Finance Minister and Mortgages

[Oleg Bach]

They might try to rationalize that they wish to avoid the American mortgage disaster,but it appears to me that this might be a move by the private sector to privatize housing in general. To make it more difficult to arrange for financing of a proper home might have the effect of driving those that at one time would be home owners...would now become corporate renters...surfs in fact. Seeing that thousands of apartment high rises are owned by a few private companies that are firmly connected to the banks...what might be taking place is the begining of a type of national houseing- national socialistic housing..when one makes the arguement that nationalization is socialism they are wrong..nationalization is privatization.

[Topaz]

At one time the minister said he couldn't tell the banks what to do. but here he is doing just that. When is he going to tell the banks to drop the interest fees in credit cards? If he so worried about household debt, that would be the place to go. The only reason the government is doing this and not the banks because the banks want this across the board and if they had to do it, some banks would and others may not and the "may nots" would probably get more business.

[Oleg Bach]

It maybe that government never tells the banks what to do...it is probably true that the banks quietly tell the government what to do. Or maybe the finance minister is just a mere spokesman for the banks-- all these guys are tied to the banks and the banks to gov- they know each other- did buisness together..went to the same schools together..it's called the exclusive society..and they maintain power simply by lieing.

[charter.rights]

It maybe that government never tells the banks what to do...it is probably true that the banks quietly tell the government what to do. Or maybe the finance minister is just a mere spokesman for the banks-- all these guys are tied to the banks and the banks to gov- they know each other- did buisness together..went to the same schools together..it's called the exclusive society..and they maintain power simply by lieing.

Funny....

The Big 'C' Conservatives whom claim to believe that the market should dictate to what the market will bear, and that government has no business interfering with free enterprise just became Big 'S' Socialists in that one move. Protectionism from the banks and business is counter to their policy. Either they are feeling the heat of the polls and trying to look more moderate, or they have completely gone bonkers.

[Oleg Bach]

Funny....

The Big 'C' Conservatives whom claim to believe that the market should dictate to what the market will bear, and that government has no business interfering with free enterprise just became Big 'S' Socialists in that one move. Protectionism from the banks and business is counter to their policy. Either they are feeling the heat of the polls and trying to look more moderate, or they have completely gone bonkers.

A SURGE of power that is perversely generated out of the idea that a person can control the very living standards and homes of a nation must be intoxicating to some boner head out there who sent the instructions to propogate the idea that our own property is not to be a "ATM MACHINE"--- This is not moderate--it sounds like some sort of Nazism...imagine- now they are telling young people to forget about owning a home which leads them to no other alernative than to move into corporate housing. My point was that the alternative is renting...and retail units are owned by huge corporations...You might have a dozen apartment buildings own by one company-- and a bigger company owns a hundred of these smaller companies..looks like the banks simply may be finding it more safe and consistant not to hand out contracts to new home owners..so in come the slave accomodations.

[Oleg Bach]

THE BANKS DON'T WANT US TO GO INTO BUISNESS ON A MINI LEVEL AND DO WHAT THEY DO- WHICH IS MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING...WHY DO THEY GET TO PRETEND THEY HAVE WEALTH AND LEVERAGE BUT WE DO NOT?

[William Ashley]

They might try to rationalize that they wish to avoid the American mortgage disaster,but it appears to me that this might be a move by the private sector to privatize housing in general. To make it more difficult to arrange for financing of a proper home might have the effect of driving those that at one time would be home owners...would now become corporate renters...surfs in fact. Seeing that thousands of apartment high rises are owned by a few private companies that are firmly connected to the banks...what might be taking place is the begining of a type of national housing- national socialistic housing..when one makes the arguement that nationalization is socialism they are wrong..nationalization is privatization.

Good call but this just says only people with a career can buy a house. Anyone under the poverty line will be out of luck with a mortgage from the CMHC. It actually shows lack of confidence in future money streams and job security.

Low income individuals will be out of the housing picture (even though rental costs are easily on par with mortgage rates.

It attacked people making money from the housing renovation market (who likely reaped a killing from the renovation tax credit and ecoenergy programs)

Basically the last couple years had a lot of tax advantages for those with money to invest (you could actually make money from the programs) housing renovations paid for themselves.

This also cuts a line for buying a cottage with a mortgage meaning that they will be less accessable to low middle income.

Really it just ups the bar on who can have a house and who can have a cottage on credit.

Just the conservatives making life for the poor less free, nothing new there.

Edited February 17, 2010 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

Good call but this just says only people will a carear can buy a house. Anyone under the poverty line will be out of luck with a mortgage from the CMHC. It actually shows lack of confidence in future money streams and job security.

Low income individuals will be out of the housing picture (even though rental costs are easily on par with mortgage rates.

It attacked people making money from the housing renovation market (who likely reaped a killing from the renovation tax credit and ecoenergy programs)

Basically the last couple years had a lot of tax advantages for those with money to invest (you could actually make money from the programs) housing renovations paid for themselves.

This also cuts a line for buying a cottage with a mortgage meaning that they will be less accessable to low middle income.

Really it just ups the bar on who can have a house and who can have a cottage on credit.

Just the conservatives making life for the poor less free, nothing new there.

Traditionally the conservatives..have been the money controlers for a long time around here. They exclusively believe they are the upper classes and how dare anyone of those dirty poor people actually have a good life..a home- a garden...children! BUT the hypocrites will publicly and self servingly state that the economic stimulas has worked- FOR THEM maybe and this statement by the finance minister is to ensure that the money we sent the rich is never returned....they get to keep it all.

[EyesWideOpen]

When is he going to tell the banks to drop the interest fees in credit cards? If he so worried about household debt, that would be the place to go. .

This is a long time coming, and all we get is lip service.

Canadians charged 267 billion dollars to credit cards last year and carry 78 billion dollars in credit card debt!

And the folks who owe are falling further and further behind - thanks to the banks tightening up. If you're late on a payment now, they can raise your interest rate and shorten the 'grace period'.

[Oleg Bach]

Drop the interest rates on credit cards? Hah what a joke! Remember at the begining of the Haitian relief effort that those that donated via credit cards were being charged a fee and the companies did not stop doing this until they were caught being weasils..You have to remember these bankers are not human and don't breath the same air as we do- they are blue bloods and blue blood is oxygen free.. they are a cold blooded lot and have a hallucinatory notion that they know what is best for us uninformed honest stupid people.

[EyesWideOpen]

It's scary as hell when you look at the stats of low-income earners paying rent or groceries with credit cards...just to make it from one pay cheque to the next.

[EyesWideOpen]

delete.double post

Edited February 17, 2010 by EyesWideOpen

[Oleg Bach]

Currency must have a current and flow like a river- the banks in Canada can afford to take a risk and even a loss...let people have a loan for God's sake...what's with the banks and the finance minister? Hording only allows for a good headline..."Canadian banks are in good shape" - what about the rest of us?

[Moonbox]

Good call but this just says only people will a carear can buy a house. Anyone under the poverty line will be out of luck with a mortgage from the CMHC.

Yes, that's generally how things work. People with no money can't buy things. Oh dear....

It actually shows lack of confidence in future money streams and job security.

Low income individuals will be out of the housing picture (even though rental costs are easily on par with mortgage rates.

Rental costs may be on par with 35 year mortgages, but that's pretty irrelevant. The problem is that most people who can't afford a down payment also can't give a compelling reason for a bank to lend them the money. If you haven't been able to save any sort of down payment, its also quite likely that your financial situation is pretty unsecure.

This also cuts a line for buying a cottage with a mortgage meaning that they will be less accessable to low middle income.

Nope. That just means they might have to demonstrate the ability to save up a down payment beyond 5%.

Really it just ups the bar on who can have a house and who can have a cottage on credit.

If you knew anything about banking or underwriting, or if you ever had to ask for the keys to someone's house, you'd know why. Guess what demographic faces the highest percentage of foreclosures? the poor. Guess why? Because they couldn't afford it in the first place.

Just the conservatives making life for the poor less free, nothing new there.

Haha. More like it's preventing the poor from being pushed into bad situations that they've already shown they can't afford.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Moonbox

[William Ashley]

Yes, that's generally how things work. People with no money can't buy things. Oh dear....

Yeah and the federal government can spend 60 Billion dollars it doesn't have.. that is what

$2500 of spending every citizen can't afford this year. or the $90,000 each household is in debt or the 30000 dollars that the governmetn has overspent for every canadian.. sure that is how it works.. clearly that must be it.

NOT.. it works more like this... the government doesn't need to be responsible in its spending but expects people to have nothing and get use to living that way while they live in presidential suites and fly executive class at 5000 dollars a pop.. that is your you can't get what you don't have money for.. maybe they should live by that line rather than expecting others to.

Rental costs may be on par with 35 year mortgages, but that's pretty irrelevant.

OK if that is the case, why not put all the CPC into an appartment building in ottawa instead of giving them a house on sussex drive and give it to a homeless family instead?

The problem is that most people who can't afford a down payment also can't give a compelling reason for a bank to lend them the money.

If this was the real issue it would force people to pay into a mortgage program before "gaining the mortgage"

rather than just saying you can't get it unless you meet this criteria. Lots of people are in tight situations due to the costof living and low pay rates for people in many industries that serve middle income and upper class indivudals.

If you haven't been able to save any sort of down payment, its also quite likely that your financial situation is pretty unsecure.

I bought a home on earnings under the poverty line, and I've been able to meet my expenses just fine.

Nope. That just means they might have to demonstrate the ability to save up a down payment beyond 5%.

I couldn't get a mortgage from the banks without getting a surety so I decided to do it myself. I'm in a better financial situation because of it. Not only are my costs about the same, but my living situation is more stable, and I'm able to build up an asset. Within another year I would actually be earning money due to only needing to pay for property taxes and upkeep.

If you knew anything about banking or underwriting, or if you ever had to ask for the keys to someone's house, you'd know why. Guess what demographic faces the highest percentage of foreclosures? the poor. Guess why? Because they couldn't afford it in the first place.

What is your point, maybe banks could actually work out a payment plan instead of foreclosing on them. Maybe it is because banks have the tendancy to take advantage of people short on money - and it is the poor that are most effected by cost of living increases. Their payrates tend not to increase dramatically 5$ of 1000$ is not the same as 5$ of 6000$ and that is the monthly income variance of poor to middle class.

Haha. More like it's preventing the poor from being pushed into bad situations that they've already shown they can't afford.

It is people with families that need homes not single executives who are in town half the year. It isn't that you can afford it it is the quality of life by having it. Why prevent families from actually having living space.

Edited February 17, 2010 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

W

[Oleg Bach]

W

Why not continue to destroy the nuclear family- It seems that is the trend. Certain clans are privledged and other familiar clans are to be wipe out..this agenda to weaken all families except a few will continue. This is feudalism and YOU are not entitled to a castle.

[Oleg Bach]

It's scary as hell when you look at the stats of low-income earners paying rent or groceries with credit cards...just to make it from one pay cheque to the next.

There are old ladies that I know who are living of extended credit and one has become a bankrupt..now the bankruptcy people are taking the old girl for even her Gst. refund, not to mention trying to take the bulk of her pension..one parasite exists and the other enters. It is like the collection company phenomena- who buy ensured debts at a discount and create an industry out of selling debts- which amounts to selling people- which is a form of slavery..America sold millions of slaves to China of all people.

[M.Dancer]

It's scary as hell when you look at the stats of low-income earners paying rent or groceries with credit cards...just to make it from one pay cheque to the next.

Not just low income earners...certainly not all ....just the incredibly stupid ones.

[Oleg Bach]

Not just low income earners...certainly not all ....just the incredibly stupid ones.

Most people are incredibly stupid and trusting of the system. There are monster homes in my old hood..that carry intergenerational mortgages. There might come a time when the five bathroom dwellings inhabited by con artists that ran from Taiwan with plunder might need to downsize?

[Hydraboss]

At one time the minister said he couldn't tell the banks what to do. but here he is doing just that. When is he going to tell the banks to drop the interest fees in credit cards? If he so worried about household debt, that would be the place to go. The only reason the government is doing this and not the banks because the banks want this across the board and if they had to do it, some banks would and others may not and the "may nots" would probably get more business.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but...

I agree with every word in this post. Bang on, Topaz.

[JBoyd]

The government should close CMHC and no longer insure mortgages. This would force the banks to shoulder the risks of lending and not shift them onto the backs of taxpayers.

Banks are beholden to their shareholders not to the Gov. If the banks start losing money on bad loans then the stock price will suffer and the board will change the direction of the organization.

As far as who stated banks have money so lend it....these are private run institutions to do with their capital reserves as they see fit. If the cheif economist predicts future market mark downs, then the bank is going to increase the reserve ratio in order to meet the capital requirements in the future. They are in the business of creating wealth for the owners NOT for the general public these are businesses not charities.

[Wilber]

As long as the government is going to be in the business of insuring mortgages it needs to make sure that people will be in a position to pay them back. Lending money to people who are likely to default is good neither for the lender or the borrower.

All in all this is a good thing. It will ensure that fewer people default by reducing the number of people who can borrow money to buy things they really can't afford. Reducing the number of buyers in the market by increasing eligibility requirements and increasing the down payments required by speculators will put a damper on house prices discouraging a bubble market. If you want to sell, you have to find a buyer who can afford to buy and will price accordingly. This will in fact increase the number of people who can actually afford a house, not decrease it.

I still remember the bubble of the early eighties. Paid 72K for a house in 79. In 81 I could have got 160K for it. Interest rates skyrocketed, the bubble burst and people were walking away from their homes and mortgages. Nine years later I sold the house for 160K, that's how long it took the market to recover. Now it would be worth over 600K. That is what we want to avoid happening again. This is a good move IMO and will protect a lot more people than it will harm.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Wilber

[Alta4ever]

The government should close CMHC and no longer insure mortgages. This would force the banks to shoulder the risks of lending and not shift them onto the backs of taxpayers.

Banks are beholden to their shareholders not to the Gov. If the banks start losing money on bad loans then the stock price will suffer and the board will change the direction of the organization.

As far as who stated banks have money so lend it....these are private run institutions to do with their capital reserves as they see fit. If the cheif economist predicts future market mark downs, then the bank is going to increase the reserve ratio in order to meet the capital requirements in the future. They are in the business of creating wealth for the owners NOT for the general public these are businesses not charities.

You do realize that CMHC was brought in to being to lower the down payment amount from 25% to 10%?

[Moonbox]

Yeah and the federal government can spend 60 Billion dollars it doesn't have.. that is what

You mean it spent $60B to help the poor and middle class and make sure they have work to do. It's the rich, after all, who are best equipped to weather a recession and who pay the majority of taxes.

That's not an opinion. That's a fact. There's a reason why the rich are happiest with tax cuts and the most unhappy about deficits. It's because they end up paying for the bulk of it and benefiting the least from it.

OK if that is the case, why not put all the CPC into an appartment building in ottawa instead of giving them a house on sussex drive and give it to a homeless family instead?

Your question makes no sense and is irrelevant to the discussion. The CPC can afford homes so they live in them. The homeless are homeless for all sorts of different reasons, virtually none of which are the CPC's fault.

If this was the real issue it would force people to pay into a mortgage program before "gaining the mortgage"

It's a free country. People can do what they want with their money after they pay their taxes. If you want to spend like an idiot on smokes, booze and cellphones instead of saving for a house that's totally your decision.

I bought a home on earnings under the poverty line, and I've been able to meet my expenses just fine.

Is that supposed to mean anything? I'd love to know what your situation was and who helped you buy the home...or what sort of dump you're living in.

I couldn't get a mortgage from the banks without getting a surety so I decided to do it myself.

Care to explain how you did it?

What is your point, maybe banks could actually work out a payment plan instead of foreclosing on them.

The banks are not Habitat for Humanity. They are in the business of making money. They don't WANT to foreclose, because that ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ends up costing the banks a fortune. They DO try to set up payment plans, but eventually they have to cut their losses and end it.

Maybe it is because banks have the tendancy to take advantage of people short on money - and it is the poor that are most effected by cost of living increases. Their payrates tend not to increase dramatically 5$ of 1000$ is not the same as 5$ of 6000$ and that is the monthly income variance of poor to middle class.

People short on money are often short on money for a reason and the issues they end up getting themselves into are generally not the bank's fault. It's their own. You'd be complaining to the banks regardless of what happens. If the banks aren't lending to the poor, it's because they're jerks. If the banks DO lend and the borrower ends up not being able to pay the debt back, the bank's also a jerk for trying to recover their money. Again, the banks aren't a charity.

It is people with families that need homes not single executives who are in town half the year. It isn't that you can afford it it is the quality of life by having it. Why prevent families from actually having living space.

Nobody is 'preventing' it. Everything you've proposed has been 'charity'. A lot of the time people are in the situations they're in all on their own fault. Simply put, a lot of them are irresponsible idiots. That doesn't make them bad people, and maybe they weren't raised properly, but that's the way they are. I know there are countless exceptions to what I just said. Regardless, the Banks, the Government and the public (myself included) clearly don't feel compelled to subsidize idiots.