this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
320 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

10161 readers
916 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

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


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Misinformation is not welcome here.

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There are so many great ideas that could have been implemented by now, and have been implemented in other countries. But the Liberals have only instituted policies to make it worse. Only now that the youth vote is leaving them they may at least pay lip service to it. It's honestly disgusting.

Only the greens have put forward anything that would help stem the investor class from depriving Canadians of a place to live.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

Preach. I voted Green. Mike shows promise and he's consistent with messaging. Next election I'll more than happily stump for them.

[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Triple property taxes for units not occupied by owners. Quick fix.

[–] MrFlagg@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

how does that not just increase rent?

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Property taxes of 100% for units not occupied by owners. Income taxes on rental of 110%.

Problem solved.

[–] dekerta@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think you have put any thought in to this. How would that solve anything exactly? If you taxed rental income at 110% then nobody would ever be a landlord, and all existing landlords would evict their tenants immediately, leaving millions homeless. Do you just want a system where you can only live in owned properties and renting is forbidden?

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Note also that I want to tax all non-resident properties at 100%. There'd be a lot of homes to go into.

[–] MrFlagg@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

well as long as you are admitting you are ok with state sponsored theft. Very Putin of you

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Oh, is Putin the new insult from the libertarian crowd? I thought they were slobbering all over his knob. The winds change so quickly!

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The issue is owners just fake the documents when your property tax or vacancy tax mail arrives. Friend of mine rents basement suite, landlord has not lived in main house for over two years, it has been empty the entire time. somebody comes every few weeks to collect mail.

[–] klisklas@feddit.de 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Then why not check on it occasionally and put a hefty fine on it when they fake the documents? If you cannot make a new and important law because rich people will try to bypass it than the state is useless.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

There definitetly should be a better method. An honour system by mailing and online affirmation of occupied unit is useless.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 years ago

You'd have to have someone go door-to-door at random intervals for an absolute check, I think, but that isn't a bad thing provided that the people doing it are paid a reasonable wage.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Whistleblower law that lets people who finger this kind of landlord take ownership of the property at a nominal fee for processing the paperwork. Call it $25.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We still don't physically have enough houses. It's quick, but not a fix.

[–] Overzeetop@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Forbid corporate ownership of anything under 4 units/12 bedrooms, and require them own 100% of any contiguous building over 4 units. Added taxes will just be passed on to residents. Corporations are used to aggregate money (both public corps and family/friend groups) and avoid taxes.

Then make a financial law that forbids making property loans with collateral which includes any real property that is not the property being purchased. No condo bros buying units and then re-fi-ing out to buy more.

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

how about prevent cooperate take over of nin commercial property, especially foreign takeover. Look at how they're swooping in on the victims in Hawaii after the fires.

[–] abogical@lemmy.one 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Land value tax would fix this.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Georgism making a comeback baby!

[–] abogical@lemmy.one 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I hope so. Subscribe to !georgism@kbin.social if you haven't already.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

this would work. It would make things like the 2009 banking crisis more of a crisis but maybe thats not a bad thing.

the other thing is downward pressure needs to be applied to the market: new units sold at below market value to people that don't already own homes

[–] lilShalom@lemmy.basedcount.com 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The solution is to build more housing.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

That is part of the solution, the othee part is not letting a foreign owner buy a place and leave it vacant.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So BlackRock can buy it and rent it out to people for $3,000 a month? What use is more housing if rich people who own 1,000 houses are just going to buy it? The solution is more complicated.

[–] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The solution is complicated because people can't agree on the problem.

As with your comment and subject of the article there is plenty of people that are perfectly happy with the housing crisis as long as the remain to the favourable side of it.

[–] Hotdogman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

So Basically, there's always going to be a crisis. Cool thanks.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think the most novel proposal we put forward in the report is taxing the total real estate holdings of large landowners, as opposed to individually taxing each property using the aforementioned brackets. This could entail situations where large landowners own a portfolio of properties, each falling below that $3 million threshold, but that cumulatively add up to tens of millions of dollars. In this scenario, by taxing the total holdings instead of each property separately, these owners would no longer be able to avoid paying those progressive property tax rates.

There's a few interesting bits to this article, but I like this one the most. Property taxes on the cumulative amount of property a person or company owns is huge. It provides a punishment for buying up large amounts of property.