BlameThePeacock

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] BlameThePeacock 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I agree with you on the second part, but even allowing a single home still keeps housing as an investment/profit generator.

You have to actually do something to force every owner to lose(or at least never make) money. Hence my original suggestion to heavily tax homes and return that to citizens equally.

[–] BlameThePeacock 51 points 1 month ago

There are stabilizing benefits in some cases. Traditions can be valuable, even just for show.

[–] BlameThePeacock 6 points 1 month ago (8 children)

It really wouldn't.

A) It prevents renting at all except for basement suites. So no more rental buildings, which make up the majority of rentals available. Renting is an important housing option, as not everyone wants to own, nor should they have to. Move to a city to go to university, and you have to buy a house just to live in for 2-4 years before you have to sell it to move elsewhere for a job? Have a job that requires you go somewhere else for a few months while you , too bad hotel for 6 months instead of being able to rent an apartment.

B) If you do the math and even take out dedicated rental buildings, there really aren't that many homes that are owned as a second place. It's about 15% of the total market, and a large chunk of that are cottages and lake houses away from the cities where people actually want to live.

The big place/small place issue is actually more of a problem than the the double ownership you're talking about. There are more total bedrooms in Canada than there are people, and once you account for couples usually sharing a bedroom, there's actually a ton of extra bedrooms across the country. The problem is that they're not distributed properly across the population, 4+ bedroom family homes that were bought to raise children are being kept for decades by empty-nest couples who don't want to downsize.

[–] BlameThePeacock 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

And it should be obvious that despite new regulations being put in for Foreign buyers, Vacant units, and Airbnb, the prices haven't dropped to even pre-pandemic levels, let alone any useful amount, and they're expected to keep climbing this year.

These are all small red herrings that are easy PR wins for the government, but don't actually do anything useful to the prices.

[–] BlameThePeacock 6 points 1 month ago

I would say it's just someone who is bad at making posters. AI stuff doesn't tend to look like that.

[–] BlameThePeacock 1 points 1 month ago

I don't really care who wins, but im unhappy that the process failed and possibly affected the outcome.

A redo is in order, for the sake of fairness.

[–] BlameThePeacock 2 points 1 month ago

Ha ha!

Stupid Albertans

[–] BlameThePeacock 11 points 1 month ago

I didn't vote liberal.

I voted NDP, but even they didn't have a plan to actually drop housing prices.

[–] BlameThePeacock 18 points 1 month ago (11 children)

This is a red herring.

I ran the calculations a while back, that may free up 2-4% of all housing, that is not enough to fix the problem of expensive housing. That's only 1-2 years of new building stock.

It won't hurt to do it, but it's simply not the main reason real estate is expensive.

[–] BlameThePeacock 12 points 1 month ago (4 children)

There are studies on that, but they're not super relevant because the appropriate amount of space is determined by how many people want to live somewhere, not based on the specific size.

People are willing to live in smaller places the closer they are to amenities. It's a gradient, not a single value even for each location.

[–] BlameThePeacock 36 points 1 month ago (51 children)

I'll repeat again, I don't need a fucking tax cut. I need the price of housing to start going down.

Increase taxes on property significantly, and use 100% of that money to give everyone a basic income.

This incentivizes both people and developers to be efficient with their housing choices. Using too much housing for the area you live in? You pay extra to help out everyone. Using the right amount? No harm to you. Using less than the average? Here's a payout, thank you.

Prices overall will drop, because it's no longer profitable to simply own a home due to the taxes, and especially not if there's no people in it because the taxes won't be offset by the basic income.

[–] BlameThePeacock 1 points 1 month ago

This concept is simply false.

If my house price fell by 50%, I would owe more on my mortgage than the house is worth.

This would affect me negatively in multiple ways, not the least of which may mean me losing my home as the bank would not want to renew my mortgage.

I agree that housing prices need to fall, and actually by more than 50% but it needs to happen over time or it will literally crash the entire economy.

view more: ‹ prev next ›