That's a rational way of looking at housing economics, but there are other levers the government could pull to actually combat it. CHMC at one point did actually build housing, for example. They could do that again.
Terrible idea.
If housing is to be owned by any public entity, it should be done as close to the situation as possible.
Provincially at the very least.
EDIT: What I don't understand is how a private corporation has no problem owning properties that rent out for $800 to $1500 per month, but a government run entity like Manitoba Housing can't even get buildings they own renovated so that they CAN be rented out.
People who just entered the market would be hurt by a big price drop. People who bought a long time ago or who's house is paid off shouldn't really care. You have to live somewhere, if you aren't planning to move then it doesn't matter how much your house is worth, unless you are using it for loan leverage I guess. It wouldn't bother me a bit if my house dropped 30% in value, if anything I would think about upgrading. The only other people who should care about it are folks looking to downgrade or cash out, not sure that is a large percentage of homeowners though. The people who would really care are real estate investors who are a big cause of the problem, too bad for them.
Other financial assets should work that way also (retirement savings), but in practice it’s not what happens. It’s rough on people psychologically when these assets drop, and it undeniably impacts their other spending.
People who just entered the market would be hurt by a big price drop. People who bought a long time ago or who's house is paid off shouldn't really care. You have to live somewhere, if you aren't planning to move then it doesn't matter how much your house is worth, unless you are using it for loan leverage I guess. It wouldn't bother me a bit if my house dropped 30% in value, if anything I would think about upgrading. The only other people who should care about it are folks looking to downgrade or cash out, not sure that is a large percentage of homeowners though. The people who would really care are real estate investors who are a big cause of the problem, too bad for them.
So boomers who already hold most of the country's wealth would be ok and young adults who have recently entered home ownership, are raising families and trying to save for some form of future would be F'd.
Good plan!
So boomers who already hold most of the country's wealth would be ok and young adults who have recently entered home ownership, are raising families and trying to save for some form of future would be F'd.
Good plan!
If you want to solve affordable housing that is the only plan. ####ing over recent buyers is a requirement of any solution.
As Firebots post of the NDP plan shows no party has a real plan other than demanding other people build housing for them. No one has a real plan because it’s not politically palatable.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
If you want to solve affordable housing that is the only plan. ####ing over recent buyers is a requirement of any solution.
As Firebots post of the NDP plan shows no party has a real plan other than demanding other people build housing for them. No one has a real plan because it’s not politically palatable.
Could try Georgian taxes. Shift the tax burden to land not improvements - that immediately incentivizes higher density construction on existing urban land.
Could try Georgian taxes. Shift the tax burden to land not improvements - that immediately incentivizes higher density construction on existing urban land.
I really like best use taxation. It would still increases cost for existing owners of non-best use properties which in turn will reduce cost of houses. New buyers without time in the market still screwed. Less so as SFHs would face increased taxation relative to condos and they are more likely held by people in the market longer.
I also don’t know if that would meaningfully change units built
So boomers who already hold most of the country's wealth would be ok and young adults who have recently entered home ownership, are raising families and trying to save for some form of future would be F'd.
Good plan!
I said it would hurt people who just entered the market did I not?
In a perfect world prices would drop gradually or even just stay somewhat static until the rest of the economy caught up. Anyone who hasn't bought yet would benefit, anyone who has owned for awhile shouldn't really be affected. It doesn't really matter anyway because nothing short of a massive recession is going to move prices down in a noticeable way.
What's with the boomers crack?
A massive part of the population falls between "boomers" and "Young Adults".
I said it would hurt people who just entered the market did I not?
In a perfect world prices would drop gradually or even just stay somewhat static until the rest of the economy caught up. Anyone who hasn't bought yet would benefit, anyone who has owned for awhile shouldn't really be affected. It doesn't really matter anyway because nothing short of a massive recession is going to move prices down in a noticeable way.
What's with the boomers crack?
A massive part of the population falls between "boomers" and "Young Adults".
It's not a shot at boomers it's the reality that they hold so much wealth and property already. They're also transferring over a $Trillion of that to their kids/grandkids who are the ones able to enter housing marketing in places like Vancouver and Toronto despite housing being 10X+ income levels.
So a price correction that hurts recent buyers is hurting the same demographic that really need housing price corrections. Working families who haven't accumulated decades of equity like the boomers. Whether they just bought or are looking to buy, this is the same demographic that needs solutions.
You're suggesting taking from the left hand to put it in the right hand.
Any solution needs to create supply and also tackle the reality of the un level playing field buyer/renters are coming from financially.
Boomers with money, their heirs, and people who have brought in enormous wealth from foreign earned sources (like China) have skewed the playing field to a point where a local average/high income family without those money sources can't get a house in many markets like Vancouver/Toronto.
Then you also have thigns like Property Transfer Tax in BC which the provice relies upon for revenue.
They can't afford to have a dead market where transactions aren't taking place or prices come down too much. The government themselves are profiting off high housing prices and transaction increases.
I really like best use taxation. It would still increases cost for existing owners of non-best use properties which in turn will reduce cost of houses. New buyers without time in the market still screwed. Less so as SFHs would face increased taxation relative to condos and they are more likely held by people in the market longer.
I also don’t know if that would meaningfully change units built
I think it would - if you tax land based on the number of units it's zoned for that will do a couple of things.
1) It'll cause people holding developable land for speculative purposes to pay much higher carrying costs. That will immediately lower the value of that developable land, making it more affordable to build new housing.
2) Some of those aforementioned land owners will choose to sell to avoid the carrying costs, immediately increasing land supply.
3) If you make it revenue neutral you reduce taxes on improvements, which makes up most of the value in the higher density housing owned by the lowest income types, so it helps them.
That would make it more economic to build new housing and less economic to hold land, both of which speed housing construction. In terms of labour, the easiest way to expand our construction labour force is to pay more. If you save developers money on land they can afford to pay more for labour, and that will incentivize more people to go into the building trades.
The labour force isn't elastic in weeks or months, but when you measure in years people start moving to jobs that are going unfilled with high wages.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Wednesday his MPs will pitch "thousands of amendments" to legislation to keep Parliament sitting over Christmas if the Liberal government doesn't scrap parts of its carbon tax.
"You will have no rest until the tax is gone," Poilievre said in a message to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Liberal MPs.
The party maintains it will carry out its obstruction tactics until the Liberals lift the tax on all home-heating energy sources, pass a bill to grant carbon tax relief to some farmers and exempt all First Nations from the carbon levy, as some chiefs have demanded.
The Conservatives say they will demand 135 votes tomorrow on the government's estimates, a procedural brawl over spending that could take more than 24 hours.
The party also says its MPs will introduce 20,000 amendments to the "sustainable jobs" bill, C-50, currently before the natural resources committee.
Quote:
"What Mr. Poilievre is doing right now is not leadership," she said. "It will affect Canadians, because what he is doing is putting thousands of amendments on notice for things like the sustainable jobs act — that's an 11-page bill. His party has put almost 20,000 amendments on there. He is not in a serious position. He is reckless."
Like a petulant child throwing a tantrum in a toy store until their parents capitulate. Performative, taxpayer waste led by a career politician who has nothing in common with regular people.
This is not the behavior of a party that actually is serious about fixing Canada's problems. It's simply yet another demonstration from the political equivalent of a clown car honking its clown horn for their red meat base.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Like a petulant child throwing a tantrum in a toy store until their parents capitulate. Performative, taxpayer waste led by a career politician who has nothing in common with regular people.
This is not the behavior of a party that actually is serious about fixing Canada's problems. It's simply yet another demonstration from the political equivalent of a clown car honking its clown horn for their red meat base.
Imagine how much trouble we would have been in if the anti-vaxx, pro-stupid Reform Party was in charge? We would have been royally effed.
__________________ Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
The Following User Says Thank You to Johnny Makarov For This Useful Post:
Nah. You have to think ahead here. Stopping Trudeau from doing anything else will undoubtedly save tax payer money.
Also, who doesn't like muppets?
__________________
Some things are a matter of reason, others a matter of debate. Then there are those that only the heart knows, in that indescribable way, are true.
Trudeau started this mess when he undermined the carbon tax in a region with an economic replacement for burning heating oil. That “liberal” senators are amending the bill because there are alternatives to barn heating is ridiculous hypocrisy.
Senators should not be getting involved here as there is no tyranny of the majority or abuse of power going on. It’s political garbage
So if PP wants to do his own political theater back I think it’s reasonable.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Remember Krampus saying he'll throw thousands of amendments in Parliament over Christmas? If this is true, that's damn funny and just reflects even worse on the Clown car Party of Canada.
Remember Krampus saying he'll throw thousands of amendments in Parliament over Christmas? If this is true, that's damn funny and just reflects even worse on the Clown car Party of Canada.
A new auditor's report finds that hospitals are filling staffing gaps by hiring agency nurses at significantly higher hourly rates than they pay the nurses they directly employ.
The report found some hospitals that more than tripled their spending on agency nurses in the course of just one year, from 2021-22 to 2022-23, while hospitals in northern Ontario saw a 25-fold increase in their use of agency nurses over a four-year stretch.
The trend "has put financial pressures on hospitals," says the report.
"There's a big dependence on agency nurses," acting auditor general Nick Stavropolous told a news conference Wednesday.
Quote:
The report also cites ranges for how much hospitals pay the staffing agencies: $99 to $106 an hour for a registered nurse to work in the emergency department of a hospital in southern Ontario, while hospitals in northern Ontario pay anywhere from $100 to $160 an hour.
If you take the bottom end of those ranges, and multiply it by the hours worked, Ontario hospitals spent at least $170 million on agency nurses last year.
Ah, always nice to see how we can sprinkle some private healthcare services in to save money...
This makes so little sense to me. If you constantly have a nursing shortage, which we seem to, why not hire them into the system? You aren't going to end up hiring too many. How does it make sense to shovel tax dollars to private companies providing exactly the same thing we could get by hiring them directly? But ya, we shoudl probably do more of this, right?
