I should add that I do like pp tying Transit funding to Transit Oriented developement. I also like PPs anti NIMBY policies but they are so antithetical to his base of supporters I don’t believe we would ever see the anti NIMBY stuff applied to change zoning laws forcing boomers to allow basement suites.

The perceived immigration issue was greatly exacerbated by huge numbers of foreign students. The growth in both categories over a short period of time outstripped housing and other supplies.

Regarding Poilievre’s transit-oriented housing, IIRC it was originally pitched as well give you the money once the units are ready to rent. I don’t know if that’s still the case but it didn’t strike me as a compelling offer for cities and developers.