this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
338 points (99.4% liked)

World News

34956 readers
466 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(Reuters) - Canada on Sunday announced a two-year extension to a ban on foreign ownership of Canadian housing, saying the step was aimed at addressing worries about Canadians being priced out of housing markets in cities and towns across the country.

Canada is facing a housing affordability crisis, which has been blamed on an increase in migrants and international students, fueling demand for homes just as rising costs have slowed construction.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 150 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Foreign ownership is a bit of a blind, you need to ban corporate ownership as well

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 49 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well you see we can’t do that because the lawmakers are the ones in charge of those corporations

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 23 points 2 years ago

I don’t like paying property taxes on my 150 single family rental properties. Perhaps I should go into politics to change policies allowing me to profit more on denying people the ability to purchase property, since people like me bought all of the supply.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 8 points 2 years ago

quite so, quite so, however this ban on foreign ownership has put them them in quite the pickle as they can no longer blame dirty foreigners. And with people starting to cotton on to the "immigrants and international students" tactic I look forward to the uptick in articles on "african gangs" (or the canadian equivalent) to angry up the blood.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

Ban amateur landlords.

You want to be a landlord? Better buy a purpose built unit like a triplex or larger that will encourage densification and stop fucking over families just trying to find a place to raise their family.

[–] honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

How do you define 'corporate' ownership? If you can own 100 properties as an individual, does that count as 'corporate'? If it doesn't, that seems like an easy loophole. If the intent is to ban large quantities of homes owned by single entities, then doing it by quantity sounds more sensible.

That might redistribute old homes, but it doesn't necessarily solve the drip feeding of new homes that we have going on right now. For example, the UK used to build 250k+ houses every year during the 1950-1980s period. 50% of that was government built council houses for those in need. It's estimated that we need to build 250k more homes than we currently do in the UK, and the private housing industry has not done its part.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?

  1. ban company/ corporate ownership of standalone housing.

  2. increased scale of taxation on any property past PPR. One house gets you 10% increase. Two gets you 20%, etc. oh it's empty? Now you got an empty property tax as well

  3. fuck up developer scarcity. Set hard time limits between land purchase and development / sale. Give land use laws teeth

[–] honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?

I'm not, please don't assume that. It sounds like we're in agreement here, so I'm not debating you, but rather adding to your post, I suppose. It sounded like you wanted to extend the conversation towards solutions to the housing crisis in general.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 7 points 2 years ago

all g I realised that came across a bit more antagonistic than intended. I meant it more as "let's do ALL of it mwahhahaa"

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?

Because it's a common tactic used to confuse an issue and get the discussion bogged down in irrelevant details and "hah! Gotcha!" moments.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago

.......Yeah i'd read the rest of the thread before throwing that around

[–] maness300@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

You're the kind of person who sits on their hands and only gets off of them when you tell others to sit on theirs.

[–] Wwwbdd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

How do you define ‘corporate’ ownership? If you can own 100 properties as an individual, does that count as ‘corporate’?

It's how you report the income. A corporation pays corporate tax rate on profit. An individual pays income tax. If someone wants to pay the individual income tax on 100 properties, that's awesome. 33% over 250k. Corporate tax rate can easily be half of that.

Plus filing your taxes is waaaaaay easier having a corp hold all the assets and generating revenue, and the individual as an employee who draws a salary. If you're just an individual with 100 properties and you get audited, you're in for a bumpy ride trying to pick apart personal vs rental purchases

[–] ZK686@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I live in an area in Central California, and almost all the new houses are being bought by Indians from India. Like, how the fuck are they doing it? My wife and I have saved our entire lives to by a home, and we're barely doing it. Meanwhile, all my neighbors are Punjabi Indians in their mid 20's...it's crazy.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

Looks like the house on arrested development lmao.

It's only light treason, Michael. How bad can it be?

[–] alyth@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I don't get the impression that the Canadian government wants to do anything about its housing crisis.

Yes there are unsustainable levels of immigration, but the levels are set deliberately to keep the housing bubble alive and to suppress local wages. ^1^

Foreigners are also easy targets to blame when the housing "crisis" is really just a depraved economic scheme.

Corporate ownership aside, owners outnumber renters in every province. Canada has a large population that will not support affordable housing because it hurts the appreciation of their property. ^2^


^1^ Adding 1.1m new people with only 200k new housing units skews the demand and supply on the housing market to jack up the cost of housing to $2,500 for 1 bedroom at a minimum wage of $16.55, so you're looking at negative $600 per month of income for full time work after taxes and rent.

The Canadian government extended 10,000 visas to failed H1B applicants in 2 days. I think it is safe to assume 10k tech jobs weren't added in those two days.

^2^ 10m owners vs 5m renters

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Apparently one thing they intend to do is cap the number of international students. Not saying that's much, but I guess it is one thing.