this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7200 readers
305 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
 

According to a new report from Rentals, In July, the Canadian rental market hit a record high with an average asking rent of $2,078, marking an 8.9 per cent annual increase.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Here's your reminder that Ontario expects disabled people to live on 13k a year.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

If they are lucky. Getting disability anything requires 90% luck and a doctor who "has the time" to sign a few documents.

[–] crow@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In BC it’s 18k a year for comparison.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

That's interesting, thanks

What we need to do is de-incentivize the commodification of housing entirely. Really make it unprofitable to deal in homes while passing the risk for your "investment" on to the people you're exploiting.

I'm talking about an outright ban on all corporations, foreign and domestic, from owning single family homes β€” corporations need offices, not homes, and shell corporations and LLCs don't even need those. Give a one year grace period, then tax all rental income collected from single-family homes at 100%. Maybe fine them each year too until they shape up.

I'm talking about regulating rental prices on short-term rentals, and capping the annual income allowed from short-term rental units to a value indexed against minimum wage (or preferably the area's living wage, determined not by any level of government itself but by valid third party organizations).

I'm talking an annual federal tax on properties not occupied full time by the owner or their immediate blood relative. Parent, sibling, or child. Something insane, maybe 400-800% of the home's property tax. Multiply it exponentially for each hoarded home. Throw in an exception for a second home if it's far enough from the first (people who own cottages aren't the problem, and shouldn't be penalised). But only for the second home β€” nobody needs two or three or four "vacation homes".

That's how we force land-rich boomers out of the housing "market" and get homes into the hands of people who need them, who should have a right to stable housing, who are currently being blocked from the market by vampiric land leeches.

[–] blazera@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Landlords should be outlawed. They provide no service to society, only harm

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're supposed to fill the gap for people who can't afford to buy, or for whom it doesn't make sense to do so (i.e. people in town on a temporary job).

The problem is that "landlords" these days are more towards the class of "investors" who expect rents to cover the cost of their mortgage plus additional profit

[–] blazera@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are the reason why people cant afford to buy. Thats a looot of buildings going for sale if you get rid of landlords. Plummeted prices and mortgage payments. Then we should be focusing from the bottom up afterwards, make sure everyone has some place to live with public housing.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yup, so take away the ability to grossly profit off the backs of others and allow the scales to balance. There's no reason we can't do both by disincentivizing gouging and slumlording while at the same time increasing the creation of more affordable housing.

Hell, if a sliding-scale of fees against # of properties/profit were implemented they could use the revenue from that to help fund more affordable housing, while discouraging house-hoarding at the same time.

[–] blazera@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Outlawing landlords gets rid of price gouging and slumlords. You cannot own property you dont live in, period.

[–] terath@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So in your mind all those new grads out getting their first jobs should just be homeless for 30 years until they can afford to buy a house? That's a pretty harmful idea.

[–] blazera@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Youre looking at this from the current situation, corporare landlords are running amok buying all the property and only renting, decreasing the supply of houses available to buy instead of rent.

Outlawing landlords means all rental property goes up for sale, and only for people that will live there. Add on some pressure that current landlords have to sell within a few years or it goes to the state, and youre gonna have plenty of cheap houses for sale.

[–] cooljacob204@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I don't completely agree with an outright ban imo there should be strict limits to the amount of residential property a person or corporation can own.

No one should be making significant profit off of something so essential.

[–] blazera@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Landlords only buy property as an investment vehicle. You cant keep landlords and not have housing being a money making scheme.