this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
20 points (95.5% liked)
Canada
8019 readers
434 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
π Social / Culture
Rules
- 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
view the rest of the comments
It's simply not possible to drop housing prices significantly until we get a reasonable supply. Right now (and until the end of the decade) demand is predicted to exceed supply of new housing by about 4:1 (i.e. we need to build about 4x as many new units as we currently are).
There are some mechanisms to reduce some demand like vacant housing tax, increased taxes on second+ properties, and banning non resident purchases, but it still comes back to supply and demand.
In theory, once supply exceeds demand, house prices should start to fall. There really isn't any other sustainable mechanism to significantly reduce housing prices until that point. Government owned and subsidized housing is one way that we have attempted in the past, and I think it's a good idea, but it won't actually reduce prices except for those lucky enough to get one of these units.
Each of the parties has a plan to increase housing supply, targeting different aspects of the supply chain. It's a good first step, and realistically all that they can do in a single term.
That's not true at all.
The government could crash the house prices overnight if they wanted, for example they could implement a 20% yearly tax on home value. Prices would plummet instantly because owning a house would cost a lot more, the increase in yearly cost needs to then be offset by a drop in the fixed cost (selling price) to bring back equilibrium at the current supply level.
It also increases supply massively without building a single new house, because the bigger your home, the more tax you're going to pay and if you aren't using it you're likely going to sell and downsize immediately to save money.
The best way to do this would be then to take all that massive tax influx, and remove income taxes entirely or provide a UBI to everyone.
There are other ways to achieve similar price reductions overnight too. The problem is that it's political suicide to crash the housing prices, since home owners would be absolutely pissed if you just kill 50-75% of their home value overnight. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars for most owners, and 65% of residential properties in Canada are owned by the family that lives in them.
It's a fallacy that there isn't enough housing, there are already way more bedrooms in Canada than people, and on top of that a large portion of people share a bedroom with their significant other. The problem is the distribution of housing (both in terms of who owns it, and where it's located) not the total.