Best housing policy is to have government compete with private sector building “market affordable” (small) homes that are meant to break even, and so costs nothing. Not even cities propose this, though they can do it independently. Fundamentally, the home owner class likes scarcity of housing, and votes to keep it.
Best housing policy is to have government compete with private sector building “market affordable” (small) homes that are meant to break even, and so costs nothing.
Maybe even at a loss.
Not even cities propose this, though they can do it independently.
Cities can’t levy taxes so they are least able to do it - and they tend to have a lot of responsibilities. The feds and provinces can raise money through taxes, so they are the most logical actor to take it on.
It’s easier the higher the overall cost of housing. Training more people in trades can be lower labour costs. Doesn’t have to follow usual government principle of ultra comfy job to give out as political favours. Affordability due to small size makes it easier to break even while affordable. Just because you target a break even price, doesn’t mean you won’t sell to highest bidder.
More supply is what lowers cost of housing, and targetting break even gives a pricing advantage over profit/scarcity model. So do decisions prioritizing affordability over luxury.
Build houses. AFAIU, CMHC used to work with provides to do that. The houses could be sold below market price to people below a certain income, or rented out.
Build affordable housing. Rent it out below market rate.
More no-interest loans for co-ops and not-for-profit builders.
Put a lifetime limit on the amount of profit people can make on their primary residence tax free. Maybe 100k? Maybe 100k/five years of primary residence? I dunno. This would have to be on new purchases.
Get more people building houses. Carney proposes more apprenticeships, which is great, but that takes time - we should also encourage more immigrants to build houses as a pathway to citizenship.
Nobody in the trades should pay for an education. Our taxes should cover it. Ditto for healthcare.
There’s a bunch of other stuff that I like, but may not make sense: remove taxes on construction materials; lower taxes on the trades; crack down on money laundering; disallow foreign ownership of Canadian homes; make improvements on homes tax free.
Yeah. I don’t know why everyone is fawning over Mark Carney. He is small ‘c’ conservative. There’s nothing he plans to do that’s actually going to alleviate the burden on the middle class.
That’s why I’m voting NDP next election. I don’t care that Jagmeet Singh is not popular. Their party’s plaform is exactly what we need right now. But nobody wants to acknowledge them as a real alternative to conservatives. No one is giving them any media attention also. So it’s hard for them to deliver their message.
Another way to look at it is that we thought there was no way to avoid a conservative government. Mark Carney has brought back the possibility that somebody else could win.
What will stop Mark Carney from winning will be if too many people vote NDP. If that happens, we get Pollievre. That is just the math.
Personally, I do not like to vote to send a message or complete a survey. I like to try to pick the best available government.
As a candidate to win, the NDP is not one of the options this election. You have two choices. Please pick one.
If your number two choice is going to win, picking the opposition is a viable strategy. However, if your last place pick is going to win, maybe vote for whoever has the best chance of beating them (otherwise you are choosing your last place pick).
Canadian system is that you just vote for your single riding. NDP and Green opposition to Liberal preferred voting reform (they were too quick to give up on) means your wrong narrative is what the media BSs Canadians into understanding.
The reality is that some ridings will have stronger NDP than Liberal chances, and in such ridings voting Liberal can split the vote to let PC win. You as a voter are forced to independently seek polls or other indicators of which of the 2 might be the strongest candidate, because the main media will be of zero help in preventing PC relevance.
Singh has so little charisma the media just passes right over him. He says all the right words but has no genuine feeling behind it. I’m afraid I’ll have to vote for less evil again which fucking sucks.
The thing is, they don’t get the job done. And one of their jobs is to win over the hearts and minds of the electorate, and they can’t even make small inroads on that when people are frustrated and ready for change.
The party has presented no clear vision for voters to latch on to, and I say this as someone who volunteers for them.
I bounced onto his housing policy. It can be summed up as
We simply do not have enough homes. 🤷♂️
Damn, maybe you got a different page to load? There seems to be a lot in his plan (too much to copy-paste here).
But keep in mind that Provinces are ultimately responsible for housing. If, for example, you don’t think Ontario is doing a good enough job with housing (and we aren’t), you can blame Doug Ford, who is now doing a shitty job representing Ontario for a third term…
The current federal government dipped into provincial responsibility to: create national cheap daycare; pay for dental care; and “encourage” municipalities to loosen zoning restrictions. They (rightly) won a court case against Alberta about who can enforce environmental regulations.
CMHC used to work with the provinces to build housing. They, and the federal government, can do it again.
I bounced onto his housing policy. It can be summed up as
It proceeds to do the neoliberal “let’s hope the private sector saves us” crap.
Nothing about the feds building housing.
Nothing about fixing our tax code so houses aren’t investments.
It doesn’t even talk about bringing in more construction workers.
Just rEmOvInG rEd TaPe.
Best housing policy is to have government compete with private sector building “market affordable” (small) homes that are meant to break even, and so costs nothing. Not even cities propose this, though they can do it independently. Fundamentally, the home owner class likes scarcity of housing, and votes to keep it.
Maybe even at a loss.
Cities can’t levy taxes so they are least able to do it - and they tend to have a lot of responsibilities. The feds and provinces can raise money through taxes, so they are the most logical actor to take it on.
It doesn’t cost anything if they break even, or why not small profit. Cities can have debt.
And given the cost of housing at the moment, breaking even probably isn’t enough to lower housing costs.
It’s easier the higher the overall cost of housing. Training more people in trades can be lower labour costs. Doesn’t have to follow usual government principle of ultra comfy job to give out as political favours. Affordability due to small size makes it easier to break even while affordable. Just because you target a break even price, doesn’t mean you won’t sell to highest bidder.
More supply is what lowers cost of housing, and targetting break even gives a pricing advantage over profit/scarcity model. So do decisions prioritizing affordability over luxury.
Legit question here, what would you like to see in there?
Personally I’m not clear on where the responsibilities of federal vs provincial are on housing, so I don’t even know what we should be demanding.
Build houses. AFAIU, CMHC used to work with provides to do that. The houses could be sold below market price to people below a certain income, or rented out.
Build affordable housing. Rent it out below market rate.
More no-interest loans for co-ops and not-for-profit builders.
Put a lifetime limit on the amount of profit people can make on their primary residence tax free. Maybe 100k? Maybe 100k/five years of primary residence? I dunno. This would have to be on new purchases.
Get more people building houses. Carney proposes more apprenticeships, which is great, but that takes time - we should also encourage more immigrants to build houses as a pathway to citizenship.
Nobody in the trades should pay for an education. Our taxes should cover it. Ditto for healthcare.
There’s a bunch of other stuff that I like, but may not make sense: remove taxes on construction materials; lower taxes on the trades; crack down on money laundering; disallow foreign ownership of Canadian homes; make improvements on homes tax free.
Can… can I vote for you?
Yeah. I don’t know why everyone is fawning over Mark Carney. He is small ‘c’ conservative. There’s nothing he plans to do that’s actually going to alleviate the burden on the middle class.
That’s why I’m voting NDP next election. I don’t care that Jagmeet Singh is not popular. Their party’s plaform is exactly what we need right now. But nobody wants to acknowledge them as a real alternative to conservatives. No one is giving them any media attention also. So it’s hard for them to deliver their message.
Another way to look at it is that we thought there was no way to avoid a conservative government. Mark Carney has brought back the possibility that somebody else could win.
What will stop Mark Carney from winning will be if too many people vote NDP. If that happens, we get Pollievre. That is just the math.
Personally, I do not like to vote to send a message or complete a survey. I like to try to pick the best available government.
As a candidate to win, the NDP is not one of the options this election. You have two choices. Please pick one.
If your number two choice is going to win, picking the opposition is a viable strategy. However, if your last place pick is going to win, maybe vote for whoever has the best chance of beating them (otherwise you are choosing your last place pick).
Canadian system is that you just vote for your single riding. NDP and Green opposition to Liberal preferred voting reform (they were too quick to give up on) means your wrong narrative is what the media BSs Canadians into understanding.
The reality is that some ridings will have stronger NDP than Liberal chances, and in such ridings voting Liberal can split the vote to let PC win. You as a voter are forced to independently seek polls or other indicators of which of the 2 might be the strongest candidate, because the main media will be of zero help in preventing PC relevance.
Singh has so little charisma the media just passes right over him. He says all the right words but has no genuine feeling behind it. I’m afraid I’ll have to vote for less evil again which fucking sucks.
So we’re going to ignore a whole party and it’s values and objectives because the leader has no charisma?
I don’t really care about charisma as long as they get the job done.
I understand, but most people vote by how they perceive a person. Basically elections are a popularity contest, which is unfortunate.
The thing is, they don’t get the job done. And one of their jobs is to win over the hearts and minds of the electorate, and they can’t even make small inroads on that when people are frustrated and ready for change.
The party has presented no clear vision for voters to latch on to, and I say this as someone who volunteers for them.
Lucky for me they tend to be my reps. In my riding(s) not voting NDP means voting for a candidate that cannot win
Mine is a toss up between liberal, NDP and bloc québécois
Damn, maybe you got a different page to load? There seems to be a lot in his plan (too much to copy-paste here).
But keep in mind that Provinces are ultimately responsible for housing. If, for example, you don’t think Ontario is doing a good enough job with housing (and we aren’t), you can blame Doug Ford, who is now doing a shitty job representing Ontario for a third term…
The current federal government dipped into provincial responsibility to: create national cheap daycare; pay for dental care; and “encourage” municipalities to loosen zoning restrictions. They (rightly) won a court case against Alberta about who can enforce environmental regulations.
CMHC used to work with the provinces to build housing. They, and the federal government, can do it again.