this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
74 points (98.7% liked)
Canada
10468 readers
273 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kingston (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 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.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- Buy Canadian
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Canadian Skincare
- Churning Canada
- Quebec Finance
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
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
Politicians keep saying "affordable housing" then have zero scruples about selling a large portion of whatever housing they make, at bargain basement prices, to landlords.
I've seen this play before.
How about this, if any one person owns more than two "single family" dwellings, their property tax on the third property is 1000% increased... And add a zero for every additional property.
It won't fix the problem, but it will sure as shit make it harder for a handful of people to own a nontrivial percentage of the residences in a city.
ok, but that will break the Ponzi scheme and crash the CDN economy.
I wish I can upvote this a 1000 times
It should be city landlords. My grandparents had a Council house in the UK for decades, it was cheap and maintenance was performed by the city.
I agree with you that subsidised housing should be owned/managed/maintained by the government, since it is supposed to be composed "of the people, by the people".
I would worry that many slumlords would take issue with the government undercutting their business model, and conservative voters would rally around the idea that they "don't want their tax dollars" paying for someone else's housing. So getting the legislation in place to get this going may be difficult.
In addition, I suspect some conservative "leader" would come along and sell off the entire subsidized housing/management government system to the private sector, framing the whole thing as a "drain" on "the system" (meanwhile, public funds would likely benefit from the program, rather than the other way around). That way they can sell off property en masse to their real estate mogul buddies so they can hike rent and turn a profit (which would likely end up coming from public funds so that the housing can remain subsidized), achieving the opposite of what they said the change would accomplish....
I've been watching this circus long enough to be cynical about what the outcomes will be, both short term and long term.
And this is why we can't have nice things.
I agree. It is really hard to justify why a person might need 3 or more homes.
I know a lot of people have summer cabins and whatnot, so I wouldn't want to really crank up the costs until you have 3+.
I figure anyone rich enough for three homes for themselves can afford the extra costs, and anyone looking to buy a home as an income property will get fuckered.
At least, that's the idea.
If someone wants to buy one home for themselves and one to rent out, that's acceptable losses IMO. It at least limits how many homes are going to become rentals.
But I'm being silly. I'm addressing the underlying issue of people buying up all the affordable housing so they can rent it out at a premium... That's not what the government wants to do. They want to give money to their construction contractor buddies, who can give a small discount to their property management buddies who will buy up all the homes and rent them out.
Everyone wins in this situation.... You know, except the poors.
But who cares about the Poor's. They only pay for everything through taxes because the rich can afford to dodge all the taxes they would otherwise have to pay, and we have no wealth tax, so they're getting away Scot free, and the rest of the population is left footing the bill.