What's going on Canada?
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
π Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknownπ» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
π£οΈ Politics
π Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
When I was a kid, my folks owned about 3 rental properties. I didn't really feel like they were untrustworthy, even about the rental market. After 1983 when the interest rate got about 4 times as high as these fuckers were whining about and we lost our metric shirt in the fire-sale bloodbath, I still didn't note any bias.
Start with trustworthy people - SIT DOWN, Milhouse
Trust them. Or get rid of them.
Go to 1
This isn't exactly mind blowing, 65%, of residential properties are lived in by their owners.
Given that you need a bit of wealth to even run as a candidate, you'd expect them to have bought a house.
Its landlords - so non-principal residences - and invested in real estate as in ownership of REITs or private real estate corporations.
So, nothing at all to do with principal residences, which is pretty amazingly clear when you click the link and read the article.
Such a weird divide. I realize it is to try and make those who seek employment profit with their home as a capital asset feel special and "not like those other investors", but it's a false narrative. An investor is an investor is an investor.
I'm confused. Are you saying that no one should own a home?
The whole purpose of this is to identify those politicians that have a conflict of interest in making decisions regarding primary housing for Canadians.
Investment property owners (non-principal properties) have a conflict of interest because they may not want to make new rules that would affect taxation of income or capital, institute rent controls, or adversely impact current property values.
Those invested in REITs or REOCs have a conflict because they may not want to affect the beneficial tax structure of REITs (flow-thru Trusts), nor limit the investment opportunities to non-residential properties (as right now multifamily and apartment REITs are wildly profitable and a major source of urban centre rent inflation).
Those "invested" in just their primary residence and who are not landlords or real estate investors have (nearly all) of their incentives properly aligned with the goals of normal Canadians who just want to own their own home. Like all home owners, they may not want to see market prices decline, but ultimately most homeowners just want a place to call their own and to not see money go down the black hole of rent.
Are you saying that no one should own a home?
No. Where, exactly, did you become confused? I would be happy to try and clarify it.
It sort of came off to me as you were considering primary-residence homeowners to be investors, and it seemed framed in a negative light
Primary residence homeowners are investors, usually. Most commonly as a capital asset used to facility profitability in the labour market. It is a false narrative to frame them differently as if they are somehow special. I get why we want to frame them differently, but it is incorrect to do so. An investor is an investor is an investor.
I offer no opinion on whether or not investing in housing is positive or negative. It has no relevance and to share opinion is bad faith participation.
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. You seem to think that any purchase of a capital asset for personal gain is an investment. That's tough to argue against, but, in that case, I would argue against your contention that "an investor is an investor is an investor." Not all investors have the same motives or the same impact on the market.
My grandparents, my parents, and I invested in our "homes", not in "housing". The plan was never about increasing value over time, but in being able to continue our lives with stable and affordable housing post retirement. Having nothing more than property taxes to worry about had a big impact on our ability to retire with "normal" jobs. We mostly ignored changes in prices, because we mostly didn't care, because our motives were not profit, but long term stability of lifestyle. We got our homes paid off around the time our kids needed help with postsecondary education. We got that out of the way in time to make any major renovations or purchases in advance of retirement. And we got those out of the way in time for our retirement.
This is different from those who acquire housing for rentals or "flipping". And neither are those people anything like those who invest in purely financial instruments that have housing and land at the foundation. What they mostly have in common is that they want, no need, to have the property continually increase in price, ideally faster than inflation.
That is a marked contrast with those who are "investing" in the place they live in and hope to continue living in through retirement. In that case, it doesn't matter how or even if prices change, because it will have little or no impact on their ability to continue with stable housing.
Having nothing more than property taxes to worry about had a big impact on our ability to retire with βnormalβ jobs.
But you have/had a job, which suggests that the house was really purchased as a capital asset in which to use to profit. That you can still derive benefit from it later in life is just a nice side benefit. I suspect you're not moving to a location where there is no job market to free up the productive asset for younger people when you retire?
This is different from those who acquire housing for rentals or βflippingβ.
How so? Rentals offer the same capital asset to workers who are not looking to own. There are a lot of good reasons why someone might want to rent the capital over owning, even if only for short periods of time. "Flippers" keep liquidity in the market to ensure that the asset class is always available for purchase when one is ready to become an owner. It's all rooted in a worker's desire to use housing as capital to turn a profit. It's all the same investment at the end of the day.
But you have/had a job, which suggests that the house was really purchased as a capital asset in which to use to profit.
Umm, no. Shelter is a requirement, whether employed or not. Given that I have never changed where I live in order to take a job, my choices regarding shelter have always been independent of my choice of income generating activity. Just the opposite, in fact, given that I've had to change my shelter based on loss of income, but have never had to change my shelter when income increased.
That you can still derive benefit from it later in life is just a nice side benefit.
No that is just one of the actual reasons for making the housing choices I've made. I have never had a house so that I could work, but have always had to work in order to stay sheltered.
Another reason for my housing choices is related to hobbies. It's hard to do hobby manufacturing or host band rehearsals in a condo.
I suspect you're not moving to a location where there is no job market to free up the productive asset for younger people when you retire?
Why would that be necessary or desirable either individually or societally? I didn't choose my home for it's proximity to work. I didn't move when I changed jobs or when my employer moved to a different location. I developed my garden and built a shop for recreation and don't see how anyone will be served by pulling up stakes and moving somewhere else, especially given that my choice of housing had nothing to do with proximity to employment, but proximity to outdoor recreational activities.
Rentals would sort of work. One important thing I learned during the period of time we rented was that it left too many important decisions in the hands of people whose interests did not align with ours.
Shelter is a requirement, whether employed or not.
Shelter may be, but shelter and housing are not synonymous.
Given that I have never changed where I live in order to take a job,
So if we moved you to Wager Bay, Nunavut, nothing about your profitability prospects would change?
Another reason for my housing choices is related to hobbies. Itβs hard to do hobby manufacturing or host band rehearsals in a condo.
Hobbies are the product of having turned a profit. If the home cannot provide you profit, hobbies are out of the question.
Why would that be necessary or desirable either individually or societally?
If you are not making productive use of an asset, you see no value in passing it along to someone who can?
Most of your counterarguments have merit, but I take some exception to your apparent concept of productive use of an asset.
I have put substantial thought, years of planning, labour, and, yes, the profit obtained from my employment into the creation of this asset specifically to enable my chosen way of living and passing time. To say that this is not a productive use of an asset borders on insulting and has no more merit than the claim that a tree has no value until it's been converted to lumber.
It's not a false narrative at all. It's an ideological difference.
You think personal property is a financial investment. Some of us see it as a home.
You're emblamatic of what's wrong with the housing market.
Considering how many homes have suites, it's not really fair to say it excludes principal residences.