Opinion | Bank of Canada’s fight against inflation is a war on workers
Opinion | Bank of Canada’s fight against inflation is a war on workers
The cost of another rate hike will be paid by workers in the form of higher unemployment and lower real wages, Gustavo Indart writes.
You're viewing a single thread.
This hurts regular people far worse than the upper class that has spent 3+ years hording and acquiring assets. They're trying to fix inept government policy on the backs of the labour that allows the country to function rather than having the hording class pay a fair share to sustain society.
Property taxes should increase exponentially with each additional property you own. Double or triple for corporations. That will do a large part to fix our issues, but the government will only enact policies favourable to the landowners.
That's quite a good solution. I've been looking at real estate lately and a lot of the lower priced homes have in their description something like "great starter home or investment property." Investors shouldn't be able to snatch up all the "starter homes". Let's let some of us get into the market!
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.
During the next federal election this will be my “single issue” that will determine who I vote for.
Why not just vote properly – for someone who will work for you with honour and respect? Then you can actually sit down with the employee you hired and guide them in the right direction. Hiring some hothead employee who thinks they've got it all figured out, and lets you believe they've got it all figured out, is a recipe for disaster.
Why not just vote properly – for someone who will work for you with honour and respect?
A government that seeks to keep a roof over your head over a few extra dollars in their personal bank accounts IS a government that is treating us with honour and respect. The big two don't have any respect for the common Canadian, aside from milquetoast progressive talking points occasionally, or populist bullshit.
If making housing affordable for everyone is a single issue vote then so be it. I can respect that more than a multitude of other idiotic reasons to be a single issue voter.
A government that seeks to keep a roof over your head over a few extra dollars in their personal bank accounts IS a government that is treating us with honour and respect.
That may be true, but importantly the hired employee needs to be working for you, not themselves or some other interest. If they already have it figured out how they want to address these problem before they've even talked to you, it is unlikely that they are actually there to do the job they are meant to do.
Of course, it could also be that you are just as lazy and will refuse to speak with your employee after you've hired him. In which case your poor leadership is the true recipe for disaster.
During the next federal election this will be my “single issue” that will determine who I vote for.
This should read PROVINCIAL election. Housing policies are the jurisdiction of the provinces. If you think the Premiers are going to tolerate the Feds mucking around in something they perceive as THEIR jurisdiction, there will be a big fight over it. Take this to your Premier, it's their wheel-house.
Fair point, Dougie needs to fucking go.
And for the record OF COURSE I care about other issues. Maybe my original comment was too extreme. There is no way I am going to vote for any rage-baiting, fear mongering, regressive asshole. If someone presented an amazing, ground-breaking housing plan but was also a neo-nazi I wouldn't vote for them LMAO.
I am just so tired of all the political theatre around housing. It just seems like a no-brainer that should cross party lines. The only people who don't care are the people who are rich, or who are in the pockets of rich development/property management companies. Even the older generations who own a single home care, they probably have children who they know won't ever be able to afford a home or pay a fair price to rent something.
What if my premier is an idiot?
Welcome to the club. It's important to vote for the better option even if it feels like it makes no difference.
If everyone who thought it doesn't matter got out to vote, it WOULD change the outcome. Voter turnouts have been terrible.
I agree, everybody who can vote should.
During the next federal election this will be my "single issue" that will determine who I vote for.
What do you expect is going to happen? Every party is going to make promises to fix the crisis and none of them will deliver. You really think election promises mean anything?
I'd believe the NDP to be sincere in their promise to fix it, at least until they prove otherwise, but they won't be elected so they won't get the chance
Yeah it's easy to believe in someone who will never get a chance to show if they deserved your belief or not.
I mean the alternative is voting for someone who time and again has proven they're not acting with your interests in mind, and I'm talking both red and blue here
Yeah ... I know. I vote NDP too but I'm not under any delusions. Singh is very much ingrained in the upper class. You think he's gotten this far without making any promises to the wealthy? I don't have much hope, but at least there's no track record of them fucking Canadians, like there is with the Libs and Cons.
Certainly. Hiring among union members will never be in your best interest as their employer. Unions work for the employees – forever and always.
The employers (i.e. you and me) in some ridings have little choice, though. The talent pool is only so large.
If its anything like the US, one party will have a plan and the other party's plan is different but you can't see it.
"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.
Agreed. Pretty much any property a person owns past the first single-family home or equivalent should be treated as income and business expense and should be taxed as such. There should be a bigger incentive when you move homes to buy a new home and sell your previous. Rather than buying a home when you move and putting the previous up for rent, slowly accumulating properties to be used as passive income and denying homeownership to younger people.
I'm not 100% sure we should even allow corporations to own housing property at all, but that's a bigger question.
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.
I agree but it can be difficult to enforce... Just registered the property to a shell company, your spouse, children, etc.
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.
This hurts regular people far worse than the upper class
As it needs to be, of course. Only regular people are a large enough group to create an inflationary environment. One rich guy with an unlimited bank account faces no competition to drive prices higher.
Which is the challenge the BoC faces. Interest rates don't impact the poor, at least not directly. They aren't given loans, so rates mean nothing to them. Rates can only try to scare the small number of rich people away from employing the poor, but the rich can shoulder rate hikes for quite a long time before they give up on employing the poor.
Property taxes should increase exponentially with each additional property you own.
Same problem, though, as only the rich own property. You need something that targets regular people if you want fast results. As before, trying to squeeze the rich might work eventually, but they can hang on for quite a while. Higher income taxes across the board would curb things pretty quickly, though.