Half of Canadians on the brink of financial collapse

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Ya...that's rational.

Well...even once Polievre is in power, it'll take 2 years to even effect this problem.

Well... there is a cheat.

There's about a 2- 3 year cycle to building. It takes a bit of time for things to go from "i own the land" to "i've got a place someone can occupy."

For various reasons, which i can explain in more detail if you like, the way things are forces the builders to always build slightly fewer homes than we need.  Has been that way for over a decade now, which is why things have gotten to where they are.

But it takes a year or so for them to adapt to a sudden increase in expected population growth - OR a sudden decrease.

If interest rates stabilize then housing starts will go back up a little (they're low right now which just makes us more screwed).  If PP gets in, and then suddenly cuts immigraiton dramatically - say by  40 percent or more..   then suddenly it will ease pressure on the housing market because there's still 2 years of stock rolling off the assembly process but in the meantime the increase in demand is lower than expected.

So for about 2 years there will suddenly be a slight easing of pressure - if he times that with a reduction in interest rates by cutting back on gov't spending, you get 2 years where landlords need to compete more and homes are more affordable and prices go down.

But at the end of the two to three years you crash again.  IF - IF he can do the right things and stimulate MASSIVE building during that time instead of allowing the industry to slow down, then by the time immigration starts to pick up again there will still be enough homes coming on to the market and the pressure will be reduced. I don't know that homes will go DOWN too much, a little maybe, but they'll stop going up and people's income over time will catch up and surpass the costs as we saw in the 80's.  Basically stagflation for real estate which suits us just fine - no bubble burst.

It will take a skilled hand at the tiller to put it all together tho.  It can be done but it's by no means an easy feat.

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well... there is a cheat.

There's about a 2- 3 year cycle to building. It takes a bit of time for things to go from "i own the land" to "i've got a place someone can occupy."

For various reasons, which i can explain in more detail if you like, the way things are forces the builders to always build slightly fewer homes than we need.  Has been that way for over a decade now, which is why things have gotten to where they are.

But it takes a year or so for them to adapt to a sudden increase in expected population growth - OR a sudden decrease.

If interest rates stabilize then housing starts will go back up a little (they're low right now which just makes us more screwed).  If PP gets in, and then suddenly cuts immigraiton dramatically - say by  40 percent or more..   then suddenly it will ease pressure on the housing market because there's still 2 years of stock rolling off the assembly process but in the meantime the increase in demand is lower than expected.

So for about 2 years there will suddenly be a slight easing of pressure - if he times that with a reduction in interest rates by cutting back on gov't spending, you get 2 years where landlords need to compete more and homes are more affordable and prices go down.

But at the end of the two to three years you crash again.  IF - IF he can do the right things and stimulate MASSIVE building during that time instead of allowing the industry to slow down, then by the time immigration starts to pick up again there will still be enough homes coming on to the market and the pressure will be reduced. I don't know that homes will go DOWN too much, a little maybe, but they'll stop going up and people's income over time will catch up and surpass the costs as we saw in the 80's.  Basically stagflation for real estate which suits us just fine - no bubble burst.

It will take a skilled hand at the tiller to put it all together tho.  It can be done but it's by no means an easy feat.

A skilled hand? Well that leaves Pixie Dust out of the mix. Although...admittedly he does accessorize his feat...with cute sockies. 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

A skilled hand? Well that leaves Pixie Dust out of the mix. Although...admittedly he does accessorize his feat...with cute sockies. 

Sadly, as it turns out, a twinkling toe is no substitute for a steady hand

[cougar]

On 12/17/2023 at 6:01 PM, CdnFox said:

Nonetheless - the renter enjoyes all kinds of protections. Their rent increase is protected, they are granted rigths the homeowner doesn't have, they usually don't have to pay for their own repairs, etc etc etc.

So there's a big difference.  But if you disagree - become a homeowner and there, problem solved.  

The renters enjoy nothing other than blowing their hard earned money away.

Don't talk to us about renter protection.   The news is full of cases of evicted tenants for no good reason other than to allow the landlord to get a 50% rent hike.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

The renters enjoy nothing other than blowing their hard earned money away.

 

Really.  See - i'd heard a rumour that they got to have a roof over their head that they didn't buy. I'd heard that they were protected against price increases from things like sudden 200 percent increases in insurance costs on the property and sudden interest rate increases and such. I've read that they have a right to 'use and enjoyment' of the property.

IF what YOU say is true -they should stop paying rent and go somewhere else  IMMEDIATELY....  seeing as they get no benefit at all from that money.

You're being  a bit of an 1diot.

1 hour ago, cougar said:

Don't talk to us about renter protection.   The news is full of cases of evicted tenants for no good reason other than to allow the landlord to get a 50% rent hike.

No. It's not.  the vast majority of renters continue to rent till they desire to move.

And the news is even MORE full of stories of renters who trash their place and flee never to be seen again while the landlord pays for repairs.

So - if you're done lying like a sack of crap and pretending renters are somehow being exploited, then lets make this simple - go buy a place.  Oh - you can't? Well.. maybe you should be thankful someone is willing to offer you theirs then.  Go live in the street.

[August1991]

On 12/18/2023 at 12:54 PM, taxesanddeath said:

my friend, you are the mayor of the wrongville.  I know the housing market is almost flat-line when there is little or no immigrant. The whole situation is because JT's liberal is a one-trick pony. They only know fueling the economy with immigrants (I am not anti-immigrant, I was one).

----

New immigrants have to live somewhere.  They typically live where previous Canadians live.

IMHO, the rise in land values in Toronto and Vancouver is a measure of the success of Canada.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, August1991 said:

New immigrants have to live somewhere.  They typically live where previous Canadians live.

 

No they don't. They compete for space with Previous canadians live. That's what drives up prices and leaves both homeless.

Quote

IMHO, the rise in land values in Toronto and Vancouver is a measure of the success of Canada.

It is a measure of our failure. We cannot even provide the basics for our own people or our guests.

[August1991]

On 12/20/2023 at 1:01 AM, CdnFox said:

No they don't. They compete for space with Previous canadians live. That's what drives up prices and leaves both homeless.

It is a measure of our failure. We cannot even provide the basics for our own people or our guests.

Canada is a large place. Huge 

Current immigrants - since the 1970s or so - mostly want to live where we live.

====

Previous immigrants - the 1890s or so - lived in our large country. 

[cougar]

On 12/19/2023 at 1:04 PM, CdnFox said:

Really.  See - i'd heard a rumour that they got to have a roof over their head that they didn't buy. I'd heard that they were protected against price increases from things like sudden 200 percent increases in insurance costs on the property and sudden interest rate increases and such. I've read that they have a right to 'use and enjoyment' of the property.

IF what YOU say is true -they should stop paying rent and go somewhere else  IMMEDIATELY....  seeing as they get no benefit at all from that money.

You're being  a bit of an 1diot.

 

They are paying that roof over their heads many times over and are also paying the landlords roof. 

You know they cannot stop paying rent because they will be on the street.And they cannot buy, because they either do not have the down payment money, or were not employed by the same employer in the past 3 years or something else.

Seems like you are being that bit of an 1diot

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

Canada is a large place. Huge 

 

But people don't live in a "place", they live in a house.  And we are very short of houses and not building near enough to hope to keep up.  So there's no where for these people to live.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, cougar said:

They are paying that roof over their heads many times over and are also paying the landlords roof.

Nope. They pay for it once and only while they use it.  THat's what 'rental' is.  And there's no guarantee the landlord is making any kind of profit, many don't.

But hey -  if you feel it's unfair just don't rent

Quote

You know they cannot stop paying rent because they will be on the street.And they cannot buy, because they either do not have the down payment money, or were not employed by the same employer in the past 3 years or something else

. Then maybe they should be tbankful as hell someone else is putting up THEIR money and offering a place to live. And there's fewer and fewer doing that.

Seriously - how thick do you have to be to say "this person is providing something i can't live without and therefore i think he's a bad person and doesn't deserve to profit".  Fine - if that's how you feel then go live on the streets.

The little investors who scrape up enough to buy 2 or 3 places are largely gone because the brainless drove them out of the marketplace with attitudes exactly like yours.  So now all that's left is the big investors - and what will you do when they decide it's not profitable enough and they start to back out and put their money somewhere else.

You want landlords to put up all the money, and take all the risks, and get screwed by tenants half the time, but you're angry you have to pay anything for it. 

That's not how the world works.

The only way that it gets ANY better is if the developers build a crap tonne more homes than they have been and they won't unless they make good profit, and if the smaller landlords come back to the market which they won't with people like you saying how terrible they are for providing a person a place to live.

You on the left - you demand regulation that makes it more expensive to build, you demand that 'wealthy' developers be punished, you chase landlords out of the market place and you vote for high tax gov'ts that drive investors out of the country - and you're standing here wondering why you can't have a place to live?

Yeash.

 

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You on the left - you demand regulation that makes it more expensive to build, you demand that 'wealthy' developers be punished, you chase landlords out of the market place...

If this is the fundamental predicate upon which your views are based its no wonder your opinions are so disjointed. 

I'm a lefty and a landlord that's spent the better part of my life on a area planning commission resisting regulations that make it harder to build a secondary dwelling and that prevent more people from becoming landlords.

I'm also quite happy to report that many people who couldn't build a secondary suite before can now.

Edited December 22, 2023 by eyeball

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 12/17/2023 at 9:39 PM, August1991 said:

Older established Canadians are rich.

It is immigrants and younger Canadians who are poor.

=====

I have no problem with that. We should reward people who create a civilised society.

Land values in Toronto and Vancouver are high because of the efforts of past Canadians.

We seldom see wrong in measures that reward ourselves. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 12/17/2023 at 9:34 PM, eyeball said:

It's time to make mortgage interest a deductible expense. I'd even make rent a deductible expense.

Landlords get to claim the expense of being a landlord as a deduction so renters should have the same opportunity.

If fundamental supply problems aren’t addressed won’t that just increase rents and home prices? 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If fundamental supply problems aren’t addressed won’t that just increase rents and home prices? 

I suppose it might and if so perhaps its a measure that should be considered after supply problems are solved.  In the meantime perhaps it could be a deduction that's granted to lower income people who are struggling the hardest.

[SpankyMcFarland]

16 hours ago, August1991 said:

Canada is a large place. Huge 

Current immigrants - since the 1970s or so - mostly want to live where we live.

====

Previous immigrants - the 1890s or so - lived in our large country. 

Lord knows how many factors are involved there in that contrast. I do know new Canadians who dream of living in Mississauga(!) for social reasons but the changing nature of work and society also plays a role in the surge towards cities. We need far fewer farmers now as a proportion of the total population, for example, and our pulp mills are becoming a thing of the past. Well paid service sector jobs are concentrated in the major centres and young graduates seek out their own kind in the city. That’s one of the major reasons we don’t have enough GPs in the outback anymore. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

The rising cost of housing is a widespread issue in the world and certainly not confined to Canada. Governments have to address all the issues involved on both the housing unit supply (e.g. zoning, planning) and demand (e.g. immigration) sides. Even then, turning this ship of a problem around is going to take years. In any case, the banks wouldn’t welcome any sudden resolution that results in lower house prices and a more precarious balance sheet for them. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

If this is the fundamental predicate upon which your views are based its no wonder your opinions are so disjointed. 

I don't think you understand what a 'fundamental predicate' is.  Those were just simple statements of fact.  IF you insist on using words you don't understand its no wonder your comments make no sense.

Quote

I'm a lefty and a landlord that's spent the better part of my life on a area planning commission resisting regulations that make it harder to build a secondary dwelling and that prevent more people from becoming landlords.

Yeah - nobody believes you kiddo. And if you vote on the left it makes no difference what teeny tiny difference you made even if we assume you aren't lying like usual. The left gov'ts promote this.

The political dialogue, the media, the social spaces are all full of people decrying that the evil landlords are exploiting poor innocent people for money.

ANd the gov'ts are the same - during covid - the govt in many provinces  turned around and made landlords pay for the social safety net -  "you can't evict people even if they don't pay. Even if you will never get your money.   Oh - and we're not paying for it either".  So somehow landlords  are magically responsible for paying for people's rent?  And the left loves it and cheers it on! They don't see ANY problem with that. THe land lords deserve it.

Then - the small landlords say 'screw this shit" and get out. ANd the big ones have the money to be as cutthroat as possible.

And the left demands more red tape, more regulation to build,  etc etc etc. They HATE the logging industry. etc etc.

Sorry kiddo - the left and it's ideology have played into this problem tremendously.  Go LOOK at the post i'm responding to and see how that guy thinks.

 

[August1991]

On 12/22/2023 at 1:35 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Lord knows how many factors are involved there in that contrast.

WTF?

Have you ever wondered why when foreigners come and live in Canada, they are "immigrants".

But when Canadians go and live abroad: they are "expats".

 

[cougar]

On 12/21/2023 at 10:07 PM, CdnFox said:

1.     Nope. They pay for it once and only while they use it. 

 

2.  Then maybe they should be tbankful as hell someone else is putting up THEIR money and offering a place to live. And there's fewer and fewer doing that.

 

 

1.   I have no idea what you mean.  Hope YOU do.

2. "Thankful" you mean?  You make it sound that someone is "putting up THEIR money"  to help people and save the world.

No.  They don't!  They put up money only to make MORE money at the detriment of someone else!

Don't make me teach you capitalism.  You should know better !

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, cougar said:

1.   I have no idea what you mean.  Hope YOU do.

I do.  When you get older your mommy and i will explain it to you.

Quote

2. "Thankful" you mean?  You make it sound that someone is "putting up THEIR money"  to help people and save the world.

They're not? You think homelessness  is preferable or that it would be better for people to have no homes? Bit of a heartless fellow aren't you.

 

Quote

No.  They don't!  They put up money only to make MORE money at the detriment of someone else!

If you believe anyone anywhere ever bought a home and only put up money once then you should be in bed, it's a school night.

And people having a home to live in is a 'detriment' to them?  Why not just stop renting then,  if it's so horrible for them.  It's not like they're being forced to.

Quote

Don't make me teach you capitalism.  You should know better !

Unless 'capitalism' is a marvel comic super hero  I doubt you have the education or maturity to offer much in the way of knowledge  

[cougar]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I do.  When you get older your mommy and i will explain it to you.

 

Looking at all your attempts to reply, it is not my mommy, but yours that has a lot of explaining to do.

But I wouldn't need it; I know the explanation.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, cougar said:

Looking at all your attempts to reply, it is not my mommy, but yours that has a lot of explaining to do.

But I wouldn't need it; I know the explanation.

Awwww little guy - so bitter   Although honestly it was one of the better comebacks from you leftie types i've seen in a while

Hey - It's not my fault if you're too undereducatedto grasp simple concepts. The points i made could be understood by anyone with a grade five or greater education.  Your points on the other hand aren't just wrong, they're contradictory and you can't even answer simple questions about them.

Landlords are benefactors in Canada in a huge way. IF you don't like them - don't use them.  That simple. 

OHHH - BUT I NEEEED A HOME !! I HAVE TO HAVE ONE!!!! AND I WON"T HAVE ONE IF I DON"T RENT!!!!!! (cry cry cry!!)

Yeah - that's why they're net benefactors. They're willing to put up their own money at their own risk so that stupid people like you who hate them can have a warm safe home.  And using them is entirely optional.  And you and your ilk have been driving all the smaller ones out of the market place with the stupidity you displayed here, small mom and pops owning one or three places was the majority for a while, now they're all selling. Too much grief

So have fun playing with the big for profit boys while your ignorance keeps you renting for the rest of your life, or at least till you find a decent place to pitch your tent.