• OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    23 hours ago

    neither are suggesting tax changes to discourage the financialization of housing.

    This is the big one. You can build as many houses as you want and it won’t help regular people if investors keep buying them all up.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Yeah. And tax reform is far outside the political mainstream at the moment. So we’re stuck with bandaids (GST rebates, zoning changes, etc) when we need serious reform.

      Don’t get me wrong: all those lil things are nice, as is building homes, but they aren’t going to add up to a serious improvement in the next few decades. If ever.

    • turnip@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      Yes it will, assuming they get rented out then of course it will.

      The problem is zoning and developer fees. Our government at the municipal level is regressive with zoning and development taxes. While the Federal government uses mass immigration to artificially boost GDP to hide a technical recession, which adds a huge amount of new demand.

      • sbv@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Yes it will, assuming they get rented out then of course it will.

        In enough volume, yes. But that volume is massive. 3.5 million units by 2030. We built something like 240k houses last year. We’re nowhere near the supply/demand balance that you’re describing.

        If an insufficient number of homes are added, prices will remain the same or continue to inflate.

        The problem is zoning and developer fees.

        That’s tens of thousands of dollars on units that cost over 700k. So 5-10% of the sticker price on new builds. Removing those charges does little to lower the price of existing housing.

        There are a host of other factors: expensive materials, not enough labourers/trades, money laundering, etc. But a huge issue is the amount of money in housing.

        The feds and provinces could address that through tax changes, but politicians don’t have the guts. 🤷‍♂️

          • sbv@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 hours ago

            The final cost to the buyer is more relevant than the cost to the builder. It looks like that’s closer to 5-7%.

            There are lots of small things that might take a few percent off the cost of housing, if developers and landlords are feeling generous. But we’ll need systemic reform if we’re going to get prices back to affordable.