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.

MeinPanzer: Dec 20, 2004; anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts

mila kunis posted:

While that's true, what did cause the massive spike in housing prices during a year where immigration was shut off?

The same factors that drove this kind of increase in housing prices everywhere else in the developed world: people with stable middle or upper class jobs having more disposable income available and a major incentive to buy new property because they're working from home.

In Canada that was just layered on top of the other craziness that's already a factor, like immigration.

# ? Dec 6, 2021 22:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 06:02

kaom: Jan 20, 2007

Femtosecond posted:

From a quick google Canada apparently has 1,681,969 millionaires.

Just plucking out another part of this article, in addition to the part you bolded previously:

quote:

It was the combination of rising asset prices, along with currency appreciation against the U.S. dollar (the loonie was trading at 81.33 US cents today) that boosted wealth around the world.

�

Canada gained 246,000 millionaires, the eighth highest gain in the world.

I�m taking this to mean that all of the additional 246k millionaires were already living here, and that since it includes assets they may have already been homeowners (in fact that seems kind of likely given what housing prices did last year). And I think the article pretty explicitly lays this out as the theory:

quote:

Since 2007, the wealth share of the top 10% of wealth holders has risen from 71.6% to 75.7% in the United States, but has fallen in Canada from 57.1% to 56.5%. [�] In Canada, home prices have risen faster, lifting the wealth of the middle class.

So the new millionaires number seems pretty irrelevant to demand? I�m trying to understand how you see this fitting into the rest of what you�re saying. It�s not immigrants, and it doesn�t seem to be exclusively new buyers, either.

# ? Dec 6, 2021 22:54

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

Here's a Stats Canada report from 2019 on the wealth of immigrant households:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019010-eng.htm

And it all depends on how you slice it up. Immigrant families who have been here 20 years or more are now slightly wealthier than comparable Canadian-born families, and the source of that seems to be big mortgages and housing price gain.

But the proportion of immigrant families with no financial wealth at all is much higher than among Canadian-born families.

# ? Dec 6, 2021 23:28

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Whatever �craziness� you think about the immigration system, the solution is simply to build more housing. There is a fundamental disconnect between the federal government and municipalities, the federal government knows that Canada needs skilled immigration, lots of skilled immigration, for the economy to survive. On the other hand, municipalities are loath to build any housing for those immigrants because 1) they don�t vote, and 2) rising house prices are great for getting votes from homeowners in the municipalities. What needs to happen is along with immigration targets being set, municipalities need to be forced to create housing and infrastructure for those people that are coming in.

This is assuming that high immigration is in reality a contributing factor. There are dozens of other likely explanations for rising house prices, the primary one being Canadian�s access to credit, not the number of non-Canadians coming in. By placing immigration next to this creates a false equivalence and gives it far more credit than it deserves, and simply plays into the hands of people who would rather just keep the foreigners out.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 00:39

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

kaom posted:

So the new millionaires number seems pretty irrelevant to demand? I�m trying to understand how you see this fitting into the rest of what you�re saying. It�s not immigrants, and it doesn�t seem to be exclusively new buyers, either.

If there was some point where foreign wealth was significantly driving house value appreciation it's clearly gone now since we're in the post foreign buyer tax and speculation tax era and that wealth no longer seems to be appearing as folks speculate it once did.

Home prices seem to be what is lifting middle class wealth. Established homeowners are being enriched due to housing scarcity. They are able to take out a big HELOC and have it paid off by renting a dismal basement suite. Their underlying house value keeps going up and up as there's ever fewer detached houses and ever more people that would like to own one.

As established SFH owners sell their homes to apartment developers they'll pocket a capital gains tax free windfall and go looking for a new home. More people with extra money in their pockets shopping in a market with less SFHs available. This ought to increase the values of SFHs even further? Perhaps not if a significant enough amount of people do consider these pricy 1.5M-2M+ penthouse suites in condos as SFH replacements.

A real "You're richer than you think�" explanation for price appreciation should probably consider more factors and sources of wealth beyond just boomers' houses appreciating and inter generational wealth transfers.

It would be interesting to see if there's any data to suggest that millennials are finally actually getting wealthier independent of things induced by the housing bubble. They are now into the prime income generating stages of their careers, in family formation time, and have benefited from a huge stock market bull run for the last while. Toronto and Vancouver's economy has been pivoting to a highly paid service/tech sector. Does any of this mean that there's more people than ever able to take advantage of their parents' HELOC wealth to buy property?

# ? Dec 7, 2021 00:41

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Speaking to the impacts of the various foreign buyer taxes:

quote:

Are foreign owners of empty homes to blame for Canada�s unaffordable housing market?

The latest batch of data on empty homes in British Columbia, and the taxes levied on them, offer insight into what first became a hot issue in the mid-2010s, when the housing market went ballistic and there was a widespread feeling that many homes were left vacant by overseas owners, as locals struggled to afford a place to live.

The new B.C. data lands at a relevant national moment: The federal government, as of Jan. 1, is bringing in a 1 per cent tax on �non-resident, non-Canadian owners of vacant, underused housing� � including foreign-owned vacant land in big cities. The City of Toronto also plans to start taxing vacant homes in 2022. Like the original B.C. taxes, these moves aim to increase rental housing supply, and lower rental prices, by penalizing investors who don�t rent out their properties.

So what do several years of data from similar levies in Vancouver and B.C. reveal? Three things.

First, vacancy taxes seem to be working, with more investment properties becoming rentals. Second, the rate of overseas ownership of Canadian real estate may be lower than thought. And third, while foreign owners are paying these new levies, so are some Canadian investors.

Vancouver started its empty homes tax in 2017, at 1 per cent of a property�s value. It rose to 1.25 per cent in 2020 and 3 per cent in 2021. The provincial government in 2018 created a �speculation and vacancy� tax, applied to Metro Vancouver, Victoria and several other cities � 0.5 per cent for Canadians and 2 per cent for foreign owners or �satellite� families. The latter can include Canadians, as it is levied when the main income earner pays taxes outside Canada.

Vancouver�s new data, released this past week, found 1,627 empty homes paid tax in 2020, one-quarter fewer than in 2017.

Empty homes, including 4,227 that earned an exemption, account for 3 per cent of all homes in the city. Since inception, the tax has raised $87-million, and goes toward affordable housing.

B.C.�s vacancy numbers, issued this past month, paint a further picture. In Metro Vancouver the past year, 4,222 properties paid the provincial levy. Almost 40 per cent of the owners, 1,606 homes, were B.C. residents. The bulk of the money raised, however, came from foreigners and satellite families, since the rate they�re charged is four times that of domestic owners. The B.C. tax has so far raised $231-million, less than half of what was first forecast.

In the mid-2010s, there was a lot of debate � and finger pointing at overseas investors � but an absence of data. The data flows; the debate continues: A review of B.C.�s numbers by a UBC professor and a local analyst find noticeably lower rates of foreign ownership than does Statistics Canada. Statscan estimates foreign ownership of City of Vancouver housing at more than 6 per cent; the researchers peg it at closer to 2 per cent.

Beyond raising taxes and gathering ownership data, the primary aim of these policies is pushing vacant housing back into the market. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. has found that, in Metro Vancouver, about 9,000 existing condos became rentals in 2019, plus another 3,600 in 2020. CMHC says vacancy taxes are part of the reason.

Condos, however, are a precarious form of rental. Owners can sell at any time, displacing residents. What�s badly needed are more purpose-built rentals. With so many people priced out of home ownership in Vancouver, there has been a rise in purpose-built rentals � jumping by 2,388 units in 2020, according to CMHC, the biggest increase on record going back to 1990. Even so, CMHC says purpose-built rentals in Vancouver and Toronto remain unaffordable to most households below the median income.

These numbers add substance to the debate over our out-of-whack housing market. B.C. shows that taxing empty properties can grow the number of rentals. But the data also suggests that, among investors sitting on fallow real estate, fewer than expected may be foreigners, and more may be Canadians. That�s relevant, given that the Liberal government promised to cool the market by banning new foreign ownership, across Canada, for two years.

Vacancy taxes were never going to be a cure-all. They have helped, and will continue to, but they work at the margins. By themselves, they can�t eliminate the biggest problems � housing that�s too expensive, restricted supply and a lack of affordable housing. All of that will take a lot more work, at every level of government.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 00:44

COPE 27: Sep 11, 2006

Alctel posted:

The immigration system definitely prioritizes rich immigrants though, there is literally (or was when I went through the system) an entire branch that was basically 'if you invest this much money in Canada you get to skip all the points checks (which means you have to be highly educated, have family in Canada or a job here or all three), welcome in'

its definitely not 'the' reason, but population growth from any source is going to increase housing pressure

Investor class visas are something like 5000/yr iirc.

The student to provincial nominee path definitely priveleges wealthier people on average, but it's usually wealthy for their country not wealthy for Canada. A lot of these people are suffering real economic hardship after immigrating, for the chance at a better life, which is by no means guarunteed and involves years of exploitation by predatory colleges and workplaces, and really substandard living conditions.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 01:47

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

There was a guy on CBC radio the other day who went from being a lawyer in India to being paid sub-minimum wage by Uber Eats or some other lovely "gig economy" food delivery company. He was delivering food in Toronto in the winter on a loving e-bike.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 03:16

Alctel: Jan 16, 2004; I love snails

evilpicard posted:

Investor class visas are something like 5000/yr iirc.

The student to provincial nominee path definitely priveleges wealthier people on average, but it's usually wealthy for their country not wealthy for Canada. A lot of these people are suffering real economic hardship after immigrating, for the chance at a better life, which is by no means guarunteed and involves years of exploitation by predatory colleges and workplaces, and really substandard living conditions.

I thought it was way more, and a quick search seems to back me up

quote:

2. How Much Money Do I Need to Invest to Qualify for the Investor Visas?
Many people will ask �how much do I need to invest to get Canada PR?� In order to invest in the government, you must provide $150,000 � $800,000 CAD to the Canadian government. After some time the government will provide you Permanent Residency.

In order to qualify for an investor visa to open a business, you must provide proof of $350,000 � $800,000 CAD.

You will also have to provide your net worth. This amount can range (depending on which province you are applying to) from $350,000 � $1,600,000 CAD.

Your net worth and income must be obtained legally.

https://www.visaplace.com/blog-immigration-law/canadian-investor-visas-q-a/

# ? Dec 7, 2021 06:47

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

I thought evilpicard meant that there are only about 5K people admitted under investor visas each year.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 09:08

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

That is old information. The federal immigrant investor program has not been a thing for a long time, the only analog is the Quebec Immigrant Investor Program where you make a zero interest five year loan of 1.2million to the quebec government, and you are not allowed to settle elsewhere in the country. Of course, hardly any of the people that get in via this route actually settle in Quebec.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 09:42

Fidelitious: Apr 17, 2018; MY BIRTH CRY WILL BE THE SOUND OF EVERY WALLET ON THIS PLANET OPENING IN UNISON.

qhat posted:

Whatever �craziness� you think about the immigration system, the solution is simply to build more housing. There is a fundamental disconnect between the federal government and municipalities, the federal government knows that Canada needs skilled immigration, lots of skilled immigration, for the economy to survive. On the other hand, municipalities are loath to build any housing for those immigrants because 1) they don�t vote, and 2) rising house prices are great for getting votes from homeowners in the municipalities. What needs to happen is along with immigration targets being set, municipalities need to be forced to create housing and infrastructure for those people that are coming in.

Is it not also at least partially that municipalities simply don't have the money to build huge swathes of housing? This does come back around to the zoning and stuff of course because you have to force developers to build anything other than 'luxury' condos and the municipalities can't build it themselves with deficit funding. I just think the federal government needs to put a lot more money into housing themselves as well, the proposals from the party leaders last election were all pretty pathetic numbers to be honest.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 14:37

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

I'd love to see cities simply given more power. You could have communists sweep a city government but still mostly have their hands tied regarding what they can do to raise money or what they can regulate. Things like Red Vienna only were possible because in Austria Vienna is its own state, so the socdems there were able to institute city (state) income taxes and things to pay for all their wildly successful social housing. North america in particular has extremely limited city governments that seem purposefully designed to make sure cities don't get uppity and institute policies the province/state doesn't approve of. A city government's job is to just handle local services and enforce zoning and not go outside of those lanes. A very attractive income source for cities are "developer fees" which is why we often see so many extremely unsustainable and short sighted decisions in that area.

Would be cool to see a city government really push to the limits what they can do, but most are terrified of both the local political backlash and the province/feds stepping in to squash any creative policy they come up with.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 18:01

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

Baronjutter posted:

I'd love to see cities simply given more power. You could have communists sweep a city government but still mostly have their hands tied regarding what they can do to raise money or what they can regulate. Things like Red Vienna only were possible because in Austria Vienna is its own state, so the socdems there were able to institute city (state) income taxes and things to pay for all their wildly successful social housing. North america in particular has extremely limited city governments that seem purposefully designed to make sure cities don't get uppity and institute policies the province/state doesn't approve of. A city government's job is to just handle local services and enforce zoning and not go outside of those lanes. A very attractive income source for cities are "developer fees" which is why we often see so many extremely unsustainable and short sighted decisions in that area.

Would be cool to see a city government really push to the limits what they can do, but most are terrified of both the local political backlash and the province/feds stepping in to squash any creative policy they come up with.

Yeah I don't know how much the city governments could push the limits to what they can do, given that the provinces have all the responsibility for housing, and the right to levy income taxes to fund that.

To get something like Vienna in Vancouver, you would also need to agglomerate all the municipalities making up the metro, and then turn that into a new province. The individual municipalities as they exist are too small and fragmented to handle things like transit or healthcare.

And then you'd have a fun situation where the good people of West Vancouver and Lions Bay (and Surrey -- lol) vote down any attempts at creating social housing.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 19:20

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

City of Vancouver elected a socialist councillor in Jean Swanson and instead of suggesting something like raising property taxes to pay for social housing (an idea she literally ran on) and building a coalition to move toward that, during her term she's instead nitpicked and protest-voted against proposed market developments for "not being affordable enough."

There's clearly not enough votes at all to deliver this sort of agenda. The mayor is an former NDP MP even and he's not a reliable vote for this idea.

It's remarkable just how incredibly far away we are from the notion of increasing taxes to build publicly owned housing. The left is in power in BC and (sort of?) at the Vancouver municipal level but regardless there is zero interest or traction on this concept. There's pretty much no credible political movement that is even advancing this idea. That is how bound we are to the status quo of market delivered housing.

# ? Dec 7, 2021 21:09

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Saretsky may be dumb dumb, but the stats he cites don't lie.

Things seem extremely bad!

quote:

This is What a Crisis Looks Like

House shoppers are showing very few signs of fatigue. The latest data out of Vancouver & Toronto for the month of November suggests the bull market remains fully intact.

Greater Vancouver home sales jumped 11% from last year, the second strongest November on record besides 2015. In case you forgot, the winter of 2015 was sparked by a frenzy of offshore buyers, pushing the market to dizzying heights before ultimately peaking a few months later in the spring of 2016. It feels a lot like that today, with sales up and inventory down a whopping 40% from last years levels. If you thought looking for a detached house last year was tough, well inventory has fallen another 25% since then and currently sits at its lowest levels ever. In other words, bidding wars and high prices. Detached home prices are now up 21% in Greater Vancouver and 36% in the Fraser Valley. There have certainly been better times to buy a house, and today isn�t one of them.

Similar to the last bull market of 2015-2017, a rising tide lifts all boats. When the detached market peaked out in 2016, the condo market ripped in 2017 as buyers bid up what was still cheap (in relative terms). We are now seeing that in the condo space, with sales up 33% and inventory plunging 46%. This is a recipe for disaster. Condo prices are up 11% from last year. On the bright side, at least it�s easier to add inventory to the condo market.

Meanwhile, out east, Greater Toronto home sales set a new record high in November, inching out the previous record high set last year. Adding to the woes of homebuyers, inventory fell a staggering 56% from last year. Yes, this is what a housing crisis looks like. There�s less than a month of inventory for sale which means higher prices. GTA home prices are now up 28% from last year. Prices are rising by tens of thousands a month. In other words, your measly wage increase will do you no good here.

This could get worse before it gets better, we are reaching escape velocity in Canada�s two most expensive cities. I suspect regulators are squirming in their seats, but they�ve often proven slow to react. After all, nobody likes a party pooper.

The bigger this gets, the bigger the risk. But then again, we�ve been hearing that for over a decade. Some day there will be a story on this, until then, keep on dancing.

Three Things I�m Watching:
1. Greater Vancouver single family house inventory has never been this low in November. (Source: REBGV, Steve Saretsky)

2. Greater Toronto home prices are up 28% from last November, city of Toronto prices are up 20%. (Source: Better Dwelling)

3. Fraser Valley detached house prices have gone parabolic, up 36% from last November. (Source: REBGV)

# ? Dec 8, 2021 03:06

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-budget-words-1.6277444?cmp=rss

article posted:

Vancouver council has passed a budget that provides greater funding than originally proposed for the police and fire departments, climate action and other social programs � and with it came a higher property tax bill than originally proposed.

Despite repeated motions in the last two years to try and keep the average property tax increase at five per cent or below, the $1.7 billion budget passed has an increase of 6.3 per cent.

That works out to $72 for the average detached condo in the city or $178 for the average home, not including parts of the property tax bill not under municipal control.

Another 5% property tax increase on the table as Vancouver begins 2022 budget deliberations

"The stark reality is we are just going ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, and taking it not out of the one per cent, but of the middle-class people that are trying to afford to continue living in this city," said councillor Colleen Hardwick at one point.

"I'm choked as I continue to see us add more and more. It was bad enough that we were looking at five per cent."

Lmao'ing at the responses to this so hard. Landlords throwing a moody on twitter saying how they're going to pass it onto their renters. Go ahead give it a shot dipshits, because this isn't how price setting works in the rental market.

# ? Dec 8, 2021 10:16

ChickenWing: Jul 22, 2010

Lead out in cuffs posted:

Yeah I don't know how much the city governments could push the limits to what they can do, given that the provinces have all the responsibility for housing, and the right to levy income taxes to fund that.

To get something like Vienna in Vancouver, you would also need to agglomerate all the municipalities making up the metro, and then turn that into a new province. The individual municipalities as they exist are too small and fragmented to handle things like transit or healthcare.

And then you'd have a fun situation where the good people of West Vancouver and Lions Bay (and Surrey -- lol) vote down any attempts at creating social housing.

This is otherwise known as the "toronto method". That social housing money ends up getting diverted to building a subway to the rear end end of nowhere

# ? Dec 8, 2021 15:30

Shofixti: Nov 23, 2005; Kyaieee!

qhat posted:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-budget-words-1.6277444?cmp=rss

Lmao'ing at the responses to this so hard. Landlords throwing a moody on twitter saying how they're going to pass it onto their renters. Go ahead give it a shot dipshits, because this isn't how price setting works in the rental market.

Doesn�t that work out to like $15 a month for the average home? How is this worthy of any outrage?

# ? Dec 8, 2021 16:45

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Shofixti posted:

Doesn�t that work out to like $15 a month for the average home? How is this worthy of any outrage?

I mean yeah it�s like 6.35% of what, 0.3% of the value of the home? It�s hardly anything worth crying about.

# ? Dec 8, 2021 18:39

MickeyFinn: May 8, 2007; Biggie Smalls and Junior Mafia some mark ass bitches

Shofixti posted:

Doesn�t that work out to like $15 a month for the average home? How is this worthy of any outrage?

Home owners are accustomed to having others pay their way.

How does that saying go? Equality seems like injustice to the privileged?

# ? Dec 8, 2021 22:09

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

qhat posted:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-budget-words-1.6277444?cmp=rss

Lmao'ing at the responses to this so hard. Landlords throwing a moody on twitter saying how they're going to pass it onto their renters. Go ahead give it a shot dipshits, because this isn't how price setting works in the rental market.

lol why does it give the increased amounts for everything except the police budget?

# ? Dec 8, 2021 22:43

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

MickeyFinn posted:

Home owners are accustomed to having others pay their way.

How does that saying go? Equality seems like injustice to the privileged?

Landlords are the worst of the bunch. They very passionately expect to never invest any resources or effort on their part on the road to becoming rich, everybody should just always give them money for free, and government should stop taking their hard-earned money from them. If they had a real job, they'd be fired within months because taking responsibility for their actions is not really part of their MO.

# ? Dec 8, 2021 23:31

less than three: Aug 9, 2007; Fallen Rib

RBC posted:

lol why does it give the increased amounts for everything except the police budget?

Because it'd be embarrassing to say post-draft the police are getting $20 million added, more than all the other post-draft additions combined.

# ? Dec 9, 2021 23:47

the talent deficit: Dec 20, 2003; self-deprecation is a very british trait, and problems can arise when the british attempt to do so with a foreign culture

i don't think it's really a supply/demand problem or a foreign money problem. it's just retail securitization of the housing market. if you have a house and suddenly you have access to virtually free HELOC money then it's in your interests to expand that equity to expand your access to HELOC money. whether that means upsizing or 'gifting' your children the money to get into the game themselves the end result is a ratchet that works to increase house prices. you need very little money coming into the system as long as you can continuously apply paper equity increases to expand your leverage. the more of your day to day expenses you can pay out of your HELOC the more of your income you can apply to expanding your equity access. how do you even regulate that without increasing interest rates?

# ? Dec 12, 2021 03:42

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

the talent deficit posted:

i don't think it's really a supply/demand problem or a foreign money problem. it's just retail securitization of the housing market. if you have a house and suddenly you have access to virtually free HELOC money then it's in your interests to expand that equity to expand your access to HELOC money. whether that means upsizing or 'gifting' your children the money to get into the game themselves the end result is a ratchet that works to increase house prices. you need very little money coming into the system as long as you can continuously apply paper equity increases to expand your leverage. the more of your day to day expenses you can pay out of your HELOC the more of your income you can apply to expanding your equity access. how do you even regulate that without increasing interest rates?

This is true. Most mortgages I see are bought with equity drawn from existing homes. But wouldn't that flood the market with rental properties helping the supply issue?

# ? Dec 12, 2021 04:25

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

the talent deficit posted:

i don't think it's really a supply/demand problem or a foreign money problem. it's just retail securitization of the housing market. if you have a house and suddenly you have access to virtually free HELOC money then it's in your interests to expand that equity to expand your access to HELOC money. whether that means upsizing or 'gifting' your children the money to get into the game themselves the end result is a ratchet that works to increase house prices. you need very little money coming into the system as long as you can continuously apply paper equity increases to expand your leverage. the more of your day to day expenses you can pay out of your HELOC the more of your income you can apply to expanding your equity access. how do you even regulate that without increasing interest rates?

You don�t. Eventually you physically run out of first time buyers, and then people stop being able to refinance because there�s no additional demand, and then people start to default, and then banks stop lending.

# ? Dec 12, 2021 10:36

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

Purgatory Glory posted:

This is true. Most mortgages I see are bought with equity drawn from existing homes. But wouldn't that flood the market with rental properties helping the supply issue?

The "supply problem" is really just boomers owning multiple properties

This past summer there were loads of houses that came on the market, and many of them were boomers "city homes" that they sold off at the peak while they moved into their "cottages" year round

# ? Dec 12, 2021 15:42

leftist heap: Feb 28, 2013; Fun Shoe

how many boomers own multiple properties

# ? Dec 12, 2021 18:30

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

RBC posted:

The "supply problem" is really just boomers owning multiple properties

This past summer there were loads of houses that came on the market, and many of them were boomers "city homes" that they sold off at the peak while they moved into their "cottages" year round

I mean, that's definitely part of the supply problem. But there's also the issue of there having been effectively no social housing built for nearly thirty years.

# ? Dec 12, 2021 19:08

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

leftist heap posted:

how many boomers own multiple properties

17%

# ? Dec 12, 2021 21:47

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

the talent deficit posted:

i don't think it's really a supply/demand problem or a foreign money problem. it's just retail securitization of the housing market. if you have a house and suddenly you have access to virtually free HELOC money then it's in your interests to expand that equity to expand your access to HELOC money. whether that means upsizing or 'gifting' your children the money to get into the game themselves the end result is a ratchet that works to increase house prices. you need very little money coming into the system as long as you can continuously apply paper equity increases to expand your leverage. the more of your day to day expenses you can pay out of your HELOC the more of your income you can apply to expanding your equity access. how do you even regulate that without increasing interest rates?

I agree with this big time. I wrote a post in the Canadian Finance Thread about this and my thought of whether Canadians were intentionally or unintentionally doing a form of "buy, borrow, die" and maxing out HELOCs because with interest rates so low it's dumb not too.

The combination of low interest rates, bull stock market and spiking home values is making Canadians rich af.

https://twitter.com/SteveSaretsky/status/1470189893322100745?s=20

In the past I've thought that we need to make secondary home investment less appealing by reducing the capital gains exemption on housing capital gains (eg. instead of 50% of secondary home capital gains taxed, how about 75% or 100%?) but recently I'm really starting to wonder whether we instead need to go so far as to simply straight up limit how many homes one can own.

The fact that vacancy is terminally insanely low suggests that there still is a housing shortage. Empty home studies have come up with no evidence of a big empty home problem. The housing shortage is an issue that needs to be addressed but should be considered independent of the affordability problem. We should try to get to a healthy vacancy to give renters flexibility and ensure they aren't exploitable. It's not a given that the housing shortage is directly related to home price increases, but we need to deal with the housing shortage regardless.

leftist heap posted:

how many boomers own multiple properties

In Vancouver 20%. In Toronto 17%

quote:

In Vancouver and Toronto, as many as 1 in 5 homeowners own more than one property
New data released by the Canadian Housing Statistics Program show that one in five City of Vancouver property owners own more than one property, with similar levels in Toronto. The report suggests that homeowners who own more than one home � in some cases, three or four, or more � is a growing group and is concentrated in Vancouver and Toronto.

Twenty per cent of homeowners in the City of Vancouver own more than one property. For the wider Census Metropolitan Area, the figure is 16.4 per cent � a number matched in the Toronto CMA.

In the City of Toronto, 17 per cent of homeowners own two or more properties.
...

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Dec 13, 2021

# ? Dec 13, 2021 08:28

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Edit: nvm

qhat fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Dec 13, 2021

# ? Dec 13, 2021 10:29

Fidelitious: Apr 17, 2018; MY BIRTH CRY WILL BE THE SOUND OF EVERY WALLET ON THIS PLANET OPENING IN UNISON.

Yeah. I think I've mentioned it before. You should get to own one property to live in and that's it. Sorry, not allowed to get even richer by exploiting your access to capital against the renter class.

All part of the plan to completely ban private landlording.

# ? Dec 13, 2021 14:43

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

Fidelitious posted:

Yeah. I think I've mentioned it before. You should get to own one property to live in and that's it. Sorry, not allowed to get even richer by exploiting your access to capital against the renter class.

All part of the plan to completely ban private landlording.

How about you must buy a new build rather than buy an existing home? Something to keep the builders building. And make empty homes and air bnb not a thing. At least during a housing crises, governments words.

# ? Dec 13, 2021 16:32

MickeyFinn: May 8, 2007; Biggie Smalls and Junior Mafia some mark ass bitches

Femtosecond posted:

I agree with this big time. I wrote a post in the Canadian Finance Thread about this and my thought of whether Canadians were intentionally or unintentionally doing a form of "buy, borrow, die" and maxing out HELOCs because with interest rates so low it's dumb not too.

The combination of low interest rates, bull stock market and spiking home values is making Canadians rich af.

https://twitter.com/SteveSaretsky/status/1470189893322100745?s=20

In the past I've thought that we need to make secondary home investment less appealing by reducing the capital gains exemption on housing capital gains (eg. instead of 50% of secondary home capital gains taxed, how about 75% or 100%?) but recently I'm really starting to wonder whether we instead need to go so far as to simply straight up limit how many homes one can own.

I'm a big fan of no capital gains on housing (i.e. 100% tax above inflation). Housing is not an asset to speculate on.

# ? Dec 13, 2021 16:34

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Fidelitious posted:

Yeah. I think I've mentioned it before. You should get to own one property to live in and that's it. Sorry, not allowed to get even richer by exploiting your access to capital against the renter class.

All part of the plan to completely ban private landlording.

Or, just build a ton of social housing to compete with private landlords and make the business nonviable. Of course we'll see a tidal wave of landlords "threatening" to sell their secondary properties in retaliation, as if that wasn't the whole point to begin with.

# ? Dec 13, 2021 19:25

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Purgatory Glory posted:

How about you must buy a new build rather than buy an existing home? Something to keep the builders building. And make empty homes and air bnb not a thing. At least during a housing crises, governments words.

At this point when a new condo is completed, like 60%+ of it is owned by investors and rented out. Over time as a building ages those investors get out and sell the apartments to owner occupiers, and that 60% renter number declines.

If we did ban people from owning multiple homes, it would probably be massively disruptive to the condo market.

We already saw in Vancouver that when the foreign/spec taxes came in overnight condo developers pivoted away from condos and toward purpose built rental.

Condos becoming non-viable without investors seems like a plausible outcome, so yeah keeping the door open to some investment for new apartments could keep that going.

I'd be more in favour of just cutting out the secondary investment condo market entirely and seeing if that realigns the market at lower prices and land values. Developers would be mad but gently caress em.

Worst case scenario is that you get a housing market like Seattle, where developers pretty much only build apartment buildings and there's few condos for sale anywhere.

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 13, 2021

# ? Dec 13, 2021 20:39

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

The realistic answer is rates needs to go up, which will crash both the equities and housing markets. And bring inflation down as well.

But no one has the balls to do it.

# ? Dec 13, 2021 20:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 06:02

Slotducks: Oct 16, 2008; Nobody puts Phil in a corner.

Listen if you haven't bought your jet skis yet it's been like 18 months now of historic low interest rates its time to poo poo or jet off the pot.

# ? Dec 13, 2021 21:22

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

«‹›1518 »