this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
58 points (95.3% liked)

Canada

7204 readers
304 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Experts say Ottawa's role in housing sector has grown (Richard Raycraft Β· CBC News)

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jcrm@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm so tired of the provincial and federal governments doing this dance. Sure it's a provincial responsibility, just like healthcare. But we have several provinces who are actively making things worse. If the feds are going to stand around and let it happen, they might as well be complicit in it.

They used to fund public housing. Ban corporate home ownership, and introduce taxes to make owning multiple homes unprofitable. Then fix our tax brackets so I don't pay basically the same rate as someone making 10x what I do.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The worst part is there are already places that tax homes beyond the primary home, and the data showed it did exactly what you would expect. All levels of government have failed entire generations over this. it's insane to me.

[–] TemporaryBoyfriend@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It should be taxed at all three levels...

Is this property your primary residence? No? Pay more municipal tax.

Is this an income property? Pay more tax to the province to be earmarked for low income housing.

Did you earn a profit on your income property this year? Tax that income at the highest income tax rate.

Is the property owned by a provincially incorporated company? Profits are taxed at the highest corporate rate.

Is the corporation owned by someone who cannot be proven to be a citizen of Canada? Pay federal tax.

I'm just some idiot on the internet, and I can solve this problem by taxing the shit out of behaviour that hurts citizens. Why can't people in positions of authority do this? Because it's counter to their interests. Go look at CPC's PP -- where did his double-digit millions of net worth come from?

[–] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

This is the way.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

But we have several provinces who are actively making things worse. If the feds are going to stand around and let it happen

The fed can't make them better, for the very same reason as when toxic populist trash parties are voted in again they can't make the rest of us worse. The protection that keeps us from a user-pay hell unfortunately keeps them from actual housing improvements.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago

They're not taxing the wealthy enough to a) pay for the services we need, and b) stop cash hoarding and (literal) rentier capitalism run rampant. They could raise taxes (income, estate, transfers in- and out of the country) and they could use that money, given to the provinces and municipalities, to invest in public housing at scale.

But they don't want to, because it would expensive and it would require bold, interventionist economic policy, both of which neoliberal governments don't do--partly because we're two generations into policymakers that don't even think this way, and also because they're absolutely terrified of any blowback.

So yes, they're responsible for quite a bit. The provinces and cities own a lot of this two, but all three levels have enough neoliberal orthodoxy and political cowardice to share.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Trudeau is not wrong that housing is primarily a provincial responsibility. That said, he is telling a half truth because the federal government absolutely used to fund social housing and no longer does. What I definitely do not want to see is different levels of government bickering about responsibility while this hugely important issue remains unfixed.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

federal government absolutely used to fund social housing and no longer does.

What are the chances of the provinces accepting the funding again, though? They kicked and screamed just to accept a paltry sum for subsidized childcare. This would be a lot bigger deal than that.

Particularly if you believe the provinces are purposefully creating the situation, as many do.

[–] Gleddified@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago

Luxury tax on second/third/etc. homes would be federal jurisdiction, no? Would make it easier to keep track of someone with homes inmultirple provinces anyway.

[–] voluble@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"An essential part of life in Canada, is living in Canada. Having a place to live cannot become a luxury and economic bargaining chip for the wealthy. It's a necessity and a cornerstone of the dignity and pride we have in the prosperity of our nation - that when we aspire to our highest ideals, everybody in this country has a seat at the table. This inclusiveness is what makes us who we are. That's why my government has an extensive action plan for housing, which includes comprehensive liaison projects with all the provinces and cities of this country to make sure that the federal government is doing everything it can to secure the basic human need of housing, and that it is something that is never out of reach for any of our citizens."

-No Canadian politician ever

[–] FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Close-to-cause solutions have to start at municipalities. Yes, provinces and federal government can help, but municipalities can solve things quicker.

If I had full control in a large city:

  • Primary mass transit would be expanded to increase the feasible housing areas
  • Building permit offices and zoning authorities would get a complete overhaul, drastically increasing multi-unit housing in preference to single-family dwellings
  • A graduated zoning system would be put in place so multi-unit housing was radically increased near mass transit (near 100% of permits). If people want single-family homes, they would have to live further away from transit.
  • Downtown cores would increase pedestrian-only areas
  • Tax rates for single-family homes would be increased substantially while condos and townhomes would be seriously reduced.

Basically, make single-family homes less appealing for a variety of reasons.

[–] voluble@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Primary mass transit would be expanded to increase the feasible housing areas

Downtown cores would increase pedestrian-only areas

My city politicians are really excited and animated about these exact topics, however I'll be dead by the time they're completed.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, provinces and federal government can help, but municipalities can solve things quicker.

Municipalities are a creation of the province. Everything municipalities can do, so can the province. With that, the province can actually get things done quicker here as they can force the changes across the entire province at the same time.

Primary mass transit would be expanded to increase the feasible housing areas

It's pretty clear that access to mass transit increases the value of homes, sharply. Removing access to mass transit would be the quickest way to see housing nosedive back to affordable levels. Housing has become much more expensive because living in them has improved dramatically over the past couple of decades. Expansion and advancement of mass transit systems is one of features that has contributed to that improved livability. It is a truism that desirable things are more expensive than undesirable things.

[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure what tools there are that I'm comfortable with federal government using. Housing seems to me to be largely Municipal problem, but Canada is also a pretty unique place. We have tons of under served communities outside our large cities that could use an influx of industry and citizens.

My fear is that federal housing could end up being like the projects in the US back in the seventies. You also have to convince people that townhouses or apartments are able to support expansion of families.

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's loose/loose

If he does nothing, he's evil.

If he, for example, offer money for provinces to create laws to lock-out Rich people and corporations from houses listed under 1 million, he would be lambasted as meddling in provincial affairs.

[–] alabasterhotdog@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, that's a pretty lambastable policy idea. In the least the fed govt could be providing funding incentives to municipalities for housing. Only if your poles are absolute inaction and poor policy is it a lose/lose situation.

We see what happens in healthcare: the provinces have their hands out, the feds eventually cough up money, some provinces use it for healthcare, others pocket it and cut provincial taxes. Rince and repeat.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wait, it wasn't the Feds who created the RRSP home buyers plan? The first time home buyers savings account?

Both of which will raise demand and drive prices higher....

How about the favourable tax conditions around homes? Not the Feds?

They're just lying, plain and simple.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Primarily

They’re just lying, plain and simple.

Nope. Supply/Demand. They enabled people to buy into a market they couldn't otherwise afford, but they're not the primary cause of it.

You'll want to direct your ire to the speculators, the Air B&Bers the buy-to-rent-to-buy-to-rent folks. THOSE are your primary causes.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The primary cause is that we've put a lot of focus on making life, in large cities in particular, around those houses much more livable.

We like to talk about how cheap those city homes were 50+ years ago, allowing you to buy them for a song, but do you remember how awful cities were back then? They were industrial, crime-ridden nightmares. Homes were cheap because nobody wanted them.

Things have changed dramatically over the past 10-20 years. The messy industry has mostly left, often replaced with businesses which provide enjoyable actives (restaurants, shopping, entertainment, etc.). We've made great strides in reducing car dependance, improving mass transit and cycling options. Crime has plummeted. The list goes on and on.

AirBNBs, etc. have come into existence for the same reason: People today actually want to be there. That is your primary cause. Desirable things are more expensive than undesirable things. That's the way it goes.