(Reuters) - Canada on Sunday announced a two-year extension to a ban on foreign ownership of Canadian housing, saying the step was aimed at addressing worries about Canadians being priced out of housing markets in cities and towns across the country.
Canada is facing a housing affordability crisis, which has been blamed on an increase in migrants and international students, fueling demand for homes just as rising costs have slowed construction.
Foreign ownership is a bit of a blind, you need to ban corporate ownership as well
Well you see we can’t do that because the lawmakers are the ones in charge of those corporations
quite so, quite so, however this ban on foreign ownership has put them them in quite the pickle as they can no longer blame dirty foreigners. And with people starting to cotton on to the “immigrants and international students” tactic I look forward to the uptick in articles on “african gangs” (or the canadian equivalent) to angry up the blood.
How do you define ‘corporate’ ownership? If you can own 100 properties as an individual, does that count as ‘corporate’? If it doesn’t, that seems like an easy loophole. If the intent is to ban large quantities of homes owned by single entities, then doing it by quantity sounds more sensible.
That might redistribute old homes, but it doesn’t necessarily solve the drip feeding of new homes that we have going on right now. For example, the UK used to build 250k+ houses every year during the 1950-1980s period. 50% of that was government built council houses for those in need. It’s estimated that we need to build 250k more homes than we currently do in the UK, and the private housing industry has not done its part.
Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?
ban company/ corporate ownership of standalone housing.
increased scale of taxation on any property past PPR. One house gets you 10% increase. Two gets you 20%, etc. oh it’s empty? Now you got an empty property tax as well
fuck up developer scarcity. Set hard time limits between land purchase and development / sale. Give land use laws teeth
I’m not, please don’t assume that. It sounds like we’re in agreement here, so I’m not debating you, but rather adding to your post, I suppose. It sounded like you wanted to extend the conversation towards solutions to the housing crisis in general.
all g I realised that came across a bit more antagonistic than intended. I meant it more as “let’s do ALL of it mwahhahaa”
Because it’s a common tactic used to confuse an issue and get the discussion bogged down in irrelevant details and “hah! Gotcha!” moments.
…Yeah i’d read the rest of the thread before throwing that around
You’re the kind of person who sits on their hands and only gets off of them when you tell others to sit on theirs.
It’s how you report the income. A corporation pays corporate tax rate on profit. An individual pays income tax. If someone wants to pay the individual income tax on 100 properties, that’s awesome. 33% over 250k. Corporate tax rate can easily be half of that.
Plus filing your taxes is waaaaaay easier having a corp hold all the assets and generating revenue, and the individual as an employee who draws a salary. If you’re just an individual with 100 properties and you get audited, you’re in for a bumpy ride trying to pick apart personal vs rental purchases
Ban amateur landlords.
You want to be a landlord? Better buy a purpose built unit like a triplex or larger that will encourage densification and stop fucking over families just trying to find a place to raise their family.
If both corporate ownership and amateur landlords are banned, then doesn’t that severely limit what a landlord can be?
I mean, that might not be a bad idea…
For single family homes - yes! I’m fine with corporate ownership of purpose built units. We need way more of them, and the idea that “mom and pop” investors would fill that void is silly.
I don’t think the differentiator should be corporate versus “mon and pop” landlords, but rather single family homes versus multi family buildings.
In my view, single family dwellings should generally be owned by the occupant, with very few, very rare exceptions.
I don’t see the issue