Canada

7592 readers

787 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

otter

mp3

Are ‘mom-and-pop’ investors pricing out first-time homebuyers? (globalnews.ca)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/canada

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] twopi 42 points 10 months ago (12 children)

I'll repost a comment I made before again here:

If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.

We should all work so that each person has one home.

And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.

context: https://lemmy.ca/comment/4927203

[+] [email protected] -15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

Not everyone wants to own and not everyone that doesn't want to own wants to rent an apartment and it's not the government's place to own single family houses for rent (all provincial governments should have a non profit crown corporation owning all rental properties over a certain number of doors though).

Edit: Downvote all you want, I know tons of people that don't want to have to deal with the maintenance responsibilities that come with a house, they still have a family and don't want to live in an apartment, would you rather force them to own the place they live in?

[–] fuckyou 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is most certainly the government's business providing housing for its citizens. Like we did, the state- and thereby the people (who own the fucking state), collectively owned like half of all homes in the country. Rent was dirt cheap, anything belonging to the apartment or house was the responsibility of the landlord (a communal entity) to maintain on their own buck, everyone could easily get a home, and it was considered one of the social wonders of the world.

Then the capitalists bought their way into government, sold it all, and now we have a "housing crisis".

Conservatives- they sure know how to create a good life for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Yeah, as I said, they should have a crown corporation for rental properties above a certain number of doors, but single family housing (which actually make cities worse) aren't their responsibility.

Also, when exactly did the State own half the homes in the country?

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)