Capital Gains Tax on Primary Residences

[Scott Mayers]

21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I cannot imagine a national zoning policy for this country. Provinces and especially municipalities would go berserk if Ottawa was to decide what they could build when and where in their province of communities.

What Ottawa can do to make housing affordable is change the archaic mortgage processes and rules. Ottawa g=has often tinkered with stress tests to try and make sure people could afford what they want to buy but that has been a failure because people find ways around it. Make mortgage interests tax deductible like in the US, considering the huge majority of your mortgage is interest, that would allow more people to afford homes.

 

Wouldn't that be a 'tax' benefit for those WITH wealth, and just as well interpreted as "a way" that wealthy people exploit most predominantly?

 

P.S. We are not a country made up of independent 'states' that founded a Federal government like the United States, but a Federal state that interprets each 'province' as subject to it. If you want a system like the U.S., then we need to redress our constitution.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

accidental new post meant as an edit for the last.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Scott Mayers

[ExFlyer]

20 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Wouldn't that be a 'tax' benefit for those WITH wealth, and just as well interpreted as "a way" that wealthy people exploit most predominantly?

 

P.S. We are not a country made up of independent 'states' that founded a Federal government like the United States, but a Federal state that interprets each 'province' as subject to it. If you want a system like the U.S., then we need to redress our constitution.

No, it would just allow people to budget better and make housing more affordable.. It is a federal income tax deduction in the US.

Explotiing is done by many people, wealthy or not.

Not sure what you are trying to relay with that last paragraph. I am in no way saying we should become the US just saying that we could have mortgage interest be a tax deduction on our income taxes "like" in the US.

[Scott Mayers]

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

44 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Wouldn't that be a 'tax' benefit for those WITH wealth, and just as well interpreted as "a way" that wealthy people exploit most predominantly?

 

P.S. We are not a country made up of independent 'states' that founded a Federal government like the United States, but a Federal state that interprets each 'province' as subject to it. If you want a system like the U.S., then we need to redress our constitution.

Expand  

No, it would just allow people to budget better and make housing more affordable.. It is a federal income tax deduction in the US.

Explotiing is done by many people, wealthy or not.

Not sure what you are trying to relay with that last paragraph. I am in no way saying we should become the US just saying that we could have mortgage interest be a tax deduction on our income taxes "like" in the US.

"Affordable" for whom? I've never noticed any benefit for owners that trickle down to the renter, for instance. And given you never see rent go DOWN, this is indicative of the fact that owners wouldn't pass the same compassion for any 'benefits' to those who lack even the power to buy. If any benefits are granted to people based upon income, this includes both those renters AND owners by contrast. When laws favor the 'owner', those with excessive capital in property ownership on a large scale would exploit the shit out of such 'benefits' with priority. 

"Exploitation" occurs from those with power over others. Wealth represents that power most predominantly. While it may be true that all people have the same tendency to be 'greedy' equally under the same conditions, only those with the power to successfully exploit matter, not those empoverished whom you can expect to behave less maturely by default of how poverty affects their psyche and others within their environment.  

Instead, I think the Federal government CAN demand banks to be the ones to grant those very 'deductions' you'd like. Why should the bank be granted the right to not sacrifice. These times are most profitable for bankers and, in general, most investors who would 'capitalize' better when government is burdened rather than they themselves. The banks should be challenged to stop interest rates contrary to contracts (like mortgages are). AND, they should not be permitted to merely DELAY obligations as they have for some. 

Rents have not gone down but up, just as new home owners are also locked out permanently from ever having the same luxury to own. The banks, the media, and other essential 'middlemen' profiteers should be the ones taking more responsibility during times of crisis ....voluntarily. Yet, opposingly they are definitely exploiting the present dispostions of those perhaps like yourself for NOT volunteering relief while simultaneously gaining more profit than normal. They would be the ones who would 'benefit' for being ASSURED they are not required to sacrifice. 

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

"Affordable" for whom? I've never noticed any benefit for owners that trickle down to the renter, for instance. And given you never see rent go DOWN, this is indicative of the fact that owners wouldn't pass the same compassion for any 'benefits' to those who lack even the power to buy. If any benefits are granted to people based upon income, this includes both those renters AND owners by contrast. When laws favor the 'owner', those with excessive capital in property ownership on a large scale would exploit the shit out of such 'benefits' with priority. 

"Exploitation" occurs from those with power over others. Wealth represents that power most predominantly. While it may be true that all people have the same tendency to be 'greedy' equally under the same conditions, only those with the power to successfully exploit matter, not those empoverished whom you can expect to behave less maturely by default of how poverty affects their psyche and others within their environment.  

Instead, I think the Federal government CAN demand banks to be the ones to grant those very 'deductions' you'd like. Why should the bank be granted the right to not sacrifice. These times are most profitable for bankers and, in general, most investors who would 'capitalize' better when government is burdened rather than they themselves. The banks should be challenged to stop interest rates contrary to contracts (like mortgages are). AND, they should not be permitted to merely DELAY obligations as they have for some. 

Rents have not gone down but up, just as new home owners are also locked out permanently from ever having the same luxury to own. The banks, the media, and other essential 'middlemen' profiteers should be the ones taking more responsibility during times of crisis ....voluntarily. Yet, opposingly they are definitely exploiting the present dispostions of those perhaps like yourself for NOT volunteering relief while simultaneously gaining more profit than normal. They would be the ones who would 'benefit' for being ASSURED they are not required to sacrifice. 

Affordable for those wishing to buy a home. Any reduction or refund of money is helpful.

Why so passionate about giving a mortgage interest tax benefit? It makes home ownership affordable because the majority of your mortgage payments are to interest. Getting money back for your interest on the mortgage only puts money in your pocket to offset your expenses.

Banks are not responsible for your choice of loans, they give them and charge whatever they wish. Also, banks are not the only place you can get a loan to buy a home.

Rent have nothing to do with mortgages other than the rental owner has to pay it and as it is a business, they already get to deduct interest and operating costs from their business expenses. Also, rents go up as expenses go up. Businesses do not (or rarely ) absorb increases in expense cost so, the renter pays.

https://homeownershipmatters.realtor/issues/how-the-mortgage-interest-deduction-is-vital-to-the-housing-market/

[Scott Mayers]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Affordable for those wishing to buy a home. Any reduction or refund of money is helpful.

Why so passionate about giving a mortgage interest tax benefit? It makes home ownership affordable because the majority of your mortgage payments are to interest. Getting money back for your interest on the mortgage only puts money in your pocket to offset your expenses.

Banks are not responsible for your choice of loans, they give them and charge whatever they wish. Also, banks are not the only place you can get a loan to buy a home.

Rent have nothing to do with mortgages other than the rental owner has to pay it and as it is a business, they already get to deduct interest and operating costs from their business expenses. Also, rents go up as expenses go up. Businesses do not (or rarely ) absorb increases in expense cost so, the renter pays.

https://homeownershipmatters.realtor/issues/how-the-mortgage-interest-deduction-is-vital-to-the-housing-market/

Now you are sounding like a banker pretending to be a humble home owner! What are the odds of that kind of propaganda happening? ?

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Now you are sounding like a banker pretending to be a humble home owner! What are the odds of that kind of propaganda happening? ?

I am not sounding or trying to sound like a banker, Realtor or anything  just saying the the American tax deduction for mortgage interest would be helpful.

Any little bit to help with owning a home is a great thing.  I know I wished it was available for me when I had a mortgage. Any money back would have helped for the years I was paying mortgage.

[Moonbox]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

This type of market can not sustain itself.. sooner or later most housing in Toronto will be unaffordable...those that can not afford it will move else where and Toronto's housing market will crash or become vacant...i bet on crash...

It's possible depending on what happens in the economy, but the problem is our population is growing and we're not expanding housing.  Interest rates rising could crash the market if it's done too quickly, but as long as there is an imbalance on population growth and housing growth in the places people want to live, the market is going to remain ugly.  

[Moonbox]

17 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Solution to what?

The feds are thinking about capital gains on primary residences only as a new source of revenue.

This has nothign to do with affordability, density, housing starts etc, it is just a plain old money grab.

If this goes through, it will not matter who is the next government, the tax will remain. I cannot think of any tax that has been repealed by a new government.

You're probably right but I don't think it will go through.  This would be enough to get everyone to abandon the Liberals en masse and vote for literally anyone else.  

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It's possible depending on what happens in the economy, but the problem is our population is growing and we're not expanding housing.  Interest rates rising could crash the market if it's done too quickly, but as long as there is an imbalance on population growth and housing growth in the places people want to live, the market is going to remain ugly.  

Be careful of trying to lay that on the feet of the current government , they already stated it is not their fault. Population growth is now being driven by our current government, with no signs it will stop or ease up...according to their experts... other experts have been screaming we need to pause and get caught up in infra structure and new housing but the mighty dollar and greed is driving this now......But somehow it is good for the economy, more people mean more money, just in this case it is getting into the wrong hands, investors are making a bang, while the little people can not afford homes

Somehow the government can't figure out how to spend on infra structure........Sooner or later this has to top out or crash... my bet is crash , everybody is greedy, and Canadians love dollars prices will rise above what the majority will or can pay for... 

[cougar]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Sooner or later this has to top out or crash... my bet is crash , everybody is greedy, and Canadians love dollars prices will rise above what the majority will or can pay for... 

If one cannot buy, they are left renting.  So the houses remain in the hands of a few people renting everything to the rest.  If their rent is too high, people will have to either leave and go to another place - city, country, or be out on the street.  Either way, there will be fewer people to work and demand for rental units should come down.   From experience, rent is usually more expensive than making the monthly mortgage payment on the same unit, if the mortgage is amortized over 25 years.  So people are worse off renting - it becomes even more expensive for them.

What they are left doing is living on less space - one room, instead of two, or living with more family members in one unit.

This is what the owners are capitalizing on - increasing the density of residents per square foot, increasing the mortgage amortization periods - same strategy as the grocery producers - giving you less for more money in a bigger bag filled up with air.

 

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1. our population is growing and we're not expanding housing. 

2. ...as long as there is an imbalance on population growth and housing growth in the places people want to live, the market is going to remain ugly.  

1. Not true.  Our housing demand is increasing for many reasons but the primary problem seems to be speculators buying and holding/hoarding dwellings.
2. Last I checked we were building enough homes to house the population.

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not true.  Our housing demand is increasing for many reasons but the primary problem seems to be speculators buying and holding/hoarding dwellings.
2. Last I checked we were building enough homes to house the population.

Source?

[CITIZEN_2015]

Capital gain tax on primary residences are not acceptable and any government imposing such tax will be voted out of office in the next election. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Source?

Some points first - as much for others than you.

1. You and I have a long history but whether we agree or disagree we will always have an honest and productive discussion.  This makes me willing to put work into our discussions.
2. I am still researching the housing crisis and it IS a crisis.  The causes are not well known, but these things can be established by looking at data.  It's as important to solving our political discussion crisis as the housing crisis itself that we do so.
3. I am convinced it's not immigration causing the crisis, but that doesn't mean that I think immigration policies are fine as they are.  I feel they are being abused to serve some sponsors,and that healthcare and urban planning are not being given enough care to manage our population growth.  When you add to that the political scapegoating that happens with immigration, it means we need to take a pause and look at what is happening.

Now - where I got my conclusion from is here.  The number of housing completions is generally trending up as is immigration.  

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3410013501&pickMembers[0]=1.1&pickMembers[1]=4.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=01&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2012&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=10&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2021&referencePeriods=20120101%2C20211001

Given that the numbers aren't spiking anything like how home prices are, and given that the average home in Canada has 2.5 residents, and that that number may be more for immigrant families...

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/47710686.pdf

It doesn't seem that we are not building enough for immigrants.  Here's a table I made of the annual totals.
 

This, to me, seems totally adequate on the aggregate to house our immigrant population.    What are some possible other causes ?  I would estimate that Air BnB has an impact...  This graph for NYC shows that they have been spiking upwards... to very high levels as of 2018.

 

https://towardsdatascience.com/airbnb-rental-listings-dataset-mining-f972ed08ddec

[Moonbox]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not true.  Our housing demand is increasing for many reasons but the primary problem seems to be speculators buying and holding/hoarding dwellings.

Speculators (especially foreign ones) are just the most visible and objectionable part of the problem.  Supply not matching demand/population growth is another, as are the rise in short-term rentals vs hotels, along with overly-accommodative interest rates and mortgage rules.  

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Last I checked we were building enough homes to house the population.

but we aren't.  

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/adv/article-are-we-building-enough-homes-the-short-answer-is-no/

“The principal challenge facing the housing market – and the underlying cause for rising prices and diminished affordability – is the substantial insufficiency of supply relative to demand,” the Scotiabank report says.

Lee says a study by the CHBA in 2017 estimated that over the coming decade the country would be 300,000 family units short.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/record-construction-not-enough-to-meet-canadian-real-estate-demand-rbc-173345583.html

Construction also isn't keeping up with population growth. Hogue says the 215,000 new units in the past 12 months fall short of the 220,000 average yearly increase in Canadian households in the four years before the pandemic.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Moonbox said:

1. Speculators (especially foreign ones) are just the most visible and objectionable part of the problem.  Supply not matching demand/population growth is another, as are the rise in short-term rentals vs hotels, along with overly-accommodative interest rates and mortgage rules.  

2.  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/adv/article-are-we-building-enough-homes-the-short-answer-is-no/

“The principal challenge facing the housing market – and the underlying cause for rising prices and diminished affordability – is the substantial insufficiency of supply relative to demand,” the Scotiabank report says.

3. Lee says a study by the CHBA in 2017 estimated that over the coming decade the country would be 300,000 family units short.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/record-construction-not-enough-to-meet-canadian-real-estate-demand-rbc-173345583.html

4. Construction also isn't keeping up with population growth. Hogue says the 215,000 new units in the past 12 months fall short of the 220,000 average yearly increase in Canadian households in the four years before the pandemic.

1. I disagree that supply not matching demand is a separate problem from speculation.  Speculation only works with limited supply but ok.

2. I'm not saying those people are dishonest but they do have an agenda.  Royal LePage president ?  Re/Max report ?  Banker ?  President of Homebuilders Association ?  Of course they will cry about lack of "supply".  It's their job to keep the market escalating, for all of them.  The very term "supply" puts Air BnB, empty homes owned by speculators and lived-in residences in the same pool.  To point to "supply vs demand" without asking why the demand is so high is actually deceptive IMO.

3. Or 30,000 units per year short but... I posted an article saying 90% of new homes are bought by speculators.  Would it be so difficult for them to absorb an additional 3000 units per year nationally ?  Because if it isn't then your 30,000 new units aren't enough to meet "demand"

4.  Dubious.  There was a dip because of the pandemic - is this person rigging the stats to say that we're short ?  And how are our households requiring 220,000 units a year when our population increases by 500,000 per year and we have 2.5 residents per home ?  Dubious.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263742/total-population-in-canada/ 

[Moonbox]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I disagree that supply not matching demand is a separate problem from speculation.  Speculation only works with limited supply but ok.

The limited supply is what fuels the speculation, and although they're not "separate problems" I think we're better off focusing on the underlying drivers instead of the effect.  Treat the illness rather than the symptoms, so to speak.   

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I'm not saying those people are dishonest but they do have an agenda.  Royal LePage president ?  Re/Max report ?  Banker ?  President of Homebuilders Association ?  Of course they will cry about lack of "supply".  It's their job to keep the market escalating, for all of them.  The very term "supply" puts Air BnB, empty homes owned by speculators and lived-in residences in the same pool.  To point to "supply vs demand" without asking why the demand is so high is actually deceptive IMO.

I mostly agree with you and these sources are probably not the best.  I've very little faith or regard for the realtor profession in general.  

That aside, let's make an economic argument then.  

https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html

• Canada’s population-adjusted housing stock is the lowest in the G7.
• Ontario would require over 650,000 homes for its ratio of dwellings to population to equal that in the rest of the country.

Review those two facts in tandem.  First, Canada (on average) has the lowest G7 housing stock.  Second, Ontario needs 650,000 new homes even to meet that low bar.   

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4.  Dubious.  There was a dip because of the pandemic - is this person rigging the stats to say that we're short ?  And how are our households requiring 220,000 units a year when our population increases by 500,000 per year and we have 2.5 residents per home ?  Dubious.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263742/total-population-in-canada/ 

The math is unfortunately not so simple.  Factors like vacancies (especially disparities by market), vacation properties and rentals, demand for housing will always exceed simple household demand.  

We can try to regulate/tax/discourage speculative housing demand, and that will help, but the most effective way to end this is find an equilibrium in the supply/demand curve where risky, highly-leveraged speculation is no longer profitable.  The interest rates rising should help, but supply will be what ultimately solves this problem.  

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I disagree that supply not matching demand is a separate problem from speculation.  Speculation only works with limited supply but ok.

The fact construction costs run from $300-$400 a sq ft plus it can take a year to get a building permit is a big supply problem.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 

1. 

https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html

• Canada’s population-adjusted housing stock is the lowest in the G7.
• Ontario would require over 650,000 homes for its ratio of dwellings to population to equal that in the rest of the country.

Review those two facts in tandem.  First, Canada (on average) has the lowest G7 housing stock.  Second, Ontario needs 650,000 new homes even to meet that low bar.   

 

I looked at this report and it seems to be cherry picking.  There are some tells in how they look at the data:
 

• "household size in Canada (2.4) is quite close to the G7 average (2.3)."  The difference is therefore small, and considering that other G7 countries are experiencing real estate price increases it doesn't point to a problem specific to Canada
• Saying we have the lowest adjusted stock obscures the fact that the UK and US are only very slightly higher than us.  And they have the same macro problems we do, but different immigration patterns.
• "To put these gaps in perspective, we have averaged 188 thousand home completions in the last 10 years." Deceptive.  10 years ago was a long time ago, why are you including that in the average.
• I don't see them comparing housing completions to population here - unless I missed it.  i did it in the table I posted for moonlight and got this table below. 
  
  Now I ask you - why are our occupants/unit numbers trending down when we compare to population increase ?  It means that in 2020, we build more than enough homes to house Canadians at a ratio of 2.4.  So unless Scotiabank or myself have the wrong numbers.  I listed my sources.  Theirs are "statistics Canada" and "Scotiabank economics".  And, again, they have a horse in the race.
  
   

Year	Completions	Population 1000s	Pop Increase	Home Size
2012	180,093	34992
2013	185,494	35296	304	1.638867025
2014	180,093	35664	368	2.043388694
2015	194,461	36026	362	1.861555788
2016	187,604	36382	356	1.897614123
2017	190,923	36732	350	1.833199772
2018	200,262	37074	342	1.707762831
2019	187,177	37411	337	1.800434882
2020	198,761	37742	331	1.665316637

 

Quote

2. The math is unfortunately not so simple.  Factors like vacancies (especially disparities by market), vacation properties and rentals, demand for housing will always exceed simple household demand.  

3. We can try to regulate/tax/discourage speculative housing demand, and that will help, but the most effective way to end this is find an equilibrium in the supply/demand curve where risky, highly-leveraged speculation is no longer profitable.  The interest rates rising should help, but supply will be what ultimately solves this problem.  

2. I agree and although I admire what you have done, and what Scotiabank has done... we would need a true expert to wade through it all.  But Iif you just look at the raw numbers from Stats Canada there are a LOT of homes being built.  And I have posted an article indicating that speculation is buying up new homes... If you include speculator-bought homes in the "supply problem" then I guess we are on the same page.  But it seems that we are building more homes than we need for immigration anyway.

3.  I agree with that.  Soft landing would be best.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I looked at this report and it seems to be cherry picking.  There are some tells in how they look at the data:
 

• "household size in Canada (2.4) is quite close to the G7 average (2.3)."  The difference is therefore small, and considering that other G7 countries are experiencing real estate price increases it doesn't point to a problem specific to Canada

That's not really cherry-picking.  They're acknowledging it's not a straight apples-to-apples comparison, but doesn't account for the difference in overall stock.  

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

• Saying we have the lowest adjusted stock obscures the fact that the UK and US are only very slightly higher than us.  And they have the same macro problems we do, but different immigration patterns.

I don't think this really matters, does it?  That the UK and the US have their own housing problems doesn't minimize our own.  Our problems are also very regional, with Ontario especially (and some of the other provinces) dragging our national average down.  The article explains that even if we could address these acute provincial shortages and bring them in line with the current national average, we'd still only be equal to the UK and the US.  

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

• "To put these gaps in perspective, we have averaged 188 thousand home completions in the last 10 years." Deceptive.  10 years ago was a long time ago, why are you including that in the average.

Not deceptive.  The biggest and most impactful projects on overall housing availability are larger high density projects which can take years to complete from start to finish.  The housing problems in Canada are hardly new and have been a problem for at least 10 years.   

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

• I don't see them comparing housing completions to population here - unless I missed it.  i did it in the table I posted for moonlight and got this table below. 

There are encouraging signs, however. Housing starts are running well above pre-pandemic levels, though that pace of construction, if sustained, is unlikely to meaningfully close the gap between supply and demand anytime soon given the size of the gap to be closed, and an expectation of strong immigration growth in coming years. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

• Now I ask you - why are our occupants/unit numbers trending down when we compare to population increase ?  It means that in 2020, we build more than enough homes to house Canadians at a ratio of 2.4. 

Demographics, probably.  

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

• So unless Scotiabank or myself have the wrong numbers.  I listed my sources.  Theirs are "statistics Canada" and "Scotiabank economics".  And, again, they have a horse in the race.

I don't really understand your numbers or your source entirely, but I think you overestimate how biased Scotiabank is on this.  

Regardless, we can find other sources saying the same thing.  Here's a video from Ernst and Young on bloomberg that I watched recently, so unless you figure the accounting industry is also biased then maybe we can accept his impartiality.    

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/real-estate/video/ottawa-must-focus-less-on-demand-more-on-supply-tax-expert-on-housing-affordability~2415563

 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Moonbox said:

1. That's not really cherry-picking.    

2. I don't think this really matters, does it?  That the UK and the US have their own housing problems doesn't minimize our own. 

3. Our problems are also very regional, with Ontario especially (and some of the other provinces) dragging our national average down.  The article explains that even if we could address these acute provincial shortages and bring them in line with the current national average, we'd still only be equal to the UK and the US.  

4.  The housing problems in Canada are hardly new and have been a problem for at least 10 years.    

5. Regardless, we can find other sources saying the same thing.  Here's a video from Ernst and Young on bloomberg that I watched recently, so unless you figure the accounting industry is also biased then maybe we can accept his impartiality.    

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/real-estate/video/ottawa-must-focus-less-on-demand-more-on-supply-tax-expert-on-housing-affordability~2415563

 

1. I think picking a 10 year average is thin ice, and the other things I pointed out but ok.
2. I think if all countries are seeing the same problem then we have to ask what is causing that.
3. Yes, agreed.
4. I don't think it was a problem 10 years ago and I wonder if it is today.  
5. My challenge to you is to find a studied source that blames speculation.  Then see if Scotiabank, Re/Max, The Builders' Association, etc. are co-signatories on said report

[ExFlyer]

On 4/6/2022 at 10:41 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Source?

 

Quote

"Housing Starts in Canada averaged 189.10 Thousand units from 1977 until 2022, reaching an all time high of 330.12 Thousand units in March of 2021 and a record low of 90.70 Thousand units in August of 1982."

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/housing-starts

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/housing-starts

That's a confusing graph.  I assume those are 'in progress' ?  In any case the 189 thousand number is nothing close to even the lows on that chart.

Unfortunately the real estate industry will have to be grievously wounded in order to save housing.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's a confusing graph.  I assume those are 'in progress' ?  In any case the 189 thousand number is nothing close to even the lows on that chart.

Unfortunately the real estate industry will have to be grievously wounded in order to save housing.

Just answering, or trying to put in perspective your comment about housing keeping up with population increases.

2 things,

1. Housing costs are what they are because of material costs, labour and development charges.

2. Rental rates are also dependant on material costs for repairs, labour  also for repairs and municipal taxes and charges.

All those things have gone up substantially and those costs are passed on to the consumer hence, the cost of housing is up. 

Competition in the market normally drives prices down except in housing because completion means more buyers than seller therefore the buyers are driving the price of houses. Trying to find someone else to blame for high housing costs is nonsensical because it is obvious, we are doing it to ourselves.