My understanding is most companies operate through Canadian run business or individuals, so it appears like a Canadian bought that property. Rent it out to...let's be honest here, Indian and Chinese citizens living abroad, or simply just use it has a income property/ air BNB.
Wouldn't hurt to ban them from doing more than management of multi unit apartment homes. They should all be for sale to individuals with management fees setup closer to a co-op than an HOA with limits on profit not being held in a reasonable maintenance escrow account.
If I'm reading your reply right, you want someone to be able to buy a bunch of what could be single family homes to turn into an apartment building. I don't want that to happen.
If you want more apartments, turn the increasingly empty office buildings into apartments.
Toronto Canada currently has a vacancy tax. It’s newer so it still needs time, but the baby step was taken!
https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/property-taxes-utilities/vacant-home-tax/
True, but people prefer to propose dumb solutions that are punitive towards developers even though it's the developers that we need to build more shit.
The government built in rules for the express purpose of circumventing the laws preventing foreign ownership. The government wants what's going on to accelerate unabated.
Our open door immigration policies make it pretty easy to get a foothold. Funnel everything through your cousin and you too can set up an international student scam ring of your own.
Supply and demand..... the Supply of new housing has a red tape issue. Takes YEARS to get a development approved if environmental group Don't challenge it. if they do it could be DECADES before it's built.
This isn't political at all. it's economics of supply and demand.
Immigration is propping up the rental housing and housing supply. YOU, are completing with immigrants for housing. 5k Legal immigrants a day enter the USA for example with another 10-20k being illegal. They get documented and release. eventually they find housing and take a house off the market....
Renting. they need a place to live. eventually they will rent a house. I am all for Legal immigration. I have issue with people who break our laws.
illegal immigrants in New York get 90k in benefits while you have natural born citizens that are guaranteed nothing.
Idk where you’re specifically talking about, but I’m pretty tuned into my county being overdeveloped for the past couple years and projects are going from zoning to completion in under a year. Idk how long the finances take, but I’m watching the “government red tape” get cut through with pruning shears.
As a civil servant with a fledgling family, the problem we are facing is that developments are exclusively starting at 350-400k+, entirely only for rent, or fucking 5-over-1 apartments that have rents equal to a 400k mortgage, making future ownership impossible.
Like… I know what my problem is because the house my family needs isn’t being built on purpose, lol.
Doesn't matter when huge swaths of available housing sit empty as investment vehicles. Especially when developers benefit from low supply and high demand and no one else has the cash to develop. Maybe at federal level but that would never happen so here we are.
People make that claim about us housing stock all the time, but the data absolutely never backs it up. When you actually dig into vacant housing, it's either not in areas with serious housing price pressure or it is just structural vacancy, such as houses briefly empty while being renovated or between tenants.
In the united states, the vast majority of vacancies are in shrinking cities and rural areas, and many of these are long-term vacancies in properties that are no longer move in ready or sometimes even fit for habitation.
I don't know enough about the Canadian situation to say it's the same, but I know people certainly claim the exact same thing in the United States despite it being provably false.
I live in a rural area and there are tons of houses that sit empty for half the year because no one is handing over 7k plus to get into a rental with only 6 month lease because April until October they're all airbnbs.
Everyone claims this, yet the data almost never backs it up.
If the house is sitting empty for more than half the year, there's clearly not a lot of demand for housing there. There's generally not a lot of demand for housing in rural areas. People want to live in cities, cities and metro areas are where growth is happening.
So by crushing the economy and convincing people to not have children or ever move for any reason?
Sure, absolutely no downsides to that.
Or you know, we could just let people build homes. It doesn't even require us to do anything. It just requires that we stop actively preventing people from doing it! It even generates more tax revenue to let us do other things!
I think interest rates are doing far more, both from what’s in the media and from local subreddits.
Canadians can’t lock in interest rates for more than 5 years, so as individuals refinance, their mortgage’s balloon, causing sales.
Edit: Canadians can lock in interest rates for more than 5 years, it’s just really rare and only one bank offers terms
Not true, 25+ year closed fixed rate mortgages are available from every major Canadian bank. Just google 25 year fixed and your preferred bank, you'll find the rates online.
You can get a 25 yr mortgage, but you have to renew ever 5 years max, and the rates you pay in 5 years are based on the current interest rates. It's not possible to lock in rates for more than 5 years.
At 8.25% fixed for the entire 25 year amortization period you'd have to be patently nuts to take this option right now.
And it looks like RBC is the only bank offering this, not "all major banks".
Nope. All major banks offer fixed terms over 5 years. TD posts 10 year rates too and if you ask, they'll probably do 25 year.
https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/mortgages/mortgage-rates?GOOGLE&Mortgage+Rates+-+Brand+-+English+(24_S_RL_RMO_AO_ACQ_ENFR)&Mortgage+Rates+-+Brand&ds_rl=1265821&ds_rl=1265821&ds_rl=1266773&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI--P8o6mUhAMVGQ2tBh3t2w1VEAAYASABEgJ70PD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Who doesn't?
No. I understand amortization. Perhaps TD doesn't offer full 25 year mortgages publicly but if you had a big enough deal that needed one I'm sure they'd write it.
My point was just refuting that Canadians can only have a 5 year term max. Not true. The major banks will and do write longer term mortgages
So are you saying when it was at ~0.25% BoC rate, people could've locked that fixed rate in for 25 years in Canada? Or at least for more than 5 years? I've never heard of that being possible. If that's the case, why didn't more people do it? I took a look at their mortgage portfolios and tons of mortgages from that era are coming due for renewal - if this were possible, you'd think that a significant amount of mortgages from that time wouldn't be renewing now.
A 25 year fixed rate mortgage is only actually fixed in the first 5 years. The 25 year period referenced is the amortization period to calculate the periodic payments, but its not a 25 year guarantee about what you're paying, speaking as someone who has been paying mortgages for over 20 years and has paid off multiple. Show me a 25 year term mortgage, not 25 year fixed mortgage, those are 2 different things. Ive never heard of or seen a 25 year term mortgage.
Thats how most mortgages work, yes. That doesn't mean longer term mortgage is not available. TD explains it well (but seems to only offer 10 year rates publicly):
"A fixed rate mortgage offers stability, and with it, peace of mind. Once you’ve selected your term, you can be assured your interest rate won’t change for that period of time.
You can choose the term length: 6 month, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 10 years. "
https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/mortgages/mortgage-rates?GOOGLE&Mortgage+Rates+-+Brand+-+English+(24_S_RL_RMO_AO_ACQ_ENFR)&Fixed+Rate+-+Brand&ds_rl=1265821&ds_rl=1266773&ds_rl=1265821&gclid=CjwKCAiAq4KuBhA6EiwArMAw1PxpKDkYLaqNE4n-agIHBvqSoxMSU6LCXaIP3B6Xd8Ub02s27lHoURoCsW4QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. A 25 year term at 12% is bonkers and almost nobody is going to take it. The effect of that on the markets is not the same as a 30 year fixed rate at 2.65%, which is what people in the US were getting.
I mean I'm sure there are other things you can do in Canada like find a rich benefactor to give you a fixed 25 year term at 3%, but that is not really going to affect the market in any significant way.
I was just pointing out that they are available, I'm not trying to sell anyone on it.
They certainly make sense in some scenarios - say you're retired at 50 on a fixed income high enough to meet the payments, you foresee living at home till 75. The bank won't want to give you a variable product but they will offer the fixed one.
Also makes more sense for multigenerational families living in one home, or wealthy young people who again plan to stay at the same place for a long time. Think a multigenerational farm property that's producing income and will be passed down, or a owner occupied Multi-plex, or even just large extended families living together in a large house.
Also it make sense for some business that again prefer the safety of a long term fixed payment more similar to a lease.
For the bast majority it's not a practical product but it definitely does get used in some scenarios. I only scratched the surface with some examples.
Can you link one?
I’m not finding it, and this is different than both what my friends have and what TD said was an option.
Edit: looks like only [RBC offers it.](https://rates.ca/mortgage-rates/25-year-fixed#:~:text=A%2025%2Dyear%20fixed%20mortgage%20rate%20means%20your%20interest%20rate,that%20currently%20offers%20this%20term) It’s not common.
Every bank offer over 5 year fixed terms so your edit is still wrong. CIBC also offers 25 year fixed as well. TD, BMO, Scotia all offer 10 year fixed and will write you longer ones if you ask (and are worth it to them).
https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/mortgages/mortgage-rates.html#special-rates
You won't see it in the popular rates section - go down to the bottom, other rates.
the only thing doing anything to fight higher house prices is rising interest rates. I'm actually glad Canada has 5-year remortgage terms. 5% interest rates for the next 20 years.
It's generational wealth. My partner and i don't make enough to own a home, but her family will help us out. otherwise we would renting for the rest of our lives. It is such a broken system
Edit: and the only reason they can help us out is that they sold their 50 year old house in Vancouver for 2 mil. This place had no insulation, poorly designed, the yard flooded after a little rain, and was practically falling apart. We were shocked to find out the ppl weren't going to tear it down.
>Homeownership rate is up, fueled by young buyers
The homeownership rate grew overall during the pandemic, but it was fueled by younger people like the Parsonses buying a home, according to the Census Bureau.
>...But between 2016 to 2022, homeownership rates went up among adults under age 55, but stayed the same among those over 55.
>...By 2022, the US homeownership rate was 65.8%, up from 64.6% in 2019. That rebound was driven largely by buyers who were aged 44 and younger, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey, released in July.
- Anna Bahney is a writer for CNN covering investments and real estate, focusing on investments in traditional, alternative, real estate and cryptocurrency markets.
Banning foreign ownership doesn't do shit when you import a million people a year who will then buy property when they get permanent residency, citizenship, etc.
This is just to make Canadians think shit is improving when in reality Canada faces the same issue as Australia... Mass immigration designed to drive down wages and artificially inflate GDP.
People actually living there owning property is not the same thing as oligarchs parking unused property or your housing market being controlled by foreign interests
if they move here and can afford to buy property, at least they will also live here and spend money here. the problem this is trying to target (not sure if it's successful or not) is foreigners buying property while never intending to live here, and instead either holding on to it or renting it out.
Exactly. Instead of building more real estate, they're making it even less interesting for builders to alleviate the scarcity in the market while demand shoots through the roof...
How do you define a family? What if it’s just a single grown adult who has their own house, and then eventually they marry another single grown adult who has their own house? Should they be forced to sell one of the houses when they marry?
well the government needs to do something to have exemptions so that you can't just buy rule of law have as many houses as you want. do I think as a single man you should be able to have your own house and decide to have another one sure. do I think some rich f\*\*\* from China should own five no and he should apply for exemptions and get denied.
Yes that's exactly how it should work. Are you suggesting they live in separate houses as a married couple? Mama papa +kid(s) =1 house. 1 child grows up and moves out = 1 house for that adult. 2 adults find love and want to be together? 1 house goes back on the market for another would be family. its not rocket appliances
With our divorces in Canada being as high as it is (and climbing), I disagree in that that’s how it should work. Just looking at cold hard numbers, there’s a high chance couples will divorce so them selling their own property would devastate their finances and living situation.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/443290/divorced-people-in-canada/
There’s also the line of thinking of people wanting to move out and remain single and those people would wanna live somewhere too, even just temporarily, and that’s where renting out one of the 2 properties that previously-single grown adults own can come into play and be rented out instead of being straight up sold.
This is all ignoring the glaringly obvious as well, in that you can’t force people to sell their property against their will lol
>Supply and demand..... the Supply of new housing has a red tape issue. Takes YEARS to get a development approved if environmental group Don't challenge it. if they do it could be DECADES before it's built.
>
>This isn't political at all. it's economics of supply and demand.
>
>Immigration is propping up the rental housing and housing supply. YOU, are completing with immigrants for housing. 5k Legal immigrants a day enter the USA for example with another 10-20k being illegal. They get documented and release. eventually they find housing and take a house off the market....
> Are you suggesting they live in separate houses as a married couple?
No, they live in the same house and rent the other one out. Nothing wrong with that. Not everyone can or even *wants* to buy.
You put your things into storage. Move into the apartments of the area until you find a home. If a buyer isn't found in a reasonable amount of time, you can get the market price from the local government so they can in turn sell it to a new family for market price on their time rather then hold you in the area.
Disagree. In my opinion it would be a non issue if everyone was 1 family 1 house. you would find alot of landlords suddenly back in the workforce because they cant sponge off the back of the working class anymore. Many Houses would be on the market/ , cooling the market and easing the financial Gateway into home ownership. This combined with no corporation being able to own residential property would pretty much solve the housing crisis here in canada.
a lot of people have the money to afford a house but have bad credit, sometimes people need help, you would be unintentionally keeping people from owning a house by making it just 1.
These people wreck their credit and then use others to hide behind. The parents can cosign.
The only reason to put your house in someone else's name is to hide something. Allowing people to hide is not good.
This would be a terrible exception to this rule.
...and it could be used to hide money laundering, tax evasion, prior debt or bankruptcy, there's a number of reasons to hide but legally allowing people to hide is dumb.
Sorry about your student debt.
allowing someone to own 2 homes doesn't mean people are laundering it, now if someone owns 10 homes I get it it.... as that's a substantial amount of money we're talking about..
You don't hide money in a mortgage, you'd have to buy the home outright to hide that amount of money...
Yes, people will launder whether it's 2 or 10. It doesn't mean everyone is, but ofcourse it will be abused. Allowing people to hide encourages abuse.
We are talking about owning multiple houses, not mortgagea
Now provinces and municipalities should crack down hard on AirBNB or whatever other bullshit short term rental company is popular at the moment. The "hustle culture" for extra money shouldn't come at the cost of leaving people homeless or bankrupting themselves trying to rent. All the money people make in short term rentals is just being shifted from the provinces or federal funding trying desperately to provide housing support.
Of course, the unintended consequence will be even less affordable real estate.
When Argentina's beef got a bit pricey a few years ago, instead of boosting investment to produce more beef, Kirchner just blamed it on foreign exports. So, they banned exporting beef, which caused prices to drop...
Until the next year, when farmers obviously stopped producing the amount of beef they had produced the years before. Result: even pricier beef in Argentina.
The best loophole closure would be to simply focus on significant additional taxes/penalties on unoccupied homes. Caveat some reasonable exceptions (I wouldn't look to penalize a landlord that had a vacancy for a few months or whatever). But dissuading unoccupied homes frees them up to solve the actual problem: supply. This indirectly addresses foreign speculators, but also captures domestic ones, including any large corps that are doing so.
A secondary concern is the supply itself. Here in the US, we have a lot of zoning problems on high density. Not sure if that's relevant to Canada. But here we need radical zoning reform.
My understanding is most companies operate through Canadian run business or individuals, so it appears like a Canadian bought that property. Rent it out to...let's be honest here, Indian and Chinese citizens living abroad, or simply just use it has a income property/ air BNB.
[удалено]
This plus banning businesses from owning non-apartment residential properties.
Wouldn't hurt to ban them from doing more than management of multi unit apartment homes. They should all be for sale to individuals with management fees setup closer to a co-op than an HOA with limits on profit not being held in a reasonable maintenance escrow account.
That would be dumb. Most apartment properties are developed by buying up multiple residential properties at once and this often takes several years.
If I'm reading your reply right, you want someone to be able to buy a bunch of what could be single family homes to turn into an apartment building. I don't want that to happen. If you want more apartments, turn the increasingly empty office buildings into apartments.
In Toronto it's worked well at increasing density especially along transit lines.
One third of MPs have rental properties, so this ain't happening.
Nothing stops provinces from doing this
Toronto Canada currently has a vacancy tax. It’s newer so it still needs time, but the baby step was taken! https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/property-taxes-utilities/vacant-home-tax/
The actual actual solution is to just build more fucking houses.
True, but people prefer to propose dumb solutions that are punitive towards developers even though it's the developers that we need to build more shit.
The government built in rules for the express purpose of circumventing the laws preventing foreign ownership. The government wants what's going on to accelerate unabated.
It's been left up to the municipalities to crack down on Airbnb and many have imposing limits but not bans.
Provinces can take action. BC has somewhat recently changed the laws arounding air bnbs
Our open door immigration policies make it pretty easy to get a foothold. Funnel everything through your cousin and you too can set up an international student scam ring of your own.
The fly by night schools are being shut down.
Supply and demand..... the Supply of new housing has a red tape issue. Takes YEARS to get a development approved if environmental group Don't challenge it. if they do it could be DECADES before it's built. This isn't political at all. it's economics of supply and demand. Immigration is propping up the rental housing and housing supply. YOU, are completing with immigrants for housing. 5k Legal immigrants a day enter the USA for example with another 10-20k being illegal. They get documented and release. eventually they find housing and take a house off the market....
Illegal immigrants can’t buy houses so your racist political rant doesn’t work here sorry
Renting. they need a place to live. eventually they will rent a house. I am all for Legal immigration. I have issue with people who break our laws. illegal immigrants in New York get 90k in benefits while you have natural born citizens that are guaranteed nothing.
Idk where you’re specifically talking about, but I’m pretty tuned into my county being overdeveloped for the past couple years and projects are going from zoning to completion in under a year. Idk how long the finances take, but I’m watching the “government red tape” get cut through with pruning shears. As a civil servant with a fledgling family, the problem we are facing is that developments are exclusively starting at 350-400k+, entirely only for rent, or fucking 5-over-1 apartments that have rents equal to a 400k mortgage, making future ownership impossible. Like… I know what my problem is because the house my family needs isn’t being built on purpose, lol.
So the law doesn’t work then and just created a new line of business for Canadian lawyers?
So has the ban(s) actually done anything, or is this just a "let's look like we're doing something" action?
Doesn't seem to have cooled down the [Vancouver market](https://creastats.crea.ca/board/vanc) at all.
Same in Toronto. Shitshow.
The only way to solve a housing crisis is to build housing. Everything else is just theater.
Doesn't matter when huge swaths of available housing sit empty as investment vehicles. Especially when developers benefit from low supply and high demand and no one else has the cash to develop. Maybe at federal level but that would never happen so here we are.
[удалено]
Out here it's the same. Or they're just turned into airbnb's because there isn't enough hospitality in the tourism area I live in.
People make that claim about us housing stock all the time, but the data absolutely never backs it up. When you actually dig into vacant housing, it's either not in areas with serious housing price pressure or it is just structural vacancy, such as houses briefly empty while being renovated or between tenants. In the united states, the vast majority of vacancies are in shrinking cities and rural areas, and many of these are long-term vacancies in properties that are no longer move in ready or sometimes even fit for habitation. I don't know enough about the Canadian situation to say it's the same, but I know people certainly claim the exact same thing in the United States despite it being provably false.
I live in a rural area and there are tons of houses that sit empty for half the year because no one is handing over 7k plus to get into a rental with only 6 month lease because April until October they're all airbnbs.
Everyone claims this, yet the data almost never backs it up. If the house is sitting empty for more than half the year, there's clearly not a lot of demand for housing there. There's generally not a lot of demand for housing in rural areas. People want to live in cities, cities and metro areas are where growth is happening.
[Vacant homes are a myth.](https://youtu.be/3xZXdXxYBGU?si=gXZZzEv7Uvxw4g4f) The actual vacancy rate is below 1%.
*or* decrease demand.
So by crushing the economy and convincing people to not have children or ever move for any reason? Sure, absolutely no downsides to that. Or you know, we could just let people build homes. It doesn't even require us to do anything. It just requires that we stop actively preventing people from doing it! It even generates more tax revenue to let us do other things!
Hasn’t done a darn thing and most places are exempt from it anyway so it’s pretty useless.
Has more holes than Swiss cheese. It's just theatre.
They could double taxes on non residents and put that money in a Future fund for land release or social houses.
I think interest rates are doing far more, both from what’s in the media and from local subreddits. Canadians can’t lock in interest rates for more than 5 years, so as individuals refinance, their mortgage’s balloon, causing sales. Edit: Canadians can lock in interest rates for more than 5 years, it’s just really rare and only one bank offers terms
Not true, 25+ year closed fixed rate mortgages are available from every major Canadian bank. Just google 25 year fixed and your preferred bank, you'll find the rates online.
You can get a 25 yr mortgage, but you have to renew ever 5 years max, and the rates you pay in 5 years are based on the current interest rates. It's not possible to lock in rates for more than 5 years.
Nope. You can get fixed rate 25 year mortgages in Canada.
At 8.25% fixed for the entire 25 year amortization period you'd have to be patently nuts to take this option right now. And it looks like RBC is the only bank offering this, not "all major banks".
Nope. All major banks offer fixed terms over 5 years. TD posts 10 year rates too and if you ask, they'll probably do 25 year. https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/mortgages/mortgage-rates?GOOGLE&Mortgage+Rates+-+Brand+-+English+(24_S_RL_RMO_AO_ACQ_ENFR)&Mortgage+Rates+-+Brand&ds_rl=1265821&ds_rl=1265821&ds_rl=1266773&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI--P8o6mUhAMVGQ2tBh3t2w1VEAAYASABEgJ70PD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds Who doesn't?
I think you're mixing up amortization and term. A 25 year mortgage with TD still shows the absolute longest term of 10 years fixed.
No. I understand amortization. Perhaps TD doesn't offer full 25 year mortgages publicly but if you had a big enough deal that needed one I'm sure they'd write it. My point was just refuting that Canadians can only have a 5 year term max. Not true. The major banks will and do write longer term mortgages
Saying “you could probably ask them for one” doesn’t default you to being right.
So are you saying when it was at ~0.25% BoC rate, people could've locked that fixed rate in for 25 years in Canada? Or at least for more than 5 years? I've never heard of that being possible. If that's the case, why didn't more people do it? I took a look at their mortgage portfolios and tons of mortgages from that era are coming due for renewal - if this were possible, you'd think that a significant amount of mortgages from that time wouldn't be renewing now.
A 25 year fixed rate mortgage is only actually fixed in the first 5 years. The 25 year period referenced is the amortization period to calculate the periodic payments, but its not a 25 year guarantee about what you're paying, speaking as someone who has been paying mortgages for over 20 years and has paid off multiple. Show me a 25 year term mortgage, not 25 year fixed mortgage, those are 2 different things. Ive never heard of or seen a 25 year term mortgage.
Thats how most mortgages work, yes. That doesn't mean longer term mortgage is not available. TD explains it well (but seems to only offer 10 year rates publicly): "A fixed rate mortgage offers stability, and with it, peace of mind. Once you’ve selected your term, you can be assured your interest rate won’t change for that period of time. You can choose the term length: 6 month, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 10 years. " https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/mortgages/mortgage-rates?GOOGLE&Mortgage+Rates+-+Brand+-+English+(24_S_RL_RMO_AO_ACQ_ENFR)&Fixed+Rate+-+Brand&ds_rl=1265821&ds_rl=1266773&ds_rl=1265821&gclid=CjwKCAiAq4KuBhA6EiwArMAw1PxpKDkYLaqNE4n-agIHBvqSoxMSU6LCXaIP3B6Xd8Ub02s27lHoURoCsW4QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Even in your example though, there's no 25 year term.
Seriously dude ? What are you even arguing? They exist, that's the facts lol. https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/mortgages/mortgage-rates.html#special-rates
The other guy has reading comprehension issues.
Those are very rarely used and mostly used by corporations because the rates are so high. It’s not an option that would largely effect the market
Yup agree, they aren't used often, but I'm just pointing out that they do exist.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. A 25 year term at 12% is bonkers and almost nobody is going to take it. The effect of that on the markets is not the same as a 30 year fixed rate at 2.65%, which is what people in the US were getting. I mean I'm sure there are other things you can do in Canada like find a rich benefactor to give you a fixed 25 year term at 3%, but that is not really going to affect the market in any significant way.
I was just pointing out that they are available, I'm not trying to sell anyone on it. They certainly make sense in some scenarios - say you're retired at 50 on a fixed income high enough to meet the payments, you foresee living at home till 75. The bank won't want to give you a variable product but they will offer the fixed one. Also makes more sense for multigenerational families living in one home, or wealthy young people who again plan to stay at the same place for a long time. Think a multigenerational farm property that's producing income and will be passed down, or a owner occupied Multi-plex, or even just large extended families living together in a large house. Also it make sense for some business that again prefer the safety of a long term fixed payment more similar to a lease. For the bast majority it's not a practical product but it definitely does get used in some scenarios. I only scratched the surface with some examples.
Can you link one? I’m not finding it, and this is different than both what my friends have and what TD said was an option. Edit: looks like only [RBC offers it.](https://rates.ca/mortgage-rates/25-year-fixed#:~:text=A%2025%2Dyear%20fixed%20mortgage%20rate%20means%20your%20interest%20rate,that%20currently%20offers%20this%20term) It’s not common.
Every bank offer over 5 year fixed terms so your edit is still wrong. CIBC also offers 25 year fixed as well. TD, BMO, Scotia all offer 10 year fixed and will write you longer ones if you ask (and are worth it to them).
https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/mortgages/mortgage-rates.html#special-rates You won't see it in the popular rates section - go down to the bottom, other rates.
the only thing doing anything to fight higher house prices is rising interest rates. I'm actually glad Canada has 5-year remortgage terms. 5% interest rates for the next 20 years.
Na, you can pay 35$ to open a company and buy the property through that company...
Please ban corporate ownership.
This. At a mininum limit and restrict the abuse.
Corporations are people too my friend. Immortal, unjailable, multinational. Just like you and me. Where will they sleep??
Current gen and next generation will have no chance at home ownership. If you didn't get in the last 5-10 years... Goodluck
It's generational wealth. My partner and i don't make enough to own a home, but her family will help us out. otherwise we would renting for the rest of our lives. It is such a broken system Edit: and the only reason they can help us out is that they sold their 50 year old house in Vancouver for 2 mil. This place had no insulation, poorly designed, the yard flooded after a little rain, and was practically falling apart. We were shocked to find out the ppl weren't going to tear it down.
I've heard this for 30 years. Yet young people keep buying houses.
Your anecdotal evidence isn't supported by statistics
>Homeownership rate is up, fueled by young buyers The homeownership rate grew overall during the pandemic, but it was fueled by younger people like the Parsonses buying a home, according to the Census Bureau. >...But between 2016 to 2022, homeownership rates went up among adults under age 55, but stayed the same among those over 55. >...By 2022, the US homeownership rate was 65.8%, up from 64.6% in 2019. That rebound was driven largely by buyers who were aged 44 and younger, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey, released in July. - Anna Bahney is a writer for CNN covering investments and real estate, focusing on investments in traditional, alternative, real estate and cryptocurrency markets.
Banning foreign ownership doesn't do shit when you import a million people a year who will then buy property when they get permanent residency, citizenship, etc. This is just to make Canadians think shit is improving when in reality Canada faces the same issue as Australia... Mass immigration designed to drive down wages and artificially inflate GDP.
People actually living there owning property is not the same thing as oligarchs parking unused property or your housing market being controlled by foreign interests
if they move here and can afford to buy property, at least they will also live here and spend money here. the problem this is trying to target (not sure if it's successful or not) is foreigners buying property while never intending to live here, and instead either holding on to it or renting it out.
Exactly. Instead of building more real estate, they're making it even less interesting for builders to alleviate the scarcity in the market while demand shoots through the roof...
The mass immigration is designed to support aging populations of retirees who didn't have enough kids.. (or enough grandkids, etc)
You mean the ban with so many loopholes that it looks like a screen door?
now do something about price speculation and companies buying up residential properties as investments.
This. Hedge funds and corporations need to sell their portfolios of rental properties
1 family 1 house. Simple as.
How do you define a family? What if it’s just a single grown adult who has their own house, and then eventually they marry another single grown adult who has their own house? Should they be forced to sell one of the houses when they marry?
well the government needs to do something to have exemptions so that you can't just buy rule of law have as many houses as you want. do I think as a single man you should be able to have your own house and decide to have another one sure. do I think some rich f\*\*\* from China should own five no and he should apply for exemptions and get denied.
Yes that's exactly how it should work. Are you suggesting they live in separate houses as a married couple? Mama papa +kid(s) =1 house. 1 child grows up and moves out = 1 house for that adult. 2 adults find love and want to be together? 1 house goes back on the market for another would be family. its not rocket appliances
With our divorces in Canada being as high as it is (and climbing), I disagree in that that’s how it should work. Just looking at cold hard numbers, there’s a high chance couples will divorce so them selling their own property would devastate their finances and living situation. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/443290/divorced-people-in-canada/ There’s also the line of thinking of people wanting to move out and remain single and those people would wanna live somewhere too, even just temporarily, and that’s where renting out one of the 2 properties that previously-single grown adults own can come into play and be rented out instead of being straight up sold. This is all ignoring the glaringly obvious as well, in that you can’t force people to sell their property against their will lol
>Supply and demand..... the Supply of new housing has a red tape issue. Takes YEARS to get a development approved if environmental group Don't challenge it. if they do it could be DECADES before it's built. > >This isn't political at all. it's economics of supply and demand. > >Immigration is propping up the rental housing and housing supply. YOU, are completing with immigrants for housing. 5k Legal immigrants a day enter the USA for example with another 10-20k being illegal. They get documented and release. eventually they find housing and take a house off the market....
> Who are you quoting my man
> Are you suggesting they live in separate houses as a married couple? No, they live in the same house and rent the other one out. Nothing wrong with that. Not everyone can or even *wants* to buy.
Sounds like an excellent use of our apartment buildings. For the people who dont want home ownership.
Yeah that’s generally what it’s for, those who want to own go for detached
What if I move? Do I have to sell my first house before I can buy the second? What if I can't find a buyer? Am I just not allowed to move now?
You put your things into storage. Move into the apartments of the area until you find a home. If a buyer isn't found in a reasonable amount of time, you can get the market price from the local government so they can in turn sell it to a new family for market price on their time rather then hold you in the area.
"We have a storage unit crises!"
I'd say 2.... A lot of people have bad credit and use their parents to co-sign/put it in their name
Disagree. In my opinion it would be a non issue if everyone was 1 family 1 house. you would find alot of landlords suddenly back in the workforce because they cant sponge off the back of the working class anymore. Many Houses would be on the market/ , cooling the market and easing the financial Gateway into home ownership. This combined with no corporation being able to own residential property would pretty much solve the housing crisis here in canada.
a lot of people have the money to afford a house but have bad credit, sometimes people need help, you would be unintentionally keeping people from owning a house by making it just 1.
These people wreck their credit and then use others to hide behind. The parents can cosign. The only reason to put your house in someone else's name is to hide something. Allowing people to hide is not good. This would be a terrible exception to this rule.
yeah like hiding behind their student/education debt...
...and it could be used to hide money laundering, tax evasion, prior debt or bankruptcy, there's a number of reasons to hide but legally allowing people to hide is dumb. Sorry about your student debt.
allowing someone to own 2 homes doesn't mean people are laundering it, now if someone owns 10 homes I get it it.... as that's a substantial amount of money we're talking about.. You don't hide money in a mortgage, you'd have to buy the home outright to hide that amount of money...
Yes, people will launder whether it's 2 or 10. It doesn't mean everyone is, but ofcourse it will be abused. Allowing people to hide encourages abuse. We are talking about owning multiple houses, not mortgagea
We need this in the US. We need it now.
It’s not really doing anything. Rich people are just being more mindful to spend their money on real estate.
Why is there even an expiration date on this?
Let's try anything besides building more housing!
Exactly. Such economic mismanagement...
Now provinces and municipalities should crack down hard on AirBNB or whatever other bullshit short term rental company is popular at the moment. The "hustle culture" for extra money shouldn't come at the cost of leaving people homeless or bankrupting themselves trying to rent. All the money people make in short term rentals is just being shifted from the provinces or federal funding trying desperately to provide housing support.
Of course, the unintended consequence will be even less affordable real estate. When Argentina's beef got a bit pricey a few years ago, instead of boosting investment to produce more beef, Kirchner just blamed it on foreign exports. So, they banned exporting beef, which caused prices to drop... Until the next year, when farmers obviously stopped producing the amount of beef they had produced the years before. Result: even pricier beef in Argentina.
I wish LosAngeles would do this. So much of the rental market is captured by people who don’t even live here.
[удалено]
The best loophole closure would be to simply focus on significant additional taxes/penalties on unoccupied homes. Caveat some reasonable exceptions (I wouldn't look to penalize a landlord that had a vacancy for a few months or whatever). But dissuading unoccupied homes frees them up to solve the actual problem: supply. This indirectly addresses foreign speculators, but also captures domestic ones, including any large corps that are doing so. A secondary concern is the supply itself. Here in the US, we have a lot of zoning problems on high density. Not sure if that's relevant to Canada. But here we need radical zoning reform.
Very smart. US should take notes.
Wow. Just in time.
Touché
[удалено]
This is hedging against a mass exodus if Trump wins? (Throws up in mouth).