Almost half of the MPs in a few provinces are landlords as well.. these are just the ones we know of, kinda hard to make housing initiatives this way. They'll never do anything that could possibly hit their investments hard.
I mean it’s not just them, real estate is a major part of Canadians portfolio. I don’t own a house and can recognize just how much of a mess this is if we mess with peoples investments.
Kinda true. There are investments that guarantee a return at a certain rate, but it's not very high.
I hate that residential housing is considered an investment in this way though, especially when people are heavily double-dipping in both appreciation and rents.
Should have saved more, cut down on avocado toast, spent less on tattoos, all the horseshit talking points the wealthy have been spraying out of their cocks on the have nots for the last ten years.
Or
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
There is an inherent risk with all investments.
So those who saved and invested in a second home to get a leg up should be punished for governmental inaction? I’m not a second home owner (wish I was), but punishing the few who strove hard and made legal investments isn’t the right move… building homes to create adequate supply, while decreasing the number of new Canadians will naturally lower the value of homes as supply rises to meet demand.
There is a difference between owning vehicles for personal travel and owning a taxi company. There is a difference between owning a personal home, and owning investment properties.
Personally I don't have any problem with any MP owning an investment property in Canada. For a number of years now it has been one of the most profitable investments any Canadian can make.
>Any Canadian can make
There it is. You were showing us that you might be out of touch but really sealed the deal.
10/10 for myopia and being confidently incorrect
Yeah so if you were homeless you'd have other priorities than long-term investing, that makes a lot of sense.
Wouldn't it be nice if the politicians legislating and regulating housing would.... maybe work more in their constituents favor than there own? And a great way for that to happen, would perhaps be them not profiting from housing, maybe to help prevent even the hint of a conflict of interest.
Brother this would mean that no MP could ever sell a home while in office. It's not really practical and isn't going to accomplish anything.
MP's and government aren't propping up housing values artificially by mass immigration for the sake of their shitty house in Medicine Hat or Sarnia...
If you are upset about conflicts of interest in government then you have good reason to be. But this is kind of a red herring.
>I bet most of these MP's own vehicles as well. How can we really trust them to make decisions about public transit subsidies.
This is a terrible analogy.
I bet most of these MP's perform cellular respiration and convert the glucose in their bodies into adenosine triphosphate, while producing carbon dioxide.
How can we really trust them to legislate on carbon taxes?
>I bet most of these MP's perform cellular respiration and convert the glucose in their bodies into adenosine triphosphate, while producing carbon dioxide.
At least you pivoted to an obvious dad joke.
There's an easy fix for that. MP's only get paid what their ridings median income is. And any form of gifting/offers/etc is considered corruption, and they automatically get tossed and a byelection is called.
You mean, make them accountable to the riding that they live in?
It's very easy to get a wage increase. Do everything possible to raise the median income.
Oh yeah simple. Just fix the entire economy of a region with the power of one single vote out of over 300.
Again why would anyone open themselves to having their every action they or their loved ones have ever done subject to media scrutiny, death threats from people who hate them no matter what they say or do because of the color of their yard signs, and the distinct possibility that, no matter how good you are at your job you might lose it every 18 months to 4 years because some other guy did something to piss people off, all for less salary than you would make as a GM at a McDonald's.
There's s reason anyone with any actual education on the matter thinks it's an insanely stupid idea and it's only ever suggested by wannabe internet "intellectuals"
If you want intelligent people, you aren't going to get them by requiring they run a federal election campaign for ever would currently be a 50k salary in a lot of places. You are going to get idiots who don't even know what the job entails .
It really is that simple. It's called incentivizing people to do a better job.
Funny, because those "intelligent people" who are in power seem to be doing a pretty shitty job aren't they. They've been doing a shitty job for decades. As they piss around, ignore their ridings, and act in matters that piss people off.
Yes, you will get idiots who don't even know what the job entails. Many of them are currently MPs.
> It really is that simple. It's called incentivizing people to do a better job
Find me one political scientist on the planet who supports your idea. Just one.
Here's what would actually happen.
1. No politician would stick around more than one term. They would immediately bounce in order to take a better paying job leveraging the title and fact that they were able to run a successful campaign. This would create a massive experience vacuum and no long term projects would ever have anyone see them through.
2. During that single term they would greenlight lots of busy work projects that short term boost median wages but don't provide long term opportunities. "Let's build a new stadium, we don't need it and it will be expensive to operate, but thats the next chumps problem! How will we pay for it? DEBT! ALSO THE NEXT GUYS PROBLEM.
3. You will have officials from wealthy districts paid astronomically better than ones from poor districts. These people will stick around longer, get better at navigating the system, and further enrich their constituents at the expense of poorer districts. New glasgow needs a new high school? Sorry, your MLAs.keep leaving while bedfords keeps coming back so he's building them their third school in 5 years instead.
4. Politicians from poorer districts will be distracted by life issues that come from being underpaid and too stressed to engage with constituents. Increasing median salaries doesn't happen overnight even if they are phenomenal at their job.
5. You know who else will run for office? People who are so wealthy the salary is totally pointless. You know what they are gonna do? Tax breaks for themselves.
There are countless research papers that unequivocally show paying politicians less increases corruption. But sure, you, some random guy on the internet have it all figured out.
You've just made multiple points, pointing out that they'd actually be involved in their districts.
Strange that corruption is so rampant when they're being paid so much now.
Edit: It looks like you've decided to run away.
For the last several years he's the only one with an ounce of sense on the stage. The other leaders are talking in circles and he's actually representing his constituency better than any of the others, by a longshot.
I'm in Ontario and I'd vote for that guy in a heart beat if I could
I'll vote Bloc anyways to try to ensure the Conservatives don't get a majority.
In addition I like Blanchet meanwhile Trudeau and Singh have run out of any kind of credit that people can give them.
I think every province should have a federal party which favors their own province.
These parties should at least exist so they can be voted for.
It would really mix things up for people like Poilievre who stands to win just because people got tired of the other guy.
He doesn't even do a good job of being phony. Spends 60 seconds on a bicycle for a photo shoot to make himself look like a working class Canadian, then hands it off to an assistant and gets in his landrover with his Rolex and Louis Vuitton man bag. He's a millionaire landlord with multiple investment properties, exactly the guy who benefits from NOT fixing the housing crisis.
What are the good things about Singh? Srs question
People owning properties as investments and renting them out has always been a thing, and we *need* rental properties in this country. It wasn’t really an issue until Trudeau and the Liberal Party opened the floodgates to immigration and created a nationwide home price crisis. Given Singh and the NDP continue to prop the government up, I think it’s fair to look at landlords from the Liberals and NDP in a somewhat different light than all the rest. They’re the ones with the power to change things, and they refuse.
If you think the housing issue only started happening recently, you haven't being paying attention. We got a real good jump start on it when Mulroney torpedoed the federal social housing program back in the 80s. It's been tweak after tweak after tweak since than, on top of private corporations not keeping up with demand, intentionally.
In my research it seems more likely due due to the US eliminating housing appreciation from the CPI in the late 80s, leading to global interest rates falling, and cheap debt fueled housing.
People used the wealth from M2 growth via mortgage debt to pump into spending and the stock market, leading to asset bubbles. Which caused 2008.
Had shelter inflation not been dropped by elimination in the CPI it would stand to reason goods and service inflation would have dropped, maybe we'd be in a less insane global debt bubble as goods falling doesn't carry a liability.
Its a weird system given debt levels, housing being unable to fall as Trudeau said recently, 7% CAGR growth in the money supply. It doesn't seem sustainable to me, but I'm just some guy.
If we still had the federal social housing program it would at the least be providing some much needed relief to some on the lower end of the income spectrum. As it is they currently have to compete with everyone else for apartments that are going for crazy rates. Additional units earmarked for certain levels of income would have relieved demand on private housing stock which would have kept prices lower. That's kinda where I was going.
Another one who doesn't understand how supply & confidence agreements work. The terms were set years ago, and didn't include housing affordability policies. The NDP has no power to influence any policy beyond what is specifically in the existing S&C terms. As long as the LPC abides by the agreement terms, the NDP's only other option is to unilaterally renege on the deal and tarnish their reputation in parliament forever.
They’ve already tarnished their reputation forever with this deal. I would suggest that torpedoing it is their only hope of salvaging any dignity at this point.
No, they haven't. Their popular support hasn't changed since they made the deal. And I'm talking about their reputation for making similar deals with future minority governments. Reneging would kill it.
Well I can’t blame them… There is no other investment opportunity in Canada that is going to provide the tax savings and returns real-estate does.
The TSX is a joke and we lose $0.35 on the dollar investing in US equities. Then there is Crypto.
It is so unregulated that it’s a gamble that you’ll either make money or have one of the exchanges steal from you.
This is not a good thing.
If you really intend to hold crypto, do so on your own wallet instead of holding it on an exchange.
Kraken is a reliable service that makes painless to do so.
You don't lose $0.35 on the dollar when you invest, that's not how Forex works. The TSX doesn't steal from you? What in the world are you talking about?
Canada does have other reasonable investment opportunities than housing.
>Or in almost any other country in the world
Not so. Only in countries with rapid population growth. You'd have lost money in real estate in Japan over the last 10 years.
In addition, Japan takes the value of real estate and puts it into public spaces, public transit, and public infrastructure (could still be privately owned, like a nice cafe), whereas we have little to show for the high rents and prices we have.
This isn't true, real estate price is a function of supply and demand. Countries with shrinking populations have had significant real estate devaluation over the past 10 years.
I'd be a lot more concerned about how much they've invested in real estate. Someone who owns hundreds of thousands of dollars in shares in a REIT is a lot different than someone who rents out the basement of their home.
If you've been investing in the last 25 years and you don't have REITs or an additional property, you're an idiot. I'm not sure who wants more idiots in charge, but here we are.
You cannot even own a second property without it being considered an 'investment' and subjected to capital gains taxes, even if you are not an 'investor'. Imagine you bought a plot for a personal garden. INVESTOR!
And also simultaneously being someone who has never had to have a real job ever. PP has the distinction of never having had any job other than politician. I would argue all of this makes him uniquely unqualified to serve Canadians because he is so out of touch with reality and lacking in any practical skills.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME INVESTMENT FIRM!
Somehow doesn't apply to 25 people sharing the same household / basement, who are similarly declared as living in an owner occupied home, where the owner doesn't live there but has declared they live there to take advantage of the Capital Gains exemption.
Almost half of the MPs in a few provinces are landlords as well.. these are just the ones we know of, kinda hard to make housing initiatives this way. They'll never do anything that could possibly hit their investments hard.
I mean it’s not just them, real estate is a major part of Canadians portfolio. I don’t own a house and can recognize just how much of a mess this is if we mess with peoples investments.
The thing about investments is returns are never guaranteed.
Kinda true. There are investments that guarantee a return at a certain rate, but it's not very high. I hate that residential housing is considered an investment in this way though, especially when people are heavily double-dipping in both appreciation and rents.
I recognize how much of a mess this is if we don't
Should have saved more, cut down on avocado toast, spent less on tattoos, all the horseshit talking points the wealthy have been spraying out of their cocks on the have nots for the last ten years. Or "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" There is an inherent risk with all investments.
Yeah I’m not offering a solution just that it’s a big mess which makes me doubtful it’ll get solved
So those who saved and invested in a second home to get a leg up should be punished for governmental inaction? I’m not a second home owner (wish I was), but punishing the few who strove hard and made legal investments isn’t the right move… building homes to create adequate supply, while decreasing the number of new Canadians will naturally lower the value of homes as supply rises to meet demand.
I bet most of these MP's own vehicles as well. How can we really trust them to make decisions about public transit subsidies.
There is a difference between owning vehicles for personal travel and owning a taxi company. There is a difference between owning a personal home, and owning investment properties.
Shut up this is Reddit, we don't understand nuance here.
Personally I don't have any problem with any MP owning an investment property in Canada. For a number of years now it has been one of the most profitable investments any Canadian can make.
>Any Canadian can make There it is. You were showing us that you might be out of touch but really sealed the deal. 10/10 for myopia and being confidently incorrect
Yes, any Canadian can invest in real estate.
Even the homeless Canadians?
Sure. Anyone of majority age. Although if you are homeless you probably have bigger priorities than long term investments.
Yeah so if you were homeless you'd have other priorities than long-term investing, that makes a lot of sense. Wouldn't it be nice if the politicians legislating and regulating housing would.... maybe work more in their constituents favor than there own? And a great way for that to happen, would perhaps be them not profiting from housing, maybe to help prevent even the hint of a conflict of interest.
Brother this would mean that no MP could ever sell a home while in office. It's not really practical and isn't going to accomplish anything. MP's and government aren't propping up housing values artificially by mass immigration for the sake of their shitty house in Medicine Hat or Sarnia... If you are upset about conflicts of interest in government then you have good reason to be. But this is kind of a red herring.
Given the state of public transit, I'd agree with your statement, but unironically. How often does the head of TTC take public transit?
>I bet most of these MP's own vehicles as well. How can we really trust them to make decisions about public transit subsidies. This is a terrible analogy.
I bet most of these MP's perform cellular respiration and convert the glucose in their bodies into adenosine triphosphate, while producing carbon dioxide. How can we really trust them to legislate on carbon taxes?
>I bet most of these MP's perform cellular respiration and convert the glucose in their bodies into adenosine triphosphate, while producing carbon dioxide. At least you pivoted to an obvious dad joke.
Has the price of a car tripled in the last 20 years? Is a Carolla 65,000 now?
>Has the price of a car tripled in the last 20 years? 30 years ago the average vehicle price was $18k, its now $66k. So more than trippled.
because they are all rich. There are no poor or average working class people as party leaders
There's an easy fix for that. MP's only get paid what their ridings median income is. And any form of gifting/offers/etc is considered corruption, and they automatically get tossed and a byelection is called.
No one with any level of competence would want the job.
Take a look at our current MP and MPP's, how many of them have any level of competence for that job now.
So let's make it worse? Why would anyone with the financial capital to run a campaign want a job that pays a mediocre salary?
You mean, make them accountable to the riding that they live in? It's very easy to get a wage increase. Do everything possible to raise the median income.
Oh yeah simple. Just fix the entire economy of a region with the power of one single vote out of over 300. Again why would anyone open themselves to having their every action they or their loved ones have ever done subject to media scrutiny, death threats from people who hate them no matter what they say or do because of the color of their yard signs, and the distinct possibility that, no matter how good you are at your job you might lose it every 18 months to 4 years because some other guy did something to piss people off, all for less salary than you would make as a GM at a McDonald's. There's s reason anyone with any actual education on the matter thinks it's an insanely stupid idea and it's only ever suggested by wannabe internet "intellectuals" If you want intelligent people, you aren't going to get them by requiring they run a federal election campaign for ever would currently be a 50k salary in a lot of places. You are going to get idiots who don't even know what the job entails .
It really is that simple. It's called incentivizing people to do a better job. Funny, because those "intelligent people" who are in power seem to be doing a pretty shitty job aren't they. They've been doing a shitty job for decades. As they piss around, ignore their ridings, and act in matters that piss people off. Yes, you will get idiots who don't even know what the job entails. Many of them are currently MPs.
> It really is that simple. It's called incentivizing people to do a better job Find me one political scientist on the planet who supports your idea. Just one. Here's what would actually happen. 1. No politician would stick around more than one term. They would immediately bounce in order to take a better paying job leveraging the title and fact that they were able to run a successful campaign. This would create a massive experience vacuum and no long term projects would ever have anyone see them through. 2. During that single term they would greenlight lots of busy work projects that short term boost median wages but don't provide long term opportunities. "Let's build a new stadium, we don't need it and it will be expensive to operate, but thats the next chumps problem! How will we pay for it? DEBT! ALSO THE NEXT GUYS PROBLEM. 3. You will have officials from wealthy districts paid astronomically better than ones from poor districts. These people will stick around longer, get better at navigating the system, and further enrich their constituents at the expense of poorer districts. New glasgow needs a new high school? Sorry, your MLAs.keep leaving while bedfords keeps coming back so he's building them their third school in 5 years instead. 4. Politicians from poorer districts will be distracted by life issues that come from being underpaid and too stressed to engage with constituents. Increasing median salaries doesn't happen overnight even if they are phenomenal at their job. 5. You know who else will run for office? People who are so wealthy the salary is totally pointless. You know what they are gonna do? Tax breaks for themselves. There are countless research papers that unequivocally show paying politicians less increases corruption. But sure, you, some random guy on the internet have it all figured out.
You've just made multiple points, pointing out that they'd actually be involved in their districts. Strange that corruption is so rampant when they're being paid so much now. Edit: It looks like you've decided to run away.
Housing crisis for thee not for me
Ooo, Yves François Blanchette hasn't? 🤔 Choosing my vote has never been easier
I would vote Bloc if I lived in Quebec.
For the last several years he's the only one with an ounce of sense on the stage. The other leaders are talking in circles and he's actually representing his constituency better than any of the others, by a longshot. I'm in Ontario and I'd vote for that guy in a heart beat if I could
I'll vote Bloc anyways to try to ensure the Conservatives don't get a majority. In addition I like Blanchet meanwhile Trudeau and Singh have run out of any kind of credit that people can give them.
BC here, can I vote Bloc too?
I think every province should have a federal party which favors their own province. These parties should at least exist so they can be voted for. It would really mix things up for people like Poilievre who stands to win just because people got tired of the other guy.
Bloc Quolumbia?
I can get JT, but why singh?
He had a lot of power to negotiate and could have pushed harder on the minority government.
Push on what specifically?
Any of the things that people hate Trudeau for.
Gotcha. He did push back on some stuff, thats why i ask
Because Jagmeet has been JT's bitch in the last eight years.
Cool. Anything of substance to add? Or just typical posturing?
He wanted to bail out over indebted homeowners is the most obvious.
I remember this. I generally vote and NDP and that was the straw that really solidified my thinking that Singh needs to go
Link? I dont think i know about this
Press conference, 11 months ago: https://youtu.be/PfFUFUH85WY?t=126
I mean, i agree with what he's saying
He doesn't even do a good job of being phony. Spends 60 seconds on a bicycle for a photo shoot to make himself look like a working class Canadian, then hands it off to an assistant and gets in his landrover with his Rolex and Louis Vuitton man bag. He's a millionaire landlord with multiple investment properties, exactly the guy who benefits from NOT fixing the housing crisis. What are the good things about Singh? Srs question
Politicians are all full of shit. None of them care about you
Pierre at least dignified the housing crisis, long before it was politically popular. Its been since before he was won the nomination.
Also Pierre is sole ownership, Trudeaus rentals are in a numbered corporation.
People owning properties as investments and renting them out has always been a thing, and we *need* rental properties in this country. It wasn’t really an issue until Trudeau and the Liberal Party opened the floodgates to immigration and created a nationwide home price crisis. Given Singh and the NDP continue to prop the government up, I think it’s fair to look at landlords from the Liberals and NDP in a somewhat different light than all the rest. They’re the ones with the power to change things, and they refuse.
If you think the housing issue only started happening recently, you haven't being paying attention. We got a real good jump start on it when Mulroney torpedoed the federal social housing program back in the 80s. It's been tweak after tweak after tweak since than, on top of private corporations not keeping up with demand, intentionally.
In my research it seems more likely due due to the US eliminating housing appreciation from the CPI in the late 80s, leading to global interest rates falling, and cheap debt fueled housing. People used the wealth from M2 growth via mortgage debt to pump into spending and the stock market, leading to asset bubbles. Which caused 2008. Had shelter inflation not been dropped by elimination in the CPI it would stand to reason goods and service inflation would have dropped, maybe we'd be in a less insane global debt bubble as goods falling doesn't carry a liability. Its a weird system given debt levels, housing being unable to fall as Trudeau said recently, 7% CAGR growth in the money supply. It doesn't seem sustainable to me, but I'm just some guy.
If we still had the federal social housing program it would at the least be providing some much needed relief to some on the lower end of the income spectrum. As it is they currently have to compete with everyone else for apartments that are going for crazy rates. Additional units earmarked for certain levels of income would have relieved demand on private housing stock which would have kept prices lower. That's kinda where I was going.
We don't need rental properties, we can have ensuite as rentals only and the only negative would be cheaper prices.
Another one who doesn't understand how supply & confidence agreements work. The terms were set years ago, and didn't include housing affordability policies. The NDP has no power to influence any policy beyond what is specifically in the existing S&C terms. As long as the LPC abides by the agreement terms, the NDP's only other option is to unilaterally renege on the deal and tarnish their reputation in parliament forever.
They’ve already tarnished their reputation forever with this deal. I would suggest that torpedoing it is their only hope of salvaging any dignity at this point.
No, they haven't. Their popular support hasn't changed since they made the deal. And I'm talking about their reputation for making similar deals with future minority governments. Reneging would kill it.
I'm honestly not surprised.
Well I can’t blame them… There is no other investment opportunity in Canada that is going to provide the tax savings and returns real-estate does. The TSX is a joke and we lose $0.35 on the dollar investing in US equities. Then there is Crypto. It is so unregulated that it’s a gamble that you’ll either make money or have one of the exchanges steal from you. This is not a good thing.
If you really intend to hold crypto, do so on your own wallet instead of holding it on an exchange. Kraken is a reliable service that makes painless to do so.
You don't lose $0.35 on the dollar when you invest, that's not how Forex works. The TSX doesn't steal from you? What in the world are you talking about? Canada does have other reasonable investment opportunities than housing.
Yep. At most you lose 2% or so if you are a moron and dont know how norbits gambit works or are rich enough you dont care
Remember, finance and economics aren't really covered in high school. They civics teacher just tells you that people who invest are greedy and bad.
Well, yeah ... not investing in real estate in Canada is just dumb financially. Or in almost any other country in the world
>Or in almost any other country in the world Not so. Only in countries with rapid population growth. You'd have lost money in real estate in Japan over the last 10 years.
In addition, Japan takes the value of real estate and puts it into public spaces, public transit, and public infrastructure (could still be privately owned, like a nice cafe), whereas we have little to show for the high rents and prices we have.
This isn't true, real estate price is a function of supply and demand. Countries with shrinking populations have had significant real estate devaluation over the past 10 years.
That's why I said ALMOST every country
I'd be a lot more concerned about how much they've invested in real estate. Someone who owns hundreds of thousands of dollars in shares in a REIT is a lot different than someone who rents out the basement of their home.
Realistically what could a politician ever invest in that wouldn't be political questionable to someone?
If you've been investing in the last 25 years and you don't have REITs or an additional property, you're an idiot. I'm not sure who wants more idiots in charge, but here we are.
Breaking news: obvious stuff!
So what? This is a nothing burger.
Property ownership is a good thing. More people should be able to own property, not fewer.
There's a lot more nuance to it than that lol. There will also be a cost-benefit to the varying levels of public v private land ownership.
You cannot even own a second property without it being considered an 'investment' and subjected to capital gains taxes, even if you are not an 'investor'. Imagine you bought a plot for a personal garden. INVESTOR!
Or, like in Poilievre's case you owned a home, then married someone who also owned a home. INVESTOR!
Imagine being in that situation and not having to sell one of those homes because you could afford two mortgages.
And also simultaneously being someone who has never had to have a real job ever. PP has the distinction of never having had any job other than politician. I would argue all of this makes him uniquely unqualified to serve Canadians because he is so out of touch with reality and lacking in any practical skills.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME INVESTMENT FIRM! Somehow doesn't apply to 25 people sharing the same household / basement, who are similarly declared as living in an owner occupied home, where the owner doesn't live there but has declared they live there to take advantage of the Capital Gains exemption.
As a home owner and landlord I couldn't be happier about this Not matter what the out come my interests will be represented
I know that you’re trying to piss people off, but you’re unironically correct lol This is the current state of the country.
I'm actually literally just stating it like it is , people should be pissed off
Every single Canadian that has had the means to by an investment property in the past 20 years has done the same.