this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
143 points (98.6% liked)

Canada

9677 readers
632 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
143
Carney signs order to prioritize middle-class tax cut, after first meeting with new cabinet (www.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It really wouldn't.

A) It prevents renting at all except for basement suites. So no more rental buildings, which make up the majority of rentals available. Renting is an important housing option, as not everyone wants to own, nor should they have to. Move to a city to go to university, and you have to buy a house just to live in for 2-4 years before you have to sell it to move elsewhere for a job? Have a job that requires you go somewhere else for a few months while you , too bad hotel for 6 months instead of being able to rent an apartment.

B) If you do the math and even take out dedicated rental buildings, there really aren't that many homes that are owned as a second place. It's about 15% of the total market, and a large chunk of that are cottages and lake houses away from the cities where people actually want to live.

The big place/small place issue is actually more of a problem than the the double ownership you're talking about. There are more total bedrooms in Canada than there are people, and once you account for couples usually sharing a bedroom, there's actually a ton of extra bedrooms across the country. The problem is that they're not distributed properly across the population, 4+ bedroom family homes that were bought to raise children are being kept for decades by empty-nest couples who don't want to downsize.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

But zero rentals is a feature, not a bug. Its the point. :)

Everyone gets a grace period, say 18 months, to sell their excess properties, and after that the state expropriates. Or landlord can opt in to expropriation during the grace period. The reimbursement they will get for the properties decreases during the grace period to incentivize people to do it earlier. Maybe almost nothing by the end. Then the state can run them directly or parcel to some structure to administer and fund for maintenance. Existing tenants get to stay where they are if they want.(

Presto chango we have massive public housing.

Idk about making old people move. Its really hard to do. Usually a terrible drama in their lives when forced. Where do you think they should all go?

I think if you were going to do it by bedroom, each person should get 1 room even in a couple because it isn't just about sleeping. A lot of people will appreciate an office or hobby room or something. It isn't healthy to be stuck in a room with another person all the time. I don't believe in penalizing people for being partnered. Welfare programs do it a lot and it really fucks with peoples lives. They have to chose between being "officially" partnered and getting full benefits as individuals, in which case their romantic relationship constitutes fraud. It also really enforces abusive situations because it enables control in bad situations. Imagine if your job could just cut your pay by 70% because they find out your in a LTR.

Canada is fucking huge we have enough space for each person to have 1 room.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

My suggestion to add significant property taxes essentially does the same thing, since you're "renting" from the government when you pay those. Then it applies properly to everyone, and it's not some half cooked system that people can exploit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's true, rentals are important. So how about instead mom and pop landlords can rent a couple/small number of units, but anything above that you must register as a corporation and the tenants union gets to be on the board, and there are strong incentives to turn you into a housing cooperative. Let's throw in some more tenant protection legislation for good measure.

Basically, treat housing as a right, not as a financial asset, an investment, or a profit-driven enterprise.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I agree with you on the second part, but even allowing a single home still keeps housing as an investment/profit generator.

You have to actually do something to force every owner to lose(or at least never make) money. Hence my original suggestion to heavily tax homes and return that to citizens equally.