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


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. 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
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

ok, but that will break the Ponzi scheme and crash the CDN economy.

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

I wish I can upvote this a 1000 times

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] banana@communick.news 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I agree. It is really hard to justify why a person might need 3 or more homes.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

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.