this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
108 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

7273 readers
452 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

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


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 weeks ago (28 children)

Economists almost unanimously agree that rent control is a short term reprieve that causes long term problems.

Don't control rents, control land values with land value taxes (not the same as property taxes)

If you take away the profit motive for owning a home, the whole current system collapses and housing returns to the price it should be based on it's usefulness as a house not an investment.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The full context of this is economists don't think it's a long term solution but their other proposed solutions is even less accepted by politicians and the masses.

As such like many of the larger problems we have we're left with a temporary solution that's implemented long term.

When people criticize rent control at best what they're saying is if we bottom out on a problem the only way we could go is up. Ala electing Trump.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

Their other proposed solutions aren't accepted by politicians and the masses, because there's too many people benefitting from the system fucking the next generation to want to change it. We're literally living in the largest pyramid scheme ever constructed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Montreal had rent control for a long time and renting only became a problem when the bubblification of real estate got imported to Quebec from the rest of Canada.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Renting only became a problem when it became a problem elsewhere... oh... well then it looks like it didn't work well did it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The Canadian rental market, famously a victim of rent control.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Who said anything about the Canadian market having tried rent control?

Plenty of other places have tried and failed at it though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

While I don't support rent control, let's be real econmists are cheap regime whores who say whatever their owners need them to say so that plebs accept the fuckening.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you're trying to imply that rent controls are good by your statement, can you show me anywhere that's implemented them that has affordable housing prices?

It's not like they haven't been tried, they just continually fail.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

No country needs rent controls. They need ownership controls. As in, nobody should be able to own more than 1x primary residence and 1x holiday house &/or investment property. Period. No company should ever be allowed to own residential land/property, except for the duration of a build (with hard limits for development/build/sale that prevent artificial price controls).

Neoliberalism/conservatism have failed humanity for housing security, financial & economic security, national security, employment security, mental and physical health, education, civil liberties; the list is endless. Continuing this several-decade failure any longer is insanity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

No we don't. Ownership controls are such a stupid way to deal with the issue.

People should be able to own as much as they want, they should just have to pay everyone else for that privledge (through taxes), rather than profiting off it. Pay for what you use, the more or the more desirable, the more you pay.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm actually shocked that the Financial Post said something positive on rent control. This is some alternate universe stuff. It's typically neolib drivel.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

They know it will never happen, so they get to play around with the topic and seem like team pleb.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think we need a rental tax credit. Whether it's partial or fully tax exempt, doesn't really matter. If every renter was reporting their rent payments on their taxes it would be impossible for landlords to dodge their own taxes, thereby shifting the tax burden where it belongs.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

A rental tax credit would likely result in money laundering schemes. For example you're a Mafia boss and you purchase a building with very expensive appartment rents and people that you pay to "pay" you the rent. Then that money is magically clean and tax free

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I don't see how this would make money laundering for organized crime any easier than it is today, the tax would just be shifted to the landlord side (likely at a higher rate since they're probably in a higher tax bracket) and off the tenant.

Right now the tenant earns money, pays income tax on that money, pays rent, and the landlord pays taxes on that money (if they're honest and report it all) but can claim their mortgage interest as a tax deduction.

I think the tenant should be able to claim some portion of their rent as a tax deduction. It would require an official record of rent paid, which would keep the landlord honest. I'd say the mortgage interest on a rental property probably shouldn't be tax deductible either, but even still this would have the biggest impact on those large private landlords that are often what you'd call slumlords.

Edit: I'm obviously not an expert on taxation or housing policy so if I'm wildly out of touch I'll accept that, I just think it's kind of bullshit that the government subsidizes the mortgages we pay for our landlords with the money we paid the government when we worked for it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Like how Donald Trump does it?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

We need:

-limit 1 house per family

-serious rent control

-4-storey apartments built owned by the public and cooperatives

-Stronger renter protections

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Can you explain what you mean by

-limit 1 house per family

Many of the times I've heard this sentiment, it's been to either ban Mom&Pop landlords, or ban rental houses completely. These options seem to benefit potential homeowners by screwing over renters. I'm not sure if you mean something different?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

When new builds are all mcmansions from developers with deep, unethical, ties to politicians it doesn't really help much either.

Looking at you Doug Ford.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

-Aggressive tax on empty properties/units

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Vacant House Taxes have been tried throughout Canada and are generally ineffective. They are just a distraction.

The main reason why they don't work is fairly obvious: Why would someone own property to keep it vacant?

Sure, there are some people with vacation homes, or second homes where they frequently visit (heck, I might have to get an apartment where my office is located now we're being forced to return to the office). Oh the Urbanity has a great video where they point out the vast majority of "Vacant Homes" are either students who don't permanently live there, in the process of a move, under renovation, etc.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 weeks ago

Government can do this tomorrow but it will never happen.

These regime whores who will NEVER do a policy that hurts their owners.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago

I think we also need to discount and ease new construction - NIMBY bullshit shouldn't be allowed to prevent densification and we either need direct subsidies or material subsidies of construction materials.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί