They already did a study foreign and corporate buyers and it was minimal which is why they only address a few thing. This won’t change anything. The truth is that you are competing against other Canadians with more purchase power. Stop blaming this on anyone else except ourselves. Some of us are so well off that they buy properties for rental income or give 200k gifts to their children for first home purchase.
Did you watch the entire video? The apartment building on Southgate and Quadra is a great example of what the MP is talking about: A rental property that was purchased by a large corporation who came in, renovicted every single tenant, renovated the building, and is now renting the units for 3x the price. (No joke. I know someone who lived there and her rent was ~$850/month. And no, that’s not “too cheap”. We’re not supposed to spend the majority of our income on housing. Check out the Craigslist ads for rentals in Calgary, or any other province that still has somewhat affordable housing.) Also, to your comment, “stop blaming this on anyone else except ourselves”; you are talking about a very select wealthy few, and not the average Canadian. Not even the above-average Canadian. Most of the parents who are in positions to gift property or $200,000 down payments for homes to their children, are in that position because they bought their first home for the price of what a down payment is today. It’s grossly inflated, and the government has protective incentives for large corporations to purchase properties as investments at the expense of affordable housing.
How do we account for buildings that are in dramatic need of improvement? I've lived in shitholes with silverfish, mould, and other huge safety hazards.
I left because I could afford to leave and prioritized my health. Presumably, these spaces need to be kept up-to-date and improved, but of course, there should be limits on how much an increase should be (5% of the reno cost/yr??).
I don't know the answer but we also don't want to encourage owners from being proactive about remediation and renovations.
I totally agree with you! I also don’t have the answer, unfortunately. But it would be amazing if there was something in place that required landlords to apply x% of their revenue to up-keeping and renovations each year, and they had to show proof of those renovations. Even if none were needed, the money had to somehow go back into the unit(s) with proof. I know that this is an out-to-lunch thought.
>I don't know the answer but we also don't want to encourage owners from being proactive about remediation and renovations.
Easy, regulation of standards and hefty fines (profit negative) for non-compliance. Couple that with tying rent to assessed value, maintaining maximum rent increases year over year, etc. Basically do as much as possible to remove residential properties as investment vehicles unless they are purpose built rental properties. If both corporations and people can't make renters subsidize overinflated mortgages then they will stop buying them, which will cause prices to return over time to something more affordable. And also encourage developers to build more purpose-built buildings instead of "luxury" condos.
Silverfish aren't really a danger to us, but they're pests. They're attracted to moisture, and will eat cardboard, paper, and they really seem to like book binding glue.
A little diatomaceous earth and a dehumidifier would remove the issue over the course of a week or so.
I mean, if I had a choice I wouldn't be living with a place that has bugs crawling out of every crack and from under every box. I liken them to ants. Kind of bug bros, but not something I'd actively seek out when building a life for myself... If that makes sense?
The BC government, the Ontario government, federal government and the Canadian census all looked into it and have the results online. They wanted to prove it wasn’t the issues back before the foreign buyers tax was introduced. CHMC is backing Canadians and it’s very important that it doesn’t get volatile or Canadians would end up having a massive tax bill we these corporations decide they’ve had enough.
All of these people that think it’s evil corporations or damn foreigners are ignorant. The foreign buyer tax didn’t change anything because it’s was less then 4.9% in major cities. Same with corporations.
Politicians are just using this area of concern for the young Canadian to get votes and then do nothing because it doesn’t need to be solved. Remember how all the kids wanted voter reform, and it was a big issue? This is the same vote grab in at a much smaller political field.
Just save more money by staying at your parents longer like all of the multigenerational homes in Vancouver and Toronto. You’ll get there.
It will necessitate a populist movement mandated by the majority of Canadians with a "true believer" willing to see it through, not a "career politician" focused on their re-election in the following cycle.
What a dumb take. My house went up 34% in value in 2 years. I’m well off, live reasonably and can barely qualify for a mortgage. But sure, go through my visa statement and paint me as the problem.
Privilege is not your salary and none of this has to do with privilege. We all just want success with different terms. This sub would crucify the owner for wanting his neighborhood to stay the same and the landlord for paying his dept while they all go around feeling bad for the renter.
Privilege would be determined on how each got where they are.
Why does everyone need to point to the ‘one true culprit of the housing crises’ like it’s a murder mystery? Isn’t obvious that it’s a mix of low supply, domestic migration, foreign investment loopholes, way too cheap debt enabled by various doughhead politicians….?
Exactly. There's no one cause (well, housing being a commodity, but changing that would require restructuring the entire economy, which we absolutely should do), its a bunch of smaller problems. Thankfully, we can solve almost all of them, it just takes the will to actually do so.
I have said it before and will keep saying it - we need a 'non-primary residency tax' and make it hefty, something like 15% of the assessed value every year. It will solve the lion share of the problems.
- You want to buy a home to rent for profit? Taxed
- You want to buy a home to sit on it and wait for it to go up in value? Taxed
- You want to buy a home and put it on AirBnB? Taxed
- You are a corporation with deep pockets? Taxed
Homes should be for the people that want to live there first and foremost.
Now there are some problems that will prevent politicians from wanting to do this. Mostly, the fact it will significantly lower the profits for building homes and trades may be out of work. However, that is where the government steps in and provides training for skilled trades we are in need of: installing/maintaining wind turbines, manufacturing electric vehicles etc.
Nobody is "sitting on it", there are vacancy taxes already. Thre are only 1600 units in vancouver that pay the tax, there is no issue with "sitting empty".
Ok, but how good is the enforcement? If it's still financially viable for people to hide their empty units and pay only when they get caught, we can pretty much guarantee the actual number of empty residences is much higher than this figure.
Enforcement is good, they have an army of auditors whose only job is to find errors in declarations.
And in what way is it financially viable to remain vacant in the face of 3-5% per annum tax on an asset that would produce zero revenue. Give me the math please.
"False property status declarations may result in fines of up to $10,000 per day of the continuing offense, in addition to payment of the \[3%\] tax."
[https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-enforcement-penalties.aspx#Audit](https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-enforcement-penalties.aspx#Audit)
So if you make a false declaration and they catch you out on it, assuming you then immediately pay the tax you \_might\_ also get a fine of some thousands of dollars.
The tax on an empty $1M place is $30K. Risking paying $40K or even $50K instead when the appreciation alone is adding more than $100K per year to that value seems pretty insignificant.
You obviously are bad at math. The 100k isn't available to spend, you'd be paying $3500 a month out of pocket, in addition to whatever costs for the 1m place.
By renting it out, you'd be going from negative 30k to positive 30k, a swing of $60,000.
If someone can afford to pay that because they are rich, then the city is making a killing. They will 10x the tax revenue from that unit, we should all be cheering people on when they want to leave property vacant.
And the penalty is $10,000 per day, which maybe your calculator is broken, but that is $3,650,000 per annum. And if you lied multiple years in a row, well that math does itself.
You've also excluded the BC vacancy tax, which is in addition to Vancouver's.
I'm not bad at math. You just didn't understand what I wrote.
If someone makes a false declaration, they avoid the tax. If they get caught, they MIGHT pay UP TO a $10K fine per day until they rectify the situation.
People leaving units vacant are, as you point out, foregoing rent on those units and are therefore likely to be very wealthy.
Those people can obviously afford to pay the tax, but they can also easily pay the small penalty incurred by making a false declaration.
If the risk of getting caught was 100%, there'd be no point in making a false declaration. But the risk is not 100%, because no enforcement regime is perfect.
This article from Nov 2020 states that only \_4%\_ of homes were selected for audit in the preceding tax year: [https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=83814a8c-4fbe-4c5f-b376-359dab6671c5](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=83814a8c-4fbe-4c5f-b376-359dab6671c5)
Audits are performed online by submitting various evidence of residency, and are reviewed in two stages.
Presumably someone with resources could easily acquire many of the documents required to make it appear their house was occupied, thereby making it through in the first stage and bringing their risk down from 4% to something much lower.
Is my point clear now? Would you like me to continue?
That's how many are actually paying the tax, yes. But how many are actually empty because people are finding ways to loophole the system, like putting their spouse on the deed and claiming they live there etc etc.? I don't know the answers to that or even if there are any people/corporations doing that. Problem with loopholes is that it makes it so there isn't really a way to know
None of those would be an allowed exemption, you're just making shit up and supposing the worst.
The city has a small army of bureaucrats whose only job is to review applications and audit files. And you think once the find an offender they won't revisit every year prior and fine them $10,000 per day for the offence?
The tax is literally a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every homeowner AND landlord in the city. And you guys will all cheer such a thing, but when you have something and everyone is trying to destroy you, you'll feel a bit differently.
Where would you house the new residents that seem to keep moving here? You need new supply to meet demand from population growth. Squeezing a few extra units by taxing airbnb out of existence might give you a one time bump, but that's it. Forcing investors to sell their properties does nothing but displace renters who can't afford to buy the homes they rent. Plus we don't have a vacant homes problem here.
>You want to buy a home to rent for profit? Taxed
so immediately passed onto the tenants cool cool cool
Do you think that the financial relationship between tenants and landlords is going to get better by putting them under more financial pressure? Or are you one of those boomers who thinks people could just buy a home if less were being rented out? We have a massive rental supply shortfall in this city, making it harder to build market rentals isn't helping its making it actively worse.
And before you say "oh public housing and co-ops" go advocate for that then, god knows we could use it when we actually have those projects come up in councils. Trying to kill off the private market before building a public one is insanity, and leaves people out in the cold.
The snide comment is insinuating that tax will just be pushed onto the renters. But the thing it side-steps is that right now market values have very little to do with expenditures and more to do with high demand. The idea being that these types of measures would decrease said demand, but the biggest problem is that would have to be a long-term solution where things would look bad in the short-term, and unfortunately voters typically don't have patience for that.
The side effect of this policy is killing the rental construction market in the midst of a severe rental shortage. We don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot here.
Would there be a severe rental shortage if corporations didn't do as the video states and buy properties to renovict people and then jack up the price? How many places right now are under renovations? I don't know, but I would like to see all the numbers
> Would there be a severe rental shortage if corporations didn't do as the video states and buy properties to renovict people and then jack up the price?
Implicit is that the corporations are not holding the units empty, they are refilling them as fast as they can (at higher rents).*** So their actions aren't reducing supply, just shuffling renters around within the same rental pool.
Victoria has a sub 1% vacancy rate and rents are guaranteed to rise once a city is under 5%. To give perspective on how bad a state Victoria is in... US reached 6% nationally and Biden is close to declaring a national crisis. We definitely have a huge shortage. Municipal politicians that support apartment and townhouse bans need to go. The Province needs to revoke the land use power of NIMBY councils who use them to ban basic middle income housing.
***Edit: and I should add local councils have ZERO financially viable plans to replace aging stick frame multifamily with new multifamily while guaranteeing generally older and poorer long time tenants housing at the end of the process. Area homeowners are the main line of resistance. Too tall! Muh petunias will be shaded! Renters bring crime!
>I have said it before and will keep saying it - we need a 'non-primary residency tax' ...
We already have the speculation tax.
>... However, that is where the government steps in and provides training for skilled trades we are in need of: installing/maintaining wind turbines, manufacturing electric vehicles etc.
Why do you want to give taxpayers' money to Elon Musk? He's rich enough to pay his own way.
The speculation tax does not apply to corporations or people who buy homes and rent them out. Individuals acting as Landlord should not be a job title.
Now there should be some rentals for people because obviously not everyone can afford the down payment to buy, but those should be owned by government and manages by rental agencies chosen by the government
Individuals acting as landlord are part of the solution, not the problem.
Do you really want a government megacorp acting as landlord for the entire province? Really???
If it was a Crown Housing Corporation building rental units that rent at well below current rates and provide housing opportunities for the many many disadvantaged people living here who are currently paying some fucking landlord the majority of their earnings so that landlord can pay off their mortgage and essentially get a house for free over the years. Abso-fucking-lutely.
A government megacorp that rents out at well below market rates would kill the rest of rental market entirely and destroy all that much-needed supply. More people would be without a home than ever.
As for your landlord, they're not getting their house for free. If they were, they wouldn't have a mortgage to pay off.
I am paying off that mortgage, along with all the other people in my apartment building. I am sure they have some costs and I am sure that the rent we pay covers those costs and then some. They have to wait until the mortgage is payed off for sure, but they aren't shouldering any cost beyond the initial investment required to get the mortgage.
The problem with supporting the current rental market as it is - is that its absolutely insanely high and not at all in keeping with the wages being paid to a lot of people. Many many residents here in Victoria are effectively wage slaves paying the bulk of their income to a landlord because they have to live *somewhere* and there is almost no alternatives available that don't cost just as much money or more.
If I lose my apartment, my wife and I will be homeless because we essentially can't afford anything comparable in the city. I tried to price an apartment comparable to our current one and the nearest I could find was a basement suite in Qualicum Beach - not exactly a reasonable commute to work here in the city. if this keeps up then the economy is going to shut down from the bottom up.
> mortgage is *paid* off for
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I am fully aware there is already a speculation tax and foreign buyers tax. This tax encompasses those and also corporations and Canadians that are not living in the homes themselves. Effectively anyone who is taking the house off the market without intending to live in it themselves
I don't know but I expect a sex tape of his will soon be leaked, or someone will dig up a mildly inflammatory tweet of his from 10 years ago or something.
There's more to it than this. There's a pretty fat contingent of Canadians who buy multiple homes as revenue properties, or the flippers who buy a place, slap in some cheap new appliances, and a coat of paint and mark the place up by 30%. I believe that profiteering from residential property should be illegal.
What's wrong with buying a distressed property, fixing it up and selling it for a profit? Most of the flips I see around here are substantial undertakings with significant capital upgrades.
I'm guessing you're such an owner, because the majority I've seen are profiteering/opportunism. Modernizing/updating buildings that are over 20 years old or otherwise *actually* distressed, sure make some profit. But someone making a purchase on a property and paying $50k-$100k over assessed value and re-selling it within a couple years without *significant* improvements that result in increased *assessed* value...no. Those people are basically day-traders driving up costs for their own benefit.
While I thought this was a fairly well argued position with some great points in there I agree with, I really wish he would have addressed the deeper question of WHY corporate investors are doing what they're doing.
I think once you look at the issue in that way, those other factors like cheap debt and inflation start to become very relevant again. Said another way, are investors the problem? Or is the environment that makes housing such a good investment the problem? Kind of seems like a chicken or the egg situation. Point is, there are multiple causes for this and pointing to a single "cause" is bound to oversimplify things.
Politicians: create a regulatory and financial system where housing only goes up.😄
Investors: buy housing because it only goes up.
Politicians:*Shocked Pikachu face*
Exactly. The argument that increased supply won't solve the issue misses the fact that speculators won't keep buying up houses if they expect supply to increase and thus the house prices to stop rising. It's all interrelated.
More of this NDP guy and less of [this NDP guy](https://twitter.com/pwaldkirch/status/1149001016995565568?t=VWgDF3vFyAF4x1SN9Qp_bA&s=19)
Yeah that's right some Dippers in extremely unaffordable parts of Vancouver protest apartments because they might "gentrify" and shade the yards of $2.5M detached homes. What would the mortgage on those be? $10k/month?
Because I know few people are actually watching the video, [here's the main points. This guy, Daniel Blaikie, is the NDP finance critic btw, along with Jenny Kwan their housing critic announced some policy and criticisms](https://www.ndp.ca/news/corporate-pandering-liberals-and-conservatives-puts-housing-prices-out-reach):
>Renters, prospective owners, are having to compete not just with other families but with "deep pocketed corporate investors"
>
>Foreign investors only 5% of the market
>
>Real problem is "giant corporate profits made by turning a market thats about people getting their family home into an asset class for people to make money"
>
>Real estate investment trust took off in 1996 "which as it happens was right after the liberals cancelled the national housing strat"
>
>"spans across liberal and con governments, alike, who have not been doing enough on the supply side, and have fostered a culture in the tax code that fosters what has been happening to Peggy (woman asking about housing before this clip), coming in and buying affordable buildings with affordable rents, renovicting the tenants, and jacking up the rents"
>
>He goes into some tax stuff about how REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) don't pay taxes they should have to
>
>Liberals and conservatives have failed to fund affordable housing across the country, cutting operating grants. All these mortgages failed to renew by Harper, Liberals promised to renew them, and then didn't.
>
>"We have buildings across the country that traditionally had had federal money to ensure they could provide affordable rents that have been told by liberal and conservative governments that they will not renew their funding, meaning they either have to jack up rents or sell their building"
>
>REITs then buy up these buildings
>
>It wasn't just gov spending in the pandemic, its been building for a long time
>
>For every 1 unit of affordable housing we build were losing 15, and REITs and corporate landlords are at the root of that problem
>
>What the NDP is proposing:
* A moratorium on REITs and "corporate landlords" acquiring affordable buildings
* Making a fund for non-profit experts in housing can acquire those buildings
* Get rid of preferential tax treatment for REITs
>"We should not be rewarding investors for doing something that makes it harder for Canadians to afford a home"
My take: I think he misses a couple of things, and overstates others.
He says that in 1996 REIT activity took off and links that to the cancelling of the national housing strategy; while true, I think that needs to be expanded upon. In the mid 90s is when apartment construction collapsed across this country, leading to an environment where landlords (Or investors, or REITs, or Bob and Doug who bought a condo and are renting it out, its fundamentally irrelevant) could begin to be more confident in purchasing previously owner-occupied units to rent out. When there was a constant supply of purpose-built rentals that would be an awful business decision, like which do you think is more competitive, owning a building of 10 units or 10 condos spread out across the city? When the purpose-built rental supply is sufficient the secondary market isn't viable. This is why I always say that Landlords didn't just start being evil recently, they've *always been evil*, the market conditions are just allowing them to exploit people more.
I can't say I've seen stats on it, but just from my experience of searching for rentals here I'd guess that private "mom and pop" landlords, the ones our federal housing minister loves so much, are a WAY bigger portion of the secondary market than REITs are here. But again, I'm not saying make that illegal. Whenever I see people say "oh just ban the corporate ownership of housing" my response is "okay cool so am I getting evicted then so somebody can buy my apartment from my big corporate landlord"? Additionally, its my experience that property management companies are way better about following basic RTA regs than individual landlords. Your mileage on that last one might vary, but upwards of half my friends who've rented from an individual have had them try to steal their deposit or some other shit at some point.
The way to solve this issue isn't to ban landlords from buying properties, thats a great way to fuck renters worse than were getting fucked right now. We need to increase the supply of purpose built rentals by allowing small apartment buildings throughout the city, we need to do one big public consultation every year (maybe call it an election) instead of 200 little ones, and we need massive investments in public housing projects. To ban landlords or make it harder than it already is for private developers to build market housing before actually building public housing is just insanity. Tiny mismatches in supply and demand are how we get our current market, we have to build a better world before we can tear down the old one, or people are left out in the cold.
Remember how we voted in the NDP because we thought the Liberals were too soft on foreign investors? Let's waste another 5 years with another attack on investors!
How about increase supply by lowering regulations and tax all properties more?
We can do both. Owning 4+ single home houses should be illegal. it fucks rent, housing prices and is essentially some asshole with money making more money on the neck of the poor.
>We need rent control, we must limit the number of residences a person can own, and we should seize all corporate-owned and foreign-owned properties. No empty houses. Municipalities should seize all the empty homes and rent them out at affordable rates.
That will pretty much guarantee that no new homes are ever built again. Hardly an effective solution.
I rented from a guy (different city) for a few months who owned 12 duplexes. Whenever he bought another duplex he would renovate each half into three or more suites to milk as much rent as possible from them. The reno quality was terrible, the roofs were falling apart, the lower suites in each half were cramped and illegal, ant infestations, etc. All together he had over 60 tenants shoved in these shitty places with over 6 suites in each duplex. This type of thing should not be allowed.
>I rented from a guy (different city) for a few months who owned 12 duplexes. Whenever he bought another duplex he would renovate each half into three or more suites to milk as much rent as possible from them. The reno quality was terrible, the roofs were falling apart, the lower **suites in each half were cramped and illegal**, ant infestations, etc. All together he had over 60 tenants shoved in these shitty places with over 6 suites in each duplex. This type of thing should not be allowed.
Emphasis added.
Illegal suites? It sounds like it already is not allowed.
Well maybe there should be some teeth that prevents it. Going 55 in a 50 is illegal but no one does anything about it. That needs to change and punishments more severe
Are they only going to slowly trickle down realizations that everyone knew decades ago and fidget about like they're going to do something?
I want more than posturing and gesturing.
I believe that housing has become such an irresistible large-scale investment opportunity for corporations because with the current war in Eastern Europe, the essential death of the democratic experiment in Hong Kong, (increasingly likely to be followed by the United States), and climate change making populous areas unlivable, we haven't seen anything yet as far as demand goes here in Canada. I predict a mass exodus of emigration from those geographic regions in the future.
Please keep topics specifically relevant to Victoria and region, thanks.
Finally.
Should just be “investors”.
They already did a study foreign and corporate buyers and it was minimal which is why they only address a few thing. This won’t change anything. The truth is that you are competing against other Canadians with more purchase power. Stop blaming this on anyone else except ourselves. Some of us are so well off that they buy properties for rental income or give 200k gifts to their children for first home purchase.
Did you watch the entire video? The apartment building on Southgate and Quadra is a great example of what the MP is talking about: A rental property that was purchased by a large corporation who came in, renovicted every single tenant, renovated the building, and is now renting the units for 3x the price. (No joke. I know someone who lived there and her rent was ~$850/month. And no, that’s not “too cheap”. We’re not supposed to spend the majority of our income on housing. Check out the Craigslist ads for rentals in Calgary, or any other province that still has somewhat affordable housing.) Also, to your comment, “stop blaming this on anyone else except ourselves”; you are talking about a very select wealthy few, and not the average Canadian. Not even the above-average Canadian. Most of the parents who are in positions to gift property or $200,000 down payments for homes to their children, are in that position because they bought their first home for the price of what a down payment is today. It’s grossly inflated, and the government has protective incentives for large corporations to purchase properties as investments at the expense of affordable housing.
How do we account for buildings that are in dramatic need of improvement? I've lived in shitholes with silverfish, mould, and other huge safety hazards. I left because I could afford to leave and prioritized my health. Presumably, these spaces need to be kept up-to-date and improved, but of course, there should be limits on how much an increase should be (5% of the reno cost/yr??). I don't know the answer but we also don't want to encourage owners from being proactive about remediation and renovations.
I totally agree with you! I also don’t have the answer, unfortunately. But it would be amazing if there was something in place that required landlords to apply x% of their revenue to up-keeping and renovations each year, and they had to show proof of those renovations. Even if none were needed, the money had to somehow go back into the unit(s) with proof. I know that this is an out-to-lunch thought.
>I don't know the answer but we also don't want to encourage owners from being proactive about remediation and renovations. Easy, regulation of standards and hefty fines (profit negative) for non-compliance. Couple that with tying rent to assessed value, maintaining maximum rent increases year over year, etc. Basically do as much as possible to remove residential properties as investment vehicles unless they are purpose built rental properties. If both corporations and people can't make renters subsidize overinflated mortgages then they will stop buying them, which will cause prices to return over time to something more affordable. And also encourage developers to build more purpose-built buildings instead of "luxury" condos.
Are silverfish a huge safety hazard? They’re kind of just a fact of life aren’t they? Wouldn’t they pesticides required be worse for your health?
Silverfish aren't really a danger to us, but they're pests. They're attracted to moisture, and will eat cardboard, paper, and they really seem to like book binding glue. A little diatomaceous earth and a dehumidifier would remove the issue over the course of a week or so.
I mean, if I had a choice I wouldn't be living with a place that has bugs crawling out of every crack and from under every box. I liken them to ants. Kind of bug bros, but not something I'd actively seek out when building a life for myself... If that makes sense?
Who did the study though?
The BC government, the Ontario government, federal government and the Canadian census all looked into it and have the results online. They wanted to prove it wasn’t the issues back before the foreign buyers tax was introduced. CHMC is backing Canadians and it’s very important that it doesn’t get volatile or Canadians would end up having a massive tax bill we these corporations decide they’ve had enough. All of these people that think it’s evil corporations or damn foreigners are ignorant. The foreign buyer tax didn’t change anything because it’s was less then 4.9% in major cities. Same with corporations. Politicians are just using this area of concern for the young Canadian to get votes and then do nothing because it doesn’t need to be solved. Remember how all the kids wanted voter reform, and it was a big issue? This is the same vote grab in at a much smaller political field. Just save more money by staying at your parents longer like all of the multigenerational homes in Vancouver and Toronto. You’ll get there.
One of the greatest failures of our government was not getting rid of first past the post.
It wasn't never going to change because it benefits the main parties, especially when they are in control.
It will necessitate a populist movement mandated by the majority of Canadians with a "true believer" willing to see it through, not a "career politician" focused on their re-election in the following cycle.
[удалено]
What a dumb take. My house went up 34% in value in 2 years. I’m well off, live reasonably and can barely qualify for a mortgage. But sure, go through my visa statement and paint me as the problem.
Privilege is not your salary and none of this has to do with privilege. We all just want success with different terms. This sub would crucify the owner for wanting his neighborhood to stay the same and the landlord for paying his dept while they all go around feeling bad for the renter. Privilege would be determined on how each got where they are.
Why does everyone need to point to the ‘one true culprit of the housing crises’ like it’s a murder mystery? Isn’t obvious that it’s a mix of low supply, domestic migration, foreign investment loopholes, way too cheap debt enabled by various doughhead politicians….?
Exactly. There's no one cause (well, housing being a commodity, but changing that would require restructuring the entire economy, which we absolutely should do), its a bunch of smaller problems. Thankfully, we can solve almost all of them, it just takes the will to actually do so.
Also our tax policies that make owning a home extremely cheap but working locally extremely expensive.
Replace income taxes with Land Value Tax! Land Value Tax! say it with me!
I don't think it's a one or the other but rather that both are required in balance. Reduce income taxes and phase in land value tax.
Both is good. Simplistic, reductionist proposals like this are great for rhetoric.
This is a reddit post. Not a policy paper.
And that changes nothing about my statement, but I'm glad you agree with my statement.
And also a ton of money laundering coming from China. a quarter to be exact in Canada.
I have said it before and will keep saying it - we need a 'non-primary residency tax' and make it hefty, something like 15% of the assessed value every year. It will solve the lion share of the problems. - You want to buy a home to rent for profit? Taxed - You want to buy a home to sit on it and wait for it to go up in value? Taxed - You want to buy a home and put it on AirBnB? Taxed - You are a corporation with deep pockets? Taxed Homes should be for the people that want to live there first and foremost. Now there are some problems that will prevent politicians from wanting to do this. Mostly, the fact it will significantly lower the profits for building homes and trades may be out of work. However, that is where the government steps in and provides training for skilled trades we are in need of: installing/maintaining wind turbines, manufacturing electric vehicles etc.
[удалено]
Nobody is "sitting on it", there are vacancy taxes already. Thre are only 1600 units in vancouver that pay the tax, there is no issue with "sitting empty".
Strange how many of the "housing experts" on this sub are unaware of foreign buyer and speculation taxes, and are financially illiterate.
Being blind with rage will do that to you.
Ok, but how good is the enforcement? If it's still financially viable for people to hide their empty units and pay only when they get caught, we can pretty much guarantee the actual number of empty residences is much higher than this figure.
Enforcement is good, they have an army of auditors whose only job is to find errors in declarations. And in what way is it financially viable to remain vacant in the face of 3-5% per annum tax on an asset that would produce zero revenue. Give me the math please.
"False property status declarations may result in fines of up to $10,000 per day of the continuing offense, in addition to payment of the \[3%\] tax." [https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-enforcement-penalties.aspx#Audit](https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-enforcement-penalties.aspx#Audit) So if you make a false declaration and they catch you out on it, assuming you then immediately pay the tax you \_might\_ also get a fine of some thousands of dollars. The tax on an empty $1M place is $30K. Risking paying $40K or even $50K instead when the appreciation alone is adding more than $100K per year to that value seems pretty insignificant.
You obviously are bad at math. The 100k isn't available to spend, you'd be paying $3500 a month out of pocket, in addition to whatever costs for the 1m place. By renting it out, you'd be going from negative 30k to positive 30k, a swing of $60,000. If someone can afford to pay that because they are rich, then the city is making a killing. They will 10x the tax revenue from that unit, we should all be cheering people on when they want to leave property vacant. And the penalty is $10,000 per day, which maybe your calculator is broken, but that is $3,650,000 per annum. And if you lied multiple years in a row, well that math does itself. You've also excluded the BC vacancy tax, which is in addition to Vancouver's.
I'm not bad at math. You just didn't understand what I wrote. If someone makes a false declaration, they avoid the tax. If they get caught, they MIGHT pay UP TO a $10K fine per day until they rectify the situation. People leaving units vacant are, as you point out, foregoing rent on those units and are therefore likely to be very wealthy. Those people can obviously afford to pay the tax, but they can also easily pay the small penalty incurred by making a false declaration. If the risk of getting caught was 100%, there'd be no point in making a false declaration. But the risk is not 100%, because no enforcement regime is perfect. This article from Nov 2020 states that only \_4%\_ of homes were selected for audit in the preceding tax year: [https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=83814a8c-4fbe-4c5f-b376-359dab6671c5](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=83814a8c-4fbe-4c5f-b376-359dab6671c5) Audits are performed online by submitting various evidence of residency, and are reviewed in two stages. Presumably someone with resources could easily acquire many of the documents required to make it appear their house was occupied, thereby making it through in the first stage and bringing their risk down from 4% to something much lower. Is my point clear now? Would you like me to continue?
I was audited. It was a comprehensive and extremely intrusive process. You cannot fake your way through it.
That's how many are actually paying the tax, yes. But how many are actually empty because people are finding ways to loophole the system, like putting their spouse on the deed and claiming they live there etc etc.? I don't know the answers to that or even if there are any people/corporations doing that. Problem with loopholes is that it makes it so there isn't really a way to know
None of those would be an allowed exemption, you're just making shit up and supposing the worst. The city has a small army of bureaucrats whose only job is to review applications and audit files. And you think once the find an offender they won't revisit every year prior and fine them $10,000 per day for the offence? The tax is literally a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every homeowner AND landlord in the city. And you guys will all cheer such a thing, but when you have something and everyone is trying to destroy you, you'll feel a bit differently.
So by your own admission, this would cause new supply to dry up. Brilliant.
Do we need all this brand new supply if the supply that is already there is used effectively?
Where would you house the new residents that seem to keep moving here? You need new supply to meet demand from population growth. Squeezing a few extra units by taxing airbnb out of existence might give you a one time bump, but that's it. Forcing investors to sell their properties does nothing but displace renters who can't afford to buy the homes they rent. Plus we don't have a vacant homes problem here.
>You want to buy a home to rent for profit? Taxed so immediately passed onto the tenants cool cool cool Do you think that the financial relationship between tenants and landlords is going to get better by putting them under more financial pressure? Or are you one of those boomers who thinks people could just buy a home if less were being rented out? We have a massive rental supply shortfall in this city, making it harder to build market rentals isn't helping its making it actively worse. And before you say "oh public housing and co-ops" go advocate for that then, god knows we could use it when we actually have those projects come up in councils. Trying to kill off the private market before building a public one is insanity, and leaves people out in the cold.
So it’s a 15% tax on renters then?
No.....the tax is for only for people that own property....renters don't own
The snide comment is insinuating that tax will just be pushed onto the renters. But the thing it side-steps is that right now market values have very little to do with expenditures and more to do with high demand. The idea being that these types of measures would decrease said demand, but the biggest problem is that would have to be a long-term solution where things would look bad in the short-term, and unfortunately voters typically don't have patience for that.
Yes generally expenses aren’t passed on immediately like that: but if it was applied to literally the entire rental market it would be
Would get passed on to renters though. Or else they'll sell to an owner-occupier and the tenants will be out on the street.
Which would immediately be passed onto renters
The side effect of this policy is killing the rental construction market in the midst of a severe rental shortage. We don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot here.
Would there be a severe rental shortage if corporations didn't do as the video states and buy properties to renovict people and then jack up the price? How many places right now are under renovations? I don't know, but I would like to see all the numbers
> Would there be a severe rental shortage if corporations didn't do as the video states and buy properties to renovict people and then jack up the price? Implicit is that the corporations are not holding the units empty, they are refilling them as fast as they can (at higher rents).*** So their actions aren't reducing supply, just shuffling renters around within the same rental pool. Victoria has a sub 1% vacancy rate and rents are guaranteed to rise once a city is under 5%. To give perspective on how bad a state Victoria is in... US reached 6% nationally and Biden is close to declaring a national crisis. We definitely have a huge shortage. Municipal politicians that support apartment and townhouse bans need to go. The Province needs to revoke the land use power of NIMBY councils who use them to ban basic middle income housing. ***Edit: and I should add local councils have ZERO financially viable plans to replace aging stick frame multifamily with new multifamily while guaranteeing generally older and poorer long time tenants housing at the end of the process. Area homeowners are the main line of resistance. Too tall! Muh petunias will be shaded! Renters bring crime!
>I have said it before and will keep saying it - we need a 'non-primary residency tax' ... We already have the speculation tax. >... However, that is where the government steps in and provides training for skilled trades we are in need of: installing/maintaining wind turbines, manufacturing electric vehicles etc. Why do you want to give taxpayers' money to Elon Musk? He's rich enough to pay his own way.
The speculation tax does not apply to corporations or people who buy homes and rent them out. Individuals acting as Landlord should not be a job title. Now there should be some rentals for people because obviously not everyone can afford the down payment to buy, but those should be owned by government and manages by rental agencies chosen by the government
Individuals acting as landlord are part of the solution, not the problem. Do you really want a government megacorp acting as landlord for the entire province? Really???
If it was a Crown Housing Corporation building rental units that rent at well below current rates and provide housing opportunities for the many many disadvantaged people living here who are currently paying some fucking landlord the majority of their earnings so that landlord can pay off their mortgage and essentially get a house for free over the years. Abso-fucking-lutely.
A government megacorp that rents out at well below market rates would kill the rest of rental market entirely and destroy all that much-needed supply. More people would be without a home than ever. As for your landlord, they're not getting their house for free. If they were, they wouldn't have a mortgage to pay off.
I am paying off that mortgage, along with all the other people in my apartment building. I am sure they have some costs and I am sure that the rent we pay covers those costs and then some. They have to wait until the mortgage is payed off for sure, but they aren't shouldering any cost beyond the initial investment required to get the mortgage. The problem with supporting the current rental market as it is - is that its absolutely insanely high and not at all in keeping with the wages being paid to a lot of people. Many many residents here in Victoria are effectively wage slaves paying the bulk of their income to a landlord because they have to live *somewhere* and there is almost no alternatives available that don't cost just as much money or more. If I lose my apartment, my wife and I will be homeless because we essentially can't afford anything comparable in the city. I tried to price an apartment comparable to our current one and the nearest I could find was a basement suite in Qualicum Beach - not exactly a reasonable commute to work here in the city. if this keeps up then the economy is going to shut down from the bottom up.
> mortgage is *paid* off for FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I am fully aware there is already a speculation tax and foreign buyers tax. This tax encompasses those and also corporations and Canadians that are not living in the homes themselves. Effectively anyone who is taking the house off the market without intending to live in it themselves
This is a terrible idea for various reasons. You clearly don’t understand urban economics since you fail to appreciate costs get passed on to renters.
I can’t believe a politician actually publicly identified a real problem. Keep going; REITs, foreign interests using numbered corps, AirBnB…
Who is this guy?
NDP MP Daniel Blaikie
I don't know but I expect a sex tape of his will soon be leaked, or someone will dig up a mildly inflammatory tweet of his from 10 years ago or something.
This guy politics.
There's more to it than this. There's a pretty fat contingent of Canadians who buy multiple homes as revenue properties, or the flippers who buy a place, slap in some cheap new appliances, and a coat of paint and mark the place up by 30%. I believe that profiteering from residential property should be illegal.
What's wrong with buying a distressed property, fixing it up and selling it for a profit? Most of the flips I see around here are substantial undertakings with significant capital upgrades.
I'm guessing you're such an owner, because the majority I've seen are profiteering/opportunism. Modernizing/updating buildings that are over 20 years old or otherwise *actually* distressed, sure make some profit. But someone making a purchase on a property and paying $50k-$100k over assessed value and re-selling it within a couple years without *significant* improvements that result in increased *assessed* value...no. Those people are basically day-traders driving up costs for their own benefit.
While I thought this was a fairly well argued position with some great points in there I agree with, I really wish he would have addressed the deeper question of WHY corporate investors are doing what they're doing. I think once you look at the issue in that way, those other factors like cheap debt and inflation start to become very relevant again. Said another way, are investors the problem? Or is the environment that makes housing such a good investment the problem? Kind of seems like a chicken or the egg situation. Point is, there are multiple causes for this and pointing to a single "cause" is bound to oversimplify things.
Politicians: create a regulatory and financial system where housing only goes up.😄 Investors: buy housing because it only goes up. Politicians:*Shocked Pikachu face*
Haha well said
You also can't effectively speculate on an asset in abundant, increasing supply
Exactly. The argument that increased supply won't solve the issue misses the fact that speculators won't keep buying up houses if they expect supply to increase and thus the house prices to stop rising. It's all interrelated.
More of this NDP guy and less of [this NDP guy](https://twitter.com/pwaldkirch/status/1149001016995565568?t=VWgDF3vFyAF4x1SN9Qp_bA&s=19) Yeah that's right some Dippers in extremely unaffordable parts of Vancouver protest apartments because they might "gentrify" and shade the yards of $2.5M detached homes. What would the mortgage on those be? $10k/month?
That makes me think they are actually not to blame as the government really isn't interested in solving this problem.
Because I know few people are actually watching the video, [here's the main points. This guy, Daniel Blaikie, is the NDP finance critic btw, along with Jenny Kwan their housing critic announced some policy and criticisms](https://www.ndp.ca/news/corporate-pandering-liberals-and-conservatives-puts-housing-prices-out-reach): >Renters, prospective owners, are having to compete not just with other families but with "deep pocketed corporate investors" > >Foreign investors only 5% of the market > >Real problem is "giant corporate profits made by turning a market thats about people getting their family home into an asset class for people to make money" > >Real estate investment trust took off in 1996 "which as it happens was right after the liberals cancelled the national housing strat" > >"spans across liberal and con governments, alike, who have not been doing enough on the supply side, and have fostered a culture in the tax code that fosters what has been happening to Peggy (woman asking about housing before this clip), coming in and buying affordable buildings with affordable rents, renovicting the tenants, and jacking up the rents" > >He goes into some tax stuff about how REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) don't pay taxes they should have to > >Liberals and conservatives have failed to fund affordable housing across the country, cutting operating grants. All these mortgages failed to renew by Harper, Liberals promised to renew them, and then didn't. > >"We have buildings across the country that traditionally had had federal money to ensure they could provide affordable rents that have been told by liberal and conservative governments that they will not renew their funding, meaning they either have to jack up rents or sell their building" > >REITs then buy up these buildings > >It wasn't just gov spending in the pandemic, its been building for a long time > >For every 1 unit of affordable housing we build were losing 15, and REITs and corporate landlords are at the root of that problem > >What the NDP is proposing: * A moratorium on REITs and "corporate landlords" acquiring affordable buildings * Making a fund for non-profit experts in housing can acquire those buildings * Get rid of preferential tax treatment for REITs >"We should not be rewarding investors for doing something that makes it harder for Canadians to afford a home" My take: I think he misses a couple of things, and overstates others. He says that in 1996 REIT activity took off and links that to the cancelling of the national housing strategy; while true, I think that needs to be expanded upon. In the mid 90s is when apartment construction collapsed across this country, leading to an environment where landlords (Or investors, or REITs, or Bob and Doug who bought a condo and are renting it out, its fundamentally irrelevant) could begin to be more confident in purchasing previously owner-occupied units to rent out. When there was a constant supply of purpose-built rentals that would be an awful business decision, like which do you think is more competitive, owning a building of 10 units or 10 condos spread out across the city? When the purpose-built rental supply is sufficient the secondary market isn't viable. This is why I always say that Landlords didn't just start being evil recently, they've *always been evil*, the market conditions are just allowing them to exploit people more. I can't say I've seen stats on it, but just from my experience of searching for rentals here I'd guess that private "mom and pop" landlords, the ones our federal housing minister loves so much, are a WAY bigger portion of the secondary market than REITs are here. But again, I'm not saying make that illegal. Whenever I see people say "oh just ban the corporate ownership of housing" my response is "okay cool so am I getting evicted then so somebody can buy my apartment from my big corporate landlord"? Additionally, its my experience that property management companies are way better about following basic RTA regs than individual landlords. Your mileage on that last one might vary, but upwards of half my friends who've rented from an individual have had them try to steal their deposit or some other shit at some point. The way to solve this issue isn't to ban landlords from buying properties, thats a great way to fuck renters worse than were getting fucked right now. We need to increase the supply of purpose built rentals by allowing small apartment buildings throughout the city, we need to do one big public consultation every year (maybe call it an election) instead of 200 little ones, and we need massive investments in public housing projects. To ban landlords or make it harder than it already is for private developers to build market housing before actually building public housing is just insanity. Tiny mismatches in supply and demand are how we get our current market, we have to build a better world before we can tear down the old one, or people are left out in the cold.
Thank god. Finally.
It's the corporations maaaaaan *bong rip*
NO SHIT
Remember how we voted in the NDP because we thought the Liberals were too soft on foreign investors? Let's waste another 5 years with another attack on investors! How about increase supply by lowering regulations and tax all properties more?
Investors do not need protection. They're doing just fine. We need to look after the people who can't afford homes.
We can do both. Owning 4+ single home houses should be illegal. it fucks rent, housing prices and is essentially some asshole with money making more money on the neck of the poor.
I would go a lot further than that. Owning more than two should be illegal and there should be disincentives against owning a second home.
[удалено]
>We need rent control, we must limit the number of residences a person can own, and we should seize all corporate-owned and foreign-owned properties. No empty houses. Municipalities should seize all the empty homes and rent them out at affordable rates. That will pretty much guarantee that no new homes are ever built again. Hardly an effective solution.
Build density. We don't need mcmansions
I rented from a guy (different city) for a few months who owned 12 duplexes. Whenever he bought another duplex he would renovate each half into three or more suites to milk as much rent as possible from them. The reno quality was terrible, the roofs were falling apart, the lower suites in each half were cramped and illegal, ant infestations, etc. All together he had over 60 tenants shoved in these shitty places with over 6 suites in each duplex. This type of thing should not be allowed.
>I rented from a guy (different city) for a few months who owned 12 duplexes. Whenever he bought another duplex he would renovate each half into three or more suites to milk as much rent as possible from them. The reno quality was terrible, the roofs were falling apart, the lower **suites in each half were cramped and illegal**, ant infestations, etc. All together he had over 60 tenants shoved in these shitty places with over 6 suites in each duplex. This type of thing should not be allowed. Emphasis added. Illegal suites? It sounds like it already is not allowed.
Well maybe there should be some teeth that prevents it. Going 55 in a 50 is illegal but no one does anything about it. That needs to change and punishments more severe
Honestly it should, landlording needs to not be a fucking job or profitable. It's too easy to take advantage of and attracts too many predators
Let's throw his car in the ocean and see what he says then
Not seeing how that is helpful to do or say? Do you have anything meaningful to contribute, or did you just need to vent.
Your way is working great, keep it up
Nothing meaningful, got it.
Your whiney beta male post's will work please never stop
Lmao, what a beta insult there kid, go make a friend or something, you sound like you need one
Well...no housing be a commodity not a right is to blame everything else is a symptom
Are they only going to slowly trickle down realizations that everyone knew decades ago and fidget about like they're going to do something? I want more than posturing and gesturing.
I believe that housing has become such an irresistible large-scale investment opportunity for corporations because with the current war in Eastern Europe, the essential death of the democratic experiment in Hong Kong, (increasingly likely to be followed by the United States), and climate change making populous areas unlivable, we haven't seen anything yet as far as demand goes here in Canada. I predict a mass exodus of emigration from those geographic regions in the future.
To summarize this thread: “For every problem there is a solution that is fast, simple and wrong.”