this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
40 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7311 readers
667 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 hours ago

They can't though, even over time. It's $600 BILLION, not million. That's 5x larger than the total current provincial debt. If they issued that as bonds, it would ruin the credit rating for the province and cause massive inflation.

AND, that's just to get us to Vienna level of social housing, which as stated in the article I linked isn't helping keep the market under control any more.

If you want the government to issue that much debt, how exactly are they supposed to pay it back (and the interest) if they don't charge at or near market rents? If you buy a million dollar property, even at the bank of Canada rate of 3.25%, that would be $32,500 a year in interest costs, or $2700 per month. Which means that they have to charge at least that to even service the debt, and more if they ever hope to pay it off. That's a starting point that's already unaffordable.

Why are you against replacing income tax with land taxes? What's the actual reason you're against this.

While I do want LVT, and it is quick and simple, LVT can't actually happen anytime soon. It's political suicide. It literally relies on destroying the equity of every single home owner. Given that residential properties are still about 65% owner occupied, and home owners tend to vote more than renters, there's no way they will ever allow a policy like this to take away their hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars.

However, all these other suggestions are nothing but band aids. There's a simple problem, you can't have home prices stay up, and also have affordable housing. Building more housing, building more social housing, first time home buyers credits, rezoning, none of these actually reduce the prices of homes at a realistic implementation, even when done together. Until policies designed to significantly drop existing house prices are implemented, the situation will get worse.

I want better for my kids.