No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
Apr 19th 2016, 3:57 am
#16
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 605
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
However you still miss the point that if ag land is used for development, there is less productive land to feed a rising global population. In addition, if ag land could be used for development, the cost of ag land would increase, making food more expensive and less affordable for low income.
Additionally, falling house prices will hurt those with equity in their homes. Seniors looking to retire, who will rely on home equity for retirement as they down size, could well become significantly worse off and eventually poverty stricken into old age, dependent on state aid, increasing the burden on tax payers.
The only way to solve the problem is to legislate percentages of new developments be social housing. Which will increase the cost of those sold at market price to pay for it, or to fund social housing with tax payer money, which will increase taxes, one way or another.
Any way you slice it, it will cost tax payers and consumers more.
Are we willing to pay for it?
Additionally, falling house prices will hurt those with equity in their homes. Seniors looking to retire, who will rely on home equity for retirement as they down size, could well become significantly worse off and eventually poverty stricken into old age, dependent on state aid, increasing the burden on tax payers.
The only way to solve the problem is to legislate percentages of new developments be social housing. Which will increase the cost of those sold at market price to pay for it, or to fund social housing with tax payer money, which will increase taxes, one way or another.
Any way you slice it, it will cost tax payers and consumers more.
Are we willing to pay for it?
The demand for social housing would fall if rents and housing costs were reduced saving the taxpayers money. Reduced housing costs would increase discretionary spending boosting the economy and by not forcing people to live paycheque to paycheque maybe they could invest in education or a new business etc etc
Apr 19th 2016, 4:51 am
#17
Nuther day in paradise.ca
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Posts: 7,263
Apr 19th 2016, 5:17 am
#18
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,380
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
Put inheritance tax at 100% for those that die without dependants, use the proceeds that arises to fund social housing and then prevent everyone from selling a house for more than they paid for it - problem solved.
Apr 19th 2016, 5:32 am
#19
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 51,686
Apr 19th 2016, 5:40 am
#20
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,830
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
The demand for social housing would fall if rents and housing costs were reduced saving the taxpayers money. Reduced housing costs would increase discretionary spending boosting the economy and by not forcing people to live paycheque to paycheque maybe they could invest in education or a new business etc etc
How would you propose to reduce rents and living costs?
Apr 19th 2016, 5:44 am
#21
me/moi
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,539
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
Back in the day Mrs T remarked that the Japanese were living in rabbit hutches. The irony is that if you look at the space in new non-luxury flats in London, they too have become rabbit friendly.
Apr 19th 2016, 5:58 am
#22
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,023
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
I don't think you're taking this housing issue seriously. I thinking you're just ridiculing bigotry by making absurd proposals in the language of the playground.
Big Houses For Big Canadians, I say! They should each have 2500 sq. ft. wallpapered in plaid.
Big Houses For Big Canadians, I say! They should each have 2500 sq. ft. wallpapered in plaid.
Apr 19th 2016, 7:40 am
#23
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 605
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
House prices for the most part have risen less in the past 15 years than the preceding 15 years. Prices have always increased. My grandfather bought a house for £600 that just sold for £450,000.
Other than govt funded (tax payer) social housing, private landlords would not bother if rents were too low, creating a further shortfall in rental accommodation.
How would you propose to reduce rents and living costs?
Other than govt funded (tax payer) social housing, private landlords would not bother if rents were too low, creating a further shortfall in rental accommodation.
How would you propose to reduce rents and living costs?
Last edited by paw339; Apr 19th 2016 at 8:13 am.
Apr 19th 2016, 9:15 am
#24
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2014
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 836
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
As a landlord what you are looking at is return on your money. If you can build or buy a house for less money you can afford to rent it at a lower price and still get the same % return. With low interest rates housing should be the most affordable in a generation as its so cheap to carry the cost of buying a house to rent or live in. Low house prices would increase the supply of rental property as the economics would be hugely more attractive.
If there is an oversupply in the rental market leading to larger vacancy rates this will also discourage investors.
I agree that the current situation is less than ideal but I don't think the answer is to allow unrestricted sprawl.
Apr 19th 2016, 9:44 am
#25
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 605
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
I agree with you there, it's not a question of unrestricted sprawl its a question of releasing enough land so there is sufficient supply so land and house prices don't rise due to shortage. Once the land supply is sufficient the development rate will be limited by demand not price.
Housing starts in Canada are currently running at about 200k a year which is 30% less than they were in the late 70's when the population of Canada was far lower than today. Is it a surprise that house prices are rising to unaffordable levels with such relatively low housing start figures?
Housing starts in Canada are currently running at about 200k a year which is 30% less than they were in the late 70's when the population of Canada was far lower than today. Is it a surprise that house prices are rising to unaffordable levels with such relatively low housing start figures?
Apr 19th 2016, 10:35 am
#26
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 51,686
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
Certainly when I bought a duplex I was attracted by the likely annual return in comparison to what I'd expect if the money was sitting in a high interest account. And there the comparison ended with the cost of buying the place having zero influence on the rent charged thereafter.
Apr 19th 2016, 10:41 am
#27
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
MIL's house is land value only (she didn't do maintenance on the house in the last 40 years.) but the land could sell today for 850,000 based on going rates for sub-dividable lots in the area.
She unfortunately reversed mortgaged so she can't really benefit from it now.
I am a bit amazed how fast housing market both rental and buying can change. When we moved in January and were looking in December we had many options rent wise, fast forward to now and there isn't a whole lot out there, and rents have gone up quite a lot.
Add in those who have pets, and they might not find any housing at all at this point.
If we had to move today, not even sure where we would go, we appear to be priced out of the Fraser Valley now as well and based on posts online in various local groups, seems there are a lot of people in the same boat.
Apr 19th 2016, 10:43 am
#28
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,830
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
If land prices fell, hoses got cheaper, landlords would be making capital losses on property they own, they would have to recover that and therefore rents would be higher to recover the book loss
It would help those wanting to buy property though.
Apr 19th 2016, 10:51 am
#29
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2012
Location: Qc, Canada
Posts: 3,787
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
Would I actually do that? No.
Apr 19th 2016, 10:51 am
#30
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: No Surprise. Housing costs hurt low income the most.
We looked at this duplex... And believe it or not this sort of island living appeals to us.
Only issue is, there isn't really any employment on these islands, so gotta be self employed or independently wealthy....
Its been on the market since last year, has come down in price 9,000 since then, apparently there is a rental market on that island, mostly BC Ferry workers who need a place to crash for the early morning ferry departure.
https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...itish-Columbia
Only issue is, there isn't really any employment on these islands, so gotta be self employed or independently wealthy....
Its been on the market since last year, has come down in price 9,000 since then, apparently there is a rental market on that island, mostly BC Ferry workers who need a place to crash for the early morning ferry departure.
https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...itish-Columbia
If you ignore the ongoing costs yes.
Certainly when I bought a duplex I was attracted by the likely annual return in comparison to what I'd expect if the money was sitting in a high interest account. And there the comparison ended with the cost of buying the place having zero influence on the rent charged thereafter.
Certainly when I bought a duplex I was attracted by the likely annual return in comparison to what I'd expect if the money was sitting in a high interest account. And there the comparison ended with the cost of buying the place having zero influence on the rent charged thereafter.
