karlhungus

I policy like this may ignore them, but housing prices can reduce on their own without any government intervention...

This is all i was saying, it is not a simple thing, as the original post said

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

Makes it sound like "hey it's simple we just fuck 65% of people in canada" is not a winning political strategy.

Stagnation might be the only reasonable solution. I'm all for taxing home speculation by companies, and raising taxes on secondary/rentals. Hell, i'd be for a subsidies for buying houses even to the poorest people. I want to live in a pleasant place, part of that means everyone lives and works comfortably.

Artificially reducing building supply while people cannot afford to rent or purchase is pretty fucking shitty

I don't know who's doing this or how it relates to the original post

I've sold at a loss twice. It sucks. But that's a risk of ownership.

Presumably prices were also cheaper when you bought in that market, so there's some

Bonus point for undertaxed homes, and suburban regions that survive on pushing the ponzi scheme further out or leeching on city core taxes; for LVT is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't know anything about this

I remain unconvinced the original statement is false. I don't care about being correct.

No, we've been purchasing a thing for years, we have not been saving. We can sell that thing, but it is under no obligation to be valued higher than when we bought it.

What do you mean "no", I never said "people who bought houses must get a higher return on money spent", i said a policy like this would ignore those people.

What i said originally:

I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike...

Was in response to:

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

This policy would ignore anyone in a house. That also seems shitty

See my original comment:

I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike

A higher standard means ignoring voting citizens?

That seems unfair

Your one example is pretty easy to refute, I own my house I don't want houses to lose that stored value, or all the money I've been shoveling into my mortgage I could have been saving for w/e. It ignores that people with houses have been saving for years.

Reduction and stagnation are different.

I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike, every one who's in a house is going to hate loosing that value, and any politician who lowers the current value of property will have to deal with upsetting that category of voters. It seems like building more affordable houses would be better, it'll have a similar effect, but probably not as drastic.

If they put effort into making them environmentally friendly and employeed/educated people to do that we could make our country a nicer place to live. Just have to breakup the grocery conglomerates and things would be looking up

Similar to usa 90% for top earners according to this: https://policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/how-high-should-top-tax-rates-go

On the "sell it like any other asset", you still have to live somewhere, those places cost money. On the "borrow against it", now you've got debt (that costs money to have), I guess your saying anyone with that much money should be able to make more money off it via leverage than they use?

When i think rich, i think doesn't have to work, but maybe that's independently wealthy.

your implied argument that supply and demand doesn’t exist for housing in Canada

Not sure how you could figure this was at all implied. What was implied was that you are hateful of people not like you, and essentially making the "they took our jerbs" argument but for houses.

Yeah ok, that jives with this https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2023001/article/00006-eng.htm, next time save me the time and backup your stats

For this to be true all immigrants would have to be wealthy enough to be able to scoop up all supply of homes in Canada. This just can't be the case considering the refugee status of many immigrants.

A complex problem like this has significant other factors including speculation, reduction of public housing, inflation.

We should welcome more people, and continue our Canadian values of supporting those in need through out the world. Learn some compassion for your fellow human beings, or go to Florida, where you can be surrounded by like minded people.