Yeah, and rental prices have skyrocketed too.

During the next federal election this will be my "single issue" that will determine who I vote for.

At this point I can ignore our insane grocery/telecom prices, even though that is still a huge issue. The housing crises has far worse ripple effects down the chain: potential buyers can't buy so they rent nicer places, potential renters can't rent the nice places so they are overpaying for the rentals they can afford, and people who can't afford any of the rental prices are scraping by with roommates or on the streets.

And these development companies have the nerve to go to court over government investigations over their shady practices.

Shameless.

"Starter home", I'm not sure how much more disdain I could have for that title. I bought a home in 2003 that would probably be called that now. It was a typical size for when it was built in 1982 but of course homes must be bigger now. My wife has a friend who has a home that's nearly double the size yet she's jealous of all the storage space we have. There's this trend of building homes with huge main spaces and I don't understand why.

I understand if people end up having to move for work of course, and if the home they're in is literally too small for their family, I just don't understand moving just because a bigger house is available.

Unfortunately, in the case of housing a lot of the abuses of tenants' rights tends to be caused by amateur landlords (who don't know how to properly plan ahead). There are a lot of laws to know and unexpected costs involved, so having a larger building management entity makes sense here. It would be cool if non-profit renters' co-ops (like the people in Hamilton trying to buy their apartment building) could be successfully formed.

I much prefer corporations owning rental housing than individuals. They at least have staff and somewhat understand the laws. The idea that all sorts of individuals will choose to be landlords of one or two properties and deal with all the toxic shit that comes with it is incredibly naive in my opinion.

On the other hand, making it expensive to be a landlord also drives up what people need to pay for rent to cover those costs. There should be options for people to get housing without having to commit to owning it themselves. Income from rental properties is subject to income taxes, and there's lots of subsidies/incentives that reduce housing costs that only apply to a primary dwelling, not rental properties.

Personally, I'd like to see a crown corp that does housing. Set reasonable pricing and a base standard of what people should expect from a rental property and the private industry has to compete with that.

Any property that you put up for rent is actually treated as a business by the CRA.

• You pay higher property taxes on a rental.
• If you sell, and the property isn't your primary residence, you pay capital gains taxes.
• All rental income is taxed and you can't claim that rental income... you can claim interest paid one the mortgage, but it's not that much.
• There are incentives to maintain a single home when you're buying and selling... If you buy/sell your primary residence you don't pay capital gains taxes.

Should there be more taxing on second and more properties that are investment... maybe. If you increase the cost of ownership, that cost is placed on the renter. A property owner isn't in the game for fun and they aren't going to be willing to take a lot just for the benefit of a renter. It might put pressure on speculators to increase the taxes, but... It's not as 1:1 as people like to think.

Prevent companies from owning housing without having the increased taxation. Treat married couples as a single unit (this may be problematic with separated couples?). I don't have a good answer for children except that then you are effectively gifting all your kids and relatives a house. So if THEY want to buy their own, different house they pay increased taxes or sell the previous. And that prevents one person from owning dozens of properties; divesting them to their children. Which really means if your goal is to property horde you need more kids...which is a very weird incentive to be sure.

Good bot.

https://youtu.be/_Nt5by-TsUw

I agree there isn't much evidence for current supply issues. However...

Even the so-called chip shortage later revealed that chip output saw no decline throughout the pandemic or since.

Output may have not reduced, but it did change during the pandemic. Many fabs retired their legacy equipment to move to newer processes. However, the auto industry's designs were still based on the old processes, so they experienced a shortage. This compounded the delayed demand of consumers who didn't buy cars due to uncertainty and limited travel. That shortage has mostly been resolved, but hasn't completely settled (there are basically no "deals" and old used cars are still in high demand).

The government

Governments. Both federal and provincial governments can manage corporate tax rates, and both provincial and municipal governments can manage property tax rates.

But each of these governments serve the will of the people, and all three governments ultimately serve the very same people. Good luck convincing the people that they should willing choose to pay higher taxes.

@cyborganism @maporita The money that they pumped into the economy is going into the pockets of the corporations (and their shareholders) because the recipients had to use it to pay for essentials like food, and yet it will not be the corporations that are taxed to recover it. Why is the government essentially paying for the profits of corporations and their shareholders??? This only serves to exacerbate the gap between the wealthy and the vast number of poorer people.