this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
18 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
297 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

Reduction and stagnation are different.

[–] robdrimmie@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You have provided exactly as many sources as the person you are responding to. If you think that you are somehow in a stronger debate position, you are incorrect.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

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

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I don't want houses to lose that stored value, or all the money I've been shoveling into my mortgage I could have been saving for w/e.

Obviously I don't either.

It ignores that people with houses have been saving for years

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

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How are you calculating the value it had when β€œwe” bought it? No matter where you draw the line if you reduce prices, some people are still going to do well, some will come out even, and some ( the ones that can least afford it ) will get killed.

Stagnation is the most fair to all interests. Inflation will take care of affordability.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

How are you calculating the value it had when β€œwe” bought it

Literally how much you were willing to pay. That's it's. (Technically also how much the previous owner/builder was willing to sell for; but that's also how much they would pay in an indirect sense)

if you reduce prices

And if prices reduce on their own? I've sold for less than purchase twice. It sucks. But I could have rented and not accepted that risk.

and some will get killed.

If you get killed, it's because you tried to invest in something that shouldn't be an investment?

You know who really gets killed? People who buy a home, and then that home has major defaults, and the repairs are 50% of the purchase price 5 years in, and insurance doesn't pay because it's a building fault, and the builders down pay because they rotate companies every year, and maybe you'll be able to sue the city who neglected their inspection duties or the insurance of the builders and architects but that file is still ongoing 4 years later, and even if it is successful will maxed at an amount that will only cover 30% of the work.

But that's a risk of home ownership, and I could have rented to avoid those risks.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

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

What i said originally:

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

Was in response to:

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

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

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

I've sold at a loss twice. It sucks. But that's a risk of ownership. I could have avoided that risk by renting.

Your house is only worth however much the next person will pay for it. They are under NO obligation to pay you more than you paid.

Artificially reducing building supply while people cannot afford to rent or purchase is pretty fucking shitty. "Oh hi Bob, it really sucks that you are spending 60% of your income on a place to live; but the ethereal value of this thing I bought keeps going up, and I would love for it to continue going up, even though the future is completely speculative and the whole thing could go tits up and skyrocket again no matter what we do; so I'm going to keep supporting policies that keep the line going up"

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

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know anything about this

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fine. New policy.

We restrict the sale of new cars. We can make car zoning, so only SUVs can be purchased in some places, only trucks in another. Maybe in some small areas we'll allow sedans. Well Make sure that auto manufacturers can build the cars people want, or on the numbers they want them. Want a bicycle instead? Too bad, only cars are allowed here. People are walking? We'll just replace sidewalks with more road for cars.

Sure cars will become way more expensive, bit everyone who already owns a car can watch the value of their car go up!