What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
Right wing source sure is quick to point this out this while the problem in reality is the rich gobbling up all the houses.
I think it's fair to acknowledge the additional strain caused by immigration and to acknowledge that halting it would cool things down a bit, but also to recognize all of the additional moral and economic issues with doing so.
Canada needs immigration, and also has a moral duty to allow immigration from parts of the world we've helped to place in dire situations w.r.t climate and economy, and the solution is to better invest in housing and related infrastructure, but I think it's alienating to people which can still be saved from falling into the right wing pipeline to ask them to deny that more people equals more demand.
Amputation is a way to deal with a rash, whether or not it's the most logical way.
I don't think people realize how damaging having so much of our economy tied up in housing is causing:
And that's before you get to the social costs (people stuck in miserable marriages, stress, commuting requirements, loss of security, etc).
And here we are, throwing gasoline on the fire because our governments and their donors can't bear to make less money. Quite the opposite, really, to keep the Ponzi scheme going they're moving to strip-mining south Asian immigrants like they're the human equivalent of an open-pit quarry.
When the collapses, it'll be horrific. At best, I hope the recovery is more New Deal than Third Reich.
Your last sentence is chilling given how much I agree with the rest of what you are saying.
Can you expand on “The income from it is not available for taxation”? I feel like I am missing part of your point here.
Property wealth--equity in general, frankly--isn't taxable like income is (and neither is capital gains). If you hold property, you can use that equity to buy more property and accumulate more wealth, but since it isn't income, it isn't taxed by government the same way.
Yes, property taxes are a thing, and yes, we do tax capital gains, but not like we tax income or consumption. Allowing wealth and equity to snowball takes that money and marks it "off limits" to government. So government revenues drop and services decay.
I'd also add that our tax regime is incredibly unfair to labour, especially skilled labour. If you're a high-earning worker, you're taxed much more than someone who just lets their money accumulate through passive rent-seeking. If you wonder why Canada has a brain-drain issue, this is a good reason: it's more advantageous to be a landlord than it is to be a doctor, engineer or other highly-paid, highly skilled professional.
Thank you for replying. If I understand correctly, you are saying that principal appreciation ( unlike income ) is not taxable like income is.
There is some truth to that. Property sold for a profit is taxed as capital gains but at a lower level than income. On your primary residence, there is an exemption. And your point that you can essentially “spend” appreciation without selling by borrowing against the equity is a good point ( without attracting taxation ).
I am not sure I agree that this withholds tax revenue from the government though. After all, asset appreciation is kind of money from nothing. It does not represent money that came from somewhere without getting taxed. And, as above, this newly created money results in new tax revenue. Even borrowing creates new money in the economy, including consumption taxes.
What all this new money does is devalue money as well, which devalues cash savings but also devalues debt.
I will have to think about your perspective a little more. At the moment, your other points feel stronger.
There is no doubt at all though that “ownership” accelerates wealth inequality as assets tend to appreciate faster than wage growth.
You know what we could do, right?
Tax the rich and build public housing and supporting infrastructure at scale. And by "build" I don't mean "give money to developers" I mean actually have the government employ people, buy equipment and run facilities.
Would it fix the problem? No. Would it help? Yes.
It would help, keep taxing them. You don't get that rich without hurting everything along the way.
Something's gonna pop and I don't think it'll be pretty. I hope I'm not around then.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
National Bank economist Stéfane Marion warns housing affordability woes are set to worsen amid another surge in immigration levels,
While this is a minor 4% increase to our price target, it reflects multiple signs that both sentiment and revision trends have bottomed and are beginning to improve, which we believe will be a key tailwind for valuation expansion into year-end.
We expect some idiosyncratic differences in results (BMO bouncing back from a very weak Q1/24, TD reflecting a provision for AML, and CM experiencing a drop in PCLs as CRE losses decline).
We do not expect material changes in the trends for NIMs [net interest margin] or loan growth, and we suspect Capital Markets-related revenues are not significantly different from Q1/24.
Big Tech’s defensible margins have scarcity value in an environment characterized by slowing growth and sticky inflation … What is the nearest and most likely catalyst for the rally to establish a broader base, and which segments of US equities are most likely to benefit?
Hamza spoke with several customers, channel partners and managements of 20+ private and public companies, including Microsoft, Check Point, CyberArk, and Tenable.
The original article contains 1,090 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!