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.

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

jm20 posted:

Which is puzzling. Vancouver does what for the economy and has what job prospects exactly? Toronto is at least a leader in a few industries. I just don't think it's worth it to live in Vancouver due to housing costs, rates will go up, people will be forced to sell.

it's creating more jobs for real estate, bankers and construction workers.

:smugbird:

# ? Apr 30, 2015 03:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 16:49

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Cultural Imperial posted:

Vancouver's tech scene is the envy of the world when hootsuite leading the vanguard of innovation.

We also have one of the most active bitcoin communities and are leading the world in science fiction technology with companies like dwave and general fusion.

Vancouver used to have a very strong science-fiction industry! x-files, stargate, and who could forget Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda?

# ? Apr 30, 2015 04:06

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Half serious answer: Vancouver has several significant athletic and outdoor apparel makers. Arc'Teryx, Wings & Horns/Reigning Champ, Lululemon, Kit & Ace and MEC are all based in Vancouver. Arc'Teryx and Wings & Horns/Reigning Champ also make a lot of their products in Vancouver so there is a highly skilled clothing manufacturing industry present. I believe this highly skilled workforce also makes a lot of outdoor wear for other brands.

(this industry is tiny and doesn't account for the housing bubble in any way, but wasn't this factoid kinda interesting?)

# ? Apr 30, 2015 04:13

UnfortunateSexFart: May 18, 2008; ð» ððð« ð·ððð·
ð ð ð ð« ð®ð ð¾ð ð ð¡ððð

To be fair the science fiction TV show/movie industry is still thriving (http://yvrshoots.com). And so are the ports, but that's about it for real jobs. Condos are our number one export really. But of course they don't leave.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 04:17

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Femtosecond posted:

Half serious answer: Vancouver has several significant athletic and outdoor apparel makers. Arc'Teryx, Wings & Horns/Reigning Champ, Lululemon, Kit & Ace and MEC are all based in Vancouver. Arc'Teryx and Wings & Horns/Reigning Champ also make a lot of their products in Vancouver so there is a highly skilled clothing manufacturing industry present. I believe this highly skilled workforce also makes a lot of outdoor wear for other brands.

(this industry is tiny and doesn't account for the housing bubble in any way, but wasn't this factoid kinda interesting?)

Maybe if MEC still made their products in Vancouver (or anywhere else in Canada, or for that matter, the first world) they wouldn't have such abysmal quality at this point.

Boy, that sure would be swell.

(P.S. Look up John Oliver's rant on the fashion industry and supply chain management; it's pretty great)

# ? Apr 30, 2015 04:38

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Reverse Centaur posted:

I was responding to your post where you made it sound like it was just a downtown issue, or that the property was overvalued compared to its neighbours. "it's not reflective of the market as a whole." No, it is. It is not an aberration, and the problem stretches well out into the Fraser Valley. Real estate prices are much worse than Toronto, even with a worse economy.

It extends well beyond the lower mainland. Search MLS for some of our rural communities in BC. Revelstoke and Lilloet have home prices that seem reasonable until you realize they are in the middle of nowhere. Homes that were worth south of 100K ten years ago, command prices that would have been reasonable 10 years ago in actual urban centers.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 04:43

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Reverse Centaur posted:

To be fair the science fiction TV show/movie industry is still thriving (http://yvrshoots.com). And so are the ports, but that's about it for real jobs. Condos are our number one export really. But of course they don't leave.

Mainly due to the big tax credits

# ? Apr 30, 2015 04:47

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

PT6A posted:

Maybe if MEC still made their products in Vancouver (or anywhere else in Canada, or for that matter, the first world) they wouldn't have such abysmal quality at this point.

Boy, that sure would be swell.

(P.S. Look up John Oliver's rant on the fashion industry and supply chain management; it's pretty great)

The decline of MEC across the board over this past decade has been staggering to behold and an excellent example of how democracy fails even at the small scale.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 05:09

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...rticle24162884/

quote:

More Canadian families are highly indebted, Statscan finds
TAVIA GRANT

A growing segment of Canadian families is highly indebted, leaving them more vulnerable to any economic shift such as a job loss, illness or rising borrowing costs.

More than a third, or 35 per cent, of families had a debt-to-income ratio above 2.0 as of 2012, meaning their overall debt level was at least twice that of their annual after-tax income, a new paper by Statistics Canada finds. Back in 1999, that share was 23 per cent.

The findings are similar to the Bank of Canada�s assessment of debt trends in Canada, which suggests much of the country�s debt is concentrated in a few households. It noted in December that 12 per cent of households have a total debt-to-income ratio above 250 per cent, and that though this portion has been steady in recent years, it is almost double 2000 levels. These one-in-eight households hold about 40 per cent of overall debt.

The Statscan paper come as Canada�s debt-to-income ratio has risen further, hitting a record 163.3 per cent in the fourth quarter of last year. The central bank has long cited household debt as a key risk to the economy, though it cut interest rates in January to counter another threat: lower oil prices.

The Statscan paper looks at trends in both household debt and assets held by Canadian families. It finds the value of both rose in the 1999-to-2012 period, though there were differences within types of families. Debt grew at a faster pace, for example, among those aged 35-to-44, couples with children under 18 and among people with mortgages.

By 2012, 71 per cent of all families had some debt, up from 67 per cent in 1999. (Its measure of debt includes mortgages and consumer debt like car loans, lines of credit, vehicle loans and student debt).

The median debt held by indebted families grew to $60,100 in 2012 from $36,700 in 1999, in constant dollars.

On the other side of the ledger, however, assets rose too. Median assets of families with debt rose by $179,800 over the same period to $405,200. (Its measure of assets include real estate and employer pensions).

This suggests �that the value of assets rose at least as rapidly as the value of debt for many Canadian families,� the study said.

In fact, it said, median assets climbed by 80 per cent while median debt rose by 64 per cent.

�Most of the increases in debt values were attributable to rising mortgage debt,� the paper said, adding that for assets, a big part of the increase was due to rising real estate values.

Thus the median debt-to-asset ratio remained �relatively stable� over the period, as the median Canadian family �had a debt corresponding to about one-quarter of its assets in both years. �

Such results suggest that Canadian families became more indebted over the period, �but did so against a backdrop of rising asset values, notably real estate worth.�

Though both debt and assets increased for nearly all types of families, the size of the changes wasn�t the same for all family types.

Here are some of the differences:

among couple families with kids under 18, median debt more than doubled, while median assets increased by 86 per cent.
families without children under 18 saw their median debt grow 88 per cent and median assets rise 78 per cent.
among families whose major income earner was between 35 and 44 years old, median debt rose by 126 per cent while median assets grew 77 per cent.
�for some family categories, increases in debt were not matched with a statistically significant rise in assets,� the paper said. This includes non-homeowners, single people and families whose main income earner was between 15 and 34 years old.
net worth rose the fastest among families in the top income quintile as they saw relatively big increases in their assets and smaller growth in debt levels.
The study is based on the 2012 survey of financial security, which was also conducted in 2005 and 1999. It was written by Sharanjit Uppal, senior analyst at the agency�s labour statistics division, and S�bastien LaRochelle-C�t�, Statscan�s editor-in-chief of Insights on Canadian Society.

It's a good thing that this same debt goes down if real estate prices and 'wealth' decline!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

# ? Apr 30, 2015 05:13

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://business.financialpost.com/p...-housing-market

quote:

Non-permanent residents might be the secret ingredient in Canadian housing market

Canada�s housing market is now heavily influenced by non-permanent residents, which make up the fastest-growing demographic force in the county, according to a new report.

CIBC World Markets Inc. deputy economist Benjamin Tal says Ottawa needs to consider the impact on the economy of this group before it makes any more changes to the temporary workers program.

�It�s not an insignificant element in the mosaic we call the housing market, that�s what I�m saying, especially in the rental market,� said Tal, in an interview. �You can assume many of these people rent and [that affects] investors and the condo market.�

He wrote in his report that non-permanent residents now number almost 770,000, which is a record high. Almost 50 per cent of that figure is made up of workers, with about 38 per cent students. The rest of the group is made up of humanitarian workers.

�The pace at which this category is growing is also unprecedented,� Tal wrote, adding that, over the last 10 years, 450,000 non-permanent residents have been added to the country.

Ottawa overhauled the temporary foreign workers program in 2014, establishing restrictions on how many temporary foreign workers could be hired by a single employer, as well as limits on hiring temporary foreign workers in regions of the country with high unemployment rates.

Tal says 29,000 are affected by the change and they are lower skilled workers. He says even if all of these workers lose their eligibility in 2015 � many will apply for permanent resident status � it would only lower the pool of visa holders by 3.7 per cent.

Overall, he suggests that non-permanent residents, and in particular temporary workers, are no longer just marginal and reversible factors when dealing with shortages in local job markets on a short-term basis.

�They should be viewed as an important demographic force capable of influencing and potentially altering the trajectories of macro-economic variables such as housing activity and consumer spending,� Mr. Tal wrote in his report.

He said a key component of the non-permanent residents group is that 95 per cent are below the age of 45. But the real impact might be felt on younger segments of Canada as a whole.

The 18 to 24 age group is among the fastest-growing segment of the non-permanent residents population. While it has been only five per cent of the overall population for that age group since 2006, it accounted for 50 per cent of its growth over the past half-decade.

In the 25 to 44 category, the number of non-permanent residents has doubled since 2006 and accounted for all growth in that age group.

Tal said the impact is felt most significantly in Ontario where there has been a notable decline in the 25 to 44 population. He says that, if not for non-permanent residents, there would have been a 120,000 decline in that segment of the population in Ontario since 2006. British Columbia also saw all of its growth since 2006 in the 25 to 44 age group come from non-permanent residents.

�It is not a coincidence that those two provinces are also the ones to experience long-lasting strong housing market activity,� wrote Tal. �It is fair to assume that non-permanent residents play an important role in demand for rental units in both provinces � a factor that contributed to the recent boom in the condo market in centres such as Toronto and Vancouver.�

Tal won�t say that cutting back on non-permanent residents could create a housing crash, but he says any future policy aimed at limiting growth needs to be offset by a boost to immigration.

�The numbers are simply too large to ignore. Non-permanent residents is a major demographic force with significant macro-economic implications,� he wrote.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 05:46

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

Femtosecond posted:

Half serious answer: Vancouver has several significant athletic and outdoor apparel makers. Arc'Teryx, Wings & Horns/Reigning Champ, Lululemon, Kit & Ace and MEC are all based in Vancouver. Arc'Teryx and Wings & Horns/Reigning Champ also make a lot of their products in Vancouver so there is a highly skilled clothing manufacturing industry present. I believe this highly skilled workforce also makes a lot of outdoor wear for other brands.

(this industry is tiny and doesn't account for the housing bubble in any way, but wasn't this factoid kinda interesting?)

Reigning Champ makes really nice stuff but they are probably 1/1000th the size of Lululemon at best. Brb, you just reminded me to buy another hoodie.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 05:47

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

quote:

Noon ET @BNN: Canada's #economy +0.0% in February as weakness in the oil patch offsets strength at the cash register. http://twitter.com/hainsworthtv/status/593787256361586688/photo/1

https://twitter.com/hainsworthtv/status/593787256361586688

# ? Apr 30, 2015 15:51

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

quote:

Canada’s gross domestic product failed to show any growth for the second straight month in February as the economy remained bogged down by the slumping oil sector, but the flat month-over-month reading nevertheless beat economists’ low expectations.

Statistics Canada reported that Canadian real gross domestic product showed no change in February versus January, as stronger retail sales were offset by continued weakness in the energy sector and a further slowdown in manufacturing. Wholesale trade also stumbled in the month, particularly for machinery and equipment and building supplies.

Economists had expected February’s real GDP to decline by 0.1 per cent, as harsh winter weather slowed activity in much of North America and the oil price shock continued to hinder the country’s energy-heavy economy. The weather may have been a significant factor in the manufacturing and wholesale weakness, as key U.S. markets were bogged down by the conditions, as well as labour disruptions at West Coast ports. Manufacturing output was also slowed by a retooling shutdown of the FCA Canada (formerly Chrysler Canada) auto plant in Windsor, Ont., which began in the middle of the month.

“Flat is the new up,” quipped Douglas Porter, chief economist at Bank of Montreal, in a note to clients. “Given the tough weather in February (much of the country never got above freezing in the entire month), a further big drop in drilling activity and a temporary pullback in auto production, an unchanged reading is not bad.”

But while the February reading was slightly better than the relatively low bar economists had set for it, that was offset by Statscan’s downward revision of January’s weak GDP number, to a decline of 0.2 per cent from an originally reported 0.1 per cent. The combination of the revision and February’s slightly better result leaves the economy on track for little or no growth for the first quarter overall.

The Bank of Canada recently estimated that real GDP growth was zero in the first quarter, but predicted a rebound to 1.8-per-cent growth in the second quarter.

Still, after the United States on Wednesday issued its preliminary estimate of first-quarter GDP growth at a disappointingly thin annualized rate of 0.2 per cent, some observers were braced for Canada’s February GDP to come in below expectations.

“The winter months were no treat for Canada’s economy, but it now looks like GDP managed to hold roughly steady through a rough patch for oil & gas and the auto sectors – arguably the two most important industries in the country,” Mr. Porter said. “Given the U.S. economy also stumbled out of the gate in 2015, a flat growth profile in the first quarter is far from a horrendous/foul/shocking/troublesome/vexatious or entirely disagreeable outcome.”

Statscan also revised its December GDP figure to a rise of 0.4 per cent from an originally reported 0.3 per cent.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-economy-stalls-in-february/article24182275/?service=mobile

# ? Apr 30, 2015 16:02

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...rticle24162884/

It's a good thing that this same debt goes down if real estate prices and 'wealth' decline!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Haha I had the same terrifying thought as I was reading that :stare:

# ? Apr 30, 2015 16:11

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

quote:

No stone left unturned as RBC hikes fees
ROB CARRICK
The Globe and Mail
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 30 2015, 10:00 AM EDT

Canada�s largest bank has decided that it�s not enough to charge clients interest when they borrow money.

Starting June 1, a limited number of Royal Bank of Canada customers will pay a fee when they make their regular monthly loan or mortgage payments from various accounts. The change is contained in a list of service fee and account changes that is notable for the way it affects people of all ages � from seniors to students and kids who have the bank�s Leo�s Young Savers Account. You won�t find a better document of bank creativity in mining its customer base for more fee income. Study it here and watch for other banks to do something similar.

RBC does not currently count mortgage and loan payments toward the one debit transaction it offers for free in savings accounts each month or as part of the set number of debits included in a few other account packages. When the new fee schedule takes effect, clients who have used up their free debit transaction will pay from $2 to $5 to make a loan, mortgage and/or credit card payment in RBC savings accounts.

The bank says savings accounts are designed for clients who have short-term savings goals and need their money only occasionally. But loan and mortgage payments are typically a blend of principal and interest, which is to say the bank makes good money off them without charging additional fees.

In RBC�s student and young savers accounts, a fee of $1 will be charged if you�ve used up your regular monthly allotment of debits and make a payment on a loan (or, unlikely, a mortgage). The same fee applies for contributions to RBC investment products, which is quite the unfriendly message to send to young people who are getting an early start as investors.

An RBC spokesman said in an e-mail the June 1 round of fee increases results from the bank�s annual review of pricing on various products and services. �We work hard at keeping costs down,� he wrote. �However, from time to time, we reprice our products and services to reflect the cost of doing business.�

Seniors are the most notable group affected by this repricing because the changes affecting them speak to the issue of offering discounts to a group that is, first, comparatively well off financially and, second, growing rapidly in size. Many banks long ago dispensed with free banking for seniors and replaced it with discounts or rebates. RBC�s rebate is 25 per cent or $4 off the regular fee, whichever is higher. To get this benefit, RBC clients will have to be 65 as of June 1, up from 60. Those under 65 who currently get the discount will continue to do so for as long as the account is open.

�We are adjusting the age for seniors� eligibility to be more consistent with the age that most seniors� benefits generally apply, including many government programs,� the RBC spokesman said in his e-mail.

Rebates are also available to RBC clients with a range of monthly chequing account packages. Basically, the deal is that you get between $4 and $10.95 off your regular monthly chequing account fee if you have a credit card, investment and mortgage at the bank. Apparently, you just need to have the card or investment, not actually use or contribute to it on an ongoing basis.

As of June 1, RBC will require an active credit card and active investment to get the rebates. As for the rebates, some are improving and others are shrinking by close to half.

Another fee change affects overdraft protection. On several of its accounts, RBC charges the higher of $4 a month for overdraft protection or interest set at 22 per cent. On June 1, it will charge $4 a month plus interest if a client overdraws an account.

One last change concerns Interac Flash, which I wrote about in a recent column. Flash lets you pay for purchases of less than $100 by tapping your client card on an electronic reader instead of keying in your PIN. Flash transactions are now free in RBC�s young savers, student and day-to-day bank accounts; as of June 1, the bank will charge $1 if a Flash transaction goes above the monthly allotment of debits. No rock goes unturned when a bank mines its customer base for more fee income.

Gotta bleed everyone dry!!! haha sheesh

# ? Apr 30, 2015 16:25

Count Canuckula: Oct 22, 2014

quote:

The bank says savings accounts are designed for clients who have short-term savings goals and need their money only occasionally. But loan and mortgage payments are typically a blend of principal and interest, which is to say the bank makes good money off them without charging additional fees.

Hahahaha loving what

# ? Apr 30, 2015 16:47

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

It sure is a lot of work shoveling all these ones and zeroes around!

ABAB.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 16:52

Coylter: Aug 3, 2009

I'm currently in the process of switching from RBC to a credit union and couldn't be happier.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 16:58

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

Ikantski posted:

0.7-0.8% in most places. Income tax is much lower there though, on a $150k salary, we'd pay about $50k in tax and you'll pay about $30k. I think this thread would applaud Texas's progressive stance toward taxing the land owning class instead of the working class (they have zero state income tax).

Every renter pays property tax. It's built into their rent. Property tax rates directly affect rental rates.

edit: evidently renters pay much higher property taxes than owners http://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-property-taxes/

quote:

Tenants who live in multi-residential buildings (ones with seven units or more) are in the same boat; they don�t know exactly how much they�re paying, because it�s folded into their overall rent. But there�s another issue here, as well: because these buildings fall into a different tax classification, their tenants get taxed a different rate�a much higher one. A tenant in a multi-residential building is currently taxed 3.2 times more than the owner of a detached house.

RBC fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Apr 30, 2015

# ? Apr 30, 2015 17:18

Ceciltron: Jan 11, 2007; Text BEEP to 43527 for the dancing robot!; Pillbug

Banks are responsible and beloved community citizens, or some poo poo.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 17:20

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

RBC posted:

Every renter pays property tax. It's built into their rent. Property tax rates directly affect rental rates.

AKA "What Nenshi's fan club fails to understand"

# ? Apr 30, 2015 17:21

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

RBC posted:

Every renter pays property tax. It's built into their rent. Property tax rates directly affect rental rates.

I hear this all the loving time. "Renters shouldn't be allowed to vote in civic elections, they don't pay property tax!" or "Why are we listening to all these renters who want bike lanes?? They aren't paying for them, I pay property taxes where is my say?!" it's really infuriating. It gets brought up in some form or another in a lot of public meeting. "Not only do I live in this neighbourhood, but _I_ actually pay property taxes..." or "It's easy to ask for all these improvements when it's not your property taxes that will be going up to pay for them!"

# ? Apr 30, 2015 17:21

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

Baronjutter posted:

I hear this all the loving time. "Renters shouldn't be allowed to vote in civic elections, they don't pay property tax!" or "Why are we listening to all these renters who want bike lanes?? They aren't paying for them, I pay property taxes where is my say?!"

Wow, that is toxic as gently caress. If somebody tried complaining about this in Montreal, they'd get lynched. Basically 2/3rds of the population here is renting.

Reminds me of the "road tax" argument that motorists try to bandy around when complaining about cyclists taking up "their" roads. Except unlike property tax, road tax doesn't actually exist! :v:

# ? Apr 30, 2015 17:59

HookShot: Dec 26, 2005

I have literally never had a good experience with RBC, ever.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 18:03

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Stop hating banks, they aren't a social service, they are a business. Just buy some shares and profit from consumers gripes, what a true capitalist would do.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 18:17

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

Jan posted:

Wow, that is toxic as gently caress. If somebody tried complaining about this in Montreal, they'd get lynched. Basically 2/3rds of the population here is renting.

Reminds me of the "road tax" argument that motorists try to bandy around when complaining about cyclists taking up "their" roads. Except unlike property tax, road tax doesn't actually exist!

To be fair to these imbeciles, Gas Tax does exist. But Gas Tax, as far as I can tell from my research, does not pay for municipal roads, only provincial.

Here in Nova Scotia municipalities can request Gas Tax funding for certain eligible capital projects, such as wastewater, bike lanes, transit facilities, or yes, even roads (I built the loving form they use to make these requests). But only a very, very small percentage of municipal capital projects are funded by Gas Tax. Though I'm not privy to any Gas Tax funding for operating costs, if there is any.

Given this, for a car-addicted soccer mom to bitch to me as a cyclist that I'm not contributing to the cost of municipal roads and therefore have no say is the biggest load of horseshit. And it's not like I never drive. I used to own a car. My girlfriend owns a car. I rent and use car-share. gently caress off. Keep driving in your unpriced-externality daily for the detriment of society.

Rick Rickshaw fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Apr 30, 2015

# ? Apr 30, 2015 18:22

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

Maybe if I pull a Clockwork Orange on my wife with this article she'll finally agree to wait another year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...?service=mobile

I just need to find suitable music to play while this scrolls on the screen.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 18:33

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Holiday-madonna

# ? Apr 30, 2015 18:38

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

RBC posted:

Every renter pays property tax. It's built into their rent. Property tax rates directly affect rental rates.

edit: evidently renters pay much higher property taxes than owners http://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-property-taxes/

Yeah, I was just joking about how progressives sell people increased taxes by convincing them that it'll only affect other people, sorry for the confusion. Texas is not, in fact, progressive.

Renters don't pay property tax, they pay rent and that's ok. Property tax, in Ottawa anyways, is only 57% of revenue. There's no reason to think that renters don't contribute equally or more (they have more disposable income

) to buying stuff at businesses who pay commercial taxes, work at places that pay industrial taxes, user fees, fines, etc. I'd say it's even a little uppity to think that people should have to contribute equally to deserve a vote. The argument that renters shouldn't be allowed to vote is appallingly stupid on so many levels.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 18:45

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

quote:

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – The federal housing agency does not agree with the popular view that Vancouver’s market is overvalued.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says “high house prices do not necessarily imply overvaluation.”

CMHC’s House Price Analysis and Assessment says “it is possible to have no overvaluation in a high priced centre, while overvaluation may exist in a lower priced centre.”

It cites Regina and Winnipeg as examples of the latter, saying those markets have a high risk of “problematic housing market conditions.”

CMHC says the Vancouver market has the fundamentals to support its above-average price levels. Those include land supply, income, population, and interest rates.

It adds that Vancouver and Toronto also support their high prices by attracting many immigrants, and because land is scarce.

Contrary to some analyses and popular opinion, CMHC says Vancouver’s housing market is at “low overall risk” for a correction.

The agency has found Vancouver has none of its four risk factors: overheated demand outpacing supply, acceleration in home-price growth, overvaluation, and overbuilding.

First-time home buyers focus on lower-priced options in suburban locales. At the upper end of the price spectrum, high net worth residents and those who have gained equity in their homes, are more
likely to buy single-detached homes in central locations and luxury properties.

http://www.news1130.com/2015/04/30/vancouvers-housing-market-is-not-overvalued-cmhc/

Vancouver's not overvalued motherfuckers

# ? Apr 30, 2015 18:51

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Homeowners also get rebates so they pay less property tax on their homes than on their investment properties. Tenants' rents are such to pay for the complete costs of the investment properties which receive no property tax relief.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 18:53

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Ikantski posted:

Yeah, I was just joking about how progressives sell people increased taxes by convincing them that it'll only affect other people, sorry for the confusion. Texas is not, in fact, progressive.

Renters don't pay property tax, they pay rent and that's ok. Property tax, in Ottawa anyways, is only 57% of revenue. There's no reason to think that renters don't contribute equally or more (they have more disposable income ) to buying stuff at businesses who pay commercial taxes, work at places that pay industrial taxes, user fees, fines, etc. I'd say it's even a little uppity to think that people should have to contribute equally to deserve a vote. The argument that renters shouldn't be allowed to vote is appallingly stupid on so many levels.

Yeah, I hear the same level of idiocy from low-info leftists. "We need to demand more amenities from developers! They should have to install new sidewalks, and public art, and include a daycare, and make their buildings all LEED triple vegan platinum!" then the next breath is "And we need to do something about affordability too!" A lot of people think developers are making insane profits on their buildings and they could totally just cut condo prices in half and make a profit. Showing them the actual numbers on construction/development and how razor thin the margins generally are is just met with "That's just bullshit developers numbers so they can get tax breaks"

# ? Apr 30, 2015 18:54

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

Baronjutter posted:

Yeah, I hear the same level of idiocy from low-info leftists. "We need to demand more amenities from developers! They should have to install new sidewalks, and public art, and include a daycare, and make their buildings all LEED triple vegan platinum!" then the next breath is "And we need to do something about affordability too!" A lot of people think developers are making insane profits on their buildings and they could totally just cut condo prices in half and make a profit. Showing them the actual numbers on construction/development and how razor thin the margins generally are is just met with "That's just bullshit developers numbers so they can get tax breaks"

I know the costs involved are huge, but I find that particular claim hard to believe. I've never heard of such a thing as a poor property developer, especially in Canada, and one generally doesn't get rich on razor-thin margins.

Or is this a 'Hollywood accounting' sort of situation?

# ? Apr 30, 2015 19:23

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Regarding the Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) that Baronjutter is talking about that developers are forced to make by the City, I've read positions on both sides. Some say that this doesn't affect the price of the units and the other opinion is that developers are dead set on making their x% profit and CACs of whatever price will just result in an increase of unit price by an equivalent amount. I have no idea who is right here. It's a black box to me.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 19:46

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Lexicon posted:

I know the costs involved are huge, but I find that particular claim hard to believe. I've never heard of such a thing as a poor property developer, especially in Canada, and one generally doesn't get rich on razor-thin margins.

Or is this a 'Hollywood accounting' sort of situation?

It's a bit of both. I worked in architecture for some time so working with developers was of course my bread and butter. A developer will of course always downplay their profits, always whine about how regulations and building codes and zoning are just soooooo unfair and making it like totalllllly impossible for him to build anything. But at the same time I've seen a lot of projects, even by experienced developers, get canceled due to a slight change in the market. I've had some good long chats with some developers I mostly trust all about the numbers, the risks, what its actually like to be a developer. For instance, one guy I know and probably respect the most of any developer says he doesn't make money on every building, if you want to be a developer as a long term career you have to be able to handle that. A lot of first-time developers end up bankrupt because it actually is a hard game to get into. He has a lot of experience and close relationships with his designers and contractors but he's still built buildings at a slight loss and it can be very hard to predict. You might hit gold on one building, the project doesn't run into any unexpected legal/zoning issues, no big problems or delays in construction, and the market actually buys your units at the prices you projected. In such a situation you'll make a good profit, maybe 20%, which is of course a huge amount of money. But your next building might get held up in council, then there's a concrete issue, then there's a major accident on the site, and now these delays have put your condos on the market after a similar competing building and you have to slash your unit prices and in the end you've barely broken even or even sustained a loss. It's like any investment, there are ups and downs, what matters is the average over the long term. And, this developer I trust, was telling me that personally his company averages out in the 10% range. But of course that's the profit for the company after they've paid them selves. I'm sure any developer could just jack up their personal salaries to the point that they make 0% profit on most projects, or over-pay contractors that are their friends and family or even them selves.

But it doesn't take much to destroy those margins, like I said I've seen tons of small-time developers trying to build some lovely 4 story wood-frame condo go bankrupt. All it takes are a few cost over-runs, a bit too optimistic math, or some bad market research and you're stuck with a 10 million dollar building with only 8 million worth of condos inside. Sometimes they figure out it isn't going to work before they even start construction and they're just out a few hundred grand from interest on the land and various soft-costs like design, sometimes they realize they hosed up half way through the project and grab what money they can and have their numbered companies go bankrupt, sometimes they finish the building and realize they are selling their units 30% more than anyone is willing to pay, but if they budge on the price they'll take a loss. Yet every month the units sit unsold they are losing money, so it's a game of waiting if prices go up or enough suckers decide to buy, or bailing and getting what money they can.

And amenities and demands by the city just go directly into the idiots that buy the condos, or lease the office space, or rent the apartments. Most developments are not self-financed, and banks and investors will not even look at a project unless it's all been worked out for 20% profit. Everyone knows that 20% is ideal and you probably won't reach it, but the basic optimal math on the project has to work out to 20%. The city demands a bigger setback and a native plant garden? Ok, now the units are just a tiny bit more expensive, or some other feature is cut. The money has to come from somewhere and no one is going to finance your project unless you can show on paper that ideal 20%. Of course no one trusts each other, developers are famously shifty and will lie their asses off to get concessions from the city. At the same time the city and community will always assume the developer is lying about his margins so will just make tons of ridiculous demands. It's like a game of chicken and I don't think it works out.

I would never want to be a developer, way too much risk and you have to mitigate that risk by being a greedy shifty piece of poo poo.

Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Apr 30, 2015

# ? Apr 30, 2015 19:57

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

^ Interesting, thanks for the perspective.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 20:06

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

Developers can only pass so many cost increases on to the buyer. Obviously if costs increase to such an extent that passing it onto the consumer results in selling prices that are higher than the market rate it's not going to end well. They'll absorb the costs in the short term and might make more prudent developments in the long term. When margins are really high it's like anything else, there's a goldrush going on and everyone rushes to get into the business and line their pockets, which I think is what's happened in Toronto in the last ten years. The result has been shoddy constructions, unsustainable profits, and a huge bubble.

When you have as much development activity as is going on in Toronto currently, it is smart to attempt to cool the market by increasing development costs. That's what happened when development fees were raised by 70% in 2014. It seems developers are moving over to rental development instead as a long term method of maintaining margins, which seems much more sustainable. Instead of large margins driving 10 questionable developments a year all of which are risky, and maybe you're only planning on making money on 5/10 due to poor land speculation, lacking city approval, getting sued, whatever, maybe companies do 2 a year that are well thought out and planned and carry less risk.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 20:37

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

lol gm cut 1000 jobs in Oshawa. I guess the manufacturing sector isn't really recovering as poloz says.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 21:14

Ccs: Feb 25, 2011

So the government of Nova Scotia incurred the wrath of a bunch of rich film executives and decided not to cut their film tax credits, so that's nice for me. Sorry, Canadian taxpayers, you'll be picking up the tab for a bunch of foreigners to work making TV content for American distributors for a while longer. Though at least this province's companies employ more Canadians than BC does.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 22:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 16:49

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

https://twitter.com/hainsworthtv/status/593787256361586688/photo/1

Just FYI.

# ? May 1, 2015 03:55

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

«‹›1521 »