Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

Kalenn Istarion: Nov 2, 2012; Maybe Senpai will finally notice me now that I've dropped :fivebux: on this snazzy av

Cultural Imperial posted:

Haha there were a bunch of tweets about how you can't borrow 500k at less than 3% to invest in equities in Canada. On the other hand, a house is not a problem.

That's because stocks are for gamblers and volatile and risky and houses aren't, duh.

:v:

Cultural Imperial posted:

You need to stop hanging around these people.

I was gonna post this in the BFC canadian finance and investing thread but I think it's probably more topical here given all the interest rate chat.

http://on.ft.com/1syc3Sf

Can someone explain to me why anyone would buy a 50 year bond at record low interest rates? Especially considering everyone's loving long term outlook is that the US economy is in recovery?

If you hold your bond investments to term, and the bond is attractive relative to other investments that meet the term and risk constraints of the fund you're managing, including any potential diversification benefits, then it makes sense to buy regardless of low absolute levels. Bonds in the market with similar risk profiles will be trading at the same or similar yield in the market today regardless of the coupon rate. Arguably there is a point where it makes sense to sit on cash and wait for the bond crash when rates pop but calling timing is a mug's game and pension funds generally have rules about needing to be fully or mostly invested. At best the funds will move their allocations over time. In a large fund like CPP for example this might be something like shifting global bond allocation from 20% to 15%, but it's generally impractical and undesireable to say not own bonds at all. To shrike's point, you face more duration (interest rate sensitivity) risk with a long bond, so for an investor without the same matching needs as a pension fund it might make sense to move to shorter notes that won't decrease in price as much when rates eventually go back up.

# ? Jul 9, 2014 21:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 14:44

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Lexicon posted:

That's a fantastic 'dog ate my homework' sort of excuse

Ironically, if it had have been a REALTOR(TM) they would have just replied, "Yes, I did that." Since there is no regulation saying they cannot.

They would never have been asked in the first place anyways.

# ? Jul 9, 2014 23:25

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Persona non grata posted:

Hey, I have a friend who's a lazy low-info leftist, and obviously I know lots about finance and economics, but could you help me explain to him the obvious solution to the Canadian Housing Bubble that I'm missing? Also, if some of the experts in this thread could post their predictions for how the bubble will come apart I would appreciate it. I know with absolute certainty there won't be a soft landing, only and idiot would think that, but I'd like to compare notes on the inevitable future.

A soft landing is indeed possible in the absence of any and all crises that could possibly affect all aspects of interest rates and housing demand and with strong government intervention and message control at the exact time needed. But the reality is that humans are irrational and respond to crises irrationally and in mass. So there probably will be a crisis at some point that deflates the bubble.

Although to be fair when the bubble is big enough even the appearance of a soft landing can cause a crisis through positive feedback. The more financially savvy and more liquid investors will cash out when they smell the downturn, with more following suit until the over-leveraged masses catch on at which point it will implode as peoples' positions get squeezed.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 00:00

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

I really think interest rates are the wrong way to approach the remediation of this bubble. The problems related to mortgage availability are independent of interest rates. People don't care how high their interest rates are. They don't even care how much of their paycheck goes towards paying off the interest on their mortgage.

You're never going to find a solution to preventing idiots with overbearing nesting instincts from overspending on a home. If a bank is willing to give them an 80% LTV mortgage, they'll take it. These Canadians are loving Dumb.

That leaves us with the Speculator or 'Investor'. These are the motherfuckers the government can do something about. I've already hinted that I don't think it's the Bank of Canada's problem that we have a housing bubble. Certainly they do not want to see a housing bubble but it's really the fault of Jim Flaherty, Canada's Best Finance Minister Ever (PBUH).

Things I'd like to see done are:
1) Get rid of the capital gains tax exemption on primary residences.
2) Ban all mortgages with amortization periods of more than 25 year. In practice I doubt you can actually enforce a ban, so tell the CMHC to stop insuring these mortgages.
3) For the purposes of making information readily available, sue the MLS to make their databases available to everyone under the threat of Nationalization.
4) For the purposes of making information readily available, require everyone obtaining a mortgage to declare their residency. I already have to do this with my securities, why don't home owners have to?
5) Reduce the the maximum HELOC value to 10% of the overall value of your home.
6) Ban HELOCs from anyone taking out CMHC insurance. If you CMHC insurance, it means you can barely afford your home. You shouldn't be taking out a loving HELOC for god's sake.

e: does anyone know how these shady secondary mortgage lenders who issue 1 year period mortgages under 2% are allowed to operate? Ban them too.

e2: one more thing, fine mortgage brokers for every mortgage they issue to someone who can't provide proof of their annual family income.

namaste friends fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jul 10, 2014

# ? Jul 10, 2014 02:03

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Kalenn Istarion posted:

If you hold your bond investments to term, and the bond is attractive relative to other investments that meet the term and risk constraints of the fund you're managing, including any potential diversification benefits, then it makes sense to buy regardless of low absolute levels. Bonds in the market with similar risk profiles will be trading at the same or similar yield in the market today regardless of the coupon rate. Arguably there is a point where it makes sense to sit on cash and wait for the bond crash when rates pop but calling timing is a mug's game and pension funds generally have rules about needing to be fully or mostly invested. At best the funds will move their allocations over time. In a large fund like CPP for example this might be something like shifting global bond allocation from 20% to 15%, but it's generally impractical and undesireable to say not own bonds at all. To shrike's point, you face more duration (interest rate sensitivity) risk with a long bond, so for an investor without the same matching needs as a pension fund it might make sense to move to shorter notes that won't decrease in price as much when rates eventually go back up.

Cool thanks for that explanation! I had no idea who actually held bonds to the end of term.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 02:14

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

There was a good article that was in the WSJ the other day (don't have a link handy as I read the hardcopy) which said that institutional funds are in a bit of a bind. Everyone's aware that fixed income looks pricey. The problem is that with zirp across the major economies, practically all the asset classes are frothy.

This is very abnormal because in normal cycles, you see various asset types move in the opposite direction from others depending on whether the economy is doing well our not.

If you're a pension fund with dollars to spare, what would you do in the current macro environment? You can't just go 100% cash equivalents.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 02:24

Saltin: Aug 20, 2003; Don't touch

shrike82 posted:

If you're a pension fund with dollars to spare, what would you do in the current macro environment? You can't just go 100% cash equivalents.

The answer up to today is equities and it has been for quite a while - hence the record index values. It's not that equities are fantastic, they are just the least ugly option currently. Frothy? Absolutely.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 14:21

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Things I'd like to see done are:
1) Get rid of the capital gains tax exemption on primary residences.
2) Ban all mortgages with amortization periods of more than 25 year. In practice I doubt you can actually enforce a ban, so tell the CMHC to stop insuring these mortgages.
3) For the purposes of making information readily available, sue the MLS to make their databases available to everyone under the threat of Nationalization.
4) For the purposes of making information readily available, require everyone obtaining a mortgage to declare their residency. I already have to do this with my securities, why don't home owners have to?
5) Reduce the the maximum HELOC value to 10% of the overall value of your home.
6) Ban HELOCs from anyone taking out CMHC insurance. If you CMHC insurance, it means you can barely afford your home. You shouldn't be taking out a loving HELOC for god's sake.

Interesting ideas. Some thoughts:

1) I like the underlying intention, but it would have substantial unintended consequences I think. For one thing, a household would find it difficult to ever move - you'd be crystallizing a gain by selling, and realizing a massive tax bill potentially, even though you just want to move three streets over to a place with a larger garage. This would totally freeze up the housing market, and further calcify an already rather illiquid market. Of course, maybe there's some tax structure that would make sense such as tying the tax-free portion to some index based on prevailing average costs or something. Also, it would be good if there were a scheme whereby individuals had lifetime capital gains amounts that would be consumed with capital gains regardless of how you made them (housing, stocks, etc).

2) Aren't these gone already?

3) Yeah, it's absurd that this isn't the case. There's a total information asymmetry between the public and government, and the drat real estate boards - and the latter is holding all the cards. It's bullshit.

4) Yup. Uncontroversial.

5) Maybe some low-ish percentage of equity instead? 20% of current equity?

6) Total agree.

One question on CMHC coverage - does it persist for the lifetime of the mortgage, or only until you're over the 20% equity hump?

# ? Jul 10, 2014 15:11

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Lexicon posted:

Interesting ideas. Some thoughts:

1) I like the underlying intention, but it would have substantial unintended consequences I think. For one thing, a household would find it difficult to ever move - you'd be crystallizing a gain by selling, and realizing a massive tax bill potentially, even though you just want to move three streets over to a place with a larger garage. This would totally freeze up the housing market, and further calcify an already rather illiquid market. Of course, maybe there's some tax structure that would make sense such as tying the tax-free portion to some index based on prevailing average costs or something. Also, it would be good if there were a scheme whereby individuals had lifetime capital gains amounts that would be consumed with capital gains regardless of how you made them (housing, stocks, etc).

Eh. I already have to pay these taxes whenever I want to move my money around (I'm not against paying them either). I feel that the housing market really shouldn't be liquid at all. As everyone states, a house should be something you want to live in, not an investment vehicle.

I fully acknowledge the peril of screwing around with tax policy and that second and third order effects are often incalculable.

I like your idea of the lifetime capital gains. In any case, let's remember I'm proposing capital gains tax exemption. Anyone selling a house at a loss should be realizing a nice write-off. CG taxes haven't really affected the volatility of the equities markets.

quote:

2) Aren't these gone already?

I'm pretty sure the ban is only on CMHC insured mortgages. A cursory google tells me there's quite a few brokers offering 30 year mortgages but I'm not sure if their websites are up to date.

I guess the wider implication here is, Joe poo poo-for-brains Oliver needs to reign in this loving wild west of mortgage brokerages if they want to make some real structural changes to Canada's economy. It feels insane to say that. Who would have thought that a shithead mortgage broker would have such a great impact on the wellbeing of Canada's economy?

But then Amway destroyed Albania's economy sooo....

quote:

5) Maybe some low-ish percentage of equity instead? 20% of current equity?

Again, this falls back to a question of social policy. Are we saying that housing should be an investment vehicle or some nebulous instrument for building communities? I completely understand the importance of using debt to grow the economy but most Canadians aren't taking out HELOCs to start businesses are they? I'm pretty sure most of them are buying cars (and other frivolous things) with that poo poo.

quote:

n on CMHC coverage - does it persist for the lifetime of the mortgage, or only until you're over the 20% equity hump?

Good question. I wish that guy who was obviously some kind of housing finance insider who posted back around page 50 stuck around.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 16:11

on the left: Nov 2, 2013; I Am A Gigantic Piece Of Shit

Literally poo from a diseased human butt

quote:

Eh. I already have to pay these taxes whenever I want to move my money around (I'm not against paying them either). I feel that the housing market really shouldn't be liquid at all. As everyone states, a house should be something you want to live in, not an investment vehicle.

On the other hand, we've seen that when workers are held hostage by their houses, it paralyzes the labor market.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 16:20

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

on the left posted:

On the other hand, we've seen that when workers are held hostage by their houses, it paralyzes the labor market.

It is pretty silly to draw too many similarities between housing and equities markets. If I am going to call a REALTOR(TM) a retard for speaking about housing as an investment vehicle, I am going to similarly find fault with a "but but but, I pay capital gains on my equities" rational.

ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jul 10, 2014

# ? Jul 10, 2014 16:47

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

on the left posted:

On the other hand, we've seen that when workers are held hostage by their houses, it paralyzes the labor market.

I love this subject because my whole life for the past 15 years has been tailored around building up a skill set that commands a salary greater than the piddly bullshit the Vancouver job market has to offer.

I sold my house 10 years ago for around 400k because I felt that I couldn't really afford it. I found out some time after I'd bought it that it was an ex-grow op and the guy I'd actually bought it from was a well known biker. This knowledge didn't really affect my decision as I'd had close ties with law enforcement.

I am pretty sure that if I'd known it'd be worth twice as much today, I'd have thought twice about selling it. On the other hand I'd still be making a Vancouver salary and would still be barely able to afford it. I'm not sure how differently I would have thought about my decision to sell if I had to pay capital gains tax on the 100k profit I'd made. I mean, immediately after selling I'd have all this cash on hand which I would have to pay off the CG tax. I had no other significant debts at the time.

I think I agree with your assertion that liquidity would be further constrained by a CG tax on primary residences only because we know Canadians are so deeply in discretionary debt. If we were all a little smarter with spending debt, I don't think labour force mobility would be a problem.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 16:50

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

on the left posted:

On the other hand, we've seen that when workers are held hostage by their houses, it paralyzes the labor market.

Yeah, that's one big concern I had. Worker mobility is a great thing - for economic and experiential reasons. It breaks my heart when I read about people in the prime of their early-20s buying loving condos.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 16:50

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Lexicon posted:

Yeah, that's one big concern I had. Worker mobility is a great thing - for economic and experiential reasons. It breaks my heart when I read about people in the prime of their early-20s buying loving condos.

There's a lotttt of people out there who really aren't driven by this need to reach the acme of their career or climb the corporate ladder, they just want to settle down and grow some roots, raise a family. Work isn't their passion, it doesn't define them, it's just a thing they need to do to support their families. Most people I've known that move around due to work absolutely hate it. They just want a stable job with growth potential in the same city and a house they can live in till they retire or need something different.

Mobility has gone way up but I don't know if it's a good thing. Maybe it's a good thing for "the economy" but I don't know if it's a good thing for workers or their actual happiness. It's less "there's so many more opportunities now than there used to be!" and more "you now have to constantly uproot your self chasing after any semblance of job security". A lot of corporate jobs have turned into almost military jobs where you constantly are being moved from one poo poo-hole to the next.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 17:25

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

^^ Very fair. I'm probably projecting a bit too much.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 17:29

Rick Rickshaw: Feb 21, 2007; I am not disappointed I lost the PGA Championship. Nope, I am not.

I'd be fine with capital gains tax if the costs related to selling a house weren't so out of control. Land transfer tax, REALTOR tax, lawyer fees, etc.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 17:38

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Apparently there's huge incentives in the military to buy rather than rent. You get all your "soft costs" paid for if you buy so it actually makes sense to just keep buying a new house then selling it every 3-4 years and our tax dollars cover all the fees and expenses. Meanwhile apparently the hand-outs for renting are far lower to the point that renting makes absolutely no sense if you're in the military.

\/ You would not believe the other hand-outs they get. My friend had to move away to some poo poo town in Ontario. He got some ridiculous amount of money to move, way more than he needed. Ended up pocketing about $500 afterwards. So he's fully moved in and had cash to spare. Then he realizes the hand-outs haven't stopped. He's entitled to a 2nd trip because it's assumed it will take you 2 trips to move for some reason. So a couple weeks later he flies back to Victoria for free, is given a hotel for free, and is given about $300 a day for food/expenses and money for a rental car which he doesn't need. I can't remember all the specifics but a lot of the money he didn't need to submit for, they basically just gave him a pile of cash without any strings attached. So he just partied and hung out with out and bought everyone dinners and drinks for a weekend then flew back.

Our struggling under-funded military. Those stupid american planes make a lot more sense now.

Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jul 10, 2014

# ? Jul 10, 2014 18:17

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Baronjutter posted:

Apparently there's huge incentives in the military to buy rather than rent. You get all your "soft costs" paid for if you buy so it actually makes sense to just keep buying a new house then selling it every 3-4 years and our tax dollars cover all the fees and expenses. Meanwhile apparently the hand-outs for renting are far lower to the point that renting makes absolutely no sense if you're in the military.

Paying off some loving soldier's realtor fees when they sell. gently caress. That. poo poo.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 18:18

Pixelboy: Sep 13, 2005; Now, I know what you're thinking...

Cultural Imperial posted:

Things I'd like to see done are:
1) Get rid of the capital gains tax exemption on primary residences.
2) Ban all mortgages with amortization periods of more than 25 year. In practice I doubt you can actually enforce a ban, so tell the CMHC to stop insuring these mortgages.
3) For the purposes of making information readily available, sue the MLS to make their databases available to everyone under the threat of Nationalization.
4) For the purposes of making information readily available, require everyone obtaining a mortgage to declare their residency. I already have to do this with my securities, why don't home owners have to?
5) Reduce the the maximum HELOC value to 10% of the overall value of your home.
6) Ban HELOCs from anyone taking out CMHC insurance. If you CMHC insurance, it means you can barely afford your home. You shouldn't be taking out a loving HELOC for god's sake.

#1 is political suicide. Too many Canadians have their retirement plan depending on #1.
#2 sure
#3 hahahaha... and I'd like ponies
#4 you... already do? Nobody will give you a mortgage without knowing who you are, where you live, and how you're paying for it.
#5 sure
#6 sure

# ? Jul 10, 2014 18:51

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Cultural Imperial posted:

Paying off some loving soldier's realtor fees when they sell. gently caress. That. poo poo.

Did you love the story where Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie moved a few blocks two years after he retired and claimed $72,000? I believe that it was just a huge coincidence that his daughter was hired by the real estate firm representing him the same month as the house closed and that Justin Trudeau could not have found a better defense advisor.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:13

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Ikantski posted:

Did you love the story where Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie moved a few blocks two years after he retired and claimed $72,000? I believe that it was just a huge coincidence that his daughter was hired by the real estate firm representing him the same month as the house closed and that Justin Trudeau could not have found a better defense advisor.

loving hell

# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:16

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Ikantski posted:

Did you love the story where Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie moved a few blocks two years after he retired and claimed $72,000? I believe that it was just a huge coincidence that his daughter was hired by the real estate firm representing him the same month as the house closed and that Justin Trudeau could not have found a better defense advisor.

Sometimes it's hard to shake the impression that large parts of the federal government exist purely to funnel tax revenue into the pockets of privileged senior staff and parliamentarians.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:45

Bhurak: Nov 12, 2007; Playing music in the key of HIP!; Fun Shoe

Lexicon posted:

Sometimes it's hard to shake the impression that large parts of the federal government exist purely to funnel tax revenue into the pockets of privileged senior staff and parliamentarians.

A proud Canadian tradition since Confederation.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:54

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaiz_1IiK5c

# ? Jul 10, 2014 20:28

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Posted without comment: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/samsung-smart-home-system-to-be-built-into-toronto-condo-1.2703113

# ? Jul 10, 2014 20:52

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Can't wait to trust a strata council 20 years from now to keep the system and security up to date. Who are we kidding, poo poo like this is installed to quick sell a condo and then be abandoned by the strata a year later for probably quite valid cost and security issues.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 21:02

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-targets-housing-speculation/article19559458/

quote:

The City of Vancouver is launching an agency to help figure out how to limit investor speculation in housing � a controversial issue in Vancouver�s inflated market certain to be debated in this fall�s municipal election.

Mayor Gregor Robertson, who will be seeking a third term in November, cast the Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency on Thursday as a �research hub� to help create 2,500 new affordable homes by 2021 � 500 of them in the first three years.

But it is also intended to contribute to an �informed� discussion of housing, collecting data and providing �information on ways to limit investor speculation and unnecessary vacancies in Vancouver�s housing market,� said a statement issued by the mayor�s office.

City council is to appoint a board for the agency that will include community members experienced in real estate, non-profit housing and other issues.

Geoff Meggs, a councillor with the majority Vision Vancouver party designated by the mayor�s office to speak about the plan, said the new agency would provide badly needed data to help guide policy. �There are a lot of questions about housing stock we would like to get answers about,� he said.

Vancouver�s government, he said, does not have access to its own reliable information on these issues. �What�s become more obvious is there are a lot of gaps in the information that people are using.� He said the announcement was not a play for voter support, noting that the idea of an agency flowed out of a previous city-housing task force.

But George Affleck, one of two Non-Partisan Association members on the Vision-dominated council, said he had split feelings about the mission of the agency. He said some action is necessary to deal with vacant property.

�That is frustrating. You want to have life in your neighbourhood. If nobody is there, it�s not ideal. How we deal with that as a government should be a priority,� he said in an interview.

But he said targeting speculation is problematic. �We live in a capitalistic, democratic society. I worry about us getting too involved in the market as a government,� he said. �It�s a fact of life in Vancouver. We have had speculative real estate since the city was founded. It�s not new to Vancouver.�

Andy Yan, an adjunct professor of planning at the University of British Columbia, described Thursday�s move as a milestone on the issue of studying speculation in real estate. �This begins a needed conversation about the characteristics of demand for Vancouver real estate,� said Mr. Yan, also a researcher for BTA Works � the research and development department of Bing Thom Architects.

He said it was the first such municipal agency he was aware of in Vancouver. �It�s important to get the magnitude and the depth of this phenomenon of global capital in Vancouver�s residential real-estate market,� Mr. Yan said. �Various jurisdictions around the world have been struggling with this question and looking at various ways of measuring it.�

The question, he said, may be non-citizen ownership of real estate, or money earned abroad landing in Vancouver real estate. He noted that paperwork might suggest a Hong Kong-based owner for a Vancouver condo, for example, but the owner could be one of 400,000 Canadians who live in Hong Kong, raising some challenging issues. �The concept of foreign ownership needs to be much better defined.� It seems simple, but complex, difficult questions always seem simple at the very beginning,� Mr. Yan said.

He noted a 2009 study by BTA found 50 per cent of downtown Vancouver condos are investor owned. The study is now in the process of being updated.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 03:33

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

I'm sure that'll be very successful and we'll collectively marvel at the wisdom in launching it in years to come

# ? Jul 11, 2014 03:40

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Lexicon posted:

I'm sure that'll be very successful and we'll collectively marvel at the wisdom in launching it in years to come

You will not criticize Mayor Moonbeam's initiatives like that. Take it back infidel.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 03:48

on the left: Nov 2, 2013; I Am A Gigantic Piece Of Shit

Literally poo from a diseased human butt

Couldn't the government do something like a huge tax on owning property, and each day you are present in Canada you get a tax credit valid towards that surcharge, capping out at 100% of taxes gone if you are present 183 days? You can use border control records to manage this pretty easily.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 04:15

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

on the left posted:

Couldn't the government do something like a huge tax on owning property, and each day you are present in Canada you get a tax credit valid towards that surcharge, capping out at 100% of taxes gone if you are present 183 days? You can use border control records to manage this pretty easily.

Wait until you have to fill out a T1135.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 04:18

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

Cultural Imperial posted:

�That is frustrating. You want to have life in your neighbourhood. If nobody is there, it�s not ideal. How we deal with that as a government should be a priority,� he said in an interview.

But he said targeting speculation is problematic. �We live in a capitalistic, democratic society. I worry about us getting too involved in the market as a government,� he said. �It�s a fact of life in Vancouver. We have had speculative real estate since the city was founded. It�s not new to Vancouver.�

How the gently caress is it problematic for the city to research whether or not the massive amounts of money being spent on infrastructure upgrades in order to facilitate the gigantic buildings going up are actually being used?

This should be the number one statistic on approving developer permits.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 05:24

Guest2553: Aug 3, 2012

Crosspost from bad with money thread, and takes place in the US, but just as schadenfreude: people paying to live in high end homes as transient 'house managers'. It's just as stupid as it sounds.

gently caress realtors, but props to them for finding a way to squeeze equity from an otherwise vacant showhome while making its transitory tenants your bitches. When do you suppose we'll be seeing them popping up in YVR?

TL;DR: family of two mcdonalds managers and three unemployed grown-rear end children come into money, somehow lose it all because something something recession, now rent showhomes until they are sold to maintain the illusion that they're not some poor-rear end that have no business owning $10,000 rugs.

Guest2553 fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Jul 11, 2014

# ? Jul 11, 2014 05:58

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Guest2553 posted:

Crosspost from bad with money thread, and takes place in the US, but just as schadenfreude: people paying to live in high end homes as transient 'house managers'. It's just as stupid as it sounds.

gently caress realtors, but props to them for finding a way to squeeze equity from an otherwise vacant showhome while making its transitory tenants your bitches. When do you suppose we'll be seeing them popping up in YVR?

TL;DR: family of two mcdonalds managers and three unemployed grown-rear end children come into money, somehow lose it all because something something recession, now rent showhomes until they are sold to maintain the illusion that they're not some poor-rear end that have no business owning $10,000 rugs.

I'd be surprised to see this in Vancouver. People here are so conceited this sort of ruse would be vulgar and beneath their social standing.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 15:06

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-lost-9-400-jobs-in-june-jobless-rate-ticks-up-to-7-1-1.2703844

quote:

Canada's economy shed 9,400 jobs in June, enough to inch the unemployment rate up slightly to 7.1 per cent.

Statistics Canada said Friday there were actually more than 33,00 new full-time jobs created during the month. But that was offset by a larger drop of 43,000 part-time positions.

'If Alberta is stripped out of the national total, there would have been no job growth in the past year'
- BMO economist Doug Porter
Provincially, there were 34,000 fewer jobs in Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador also saw a decrease. Meanwhile, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island all saw job increases.

Dire youth job prospects can't be solved with education alone
Economists had actually been expecting a small increase in the number of jobs in Ontario because of activity surrounding the provincial election campaign.

That didn't happen.

The province's hard-hit manufacturing sector had another bad month, as employment in that sector fell by another 13,600 jobs to a record low, dating back to 1976.

The job losses weren't confined to manufacturing alone, however. Ten of the 16 job categories that the data agency tracks posted losses in the month.

For comparison purposes, the U.S. currently has a 6.1 per cent unemployment rate, a six-year low. But Canada and the U.S. calculate their jobs figures differently, and when Canada's numbers are processed using the U.S. methodology, the two countries have the same unemployment rate � 6.1 per cent.

June's jobs data means that Canada has produced a mere 72,000 jobs in the last 12 months. That's the lowest annual figure since February 2010. Worse still is that much of those gains are coming from just a single province � Alberta.

"If Alberta is stripped out of the national total, there would have been no job growth in the past year," BMO economist Doug Porter noted.

lmao

# ? Jul 11, 2014 15:07

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

# ? Jul 11, 2014 15:15

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/realestateeconomy/why-canada-isnt-immune-to-a-u-s-style-housing-crash/

quote:

Investors should stay away from the Canadian housing market, warns a new report from Chicago-based investment firm Morningstar. A house price correction is �inevitable� within the next five years and could send house prices falling as much as 30 per cent.

The report�s author, equity analyst Dan Werner, also takes aim at some of the more popular arguments on this side of the border for why Canada�s housing market is fundamentally different from the U.S. housing bubble. �Many investors believe that financial crises are things that happen to other people in other countries at other times; crises do not happen to us, here and now,� he writes. �History has shown, time and again, that �this time� is not different. We believe the same is true for the future of Canadian residential real estate.�

Skeptical? Here are some of the myths Werner debunks for why Canada isn�t immune to a U.S.-style housing crash:

Myth: Canadian banks are better protected because, unlike the U.S., Canada doesn�t have no recourse mortgages (outside of Alberta). That means our banks can seize homeowners� other assets if they default on their mortgage.

Roughly 80 per cent of U.S. states actually do have recourse laws that allow banks to confiscate the assets of defaulting borrowers. They include Florida and Arizona, two states particularly hard hit by the housing bust. But, Werner writes, recourse laws don�t mean much, since people who default on their mortgages don�t typically have many assets for banks to seize, other than their house. �Short of reinstituting vagrant prisons, the implementation of recourse does not have a meaningful impact upon bank losses when a housing bubble bursts.�

Myth: Americans took on riskier mortgages because they could deduct their mortgage interest from their income taxes while Canadians don�t have that option.

Typically, only 20 per cent of American homeowners actually take the mortgage interest deduction. Those that do tend to be wealthier, since they�re the ones who pay the most income taxes. Among households earning less than $50,000 a year fewer than 10 per cent deduct their mortgage interest and they save an average of just $120 in taxes.

Myth: Canadians put down bigger down payments and have more equity in their homes than Americans did before the housing crash.

The average Canadian homeowner has a mortgage worth 45 per cent of the value of their home, meaning they have 55 per cent equity. It seems like a lot, but 55 per cent home equity is exactly where the U.S. average was in 2005. At the same time 23 per cent of Canadian mortgages have a loan-to-value ratio above 80 per cent, which means those borrowers have less than 20 per cent equity in their homes. The U.S. looked nearly identical at the height of the bubble: 22 per cent of mortgages had loan-to-value ratios above 80 per cent.

At the same time RRSPs have become a major source of cash for down payments for first-time homebuyers. More than 2.5 million Canadians have cashed in their RRSPs to buy a house. But in recent years nearly a quarter of them have had trouble paying back the money, Werner writes. They�ve either missed the deadline to repay or aren�t paying the required annual minimums. That�s money that gets taxed as income, hitting cash-strapped homeowners with an extra financial penalty. It�s also evidence, Werner writes, that sizeable shares of homebuyers are struggling to pay down their debt.

Myth: Immigration is driving Canadian residential construction.

There are an average of 1.8 people immigrating to Canada for every house built. But the typical Canadian household has 2.5 people. This year Werner says we�re on track to build around 20,000 more houses than we�ll need � and, he writes, we�ve been overbuilding now for more than a decade.

Myth: The Canadian government has been steadily tightening the rules for mortgages � requiring higher down payments, shorter amortization periods, heftier insurance premiums and more proof of income. This will ensure a �soft landing� for the housing market.

Canada is among a number of countries, including Israel and Norway, that have dramatically tightened requirements for new mortgages since 2008. None of that has done anything to cool the housing markets in those countries. Why? As long as mortgage interest rates keep going down, governments are powerless to put the brakes on house price growth. �For banks, it is easier to find a way around firmer regulation than it is to evade higher interest rates.�

Myth: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has more than enough money to withstand a modest house price correction.

The report calculates that even a �modest� 20 per cent drop in house prices could trigger as much as $12 billion in CMHC�s default insurance claims � or 75 per cent of the agency�s $16-billion capitals reserves �if the correction causes widespread defaults.

Myth: Interest rates have been going down for years and will keep going down for some time.

Over the past 30 years Canadian homeowners have indeed had a pretty good shot at seeing their interest rate go down every time they renewed a five-year mortgage. Some might be tempted to think that a declining interest rate is the norm. But in fact, Werner argues, over the long-term it�s extraordinarily rare: �Getting a lower mortgage rate five times in a row is essentially the same as flipping a coin and getting heads five times in a row�a statistical probability of two per cent,� he writes. Chances you�ll flip a coin for a sixth time and come up with a lower mortgage rate? About one per cent.

In fact, Werner predicts that over the next five years mortgage rates will return to their historic averages of around five per cent, up from the three per cent that�s typical today. In that case, he calculates that for housing costs could easily consume 75 per cent of the average Canadian household�s take-home pay.

Think this time it�s different? Think again. Or take our quiz to see if you can guess which quote about the housing market came from an official in the U.S. in 2006 or Canada in 2014.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 15:19

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

^^ The annoying thing is, that could've been written verbatim in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 (and probably was) and been true.

We might have another few years of this before anything changes.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 15:29

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

Lexicon posted:

^^ The annoying thing is, that could've been written verbatim in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 (and probably was) and been true.

We might have another few years of this before anything changes.

I'm hoping that kitchens made out of solid gold become the new thing so I can make my cash off market irrationality before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 15:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 14:44

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Could we conceivably have 100% mortgages before that happens? It seemed unlikely a few years ago, but I'm kind of thinking anything's possible now.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 15:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »