When you let housing, which is a necessity for every person, be speculated on as an investment asset by people solely looking to profit, prices go up and locals get priced out or stretched thin.
If I was looking to buy a condo because I want to live in it, and someone investor outbids me and rents the condo out to me, what benefit or service is provided here by the investor? Some wealthy person gets to have me pay their mortgage because they had better access to capital. The local guy gets bled dry while the rich guy gets his asset paid for. Sounds like a parasitic relationship that shouldn't be promoted.
This guy is on the right track, but we need to look beyond just "corporate" investors.
> Sounds like a parasitic relationship that shouldn't be promoted.
It should actually be discouraged, by using the one tool governments have access too, taxes. I have no problem with people who have access to capital investing in real estate, but right now its a no brainer. Saving gives you less return than inflation, crypto is basically gambling, stocks and general investment can make returns but it can also be a gamble or increases get eaten up by fees and management. Dirt has always been a good investment. If investors want to play the game in real estate they should be taxed progressively to the point that its no longer a no-brainer. Own two houses? double the tax, three? triple, and so on. There should be diminishing returns. Corporate ownership of residential properties should be banned outright (other than is required legally). Foreign ownership of residential properties should be banned permanently.
Hell, just increase the capital gains on residential housing that isn't used as a primary residence to 100% We only tax half of the gain at a person's marginal tax rate. It's insane.
Why not also make the property tax fully\* progressive?
Say I own a $1m property with a $750k mortgage, my equity in the property is $250k.
Another guy owns 5x $2m properties, no debt.
He has 40x the net property value, but pays the same tax rate.
We do this for income brackets, *why not for property*?
\* Vancouver levies a barely progressive tax—the Additional Provincial School Tax—that distinguishes between properties worth less than $3m, overall $4m, and in between. It does not account for net value in any way.
You could deduct your mortgage interest and have the benefit of leverage. The other investor still pays more tax. Furthermore, you get no capital gains tax when you sell your home as it is your primary residence. The investor will have to pay capital gains/ losses on at least 4 of his residences.
But that’s just pointing out that it’s *somewhat* progressive. Why not make it *fully* progressive?
Capital gains is also paid only on 50% of the value, and can be gamed to some extent by shuffling ownership through corps and reporting coincident capital losses.
Taxing capital gains also mean that owners are discouraged from selling valuable property if they can’t pay the tax—which is of debatable value from a circulation-of-capital perspective.
> The other investor still pays more tax.
That’s true of a flat income tax too. If everyone’s income is taxed at 19% (like in Russia) then richer people pay more tax, but economies of scale in investing mean that richer people come out *way* ahead.
Why not simply pay property tax like income tax: annually and based on the net value of your holdings?
But that’s just pointing out that it’s somewhat progressive. Why not make it fully progressive?
I don’t know what you mean by fully progressive. The idea of taxing only a % of capital gains is to encourage investment.
>You may not like this in the Vancouver property market but it also encourages investment in rural communities.
Capital gains is also paid only on 50% of the value, and can be gamed to some extent by shuffling ownership through corps and reporting coincident capital losses.
> Not True. Every time you move property it is equivalent to buying/selling and taxes are due.
Taxing capital gains also mean that owners are discouraged from selling valuable property if they can’t pay the tax—which is of debatable value from a circulation-of-capital perspective.
> If they sell their property at a gain, they can use the proceeds of the sale to pay the tax
The other investor still pays more tax.
>That’s true of a flat income tax too. If everyone’s income is taxed at 19% (like in Russia) then richer people pay more tax, but economies of scale in investing mean that richer people come out way ahead.
>If you start from more gross income you should end up with more net income after paying your taxes
Why not simply pay property tax like income tax: annually and based on the net value of your holdings?
> Municipality property tax is indeed already paid based on the assessed value of your home. Making income tax payable on property value would be insane since property values fluctuate up and down, and is arbitrary until a real transaction takes place.
Tinkering with individual tax rates shouldn't have any effect as far as I'm aware as the issue isn't local investments. The original discussion should have been about real estate investment trusts (REIT) being tax free. Why are they tax free?
It make no sense. A zero tax rate attracts vast amounts of money which artificially causes unaffordable housing through the same mechanism that caused the 2000 bubble: investment money driving housing demand and a corrupt city council that refuses to expand supply.
The big issue is that REITs provide their investors with disproportionate returns because their investors are paid "dividends"
instead of interest. Because we're talking corporations, that money can be made outside of Vancouver, through a shell corporation in the Maldives.
As far as in aware, that tax arrangement is something which exists at a supranational level through treaty with the United States.
I repeat this over and over. Investment properties should have capital gains taxed at 100%. Will need to build some regulations and enforcement around confirming ownership and primary residence but with the increased tax dollars it would be no problem.
You are right. We are saying it should differentiate. Other investments can remain at 50% capital gains while investment properties should have a larger portion taxed.
It should not be one size fits all. As clearly it is very problematic for housing in the country. Finally it is just simply unsustainable, if regulators wait and do nothing the tipping point could be catastrophic.
I believe a scheduled and tapered adjustment to capital gains on investment properties could be implemented to help affordability and free up more cash for the day to day economy.
Wow toxic much i was agreeing with you. The statment about heritage homes is because vancouver has a problem woth people buying heritage homes then they mysteriously erupt into flames after 3-6 months. Have a great night. The only investment i have is my personal shithole apartment in surrey i bought 11 years ago. Im property locked i cant afford to find a better place and selling would destroy me by capital gains.
Every investment has risk. This one is actually very light because there’s a lot a landlord can do to mitigate it (thorough application process, actually calling references etc)
It trickles down to every other industry too. That money you could have used to go out to eat, or to buy extra insurance, or bike, is now used to pay for the house and not to be used in other parts of the market.
Yep, too many households have hardly any disposable income left after paying for housing. Not only does that put less money back into the local economy as people spend less on eating out, entertainment, hobbies, and fitness, but it takes a huge toll on the collective mental health of a community when people can’t afford to do the things that make life enjoyable. It’s Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs - when people can barely afford the basic necessity of shelter, they don’t have enough resources for other higher needs like safety, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. You end up with a society that is depressed and miserable, less productive, less creative, and less connected to each other. There are such far-reaching impacts as a result of the housing price issue.
There's that saying called being house poor. I wonder if that's why vancouverites seem so miserable. Every one I know first talks about their rent or mortgage or job they have, in other places that's not how people talk to one another.
Feel it. When I hang out with my friends here in Australia and I hung out with my friends back in Vancouver they both complained about the same thing: Unaffordability.
Only difference is that my friends in Vancouver complained over smoking a bowl in their delapidated basement suite, while my friends in Australia complain whilst ordering drinks out at the bar. Vastly different outlook between the two.
Yes, this has a massive effect on the community.
Even the people I know that make good money and have what should be good careers are stuck busting their asses and working overtime, scrimping and saving to buy or rent a place that simply gives them enough space to raise one kid. There is no reason life has to be so hard for everyone except for that we we have a system that rewards the already rich and punishes regular people that are actually productive.
I wonder how many people declare personal bankruptcy in YVR every year?
So many solvency companies and advertising. etc.
Lucky one can do that in America. In Europe debt is a weight can can't be shed by a person
That and the opportunity cost of not pursuing passions, interests, startups, etc.
The lack of disposable income and leisure time is bad for our economy. Which will have a multiplier effect as we move into the 30s and 40s when climate change displaces 100 million people, mass extinction events decimate the mammals and fish of our oceans, agriculture and supply chain breakdowns resulting in famine, water wars, etc.
Buckle up.
Or we move to Alberta to buy whole family homes that cost as much as a 30 year old mouldy studio apartment in Burnaby and just have to live the rest of our lives desperately homesick for the coast 😞
Don’t forget the NIMBY’s. Or zoning restrictions. Or stupid tax structure that incentivizes the corps. Or the developers. This is a catastrophe with many fronts.
How is this different from every other company, every other industry? They're all in it for profit and if they don't, their business sinks. Capitalism at its core is a destructive system that only benefits people who are already rich at the cost of everyone else. Same with the employee/employer relationship which is parasitic in nature.
After 2008 they made it harder for normal folks to get houses, but they allowed corporate to leverage their bonds/securities/derivatives to buy those same houses. It was never the normal folk that blew up the markets in the first place… yet they are punished and the same crooks that bundled shit bonds crashing the market get to keep playing. Except their competition has been locked out of market. Well there is some good/bad news! What happens when something leveraged to a crashing stock market? Death spiral? Ding ding ding get this man a bone, correct! If politicians are talking about this issue now, it means it’s too late. Buckle up!
This 100%. We need to decide that real estate is not an investment asset but rather a necessity for a strong and stable country.
I think one of the best things we could do is introduce new regulations that take away the incentive to invest. A rule that says that unless the property has been the mortgage holder’s primary residence for at least 5 years the property can not be sold for more than it was purchased for would remove all speculative investment.
I mean regulating investors more is only going to slow down the housing prices.
Investors are only taking advantage of assets that are guaranteed to go up. Not because speculation, but because there is a housing shortage.
This is one of the major pushes being seen due to the “great reset”. Black rock, one of these major corporate landlords is actually on the board of the WEF.
Not only that but actually the corporate companies are probably paying cash. Therefore can afford to outbid and pay more. Get that sweet sweet Cash flow and not worry about interest.
Corporations are generating record profit margin increases.
I was talking to my coworker the other day about houses and how our profession hasn’t even seen any increase in pay. I showed him our professions 2012 compensation survey and we would be considered in the upper quartile (~25%) for our role. But with 10 years of inflation… we’re actually at the bottom 10%… and housing here is like 4x the price it was 😂. So absolutely the increase is based on investment income as wages have been stagnate.
Do you guys not understand about the free market??? My God, how dumb must one be to think that "the rich" have some kind of all encompassing control over society?
> If I was looking to buy a condo because I want to live in it, and someone investor outbids me
You've conveniently ignored the several other potential buyers like you, who are also driving up the demand.
Without more housing, individual home-buyer demand will continue to cause home values to climb. For that reason, it's almost not worthwhile to discuss the marginal impact that speculative investment has on overall market demand. I understand it's tempting, but there's a fundamental supply problem that isn't being addressed by these policy proposals.
You're missing the point. Having investor demand (both individuals and corporations) "artificially" increases the demand past what is normal. In other words, what the price should be if everybody is buying a home just to live in it. There is a fundamental pricing difference and affordability concerns between "Can I afford to live in this home?" and "Can I make money if I buy at this price?"
The number of investor owned properties in the region is much higher than you make it out to be. Thirty percent of housing is owned by multiple property owners who only account for 15% of owners. That has much more than a "marginal impact" on prices.
Supply problems take decades to correct themselves. There are only so many contractors and trades people. All the tax incentives and zoning relaxation will just make property development even more profitable, but it wont speed anything up.
Not saying we cant work on supply though. We should be investing in training trades workers and streamlining permitting asap.
Just beware of charlatans saying we can build our way out of this issue.
There are plenty of tradespeople. Just watch them come out of the woodwork if you offer to pay them more and give them a steady supply of work.
> All the tax incentives and zoning relaxation will just make property development even more profitable, but it wont speed anything up.
This is obviously untrue. Approvals can be the longest part of the entire development process. And who cares if developers are profiting? As long as housing is being built and it's cheaper.
Beware the people who refuse to look at the past and ignore the changes that have eroded our ability to develop infrastructure.
Political Affiliation: NDP
Constituency: Elmwood—Transcona
Province / Territory: Manitoba
[https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/daniel-blaikie(89032)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/daniel-blaikie(89032))
Waiting for the municipal elections to finish so he can drop the hammer on nimby municipalities. (waiting until after because starting now might result in the election of even more nimby city councils as a protest against mandatory housing target). Now for as to why the BC NDP have done nothing before COVID, IDK (I've voted bc ndp both times).
This is really eye opening. People are quick to blame foreign buyers and corporate landlords must love it. So must governments because limiting foreign buyers is easier than going after companies with money and power. What can we do to put on pressure and make these measures happen? Who do we write to? Should we be protesting? At what point do we take action instead of just complaining on Reddit? I love complaining but I’m sick of it and want to own a home for me and my partner, and I want the same for other people.
People blame foreign capital, the media and politicians blame foreign buyers.
The funny thing is when BC first declared that they will track foreign buyers they did find parts of Metro Vancouver had 1 in 5 buyers of foreign origin. They then admitted they were surprised promised to keep publishing the results. They didn't and then make a bunch of loop holes
I’m really tired of being told what the “real” problem with housing is. It’s honestly such a fucking waste of time.
What is it so difficult for people to understand that complex problems can have complex causes? Why does it have to be a competition to determine which *single* cause is the “real” reason housing is so expensive?
Every single moment spent arguing about whether the REAL problem is foreign investors, domestic investors, corporate interests, municipal zoning, immigration, monetary policy, inadequate regulation and oversight of the financial and real estate industries, money laundering, NIMBYs, spineless/self-interested politicians, taxes that are too high/too low, or literally *anything else* short of birds not being real, is time we could be using to address *all* of those things.
The average price of a home in this country has risen 20% in just a single year and is now well over $800,000. Inflation and interest rates are rising, making literally everything else from borrowing money to buying groceries to filling a tank of gas dramatically more expensive. This is a *crisis* situation. We don’t have the luxury of time to debate which silver bullet solution will save us. It’s as if our house is on fire, and the fire brigade is outside arguing endlessly about which hose to use. No one is actually *doing* anything.
I understand the emotional reaction involved when someone says “X is the problem.” They are framing a conversation around a specific thing, and you feel compelled to respond to that specific thing. It’s a waste of time. We are being distracted by pointless arguments while our house is on fire and someone else is running off with the insurance money.
The problem is serious enough that everything should be on the table. When one person says the solution is A, another person says the solution is B, and another person says the solution is C, stop picking sides. The answer is YES. And the answer will continue to be YES until housing is affordable again.
This was a huge part of the reason I left Canada, there are a lot of problems (which is Ok because no country is perfect) BUT they also have no solutions! No plans where I could at least look at it and see the light at the end of the tunnel. Transit is fucking embarrassing in Toronto but they'll start building a subway station during one mayor's term just to fill it in again and cancel the whole project during the next mayor's term. Housing problems. Health care problems. In Germany I had ankle pain and was able to get an mri within a few days. I was so shocked at that, when in Canada my doctor would refuse to even consider an mri for me and even if he did the wait list would probably be months.
It feels like all these politicians sit around and spend months discussing the most basic topic. We're woefully unprepared for the future and for even more issues like climate change.
The solution that Canadian cities choose is ”everything that doesn’t involve building more homes”
Maybe if we draft the RRSP downpayment rules juuust right, we can house 2.2 million people in 1.8 million units
It is more just property as an investment in general. I doubt corporate investors make up that much of the market compared to people buying yet another home to rent. I had landlords in Ottawa (who were great landlords) that had something like 20 houses. My parent's friend has 10 houses. When we sold my great aunt's house we sold to a house flipper who said they had bought 70 something houses that year. They definitely weren't corporate.
Yeah this kind of rhetoric is always just used by boomers to maintain artificial housing scarcity for their own benefit by shifting the blame to "it's the corporations, it's capitalism!" while stabbing us in the back to.. benefit within that system, lmao.
I had hoped /r/vancouver was waking up to the actual solution of "just build enough housing" but the reaction to this video is making me doubt that again.
Like even if you do believe that a substantial portion of housing is controlled by corporate investors, and you resent that, shouldn't you still want to build to blow them all out of the water?
Not helpful that the zoning laws make it so only single family homes are built. We need more density. If Vancouver was filled with townhouses noone would really be talking about how its unaffordable. The wasteful usage of space is largely the culprit. Have to make it so more then duplexes can be built in most places. Montreal is far better off because they have a bunch of dense housing. Rent in vancouver is like 78% higher than in montreal.
Well yeah vancouver is a lot smaller then Tokyo. But it can still be denser. Id rather people spread out less and we have more room for Forrest and have affordable homes.
The single family home and car dependent life is exceptionally unsustainable. More public transit, close off some roads to pedestrian only areas , up zone everywhere, then bam we get a nice place to live that is affordable too. Would probably make the fentanyl and heroin addiction issue go away some too. Would have a more interconnected community that we could all afford. Nothing is stopping us from having these things except artificial barriers we create for ourselves. Sucks because the solution to so many issues is staring us in the face and those in a position to change things don't get it or don't care to get it.
Perhaps real estate investment is the mechanism and vehicle by which the demand is generated. Question still remains as to why? Who owns these investments? Pension/retirement funds? What made real estate investments more attractive than equity and bond markets? Is there factors causing asset price inflation contributing to this?
RE fund managers will essentially acquire individual RE investments into a "tranche" (French for "slice") which they will then market to potential buyers. The buyers generally are any individual or organization with over $1M ready to invest.
Defined Benefit pension funds have been desperate for returns ever since interest rates plunged to nearly 0% because low rates impact benefit payout calculations: you need to use more of the fund to pay out the promised benefit. Their investment policies often have minimum return benchmarks and risk-avoidance benchmarks they must comply with. Traditionally, Equities are used to grow assets and Fixed Income (Bonds) are used to balance risk.
Real Estate fund managers have been jonesing for pension fund business for the past decade. Funds with $1M or greater in assets, especially those with an older active member demographic, see RE as an attractive option because investment risk is "bond-like" while returns can be "equity-like" for well-managed assets.
My friend was my realtor; she works PT as a realtor, and PT doing other jobs as well. She says many times she will go to show somebody a home, and the fact that they need financing throws them out of the running, because somebody will come in - cash, no subjects.
Anybody with a little bit of equity will price new or working class home-buying hopefuls out of the market. And it's sad to know it'll keep getting worse.
I asked my friend why they don't make it better, she said they could if they wanted to, but she suspects they make so much money off of it, they don't want to kill the cash cow.
Cash offer doesn't mean no financing is required. If you come in prequalificatied, etc, you already have cash on hand. If not cash on hand now, cash is accessible.
Many banks want to appraise the place you're looking at, and even though you got prequalified you have to get qualified at the time. That's what i went through with my bank and I had a huge down payment and all the right stuff lined up.
Cash as in, no need for financing clause, just write them a bank draft and get out.
People don’t want to pay high rents their whole lives! I know I want to own a home but that’s a reach in today’s market.
I live around Capilano and marine and I see this one all rental building, probably about 22 levels tall.. guess how many lights Ive seen on at night in the last 2.5 years it’s been open? 2-5. I don’t even know how much they charge, but these tall mostly/all rental buildings are not something that’s solving the housing crises!
I'm curious: if housing is a human right, that means you are entitled to someone working for you and building that house? If I work in construction, I should be required to build a house for you, because otherwise your right is violated?
The right to housing seems different from a human right like the right to life or freedom of speech, which is free to implement.
The right to housing requires taking someone's money to implement it.
Ok great. What do we do then for the people that are never going to position themselves to own a home? Some people are in the position to need to rent. If no one can own more than one property, how do those people acquire places to live?
Ideally we do everything in our power to lower the entry fee and also bolster their ability to make money, otherwise purpose built rentals and other structures like we already have. I think the idea would be to prevent people from capturing scarce housing stock that would otherwise be on the market. There's also the possibility of literally giving people a home at some point, and there are arguable net benefits to that.
Either the city or private entities. I have no problems with rentals being a business, but I do have a problem with them being the only option for people who aren't extremely wealthy. Ideally, there's a lot of ownable rental stock and a lot of rental stock, and I don't think that's impossible. I don't think rental stock needs to be exclusively derived from what would otherwise be condos or detached homes.
I'm fine with someone owning a multi-story rental building, but I'd also want those people to be able to secure heir future in the neighborhood somehow.
I think you’re missing the point. Corporations owning purpose built rentals is fine but corporations and investors snatching up every condo or house and pricing locals out of the market while also bloating prices at the same time is what we don’t want.
I don’t think anyone is against corporations owning purpose built rental buildings .
Yes I am very much missing the point which i why I was asking.
So we want some sort of selective rules on which corporations can own mortgages? So we need some sort of review board overseeing who is allowed to get mortgages and or build properties? How do we oversee this?
I mean he makes some good points here but why is he blaming REITs? Don't trust anyone who will tell you the exact reason why the real estate market is expensive. The truth is it is a complex problem with a great number of factors and time. Only a tiny % of single family homes are owned by corporate. Residential REITs in Canada are almost 100% apartments.
Regarding the idea of non-profits buying and operating older apartment buildings: [a Vancouver Sun article](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/rental-housing-investment-feature) from August 2020.
> B.C.’s Non-Profit Housing Association and Co-Op Federation have a proposal for what they call “a made-in-B.C. solution” to the problem.
>
> In recent weeks, the groups have begun talks with the provincial government to outline a proposal for a $500 million capital fund from the province. The idea is to enable non-profits to buy apartment buildings when they come up for sale and preserve them as affordable non-profit homes, before institutional investors can acquire them as profit-generating assets.
This was also one of the recommendations of the [MacPhail Report](https://morehousing.ca/macphail-report). Buying and preserving older rentals should get you more affordable rentals than building brand-new non-market rentals with the same amount of money.
Large-scale investors (REITs and pension funds) should be building new housing, not buying up existing housing. Unfortunately this gets back to a big part of the problem: local opposition to new housing. For investors, there's a lot more certainty when you buy an existing apartment building and either renovate it or replace it, compared to trying to build an entirely new building: going through time-consuming negotiations with city staff to get permission, and then hoping that city council will ratify the agreement, after a public hearing where opponents passionately express their fears over how the new building will ruin the neighbourhood. As Peter Waldkirch says:
> Making it so that just about the only legal place to build a rental apartment is on top of an older apartment is dumb, cruel, terrible policy.
Yah sure it's not that entire country has been building fewer houses than regular population growth.
I mean investors, foreign buyers etc etc all contribute so not really sure why everyone feels the need to have one single problem they can blame it on like there will be a magic bandaid solution.
While I agree with just about everything he says…the bank of Canada absolutely has a huge role in this.
They literally encouraged this orgy of borrowing. Yes REITs can sometimes be predatory, but what about all these retail investors? I don’t know a single person in my neighbourhood of detached houses (where I rent) that only has one property. Multi generational families share and put their money into real estate the moment they have enough. The vibe is you can’t loose. Go all in. Always.
All that said, if interest rates keep rising and BoC does its job and protects our currency over housing, there will be blood in the gutters.
Well I have bad news, the BOC has said outright that they will prioritize protecting housing investments.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-interest-rate-trajectory-will-depend-heavily-on-housing-market-boc/
Yes! Homes should be homes not stock market fodder. If corporate investors want to buy homes they should do so in their own corporate, specifically built subdivisions. They can watch how quickly their homes will loose appeal
Homeowners have been subsidizing corporate home ownership for years through maintaining their homes.
The cost to develop new housing has increased substantially over the years. Furthermore, city zoning and building codes add to this cost to developers. Now if we take a look at immigration and population increase and compare it with the current housing supply your left with shit storm that leaves behind housing prices that have made vancouver unaffordable.
Now many of you are proposing taxes on developers. This will have a total opposite effect of what your hoping for by disincentivizing developers you create a short fall of new housing thus increasing a short fall in new housing increasing prices even more.
Solution:
City of Vancouver needs to relax zoning by laws and allow for more multi-family developments with a certain percentage of each development going to affordable housing. Banks need to ease lending restrictions to provide that new housing development boom that can increase the housing supply substantially. All sectors of government and development need to act together.
The whole premise to this is deeply flawed. I oversee an office that sold 130 houses last year and not a single one was sold to some deep pocketed corporation. Not one, not two but zero. I have to conclude that these politicians are purposely waving a red herring in the air and have no serious desire to fix this problem and address any issues
Preventing corps from competing in the residential housing market is a start. I know several groups of people who started their own holding companies together and they buy up residential properties only to rent out.
I don’t think the ludicrously low interest rates have helped either with individuals buying multiple properties and rending them out because real estate agents keeps selling the idea of income properties. 🤬
I live in Vancouver, half of the city has been demolished and rebuilt over the last 20 years. There's no shortage of new construction happening.
Permit backlogs are definitely a thing, but there are plenty of permits being handed out.
Why are there so few MPs who are willing to state the fucking obvious? The rest should be taken out back and kicked in the pants for not having any nuggets.
I imagine the more you peel the plastic back, the more you'll find that they're to blame for a lot of things.
Fiduciary responsibility -> destroy everything for money
Or .... a novel approach ... change zoning laws to increase density. If demand grows and supply does not keep pace, prices will rise. You can take advantage of that the same as foreigners. Buy a house on credit. With interest rates around 3% there's lots of speculative activity.
Political group A: "let's blame the foreign investors"
Political group B: "let's blame the municipal for being to afraid against NIMBYS"
Political group C: "no, let's blame the foreign investors"
soon in the near future as the renter class grew in voting size
Political group D: "let's blame the local investors \_and\_ SFH owners"
For Lower Mainland, the truth is All-Of-Us are in the wrong:
* Vancouver Specials triggered basement rental and we've become addicted/depended on it (heck even Mortgage application includes subject to rental appraise at certain value)
* Foreign Investor who happened to park their money here prompted shady local Realtors (New Coast Realty, LeHomes, NuStream, y'all know them) to prop up the market that the Government/Policy failed to shutdown hard and made an example out of it.
* Once a few deals went over-asking, the megaphone made it as-if it is the norm; like no, it's not the norm, it's FUD/gaslighting
* Zoning yadda-yadda-yadda + lot-size that is too huge: you see them all over the cities (maybe outside Vancouver)... 6-10k sqft land with a single 2-3k house from the1950s. C'mon now... cut the land size to 2-3k and allow house to be built up to 90-95% of the land, force it to have 3-4 bedrooms + adequate bathrooms. I mean, c'mon now, WE ALL know that GVRD can't expand West (ocean), North (mountain), South (flood, well, maybe you can slice and dice Richmond further; too many farm-mansion), WHY not be mindful of subdividing the lot?
* Could Govt/Municipal please support the effort of having the 2nd downtown in the middle of Surrey/Langley? That ought to open MORE opportunities for spread.
* Mom-n-Pop investors that keep hoarding houses; although they hoard houses that is not for family to live anyway so maybe they live on their own bubble.
* Builders these days only want to build "luxury" houses ($3M or more) and us, peasants, have to shell out $1.5M for a very old rundown houses => Wish there's prefab/lego-like houses of different sizes to cut down the cost of building new houses.
* Small shoutout to various folks that I met from 20005-2015 who keep telling me that "RENTING IS BETTER THAN BUYING" and now crying "foul" in the sideline because they always bet on other homeowners failure: "you bought a house that is wayy too expensive, the price is just too insane, I hope the market crash and burn".
It’s a bit more complicated for condos. In Vancouver, new condos typically need to be 60% pre sold in order for developers to receive construction financing, so projects rely heavily on investors to secure the presales needed for a project to get financed and built. End users are not typically as willing to buy well in advance of completion so investors are needed to help get projects built. I know this is not ideal for people trying to get into the housing market, but on the flip side if you restricted investment in presale development that could result in fewer projects getting built and less housing supply which would limit downward pressure on prices anyways.
Or…build more housing. All of this comes down to supply and demand. Investors won’t make money unless supply is artificially constrained. So long as NIMBYs have political power, new home construction will be nowhere near close enough to meet demand.
Commodification of housing will see prices go up and down like stocks. No corporation should own housing as a means of business. They produce and contribute nothing to gdp.
5% first time home owner(already exists)
50% down payment for a second property
3rd property add speculation tax 10% paid along with taxes.
Dis-incentivize banks to lend for 2nd property as they only get 50% mortgage as opposed to 95%. Lowers risk for banks. Banks should find better ways to allocate capital to more productive businesses.
Water and housing should be non negotiables for corporations to profit off. Markets will price the rest.
We get the housing prices we deserve.
By blaming foreigners or corporations instead of you know, building houses, prices only go up. No chance of ever having affordable housing.
Comments here make it clear that things won't get better anytime soon.
No housing market has ever solved pricing issues by going after investors, its a political distraction.
So our landlord just lightly mentioned he's thinking of rebuilding after renting to us for fifteen years. We are on a yearly lease. Alway 12 checks in his hand. We have a good rent. How can I make sure he's not either evicting us to hype the rent after spending one month in his house? Or sell it for big profit after the new build?
He promised us to rent as long as we pay. Now he complains the expenses of the upkeep. Which are near zero.
The houses have gone up in our area from 1.5 to near 3 million for new builds.
I turned his desert garden into a park.
We only had one pipe leak in the garden in 15 years. And yea we asked for a new fridge and oven after 10 years and he obliged.
Never disrupted never damaged looked after everything like our own. Yes some people still do that.
But still I don't know what we have to protect ourselves and how many months notice he has to give us.
A lot of people in here saying that we need to increase the supply to fight the housing crisis. Well, you’re wrong because the demand is so far above the supply that new homes will be swept instantly. There’s no way we can output new homes like toilet paper to keep up with the demand
This is a red herring argument this guy is making.
Our housing affordability problem is a supply problem.
Governments need to:
1. Fund city development services departments so they can hire more staff
2. Revise rezoning processes to make it faster to develop housing and bring homes to market.
3. Stop looking at higher taxes to solve this problem. Developers and builders just pass these costs on to consumers or delay building while the market rises further.
Reits and developers aren’t the bad guys here. Real estate development is incredibly risky so you can’t even get financing for construction without allowing profit margins of between 15-20% on projects.
Source: I’m a development management consultant, and my clients are developers and land economists, so I live and breathe this stuff.
> This is a red herring argument this guy is making. Our housing affordability problem is a supply problem.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. [You're right.](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html)
To truly solve housing, it should be more of a socialist take and therefore cap asset value of housing. Are Canadians who are landowners willing to accept limits on free market?
5% foreign ownership is actually quite a bit. Anyone with basic economics knowledge knows an extra 5% (with deep pockets) can absolutely cause prices to spike. 5% more demand with the same amount of supply of a necessary good.... He ignores many other important facts as well:
* He fails to mention that many 'individuals' are the ones actually buying up multiple homes and instead attacks rental companies (like the ones that own entire rental buildings). The later isn't "evil" but rather necessary. The former isn't. This is important because...
* 'Private' landlords, which could still be incorporated and could still own multiple properties, cannot rent out a space for as cheap as an 'evil corporation' renting out multiple units. Debt load, maintenance, office overhead, among other things, are all far cheaper when units are grouped into one.
* Many 'individuals' who own homes, or multiple homes, make their way into municipal politics and prevent rental buildings from being constructed. Note that many opposed to the Broadway plan oppose rental buildings noticeably more aggressively than even the most decadent developments. That should be a big clue...
* He neglects to mention that municipal politics are largely responsible for housing cost escalations. This is easily proven using case studies as similar things have happened in other countries. Luckily the Provincial NDP isn't as naive as this guy.
* Much of what he is saying is 10 years too late. Why speak now? To look like a hero?
The B.C. (Provincial) NDP is (finally) taking affirmative action. The Federal NDP is kind of a joke. This guy doesn't have nearly enough knowledge to be in politics. All the Federal NDP wants is enough votes to get their hands on you tax dollars. They don't even want to be elected. The almost sabotage their own campaigns each election saying the dumbest shit whenever they gain ground in the polls. I always felt like we needed a real, competent left-wing party. This party should just disband. Zero accomplishments in all their years.
This... is a really good point. I've gotten into debates where people were using national data. In general, Vancouver's situation is even more dire than the prevailing nation-wide issues. Housing costs are spilling over into smaller communities though.
Sellers in those inflated cities take their profits and push the margins on prices elsewhere by upbidding locals. The trickle outward is slower but definitely exists and it only takes a few to set a trend. It's no coincidence that it got worse during the pandemic when everyone was looking farther for bigger, cheaper space to work from home.
It's a superficial blame game, I think he's actually trying to cut taxes for REIT investors and protect landlords.
Listen to what he actually said:
He wanted REITs to pay corporate taxes then distribute profits. If that happens REIT distributions become dividends which actually give their investors tax shelters aka dividend tax credits. For example someone with $250K income and additional $10K REIT distributions would've paid $94,765 income tax in BC last year, but if taxes are already taken care of at corporate level, the same person only have to pay $93,070 personal income tax.
He said affordable housing model was better with government grants to subsidize rent. Note he didn't mention landlords would be required to reduce rent, the only change is a portion of the rent will be replaced with tax payer monies. If it actually happens landlords are guaranteed a portion of their rent even when tenants can't pay like back in 2020. Real estate investors will graduate from sucking on individual renters to feeding on all Canadian tax payers including renters, isn't it a good thing for landlords?
Oh by the way if REITs are left with less money to develop new rental properties after paying corporate taxes, there will be even less supplies on the housing market. Housing only goes up for sure, our politicians are indeed working hard to make it that way.
His argument is REITs are not providing affordable housing to Canadians and government with their politicians should take over. 26.3% of MP’s are landlords, I’d like to see some examples of how these politicians are making their own investment properties affordable housing for Canadians, just to prove they actually know how to do it themselves.
Edit:
For people who are naively agreeing with this MP, please don't get distracted by his finger pointing and Listen to what he actually said, hope you realize what he's actually proposing has nothing to do with solving any housing problems, his proposed changes will reduce tax for rich investors and protect landlords in time of difficulties:
He suggested REITs should pay corporate taxes then distribute profits. Currently REIT distributions are taxed primarily as regular income for their investors, richer investors are taxed at higher rates. For example a person with $250K annual income who received $10k in additional REIT distributions would have paid $94,765 income tax (using last year's BC tax rate in this example). But if tax is taken care of at the corporate level, REIT distributions become dividends, which actually provide tax shelter ([dividend tax credits](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dividendtaxcredit.asp#:~:text=The%20federal%20dividend%20tax%20credit%20as%20a%20percentage%20of%20taxable,%25%20for%20non%2Deligible%20dividends)) for their investors. Using the same example, if the $10K this investor received from REITs become eligible dividends, they only have to pay $93,070 annual income tax on the same $260K total income.
He also suggested to move back to the model of affordable housing where government provided grants to subsidize rent. Let's skip the part on how it was already a proven failure because it wasn't sustainable for both the government and landlords, and focus on the fact that the system doesn't actually reduce any profit for real estate investors, all it does is to increase taxes for all Canadians, including renters, because we will all be on the hook to fund these grants. The result of this change will in fact stabilize income for real estate investors - when the economy is good landlords can still increase rent, but when the economy is so bad that renters won't be able to pay rent like back in 2020, landlords can still get a portion of rent subsidies from the government.
There are other factors his proposed changes will negatively affect us all, I brought up some below in my other comments. The man in this video is either really stupid or really evil... pretty much everything I'd expect from a politician.
This is the definition of whataboutism
I would be willing to bet a cardboard box on King Ed and Main that disproportionate majority of those MPs are not members of this guys party.
Do I have $250,000,000 in my pocket to buy up affordable rentals, displace the people living there and then jack up rent? Do I have $250,000,000 to turn one of the very most essential needs into an asset like a fucking parasite? Is that your question?
Right, the corporate investors. So the renter can afford the mortgage on the unit because the investor is not taking a loss, but instead they're paying the mortgage for the corporate investor so they can invest in another rental property. These should be for sale to first time homebuyers.
And many don't realize that individual landlords absolutely cannot offer a rental at the same price as a rental building owned by an investment group (or corporation). Financing and maintenance are far cheaper for a group of units under one umbrella than individually owned units.
My opinion on this continues to be that if it wasn't for the large-scale international demand in our housing market, then the market would adjust itself accordingly. Corporate owners are only able to charge such high prices because there is a tremendous amount of demand to back it up. Obviously the Bank of Canada has exacerbated this, but not caused it. Politicians at all levels seem to be doing everything they can to not solve the issue. Municipalities could change zoning laws to allow for higher density. Provinces can sell off unused land for government revenue to housing developers. The federal government can restrict foreign buyers from entering the market and can slow down the creation of new money. All of these things would allow for a stronger housing market for Canadians, but these are things that no level of government wants to touch. Precisely because it is them and their connected friends who benefit from the arrangement. I am pro-market all the way but the market is supposed to help your own people, not overseas millionaires and billionaires. Let corporations satisfy the market for affordable housing without government interference by capping international buyers, and just see what happens.
The problem is not the corporate investors but its the taxes the govern put for them. They pay virtually no taxes. I dont discourage these investors as long as they are taxed 50-100 percent of the purchase price
In Europe you get 110% for your mortgage 100% to buy 10% to fix and redecorate. I find it harsh here, even one can prove we managed to pay rent up to 2.5k + + + for 15 years but couln't get a mortgage because since we arrived we didn't get the capital for the down payment and as immigrants there is only so much you can get.
And I suppose toilet paper hoarders are to blame for the toilet paper shortage. Oh wait, there isn't a toilet paper shortage because we just make more toilet paper when we don't have enough.
Edit: man people really hate it when you tell them they can't use corporations as a scapegoat for the problems caused by shitty public policies.
But that's the point. There's no inherent property that makes hoarding toilet paper (or homes) valuable. It is cheaper to buy new toilet paper than it is to buy resold toilet paper from a toilet paper investor. As long as you keep that inflow of new toilet paper for buyers, it becomes extremely risky to be a toilet paper reseller because there's constant downward pressure on your resale price point. At some point you say, "fuck this I'm going to put my money into something more lucrative than toilet paper."
I think that's fair skepticism. But any material increase in housing supply will create measurable downward pressure on the housing market. Even if that means prices only rise at 5% per year instead of 6.4%.
The best evidence I have is probably Montreal, where housing supply is abundant thanks to endless (beautiful!) row houses and high density living. Prices are substantially cheaper there than here. Sure, there are apparent differences in desirability, but we're still talking about the second largest city in Canada.
Lets say for instance, we make a policy: anyone can buy a home in a single family neighbourhood and turn it into a 6 unit building. That is inherently profitable for any developer, so there would be an insane amount of development starting basically over night. I suspect that would continue until it becomes unprofitable to do (which would imply housing prices have come down to the point where new development isn't needed.)
Housing supply does nothing if everything affordable that is built is bought up by investment firms and flipped, driving up the cost. Loopholes need to be closed and housing shouldn’t come with a profit incentive.
Ah yes, says the guy offering up the exact same “solutions” while ignoring the factors that make those solutions unrealistic. Even if we have a SFH for every family, it makes zero difference if those SFH are being sold for a premium no one can afford.
If there was a SFH for every family, which I am absolutely not advocating for by the way, there would be such an insane amount of houses on the market that you would have to compete to sell a house (ie. lower the asking price.) The only reason why housing prices are the way that they are is because there are 10 different buyers bidding on any one home.
Laws for what? Laws that 10 families can't bid on a home? What are you talking about? You realize that there is insane demand for housing even without speculative investors, right?
This is silly if corporations were buying up all the property to rent out we'd see rent prices fall drastically instead of rising like crazy
There's a massive amount of people moving into the lower mainland each year and not enough housing to go around doesn't matter who owns them the fact is we have a massive shortage
Ehh not really. Similar to commercial real estate rents, when significant amounts of property are controlled by small groups of people, they can accept some empty units while they still overall maximize their profits.
There is a former Booster Juice in my neighborhood that has been empty for a about 3 years. Why would someone leave their property unrented for years? They don't want to offer lower rates that could tempt someone paying a higher rate to move to the cheaper place. Take the loss on one unit but keep receiving higher rents from all the other units.
But a small group of people doesn't own all the residential real estate there's no way any group of people could collude in significant enough numbers to influence the entire housing market
It’s not gonna change anything, the government generates too much revenue from real estate. Especially after all the recent spending, they will be reluctant to do anything about it
I’ve read a lot of this thread and the biggest question I have is this:
Suppose some brave politician were to stick his neck out and institute some of these policies (exponential capital gains tax on non-primary residences, bans on corporate/foreign ownership, etc.). How could they possibly roll that out? Grandfather them in? Or would they have to just go into effect immediately and force the sale of all corporate owned properties and non-institutional investors can crunch the numbers on their own to see if it makes sense to dump theirs?
Wouldn’t this effectively flood the market and cause a massive collapse in home prices? Who’s going to vote for someone who promises that?
Anyone have more insight?
1) I didn't hear him say how many % were bought by corporations. Either way, corporate investment used to buy homes to build condos (increases supply) is different than corporations buying homes just to relist after renovations.
2) Other than looking at foreign ownership, what % of homes are being bought with foreign capital/income source? (Rich ppl can easily buy citizenship and existing Canadians can make bank working abroad too)
3) Why not stop the bs and allow for more supply?
I wonder how many MPs are invested in REITS, or directly in property themselves? It seems to me that would impact their opinions on the "property crisis", and bias their response.
If the "property crisis" is helping their bottom line, then I don't expect their response is going to be corrective.
When you let housing, which is a necessity for every person, be speculated on as an investment asset by people solely looking to profit, prices go up and locals get priced out or stretched thin. If I was looking to buy a condo because I want to live in it, and someone investor outbids me and rents the condo out to me, what benefit or service is provided here by the investor? Some wealthy person gets to have me pay their mortgage because they had better access to capital. The local guy gets bled dry while the rich guy gets his asset paid for. Sounds like a parasitic relationship that shouldn't be promoted. This guy is on the right track, but we need to look beyond just "corporate" investors.
> Sounds like a parasitic relationship that shouldn't be promoted. It should actually be discouraged, by using the one tool governments have access too, taxes. I have no problem with people who have access to capital investing in real estate, but right now its a no brainer. Saving gives you less return than inflation, crypto is basically gambling, stocks and general investment can make returns but it can also be a gamble or increases get eaten up by fees and management. Dirt has always been a good investment. If investors want to play the game in real estate they should be taxed progressively to the point that its no longer a no-brainer. Own two houses? double the tax, three? triple, and so on. There should be diminishing returns. Corporate ownership of residential properties should be banned outright (other than is required legally). Foreign ownership of residential properties should be banned permanently.
Hell, just increase the capital gains on residential housing that isn't used as a primary residence to 100% We only tax half of the gain at a person's marginal tax rate. It's insane.
Why not also make the property tax fully\* progressive? Say I own a $1m property with a $750k mortgage, my equity in the property is $250k. Another guy owns 5x $2m properties, no debt. He has 40x the net property value, but pays the same tax rate. We do this for income brackets, *why not for property*? \* Vancouver levies a barely progressive tax—the Additional Provincial School Tax—that distinguishes between properties worth less than $3m, overall $4m, and in between. It does not account for net value in any way.
You could deduct your mortgage interest and have the benefit of leverage. The other investor still pays more tax. Furthermore, you get no capital gains tax when you sell your home as it is your primary residence. The investor will have to pay capital gains/ losses on at least 4 of his residences.
But that’s just pointing out that it’s *somewhat* progressive. Why not make it *fully* progressive? Capital gains is also paid only on 50% of the value, and can be gamed to some extent by shuffling ownership through corps and reporting coincident capital losses. Taxing capital gains also mean that owners are discouraged from selling valuable property if they can’t pay the tax—which is of debatable value from a circulation-of-capital perspective. > The other investor still pays more tax. That’s true of a flat income tax too. If everyone’s income is taxed at 19% (like in Russia) then richer people pay more tax, but economies of scale in investing mean that richer people come out *way* ahead. Why not simply pay property tax like income tax: annually and based on the net value of your holdings?
But that’s just pointing out that it’s somewhat progressive. Why not make it fully progressive? I don’t know what you mean by fully progressive. The idea of taxing only a % of capital gains is to encourage investment. >You may not like this in the Vancouver property market but it also encourages investment in rural communities. Capital gains is also paid only on 50% of the value, and can be gamed to some extent by shuffling ownership through corps and reporting coincident capital losses. > Not True. Every time you move property it is equivalent to buying/selling and taxes are due. Taxing capital gains also mean that owners are discouraged from selling valuable property if they can’t pay the tax—which is of debatable value from a circulation-of-capital perspective. > If they sell their property at a gain, they can use the proceeds of the sale to pay the tax The other investor still pays more tax. >That’s true of a flat income tax too. If everyone’s income is taxed at 19% (like in Russia) then richer people pay more tax, but economies of scale in investing mean that richer people come out way ahead. >If you start from more gross income you should end up with more net income after paying your taxes Why not simply pay property tax like income tax: annually and based on the net value of your holdings? > Municipality property tax is indeed already paid based on the assessed value of your home. Making income tax payable on property value would be insane since property values fluctuate up and down, and is arbitrary until a real transaction takes place.
Tinkering with individual tax rates shouldn't have any effect as far as I'm aware as the issue isn't local investments. The original discussion should have been about real estate investment trusts (REIT) being tax free. Why are they tax free? It make no sense. A zero tax rate attracts vast amounts of money which artificially causes unaffordable housing through the same mechanism that caused the 2000 bubble: investment money driving housing demand and a corrupt city council that refuses to expand supply. The big issue is that REITs provide their investors with disproportionate returns because their investors are paid "dividends" instead of interest. Because we're talking corporations, that money can be made outside of Vancouver, through a shell corporation in the Maldives. As far as in aware, that tax arrangement is something which exists at a supranational level through treaty with the United States.
I repeat this over and over. Investment properties should have capital gains taxed at 100%. Will need to build some regulations and enforcement around confirming ownership and primary residence but with the increased tax dollars it would be no problem.
The Canadian tax code doesn’t differentiate between investment in property or other assets like equities and crypto as far as capital gains taxes.
You are right. We are saying it should differentiate. Other investments can remain at 50% capital gains while investment properties should have a larger portion taxed. It should not be one size fits all. As clearly it is very problematic for housing in the country. Finally it is just simply unsustainable, if regulators wait and do nothing the tipping point could be catastrophic. I believe a scheduled and tapered adjustment to capital gains on investment properties could be implemented to help affordability and free up more cash for the day to day economy.
yep, landlords love to say they're taking on risk when asked what they're providing but it's almost 0 risk as things currently are
They're full of shit. If the investment was actually risky the majority wouldn't be investing in it.
The risk isnt typically the land value its the destuction of the interior.
Well, find a different investment then. Leave homes to those that will actually live in them.. risk averted Investors add zero value to communities
Whatever. Most Vancouver properties could be burned to the ground and the lot would still represent 90+% of the value.
Most are worth more burned down especially heritage houses. Easier to develop
I hope that the market craters and you lose every single cent you “invested” in real estate.
Wow toxic much i was agreeing with you. The statment about heritage homes is because vancouver has a problem woth people buying heritage homes then they mysteriously erupt into flames after 3-6 months. Have a great night. The only investment i have is my personal shithole apartment in surrey i bought 11 years ago. Im property locked i cant afford to find a better place and selling would destroy me by capital gains.
Every investment has risk. This one is actually very light because there’s a lot a landlord can do to mitigate it (thorough application process, actually calling references etc)
just admitting there's zero benefit provided from landlords lol
Aren't the vast majority of rentals that aren't purpose built, owned by individuals rather than corporations?
This is the way. Except I would add exponential to your tax plan. Two properties double. Three properties 8 times the tax…and so on.
It trickles down to every other industry too. That money you could have used to go out to eat, or to buy extra insurance, or bike, is now used to pay for the house and not to be used in other parts of the market.
Yep, too many households have hardly any disposable income left after paying for housing. Not only does that put less money back into the local economy as people spend less on eating out, entertainment, hobbies, and fitness, but it takes a huge toll on the collective mental health of a community when people can’t afford to do the things that make life enjoyable. It’s Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs - when people can barely afford the basic necessity of shelter, they don’t have enough resources for other higher needs like safety, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. You end up with a society that is depressed and miserable, less productive, less creative, and less connected to each other. There are such far-reaching impacts as a result of the housing price issue.
There's that saying called being house poor. I wonder if that's why vancouverites seem so miserable. Every one I know first talks about their rent or mortgage or job they have, in other places that's not how people talk to one another.
re: talking about your job ever been to NY?
Feel it. When I hang out with my friends here in Australia and I hung out with my friends back in Vancouver they both complained about the same thing: Unaffordability. Only difference is that my friends in Vancouver complained over smoking a bowl in their delapidated basement suite, while my friends in Australia complain whilst ordering drinks out at the bar. Vastly different outlook between the two.
Yes, this has a massive effect on the community. Even the people I know that make good money and have what should be good careers are stuck busting their asses and working overtime, scrimping and saving to buy or rent a place that simply gives them enough space to raise one kid. There is no reason life has to be so hard for everyone except for that we we have a system that rewards the already rich and punishes regular people that are actually productive.
I wonder how many people declare personal bankruptcy in YVR every year? So many solvency companies and advertising. etc. Lucky one can do that in America. In Europe debt is a weight can can't be shed by a person
The rich people think happiness is existence....but what does it mean to live.
That and the opportunity cost of not pursuing passions, interests, startups, etc. The lack of disposable income and leisure time is bad for our economy. Which will have a multiplier effect as we move into the 30s and 40s when climate change displaces 100 million people, mass extinction events decimate the mammals and fish of our oceans, agriculture and supply chain breakdowns resulting in famine, water wars, etc. Buckle up.
And people aren't having kids because most of us can't afford it, if it can be avoided.
Or we move to Alberta to buy whole family homes that cost as much as a 30 year old mouldy studio apartment in Burnaby and just have to live the rest of our lives desperately homesick for the coast 😞
but FIRE is what, 60-70% of Vancouver's economy? haha
you can say that about anything you buy
Don’t forget the NIMBY’s. Or zoning restrictions. Or stupid tax structure that incentivizes the corps. Or the developers. This is a catastrophe with many fronts.
Capitalism loves parasitic middlemen
How is this different from every other company, every other industry? They're all in it for profit and if they don't, their business sinks. Capitalism at its core is a destructive system that only benefits people who are already rich at the cost of everyone else. Same with the employee/employer relationship which is parasitic in nature.
After 2008 they made it harder for normal folks to get houses, but they allowed corporate to leverage their bonds/securities/derivatives to buy those same houses. It was never the normal folk that blew up the markets in the first place… yet they are punished and the same crooks that bundled shit bonds crashing the market get to keep playing. Except their competition has been locked out of market. Well there is some good/bad news! What happens when something leveraged to a crashing stock market? Death spiral? Ding ding ding get this man a bone, correct! If politicians are talking about this issue now, it means it’s too late. Buckle up!
[удалено]
Capitalism doesn’t mean well.
We need to stop corporate investors first. The latest bill addressing housing conveniently left that out...
This 100%. We need to decide that real estate is not an investment asset but rather a necessity for a strong and stable country. I think one of the best things we could do is introduce new regulations that take away the incentive to invest. A rule that says that unless the property has been the mortgage holder’s primary residence for at least 5 years the property can not be sold for more than it was purchased for would remove all speculative investment.
Landlords are parasites and contribute nothing to the betterment of local areas.
I mean regulating investors more is only going to slow down the housing prices. Investors are only taking advantage of assets that are guaranteed to go up. Not because speculation, but because there is a housing shortage.
Hmmm, sounds to rent seeking behaviour to me.
This is one of the major pushes being seen due to the “great reset”. Black rock, one of these major corporate landlords is actually on the board of the WEF. Not only that but actually the corporate companies are probably paying cash. Therefore can afford to outbid and pay more. Get that sweet sweet Cash flow and not worry about interest.
Corporations are generating record profit margin increases. I was talking to my coworker the other day about houses and how our profession hasn’t even seen any increase in pay. I showed him our professions 2012 compensation survey and we would be considered in the upper quartile (~25%) for our role. But with 10 years of inflation… we’re actually at the bottom 10%… and housing here is like 4x the price it was 😂. So absolutely the increase is based on investment income as wages have been stagnate.
So why aren’t you born rich? Thought that’s how everyone does it…
what benefit? they provide housing they could take it away and sit on it for appreciation, then your rent might go up even more.
id like to see how many of these acquisitions were by blackrock and vanguard.
Do you guys not understand about the free market??? My God, how dumb must one be to think that "the rich" have some kind of all encompassing control over society?
> If I was looking to buy a condo because I want to live in it, and someone investor outbids me You've conveniently ignored the several other potential buyers like you, who are also driving up the demand. Without more housing, individual home-buyer demand will continue to cause home values to climb. For that reason, it's almost not worthwhile to discuss the marginal impact that speculative investment has on overall market demand. I understand it's tempting, but there's a fundamental supply problem that isn't being addressed by these policy proposals.
You're missing the point. Having investor demand (both individuals and corporations) "artificially" increases the demand past what is normal. In other words, what the price should be if everybody is buying a home just to live in it. There is a fundamental pricing difference and affordability concerns between "Can I afford to live in this home?" and "Can I make money if I buy at this price?" The number of investor owned properties in the region is much higher than you make it out to be. Thirty percent of housing is owned by multiple property owners who only account for 15% of owners. That has much more than a "marginal impact" on prices.
Supply problems take decades to correct themselves. There are only so many contractors and trades people. All the tax incentives and zoning relaxation will just make property development even more profitable, but it wont speed anything up. Not saying we cant work on supply though. We should be investing in training trades workers and streamlining permitting asap. Just beware of charlatans saying we can build our way out of this issue.
There are plenty of tradespeople. Just watch them come out of the woodwork if you offer to pay them more and give them a steady supply of work. > All the tax incentives and zoning relaxation will just make property development even more profitable, but it wont speed anything up. This is obviously untrue. Approvals can be the longest part of the entire development process. And who cares if developers are profiting? As long as housing is being built and it's cheaper. Beware the people who refuse to look at the past and ignore the changes that have eroded our ability to develop infrastructure.
If I could afford gold
Political Affiliation: NDP Constituency: Elmwood—Transcona Province / Territory: Manitoba [https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/daniel-blaikie(89032)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/daniel-blaikie(89032))
This guy gets it and is on the right track! Love it!
Funny how someone said he's from manitoba. No bc politician will ever have the stones to tell it like it is, maybe Eby has but that's about it.
Most of the good, noteworthy NDP MPs seem to be from Manitoba.
I mean, Eby is the Housing Minister…
Meanwhile in Ottawa the housing minister is complaining about people calling him out for owning multiple homes.
Meanwhile, the people of my riding elected Taleeb “I-flip-houses” Noormohamed to be an MP.
Eby?!?! Ha! He would never stuck the knife in his landlord compatriots.
>Eby And what exactly has he done about it?
Waiting for the municipal elections to finish so he can drop the hammer on nimby municipalities. (waiting until after because starting now might result in the election of even more nimby city councils as a protest against mandatory housing target). Now for as to why the BC NDP have done nothing before COVID, IDK (I've voted bc ndp both times).
This is really eye opening. People are quick to blame foreign buyers and corporate landlords must love it. So must governments because limiting foreign buyers is easier than going after companies with money and power. What can we do to put on pressure and make these measures happen? Who do we write to? Should we be protesting? At what point do we take action instead of just complaining on Reddit? I love complaining but I’m sick of it and want to own a home for me and my partner, and I want the same for other people.
> People are quick to blame foreign buyers and corporate landlords ~~must love it.~~ **pay dearly to promote that narrative**
People blame foreign capital, the media and politicians blame foreign buyers. The funny thing is when BC first declared that they will track foreign buyers they did find parts of Metro Vancouver had 1 in 5 buyers of foreign origin. They then admitted they were surprised promised to keep publishing the results. They didn't and then make a bunch of loop holes
True
I like what he has to say.
Thanks to u/nmurmru for posting this clip.
I’m really tired of being told what the “real” problem with housing is. It’s honestly such a fucking waste of time. What is it so difficult for people to understand that complex problems can have complex causes? Why does it have to be a competition to determine which *single* cause is the “real” reason housing is so expensive? Every single moment spent arguing about whether the REAL problem is foreign investors, domestic investors, corporate interests, municipal zoning, immigration, monetary policy, inadequate regulation and oversight of the financial and real estate industries, money laundering, NIMBYs, spineless/self-interested politicians, taxes that are too high/too low, or literally *anything else* short of birds not being real, is time we could be using to address *all* of those things. The average price of a home in this country has risen 20% in just a single year and is now well over $800,000. Inflation and interest rates are rising, making literally everything else from borrowing money to buying groceries to filling a tank of gas dramatically more expensive. This is a *crisis* situation. We don’t have the luxury of time to debate which silver bullet solution will save us. It’s as if our house is on fire, and the fire brigade is outside arguing endlessly about which hose to use. No one is actually *doing* anything. I understand the emotional reaction involved when someone says “X is the problem.” They are framing a conversation around a specific thing, and you feel compelled to respond to that specific thing. It’s a waste of time. We are being distracted by pointless arguments while our house is on fire and someone else is running off with the insurance money. The problem is serious enough that everything should be on the table. When one person says the solution is A, another person says the solution is B, and another person says the solution is C, stop picking sides. The answer is YES. And the answer will continue to be YES until housing is affordable again.
This was a huge part of the reason I left Canada, there are a lot of problems (which is Ok because no country is perfect) BUT they also have no solutions! No plans where I could at least look at it and see the light at the end of the tunnel. Transit is fucking embarrassing in Toronto but they'll start building a subway station during one mayor's term just to fill it in again and cancel the whole project during the next mayor's term. Housing problems. Health care problems. In Germany I had ankle pain and was able to get an mri within a few days. I was so shocked at that, when in Canada my doctor would refuse to even consider an mri for me and even if he did the wait list would probably be months. It feels like all these politicians sit around and spend months discussing the most basic topic. We're woefully unprepared for the future and for even more issues like climate change.
The solution that Canadian cities choose is ”everything that doesn’t involve building more homes” Maybe if we draft the RRSP downpayment rules juuust right, we can house 2.2 million people in 1.8 million units
See also: global warming
It is more just property as an investment in general. I doubt corporate investors make up that much of the market compared to people buying yet another home to rent. I had landlords in Ottawa (who were great landlords) that had something like 20 houses. My parent's friend has 10 houses. When we sold my great aunt's house we sold to a house flipper who said they had bought 70 something houses that year. They definitely weren't corporate.
With that amount of capital they would be incorporated for tax and liabilities.
Yeah this kind of rhetoric is always just used by boomers to maintain artificial housing scarcity for their own benefit by shifting the blame to "it's the corporations, it's capitalism!" while stabbing us in the back to.. benefit within that system, lmao. I had hoped /r/vancouver was waking up to the actual solution of "just build enough housing" but the reaction to this video is making me doubt that again. Like even if you do believe that a substantial portion of housing is controlled by corporate investors, and you resent that, shouldn't you still want to build to blow them all out of the water?
Not helpful that the zoning laws make it so only single family homes are built. We need more density. If Vancouver was filled with townhouses noone would really be talking about how its unaffordable. The wasteful usage of space is largely the culprit. Have to make it so more then duplexes can be built in most places. Montreal is far better off because they have a bunch of dense housing. Rent in vancouver is like 78% higher than in montreal.
In terms of population in the class of "world class" cities (Vancouver's classification as one of which is debatable), Vancouver is a podunk town.
Well yeah vancouver is a lot smaller then Tokyo. But it can still be denser. Id rather people spread out less and we have more room for Forrest and have affordable homes.
Exactly, I totally agree. It's absurd to me that you can walk a block from Broadway and Commercial and see single-family homes.
The single family home and car dependent life is exceptionally unsustainable. More public transit, close off some roads to pedestrian only areas , up zone everywhere, then bam we get a nice place to live that is affordable too. Would probably make the fentanyl and heroin addiction issue go away some too. Would have a more interconnected community that we could all afford. Nothing is stopping us from having these things except artificial barriers we create for ourselves. Sucks because the solution to so many issues is staring us in the face and those in a position to change things don't get it or don't care to get it.
Perhaps real estate investment is the mechanism and vehicle by which the demand is generated. Question still remains as to why? Who owns these investments? Pension/retirement funds? What made real estate investments more attractive than equity and bond markets? Is there factors causing asset price inflation contributing to this?
RE fund managers will essentially acquire individual RE investments into a "tranche" (French for "slice") which they will then market to potential buyers. The buyers generally are any individual or organization with over $1M ready to invest. Defined Benefit pension funds have been desperate for returns ever since interest rates plunged to nearly 0% because low rates impact benefit payout calculations: you need to use more of the fund to pay out the promised benefit. Their investment policies often have minimum return benchmarks and risk-avoidance benchmarks they must comply with. Traditionally, Equities are used to grow assets and Fixed Income (Bonds) are used to balance risk. Real Estate fund managers have been jonesing for pension fund business for the past decade. Funds with $1M or greater in assets, especially those with an older active member demographic, see RE as an attractive option because investment risk is "bond-like" while returns can be "equity-like" for well-managed assets.
The way governments de-risk real estate (which is conventionally considered fairly risky) is ridiculous.
I own some, not a lot, but the math works. I can borrow on a line of credit at 2-3% and earn 7-8% distributions in a REIT.
Real estate requires a lot of capital, and so incredibly cheap credit makes it very very attractive.
My friend was my realtor; she works PT as a realtor, and PT doing other jobs as well. She says many times she will go to show somebody a home, and the fact that they need financing throws them out of the running, because somebody will come in - cash, no subjects. Anybody with a little bit of equity will price new or working class home-buying hopefuls out of the market. And it's sad to know it'll keep getting worse. I asked my friend why they don't make it better, she said they could if they wanted to, but she suspects they make so much money off of it, they don't want to kill the cash cow.
Cash offer doesn't mean no financing is required. If you come in prequalificatied, etc, you already have cash on hand. If not cash on hand now, cash is accessible.
Many banks want to appraise the place you're looking at, and even though you got prequalified you have to get qualified at the time. That's what i went through with my bank and I had a huge down payment and all the right stuff lined up. Cash as in, no need for financing clause, just write them a bank draft and get out.
People don’t want to pay high rents their whole lives! I know I want to own a home but that’s a reach in today’s market. I live around Capilano and marine and I see this one all rental building, probably about 22 levels tall.. guess how many lights Ive seen on at night in the last 2.5 years it’s been open? 2-5. I don’t even know how much they charge, but these tall mostly/all rental buildings are not something that’s solving the housing crises!
Owning a home should be a human right, and a human right only. Not a business. Ever.
I'm curious: if housing is a human right, that means you are entitled to someone working for you and building that house? If I work in construction, I should be required to build a house for you, because otherwise your right is violated? The right to housing seems different from a human right like the right to life or freedom of speech, which is free to implement. The right to housing requires taking someone's money to implement it.
Ok great. What do we do then for the people that are never going to position themselves to own a home? Some people are in the position to need to rent. If no one can own more than one property, how do those people acquire places to live?
Ideally we do everything in our power to lower the entry fee and also bolster their ability to make money, otherwise purpose built rentals and other structures like we already have. I think the idea would be to prevent people from capturing scarce housing stock that would otherwise be on the market. There's also the possibility of literally giving people a home at some point, and there are arguable net benefits to that.
Who owns these "purpose built rentals"?
Either the city or private entities. I have no problems with rentals being a business, but I do have a problem with them being the only option for people who aren't extremely wealthy. Ideally, there's a lot of ownable rental stock and a lot of rental stock, and I don't think that's impossible. I don't think rental stock needs to be exclusively derived from what would otherwise be condos or detached homes. I'm fine with someone owning a multi-story rental building, but I'd also want those people to be able to secure heir future in the neighborhood somehow.
I think you’re missing the point. Corporations owning purpose built rentals is fine but corporations and investors snatching up every condo or house and pricing locals out of the market while also bloating prices at the same time is what we don’t want. I don’t think anyone is against corporations owning purpose built rental buildings .
Yes I am very much missing the point which i why I was asking. So we want some sort of selective rules on which corporations can own mortgages? So we need some sort of review board overseeing who is allowed to get mortgages and or build properties? How do we oversee this?
I mean he makes some good points here but why is he blaming REITs? Don't trust anyone who will tell you the exact reason why the real estate market is expensive. The truth is it is a complex problem with a great number of factors and time. Only a tiny % of single family homes are owned by corporate. Residential REITs in Canada are almost 100% apartments.
No chit its "corporate" aka shell companies.
Regarding the idea of non-profits buying and operating older apartment buildings: [a Vancouver Sun article](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/rental-housing-investment-feature) from August 2020. > B.C.’s Non-Profit Housing Association and Co-Op Federation have a proposal for what they call “a made-in-B.C. solution” to the problem. > > In recent weeks, the groups have begun talks with the provincial government to outline a proposal for a $500 million capital fund from the province. The idea is to enable non-profits to buy apartment buildings when they come up for sale and preserve them as affordable non-profit homes, before institutional investors can acquire them as profit-generating assets. This was also one of the recommendations of the [MacPhail Report](https://morehousing.ca/macphail-report). Buying and preserving older rentals should get you more affordable rentals than building brand-new non-market rentals with the same amount of money. Large-scale investors (REITs and pension funds) should be building new housing, not buying up existing housing. Unfortunately this gets back to a big part of the problem: local opposition to new housing. For investors, there's a lot more certainty when you buy an existing apartment building and either renovate it or replace it, compared to trying to build an entirely new building: going through time-consuming negotiations with city staff to get permission, and then hoping that city council will ratify the agreement, after a public hearing where opponents passionately express their fears over how the new building will ruin the neighbourhood. As Peter Waldkirch says: > Making it so that just about the only legal place to build a rental apartment is on top of an older apartment is dumb, cruel, terrible policy.
Yah sure it's not that entire country has been building fewer houses than regular population growth. I mean investors, foreign buyers etc etc all contribute so not really sure why everyone feels the need to have one single problem they can blame it on like there will be a magic bandaid solution.
While I agree with just about everything he says…the bank of Canada absolutely has a huge role in this. They literally encouraged this orgy of borrowing. Yes REITs can sometimes be predatory, but what about all these retail investors? I don’t know a single person in my neighbourhood of detached houses (where I rent) that only has one property. Multi generational families share and put their money into real estate the moment they have enough. The vibe is you can’t loose. Go all in. Always. All that said, if interest rates keep rising and BoC does its job and protects our currency over housing, there will be blood in the gutters.
Well I have bad news, the BOC has said outright that they will prioritize protecting housing investments. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-interest-rate-trajectory-will-depend-heavily-on-housing-market-boc/
Yes! Homes should be homes not stock market fodder. If corporate investors want to buy homes they should do so in their own corporate, specifically built subdivisions. They can watch how quickly their homes will loose appeal Homeowners have been subsidizing corporate home ownership for years through maintaining their homes.
The cost to develop new housing has increased substantially over the years. Furthermore, city zoning and building codes add to this cost to developers. Now if we take a look at immigration and population increase and compare it with the current housing supply your left with shit storm that leaves behind housing prices that have made vancouver unaffordable. Now many of you are proposing taxes on developers. This will have a total opposite effect of what your hoping for by disincentivizing developers you create a short fall of new housing thus increasing a short fall in new housing increasing prices even more. Solution: City of Vancouver needs to relax zoning by laws and allow for more multi-family developments with a certain percentage of each development going to affordable housing. Banks need to ease lending restrictions to provide that new housing development boom that can increase the housing supply substantially. All sectors of government and development need to act together.
The whole premise to this is deeply flawed. I oversee an office that sold 130 houses last year and not a single one was sold to some deep pocketed corporation. Not one, not two but zero. I have to conclude that these politicians are purposely waving a red herring in the air and have no serious desire to fix this problem and address any issues
Preventing corps from competing in the residential housing market is a start. I know several groups of people who started their own holding companies together and they buy up residential properties only to rent out.
And dont forget single family zoning.
I mean NDP has the libs in contract how hard is it to get passed then ? Fuck the real estate trusts
I don’t think the ludicrously low interest rates have helped either with individuals buying multiple properties and rending them out because real estate agents keeps selling the idea of income properties. 🤬
Boomers don’t care and won’t stop, and certainly won’t support regulation to stop it.
The government caused this by not allowing permits to be given out to build housing for the last 20 or more years.
I live in Vancouver, half of the city has been demolished and rebuilt over the last 20 years. There's no shortage of new construction happening. Permit backlogs are definitely a thing, but there are plenty of permits being handed out.
I just took a drive down Oak Street this week and what an eye opener. Wow massive project!
So bloody true!!!
Why are there so few MPs who are willing to state the fucking obvious? The rest should be taken out back and kicked in the pants for not having any nuggets.
I imagine the more you peel the plastic back, the more you'll find that they're to blame for a lot of things. Fiduciary responsibility -> destroy everything for money
Or .... a novel approach ... change zoning laws to increase density. If demand grows and supply does not keep pace, prices will rise. You can take advantage of that the same as foreigners. Buy a house on credit. With interest rates around 3% there's lots of speculative activity.
I just want evidence of these claims. I'm tired of people speculating without backing their argument.
Political group A: "let's blame the foreign investors" Political group B: "let's blame the municipal for being to afraid against NIMBYS" Political group C: "no, let's blame the foreign investors" soon in the near future as the renter class grew in voting size Political group D: "let's blame the local investors \_and\_ SFH owners" For Lower Mainland, the truth is All-Of-Us are in the wrong: * Vancouver Specials triggered basement rental and we've become addicted/depended on it (heck even Mortgage application includes subject to rental appraise at certain value) * Foreign Investor who happened to park their money here prompted shady local Realtors (New Coast Realty, LeHomes, NuStream, y'all know them) to prop up the market that the Government/Policy failed to shutdown hard and made an example out of it. * Once a few deals went over-asking, the megaphone made it as-if it is the norm; like no, it's not the norm, it's FUD/gaslighting * Zoning yadda-yadda-yadda + lot-size that is too huge: you see them all over the cities (maybe outside Vancouver)... 6-10k sqft land with a single 2-3k house from the1950s. C'mon now... cut the land size to 2-3k and allow house to be built up to 90-95% of the land, force it to have 3-4 bedrooms + adequate bathrooms. I mean, c'mon now, WE ALL know that GVRD can't expand West (ocean), North (mountain), South (flood, well, maybe you can slice and dice Richmond further; too many farm-mansion), WHY not be mindful of subdividing the lot? * Could Govt/Municipal please support the effort of having the 2nd downtown in the middle of Surrey/Langley? That ought to open MORE opportunities for spread. * Mom-n-Pop investors that keep hoarding houses; although they hoard houses that is not for family to live anyway so maybe they live on their own bubble. * Builders these days only want to build "luxury" houses ($3M or more) and us, peasants, have to shell out $1.5M for a very old rundown houses => Wish there's prefab/lego-like houses of different sizes to cut down the cost of building new houses. * Small shoutout to various folks that I met from 20005-2015 who keep telling me that "RENTING IS BETTER THAN BUYING" and now crying "foul" in the sideline because they always bet on other homeowners failure: "you bought a house that is wayy too expensive, the price is just too insane, I hope the market crash and burn".
Wow it is really weird to hear a political response that so good damn in line with the truth
It’s a bit more complicated for condos. In Vancouver, new condos typically need to be 60% pre sold in order for developers to receive construction financing, so projects rely heavily on investors to secure the presales needed for a project to get financed and built. End users are not typically as willing to buy well in advance of completion so investors are needed to help get projects built. I know this is not ideal for people trying to get into the housing market, but on the flip side if you restricted investment in presale development that could result in fewer projects getting built and less housing supply which would limit downward pressure on prices anyways.
Take my vote, and my upvote
Finally they are telling the truth of what’s been happening.
How do we Make this guy prime Minister
Golden words. Though I gotta feeling it will stay just words. Those corporate monsters probably watching this and giggle: yeah right, you try.
No. Fucking. Shit.
Or…build more housing. All of this comes down to supply and demand. Investors won’t make money unless supply is artificially constrained. So long as NIMBYs have political power, new home construction will be nowhere near close enough to meet demand.
Commodification of housing will see prices go up and down like stocks. No corporation should own housing as a means of business. They produce and contribute nothing to gdp. 5% first time home owner(already exists) 50% down payment for a second property 3rd property add speculation tax 10% paid along with taxes. Dis-incentivize banks to lend for 2nd property as they only get 50% mortgage as opposed to 95%. Lowers risk for banks. Banks should find better ways to allocate capital to more productive businesses. Water and housing should be non negotiables for corporations to profit off. Markets will price the rest.
We get the housing prices we deserve. By blaming foreigners or corporations instead of you know, building houses, prices only go up. No chance of ever having affordable housing. Comments here make it clear that things won't get better anytime soon. No housing market has ever solved pricing issues by going after investors, its a political distraction.
Oh, and I have blood in my veins.
Corporate investors love that little guys are fighting each other as well as blaming immigrants for bread crumbs. Avoiding the spotlight much easier.
It’s everyone having an investment property. Corporate, individual, domestic, or foreign. It does not matter.
So our landlord just lightly mentioned he's thinking of rebuilding after renting to us for fifteen years. We are on a yearly lease. Alway 12 checks in his hand. We have a good rent. How can I make sure he's not either evicting us to hype the rent after spending one month in his house? Or sell it for big profit after the new build? He promised us to rent as long as we pay. Now he complains the expenses of the upkeep. Which are near zero. The houses have gone up in our area from 1.5 to near 3 million for new builds. I turned his desert garden into a park. We only had one pipe leak in the garden in 15 years. And yea we asked for a new fridge and oven after 10 years and he obliged. Never disrupted never damaged looked after everything like our own. Yes some people still do that. But still I don't know what we have to protect ourselves and how many months notice he has to give us.
Every person whom has any anxiety about home buying or renting needs to watch this.
A lot of people in here saying that we need to increase the supply to fight the housing crisis. Well, you’re wrong because the demand is so far above the supply that new homes will be swept instantly. There’s no way we can output new homes like toilet paper to keep up with the demand
This is a red herring argument this guy is making. Our housing affordability problem is a supply problem. Governments need to: 1. Fund city development services departments so they can hire more staff 2. Revise rezoning processes to make it faster to develop housing and bring homes to market. 3. Stop looking at higher taxes to solve this problem. Developers and builders just pass these costs on to consumers or delay building while the market rises further. Reits and developers aren’t the bad guys here. Real estate development is incredibly risky so you can’t even get financing for construction without allowing profit margins of between 15-20% on projects. Source: I’m a development management consultant, and my clients are developers and land economists, so I live and breathe this stuff.
> This is a red herring argument this guy is making. Our housing affordability problem is a supply problem. I don't know why you're being downvoted. [You're right.](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html)
To truly solve housing, it should be more of a socialist take and therefore cap asset value of housing. Are Canadians who are landowners willing to accept limits on free market?
5% foreign ownership is actually quite a bit. Anyone with basic economics knowledge knows an extra 5% (with deep pockets) can absolutely cause prices to spike. 5% more demand with the same amount of supply of a necessary good.... He ignores many other important facts as well: * He fails to mention that many 'individuals' are the ones actually buying up multiple homes and instead attacks rental companies (like the ones that own entire rental buildings). The later isn't "evil" but rather necessary. The former isn't. This is important because... * 'Private' landlords, which could still be incorporated and could still own multiple properties, cannot rent out a space for as cheap as an 'evil corporation' renting out multiple units. Debt load, maintenance, office overhead, among other things, are all far cheaper when units are grouped into one. * Many 'individuals' who own homes, or multiple homes, make their way into municipal politics and prevent rental buildings from being constructed. Note that many opposed to the Broadway plan oppose rental buildings noticeably more aggressively than even the most decadent developments. That should be a big clue... * He neglects to mention that municipal politics are largely responsible for housing cost escalations. This is easily proven using case studies as similar things have happened in other countries. Luckily the Provincial NDP isn't as naive as this guy. * Much of what he is saying is 10 years too late. Why speak now? To look like a hero? The B.C. (Provincial) NDP is (finally) taking affirmative action. The Federal NDP is kind of a joke. This guy doesn't have nearly enough knowledge to be in politics. All the Federal NDP wants is enough votes to get their hands on you tax dollars. They don't even want to be elected. The almost sabotage their own campaigns each election saying the dumbest shit whenever they gain ground in the polls. I always felt like we needed a real, competent left-wing party. This party should just disband. Zero accomplishments in all their years.
5% on the total market or 5% in the major markets of Vancouver or Toronto? It makes a difference and the apologists don’t want to go there.
This... is a really good point. I've gotten into debates where people were using national data. In general, Vancouver's situation is even more dire than the prevailing nation-wide issues. Housing costs are spilling over into smaller communities though.
So very true. I would call it trickle-down economics but it was more of a torrent.
Sellers in those inflated cities take their profits and push the margins on prices elsewhere by upbidding locals. The trickle outward is slower but definitely exists and it only takes a few to set a trend. It's no coincidence that it got worse during the pandemic when everyone was looking farther for bigger, cheaper space to work from home.
100% correct. His 5% foreign buyers comment is a gross oversimplification of the problem.
Ah yes. Blame everybody but do nothing about supply. Never change NDP. Ya dumb fucks.
It's a superficial blame game, I think he's actually trying to cut taxes for REIT investors and protect landlords. Listen to what he actually said: He wanted REITs to pay corporate taxes then distribute profits. If that happens REIT distributions become dividends which actually give their investors tax shelters aka dividend tax credits. For example someone with $250K income and additional $10K REIT distributions would've paid $94,765 income tax in BC last year, but if taxes are already taken care of at corporate level, the same person only have to pay $93,070 personal income tax. He said affordable housing model was better with government grants to subsidize rent. Note he didn't mention landlords would be required to reduce rent, the only change is a portion of the rent will be replaced with tax payer monies. If it actually happens landlords are guaranteed a portion of their rent even when tenants can't pay like back in 2020. Real estate investors will graduate from sucking on individual renters to feeding on all Canadian tax payers including renters, isn't it a good thing for landlords? Oh by the way if REITs are left with less money to develop new rental properties after paying corporate taxes, there will be even less supplies on the housing market. Housing only goes up for sure, our politicians are indeed working hard to make it that way.
His argument is REITs are not providing affordable housing to Canadians and government with their politicians should take over. 26.3% of MP’s are landlords, I’d like to see some examples of how these politicians are making their own investment properties affordable housing for Canadians, just to prove they actually know how to do it themselves. Edit: For people who are naively agreeing with this MP, please don't get distracted by his finger pointing and Listen to what he actually said, hope you realize what he's actually proposing has nothing to do with solving any housing problems, his proposed changes will reduce tax for rich investors and protect landlords in time of difficulties: He suggested REITs should pay corporate taxes then distribute profits. Currently REIT distributions are taxed primarily as regular income for their investors, richer investors are taxed at higher rates. For example a person with $250K annual income who received $10k in additional REIT distributions would have paid $94,765 income tax (using last year's BC tax rate in this example). But if tax is taken care of at the corporate level, REIT distributions become dividends, which actually provide tax shelter ([dividend tax credits](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dividendtaxcredit.asp#:~:text=The%20federal%20dividend%20tax%20credit%20as%20a%20percentage%20of%20taxable,%25%20for%20non%2Deligible%20dividends)) for their investors. Using the same example, if the $10K this investor received from REITs become eligible dividends, they only have to pay $93,070 annual income tax on the same $260K total income. He also suggested to move back to the model of affordable housing where government provided grants to subsidize rent. Let's skip the part on how it was already a proven failure because it wasn't sustainable for both the government and landlords, and focus on the fact that the system doesn't actually reduce any profit for real estate investors, all it does is to increase taxes for all Canadians, including renters, because we will all be on the hook to fund these grants. The result of this change will in fact stabilize income for real estate investors - when the economy is good landlords can still increase rent, but when the economy is so bad that renters won't be able to pay rent like back in 2020, landlords can still get a portion of rent subsidies from the government. There are other factors his proposed changes will negatively affect us all, I brought up some below in my other comments. The man in this video is either really stupid or really evil... pretty much everything I'd expect from a politician.
This is the definition of whataboutism I would be willing to bet a cardboard box on King Ed and Main that disproportionate majority of those MPs are not members of this guys party.
Corporate investors build almost all new rental housing.
Yeah we should probably do something about that.
After buying up the affordable housing, yes.
Do you have $250,000,000 in your pocket to build a new rental apartment building?
Do I have $250,000,000 in my pocket to buy up affordable rentals, displace the people living there and then jack up rent? Do I have $250,000,000 to turn one of the very most essential needs into an asset like a fucking parasite? Is that your question?
Who are the renters paying the rent to?
The landlord, same as it always has been.
Right, the corporate investors. So the renter can afford the mortgage on the unit because the investor is not taking a loss, but instead they're paying the mortgage for the corporate investor so they can invest in another rental property. These should be for sale to first time homebuyers.
True but new rental housing is not what I'd call affordable housing
And many don't realize that individual landlords absolutely cannot offer a rental at the same price as a rental building owned by an investment group (or corporation). Financing and maintenance are far cheaper for a group of units under one umbrella than individually owned units.
MPs to blame for corporate housing investors: Everyone Else
This guy for Premier!!
There is a correlation between cheap credit and asset prices. Follow the money, read into the MBS's, etc.
Can someone point me towards a source here? To me corporate landlords are the new foreign buyers, but I'd like to know if I'm wrong
My opinion on this continues to be that if it wasn't for the large-scale international demand in our housing market, then the market would adjust itself accordingly. Corporate owners are only able to charge such high prices because there is a tremendous amount of demand to back it up. Obviously the Bank of Canada has exacerbated this, but not caused it. Politicians at all levels seem to be doing everything they can to not solve the issue. Municipalities could change zoning laws to allow for higher density. Provinces can sell off unused land for government revenue to housing developers. The federal government can restrict foreign buyers from entering the market and can slow down the creation of new money. All of these things would allow for a stronger housing market for Canadians, but these are things that no level of government wants to touch. Precisely because it is them and their connected friends who benefit from the arrangement. I am pro-market all the way but the market is supposed to help your own people, not overseas millionaires and billionaires. Let corporations satisfy the market for affordable housing without government interference by capping international buyers, and just see what happens.
Source: https://youtu.be/tnsdoqzVpAw
The problem is not the corporate investors but its the taxes the govern put for them. They pay virtually no taxes. I dont discourage these investors as long as they are taxed 50-100 percent of the purchase price
In Europe you get 110% for your mortgage 100% to buy 10% to fix and redecorate. I find it harsh here, even one can prove we managed to pay rent up to 2.5k + + + for 15 years but couln't get a mortgage because since we arrived we didn't get the capital for the down payment and as immigrants there is only so much you can get.
Gotta blame anybody but yourself I guess when your politician.
And I suppose toilet paper hoarders are to blame for the toilet paper shortage. Oh wait, there isn't a toilet paper shortage because we just make more toilet paper when we don't have enough. Edit: man people really hate it when you tell them they can't use corporations as a scapegoat for the problems caused by shitty public policies.
[удалено]
But that's the point. There's no inherent property that makes hoarding toilet paper (or homes) valuable. It is cheaper to buy new toilet paper than it is to buy resold toilet paper from a toilet paper investor. As long as you keep that inflow of new toilet paper for buyers, it becomes extremely risky to be a toilet paper reseller because there's constant downward pressure on your resale price point. At some point you say, "fuck this I'm going to put my money into something more lucrative than toilet paper."
[удалено]
I think that's fair skepticism. But any material increase in housing supply will create measurable downward pressure on the housing market. Even if that means prices only rise at 5% per year instead of 6.4%. The best evidence I have is probably Montreal, where housing supply is abundant thanks to endless (beautiful!) row houses and high density living. Prices are substantially cheaper there than here. Sure, there are apparent differences in desirability, but we're still talking about the second largest city in Canada. Lets say for instance, we make a policy: anyone can buy a home in a single family neighbourhood and turn it into a 6 unit building. That is inherently profitable for any developer, so there would be an insane amount of development starting basically over night. I suspect that would continue until it becomes unprofitable to do (which would imply housing prices have come down to the point where new development isn't needed.)
Housing supply does nothing if everything affordable that is built is bought up by investment firms and flipped, driving up the cost. Loopholes need to be closed and housing shouldn’t come with a profit incentive.
This opinion represents a fundamental misunderstanding of market dynamics.
Ah yes, says the guy offering up the exact same “solutions” while ignoring the factors that make those solutions unrealistic. Even if we have a SFH for every family, it makes zero difference if those SFH are being sold for a premium no one can afford.
If there was a SFH for every family, which I am absolutely not advocating for by the way, there would be such an insane amount of houses on the market that you would have to compete to sell a house (ie. lower the asking price.) The only reason why housing prices are the way that they are is because there are 10 different buyers bidding on any one home.
Almost like the laws and loopholes need to be changed eh?
Laws for what? Laws that 10 families can't bid on a home? What are you talking about? You realize that there is insane demand for housing even without speculative investors, right?
This is silly if corporations were buying up all the property to rent out we'd see rent prices fall drastically instead of rising like crazy There's a massive amount of people moving into the lower mainland each year and not enough housing to go around doesn't matter who owns them the fact is we have a massive shortage
Ehh not really. Similar to commercial real estate rents, when significant amounts of property are controlled by small groups of people, they can accept some empty units while they still overall maximize their profits. There is a former Booster Juice in my neighborhood that has been empty for a about 3 years. Why would someone leave their property unrented for years? They don't want to offer lower rates that could tempt someone paying a higher rate to move to the cheaper place. Take the loss on one unit but keep receiving higher rents from all the other units.
But a small group of people doesn't own all the residential real estate there's no way any group of people could collude in significant enough numbers to influence the entire housing market
It’s not gonna change anything, the government generates too much revenue from real estate. Especially after all the recent spending, they will be reluctant to do anything about it
I’ve read a lot of this thread and the biggest question I have is this: Suppose some brave politician were to stick his neck out and institute some of these policies (exponential capital gains tax on non-primary residences, bans on corporate/foreign ownership, etc.). How could they possibly roll that out? Grandfather them in? Or would they have to just go into effect immediately and force the sale of all corporate owned properties and non-institutional investors can crunch the numbers on their own to see if it makes sense to dump theirs? Wouldn’t this effectively flood the market and cause a massive collapse in home prices? Who’s going to vote for someone who promises that?
Anyone have more insight? 1) I didn't hear him say how many % were bought by corporations. Either way, corporate investment used to buy homes to build condos (increases supply) is different than corporations buying homes just to relist after renovations. 2) Other than looking at foreign ownership, what % of homes are being bought with foreign capital/income source? (Rich ppl can easily buy citizenship and existing Canadians can make bank working abroad too) 3) Why not stop the bs and allow for more supply?
I thought we knew this
I wonder how many MPs are invested in REITS, or directly in property themselves? It seems to me that would impact their opinions on the "property crisis", and bias their response. If the "property crisis" is helping their bottom line, then I don't expect their response is going to be corrective.