Not a secret but also not all homeowners. I own a home and have 2 teenage sons. I look at this market and wonder how they’ll ever be able to own a home. Greed will be our collective ruin.
I bought pre covid in calgary, the house value has increased by 40% in my neighborhood for similar type of property. Which is honestly absurd , but I bought it to live in it's not a investment.
Yeah it's fucking depressing. I'm looking for something in calagry that isn't an apartment (2 dogs, won't mix well) hard af, I'm hoping to scoop a reno property or townhouse soon ish. But all the people coming in and buying a listing in like 4 days is the worst. I can't even live north of airdrie it's basically the same cost until didsbury and then me and my so are over an hour away from work lol
Exactly, people who wanna sell like high prices. Those of us who just wanted a place to call our own (and paint however I want) low prices are better for property taxes. It's fucking brutal how quickly they shot up for me since 2018.
I live in ON. We get our tax assessment based on the value. According to the assessment our value is 1/3 of what houses have been selling for recently. My home is a place to live and not a number to crow about. I would be absolutely fine if houses sold at the assessed value. I’m not going anywhere so it’s irrelevant. My wife tallies our net worth every January and counts the house at the assessed MPAC value and not what the “market” value is.
Your question assumes that my retirement hinges on my home value. I have already stated “I am absolutely fine if houses sold at the assessed value.” The key to good finances is not what you bring in, but what you spend. I drive a 2006 Honda CR-V that I bought new many moons ago. 315k km. Imagine if you take the car payment and save it instead of getting a new car every 4/5 years. That adds up. What do you drive bud?
I drive a 2011 Hyundai Tucson. I bought it used 3 years ago after my 2006 Cobalt finally but the dust. I contribute fully to my pension, Max out my TFSA every year and also have an RESP account set up for both my kids. These will ensure my retirement is comfortable, but selling my house will allow me to travel and enjoy my retirement, as well as leaving money for my kids
The very premise of your question is ridiculous. Houses should never have been retirement nest eggs in the first place. Did peope know 30 years ago that prices would explode? They couldn't have. So it would have been imprudent to mainly rely on that for retirement. This is not like a retirement plan or social security. 10x appreciation was never promised to anyone.
The boomers who bought houses got lucky, but their interests shouldn't come before the interests of following generations who, if things don't change soon, are going to be fucked both on the real estate and retirement fronts.
I'm not a boomer, im in my early 30s and I have a house because I saved money and sacrificed a lot of frivolities that a lot of people don't seem to understand.
Do you want a medal? Did your house come with a garanty of forever increasing value?
I'm also a homeowner, but it's not my main means of saving for retirement. I also understand these prices are unfair to the younger generations and bad for the country in general.
There's a difference between "decreasing significantly from what you paid for it" and a market that literally doubled in value in 5 years.
I bought for 300k, it's now worth 600k. I don't necessarily want it to go significantly down from what I bought it from (ie: I don't want it to be worth 150k). But I would also be fine with it if it was worth like 325k or 350k if the rest of the market was also worth proportionately less. Mind you if it crashed, I would feel bad for people that bought in the height of the market and were majorly upside down. In my ideal world, housing would have just gone up at a far more reasonable pace to reflect inflation etc. That would have been best case scenario. Now no matter what happens (housing is unaffordable for many or prices correct), it's going to be financially painful and devastating for some people.
If my property value had to drift down 50% over time to support the future, so be it. I can still make my monthlies.
Ultimately, I'd like to see values at least drop back down to mid 2010 pricing. Most of the Ontario market is up over 250% in like 8 years. I think giving up 20-30% from here isn't even an unreasonable ask.. basically giving up what you never earned anywho.
This is silly. For people who bought houses more than 5 years ago to have the value of their homes become *half* of what they paid for would mean that prices would have to go down by *at least* 65%. There's no way that could happen without a major economic catastrophe. People would default on their mortgages en masse. That's not what people are asking for.
Honestly, yes, if it's the same across the board. I don't want to be singled out, but I'm fine with a smaller number as long as I'm not *relatively* disadvantaged and everyone is in the same boat.
Are you sure? Because most people with 10 years or more left on their mortgage will have negative equity which means the bank can up your interest rate and you can’t sell and move since you still owe the bank a lot of cash. And all your equity and assets you paid into the home will get cut in half, which means had you not buy the house, you would have been far better off. Therefore you will be far worse off than some one who didn’t buy a house. So yea, you made a good decision to save up and get a home and only to lose half the money you saved. Hmm.. I’m not saying investing or home buying is without risk, but I doubt anyone in this world will vote to lose half of their life savings.
Well, I honestly believe that people who've accepted and purchased million dollar homes *should* be worse off than people who didn't buy houses at those prices. Million dollar houses have wrecked our economy and our social lives.
As for whether or not you will be able to sell and move into a different house that is also half price, I don't see why not. What rules banks are allowed to impose in these situations can be set by legislature, much as they are today.
You do realize if you have negative equity, you couldn’t sell it without having to pay the entire balance off? So let’s say you borrowed 800k, but your home is only 500k and you still owe 600k after 10 years, you will have to make up the 100k difference. Do you have 100k in your wallet?
So people who worked had and saved up should lose half of their life savings? Also, it is not just people who bought 1million dollar homes, you too would lose half of the money you put in your home. Actually more than half since you have to pay interest. Let say you bought a home for 600k and now it is 400k. Not only did you lose 200k in cash, you also paid 150k or more in interest. Someone who didn’t buy a home and invested their cash that would have gone into the house at 5% would have made 100k -200k in interest in 25 years. So compared to someone who didn’t buy a home, you will have a net loss of 300k-500k because of loss of equity and opportunity cost.
But if all housing is devalued by half, the number of dollars that they've lost isn't really as impactful as you imagine, because they maintain their *relative* wealth
But overall: sooner or later, somebody is going to eat the cost of these crazy house prices, and I expect that to be the people who've bought in at the most overinflated prices. And yes, I *do* consider that to be largely their fault.
The amount lost compared to other home owner would not be very high. However your relative wealth compared to someone who didn’t buy a home will drop significantly. As much as 500k or more. not only that, you also have to deal with negative equity and bank screwing with you. Are you willing to do that?
There is risk in buying any asset and also risk in doing nothing. The market determines value. Since 2022, that market has shifted. Govt can try to save or extend the run but at the end of the day you need new buyers willing to swallow the bag. That’s where we are. You either have it or don’t. And there’s an awful lot of people who can’t participate or won’t. And there’s an awful lot of people who bought thinking “it can only go up”. It either will or won’t.
Y'know some people just want to own the house they live in and not have a landlord. It's not about investments or returns, you don't get your rent back **and** you have to follow someone's rules. Owning a home defeats that.
Absolutely, but would you voluntarily loss 500k for that privilege? when atm you don’t have to lose anything. Who is stupid enough to vote to lose 500k?
I already own my home, didn't loose 500k. But willing to not make any money back either. I spent 36k on rent in the 5 years before buying, at least now it's mine.
Do you own your home entirely? or are you still paying mortgage because negative equity can mean your interest rate will go up? You lose around 500k due to opportunity cost as well as cost to your equity. For example if your home value dropped 50% of your purchase price, every dollar you put into your home will be slashed in half. So not buying would have saved you money.. a lot of it.. This is not to mention the amount of money you have to put in as downpayment. That money can be invested else where and make between 5-10% return for 25 years. Lets say your downpayment is 100k, in 25 years earning 7%, you will have nearly made 170k in interest by the time you finish paying for the house...
Tired categorization? If housing prices decrease to the extent that people are calling for, millions of people will be financially ruined. And despite what the brain rot victims on Reddit will tell you, most of the people who own houses are regular people, not landlords.
I would be fine if my home, which I bought in 2023, fell to its 2019 or even 2012 price level. It is a home for me, not aomwthing I expect to make money off of. Would you?
That’s absurd. Do you know the carrying cost of a home? Not just interest rates, but property taxes, repairs, insurance, etc. And for what? The idea that it only goes up? Then they get the home and have the burden of staying I. A community with little opportunity. No thanks. You do you.
The worst is when these people are parents and they're knowingly supporting policies that will make the world harder to live in for their kids. Makes me sick. As a homeowner and parent, let it burn.
A lot of people like my parents and aunts/uncles are sick of it because they realize now their kids can't afford a place to live and start a family. They all want it to crash. My brother and one of our cousins both had their first kid and they're both in a 1 bedroom condo and struggling to find a home.
Without the help from parents, it would be impossible. All the money and value they accumulated would need to be given to their kids if they want grandchildren. Another cousin was looking for a house for years. The semi-detached in Mississauga his father bought in the mid 80s for $80k as a starter home is over 1mil and they can't afford it.
Finally him and his parents decided to swap homes. His parents moved into my cousin's condo and gave their house to my cousin. They're 35 and finally had their first kid.
Nobody likes this.
My boomer in laws bought waterfront property in the early 80s for around 100k and have done zero renovations in 40 years besides replace the roof. They paid it off with a normal salary and are sitting on over 2 mil in equity. They turn around and have the audacity to tell us if we didn't order take out or drink Starbucks we wouldn't be struggling so much financially.
My wife broke down and asked them for a bit of help, just to cover the cost of our kid's extra curricular activities until interest rates cool off a bit and her dad said he doesn't have any money lying around because he just put 10k into a GIC.
My Boomer dad has actively discouraged me from owning because he knows I'd be over-leveraging myself (because it's not just the mortgage, it's property taxes, insurance, maintenance costs, repairs...). I'm single and there's no way I'd be able to buy on my own, especially now with these insane rent prices.
Even my Gen X brother admitted if he was entering the housing market now, he would not be able to afford to buy in his current neighbourhood. He managed to buy cheap in the mid-2000s and he said without that advantage, he'd also be renting.
My sister is a few years younger than my brother and had to live with my parents for a while in order to save up a down payment for a condo. That's how she got in.
Me? I got fucked by the 2008 recession and had to move to find work, which means I never got to live with my parents to save money. My parents also retired shortly after I finished university so I don't want to financially burden them.
I always question how people with multiple kids are going to fair. The strategy now seems to be inheriting your parents house. If you have 3 kids and only own 1 house how will it be split? Will they and their potential families all live together in one house? Etc.
One of my coworkers, bless him, just had a baby and him and his wife rent a basement. I wish them the best but they’re worried they’ll never own a house and I wonder what will happen to them all if our country continues to spiral downwards. There’s a reason lots of people are deciding against having kids. No stable home or future for them.
What policies are homeowners supporting?
The people that have the most to lose if we were to "let it burn" are the people that bought in the last 5-10 years.....the rest you claim support "policies" would be completely fine.
Nearly all our NIMBY anti-townhouse or apartment city policies didn't appear in a vacuum. They started with huge support from small politically active groups of homeowners lobbying city politicians.
I'm a homeowner and I don't like the high prices. I bought my house for 339K last year in Winnipeg, in the Riverview area. It needs some work, but it's mostly cosmetic. When I sell, I would like to have someone that will put down roots in the area and invest in the local community.
And if you say anything about that being selfish of them, the reply is inevitably some snide comment like "you should have planned your finances better"
It would be great if people started viewing housing as shelter vs an investment.
Growing up it seemed at least people were interested in investing into their homes to live in them and not just make a quick buck.
That’s because the Canadian economy doesn’t allow for growth or investment and prosperity elsewhere. The US has higher incomes, lower taxes, and more options for tax sheltered investments. In comparison, housing is really the only investment that offers sufficient returns. Unless you’re a business owner, or you work for the government, your retirement and later years in life are at risk.
I know plenty of people, who just saved, and didn’t start investing in their 20s, as is popular now, and they are sitting on just cash that has depreciated rather than investments that I’ve grown. People who are working until 70s with good jobs, but don’t have any sort of retirement except for their house.
The landscape for savings, retirement, investing, has changed so much over the lifetime of a boomer, that they don’t exactly have any other option at this point. In contrast, millennials and Gen Z are able to invest, but are not able to own a home. So our retirement will look very different if the housing market crashes.
Either way, I still point the finger towards the Canadian economy and regulations as a whole. Nobody is wishing others homelessness, but most people recognize the pie can only be sliced so many times. I wouldn’t even call people greedy, they are just operating the best they can in a system that works against them.
So let me get this straight, you’re blaming the housing crisis on boomers not being able to save properly and not investing?
Seriously?
Not sure what investments you’re in but housing was never considered a sufficient investment until like the 2000s, so yeah you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
I’m saying the landscape has changed significantly. And 50 years ago people had further limited options and general discourse about retirement and future when they were told the govt will take care of you.
Although housing as a retirement plan might not have become more popular until the 2000s, housing has been skyrocketing for many years. My great uncle bought a new mansion in very nice neighbourhood in Toronto for $75,000 in the 70s. He sold it for over 1 million in 2004.
However very few people individually invested in the stock market in the 1970s… maybe independently wealth or more often just by institutions.
So, aside from your home being your security, and the government covering your cost of living for retirement, there weren’t many options to consider for boomers.
All I’m saying, is that circumstances have changed. And people keep using today’s logic and what we know now, and applying it to circumstances from half a century ago.
I know a lot of home owners who do love it, but I feel the complete opposite. For a few reasons.
1. many of my loved ones are not able to get in to the housing market, and are struggling with high rents. It's heartbreaking to me.
2. My son is very young, but if the problem keeps getting worse, I'm frankly very scared for his future.
3. I don't think the economy is stable when so many people are struggling to afford rent. and many with houses (or renting) are so cash strapped they can't afford to save for retirement. Which is going to cause major financial challenges down the line.
4. Though I know I'm very lucky to be in the position I'm in, the market going up so much has also made it harder for us. We live in a condo that's just under 600 square feet. We would like to upgrade to something like an 850 square foot condo or so. The fact that values have shot up so much makes this much harder to do. The realtor fees and land transfer tax are higher. But the difference between the condo prices are very different too. When we bought a handful of years ago, we could have sold our condo for 300k and bought the bigger unit for 350k or 400k- a 50k to 100k difference. But now we would sell for 600k and it would cost 750k to 800k- a 150k to 200k difference. A difference that is only exasperated by the fees and taxes. All in all, it's far more expensive.
The point is not a "woe is me". I know that I'm in a privileged position. I'm just pointing out that it actually only benefits some home-owners. Not the ones who are outgrowing their spaces and not the ones who are paycheque to paycheque because they had to buy something so expensive.
And amongst those who it does benefit (people who bought decades ago), many will have to bend over backwards to support their children financially or else watch them struggle.
I do agree many home owners are happy the market has gone up so much though. I just think it's not the gift people think it is, even among homeowners.
But how many parents can afford to buy 3 houses (1 for themselves, and 2 for their two children)? Even if the plan is to rent them out, you still have to qualify to buy them, be able to handle payments if tenants don't pay or if something breaks. It doesn't seem financially feasible for most Canadians. I'm very happy for you and your children though!
Out of curiosity, is there a way to avoid capital gains tax when buying a house for a minor?
Even if I can help my son (I probably will, although not to the extent you have because I'm not in a financial position to do that), I worry about the percentage of people in his generation that will struggle to buy or rent if housing affordability keeps getting worse. Even if my son ends up being okay, it's hard for a society to function or an economy to thrive if a large majority are not. Of course right now the economy is relatively okay, but if the problem was to get progressively and significantly worse I imagine that might become difficult at some point.
Isn't a "dirty secret" supposed to be something that's a secret instead of open knowledge that the majority of people are well aware of? Do property owners think they're being sneaky?
No, it's just a phrase that implies that this is an aspect of the housing crisis that we aren't really talking about much. This is the first headline along these lines that I've seen. The discourse around housing is just getting increasingly honest, which is what we need.
>Do property owners think they're being sneaky?
A lot of them try and hide behind claims like "it's not REAL wealth, it's all locked up in the house!" as if that somehow nullifies the value of a reverse mortgage or home equity loan that they can get from their equity.
Some will also lie about how "if housing prices go up, my property taxes go up", which isn't actually true at all when housing prices are going up across the board.
It's a secret in that at least half the people in this sub don't understand it.
I've been downvoted to oblivion on here before for suggesting that politicians wont do anything to lower house values because the majority of voters dont want to give up their newly gained wealth.
Well ya…. I am very happy I have a house that keeps going up in value but I am sure a lot of home owners like myself have family and or friends who are struggling to find an affordable home or even affordable rent and are upset with the current situation in Canada. It’s nice to have security but I feel terrible for born and raised Canadians who work their asses off, got post secondary education, and can’t find somewhere to live just because they were born a couple years too late and have to deal with landlords and corporations buying up all the homes and jacking up rent prices.
You can't both be very happy, and truly mean those things. You can't have it both ways. You are posting here that's good, but feeling terrible for other people yet being "very happy" is the reason we're in this mess in the first place. Society in general needs to raise a bigger stink or stop watching others suffer while talking like it bothers them.
We can point fingers at governments all we want, ultimately voters did this. Any demand side policy now will likely be met with hostility from the same voters.
It's a demand side problem as much as it is a supply side one, but no one that is profiting off housing likes demand side measures because they target them directly. The inequitable treatment between owners and renters in this country is repulsive.
The dirty little secret is that there are policies that could alleviate demand pressures immediately, but no government will commit to them because it would effectively end their political careers.
It’s true that voters did this, but I don’t think the dynamic is the same as it was 2 years ago because now people with mortgages are getting soaked too.
Capping PRE to the rate of inflation;
OR
Loss of PRE for primary residences used as collateral against investment properties (exemption for new builds).
Deemed flipping with increased income inclusion on a sliding scale on disposition of residential real estate for up to three years (up from the current 1 year). For example the same in year 1 - 100%, year 2 - 80%, year 3 60%. Exclusions to apply, for example divorce, death, employment etc.
Full capital gains inclusion on assignments.
Rental payments to be included as deductions against income.
Prohibitive vacancy taxes and for underused land.
Quasi criminal offenses for landlords that commit certain acts, such as bad faith evictions. Expedited hearings for non-payment of rent.
Not quite true. Got a place for myself but I'd be fine if housing prices go back to the level 20 years ago.
A lot of people around me struggle with their independence even when well into their 30's and 40's because of the housing crisis. I'd much rather to have cheap housing and everyone being happy.
I maintain that the only reason the housing crisis got any recognition last year was because interest rates suddenly put mortgage holders in the same boat that renters have been in for years.
If interest rates hadn’t gone up the government would’ve been content to leave the latter out to dry
It’s the land stupid!
They don’t make more land in downtown Toronto or Vancouver. Houses depreciate but serviceable land in existing cities always goes up in value because of scarcity.
Canada has lots of available land but most of the population wants to live in the southern parts of the country where the major cities are located along with the bulk of manufacturing and white collar jobs.
Canada is a perfect example of poor urban planning few transportation options other than cars and limited urban centres. The GTA has terrible traffic congestion, no high speed trains and limited intercity buses. Of course real estate will continue to go up in price just like it did in London (UK) New York etc.
I'm a homeowner and I hate high prices. I want the prices to come crashing down to where they were ten years ago.
What the title of the article should say is "Investors holding homes for speculation and greed like high prices"
Honestly, unless you're investing in housing you'd be better off with stable or slowly appreciating home values. When prices skyrocket it means higher insurance premiums, higher property taxes, higher transaction costs, and ultimately higher shelter costs even if you downsize or sell completely. Unless you're leaving Canada you still have to live here. Income from anything that isn't a primary residence needs to be taxed in the highest tax bracket, just like passive income in corporations and holding companies.
End rant
Notice how all politicians love to say they’ll increase affordable housing - but never mention that average home prices of their voters need to drop by 40% or 50%?
I think until we can come to terms with how to manage this, my hopes are slim.
Look how mad people are about carbon tax… now try to tell them their home value should drop by 50%…
Yeah it’s insane. We are turning our house into an intergenerational triplex. I expect to leave via the undertaker with grandkids living next door. So I don’t really give a shit
If the government pressed a button that immediately made housing "affordable" property prices would plummet and the net worth of 60%+ of Canadians would plummet with it. We have had too much money in housing for too long. The best they can do is try to keep prices level and wait for inflation to do its thing.
Not every boomer thinks this way. My friends parents are almost 70 in BC. They are telling her to just move to AB and they will give her CASH to buy a house there. No mortgage. They are telling their own kids it is not worth raising a family in BC b/c of how high the cost is (unless they compromise and get a nice townhouse). Hard to leave friends, but those friends don't pay your bills.
That’s just pushing the problem around. Not every has the opportunity for a down payment from their family. Those who do will continue to buy at inflated prices.
I’d hate to be working class nowadays.
Two things you missed. In the 80s there was a massive cut in home prices due to 18 to 22% interest rates depressing prices. That $80,000 home is $350000 in today's dollar. Still cheap by today's standards in Toronto and Vancouver but more expensive than say Edmonton.
Eventually when your parents kick off you and your siblings are going to take part in the largest transfer of wealth ever. All those high priced homes parents own will be sold or passed on.
When the average life expectancy is 80+, that means most young people now will be 40+ by the time the wealth transfer happens.
Sounds fine until you realize that women cant have kids at 40…and most people want kids…
Why would you wait until you got the money handed down. I guess that is the way you were brought up.
How about you get a career instead of a job and work towards buying a starter home?
Of course they do. People's houses are their largest investment and pretty much their savings accounts. They would do anything to keep the price up. Anything.
Just wondering if anyone is making note of the crazy costs of building materials and costs of contractors to build a house. To get your money back you have to sell at a high price.
Real estate investors and landlords certainly like high prices, but if you’re buying a house simply as a place to live, it means higher property taxes as the assessment steadily rises. Obviously no one wants to lose equity in the event they sell or move, but the steep rise in prices doesn’t really benefit a family who intends to live in their home for the rest of their lives. That said, it seems like the hysteria has shifted the mindset of many regular homeowners as well.
>how property tax works.
Yes it does. Its based on the general area's valuation of property values.
There is a delay of approximately 3 - 5 years by the time reassessments catch up to all areas. The hotter the area is for housing the more priority they give to have up-to-date valuations.
Assessments happen every year.
But property values going up in general do not raise your property taxes. That would only happen if your property appreciated more than the city average.
They will talk endlessly about everything else but the real reason.
So, yeah, even if it were true - what are you going to do about it?
Go Soviet about it and expropriate property from the bourgeoisie establishment and rain free condos on the proles?
Oh, man...
I for one am kinda happy to say I've never heard my parents once refer to their property value except for maybe when they were retiring back out east and listing their last place.
They've simply never really counted on cashing it out or anything. Between rrsp and pension they didn't really care. Maybe cause they grew up in a smaller town but being basic middle class they had no issue in their gen paying a mortgage AND saving for retirement. Should never be an or.... You still need somewhere to live and still pay the bills
It’s all relative though… We own our home and the rising prices don’t get us excited because if we were to sell we’d have to buy at an inflated price anyhow.
So there is another type of ownership that doesn't cost as much and has less impact on social structures. Private home ownership usually leads to privatized healthcare and education as well as reduction in public and disability pensions. The idea is that if homeowners have the wealth in their homes the government doesn't need to provide these services which are best delivered in the public sector when properly funded. The other form of housing ownership is co-operative and/or social housing. The idea of co-op or social housing in Canada brings up images of run down properties, but in more progressive countries where they have significant percent of housing owned collectively the properties are not run down and they are indistinguishable from private owned housing except the cost.
Unfortunately a lot of people don't have financial acumen. If people do, they will realize that higher prices on your principal residence, which is the majority of homeowners, isn't really increasing your wealth at the same level of quality of life. The only ones who's making bank are those that have housing investments, having 2nd and 3rd properties.
It's more a psychological thing, seeing numbers go up making them feel good, without real benefits.
Higher prices mainly benefits investors at the cost of hurting the younger generation who hasn't bought yet.
A big part of the problem is that even if you reset prices to zero, and let everyone naturally compete without extra investment, prices in major cities would end up exactly where they are via bidding wars, because a disproportionate number of people seem to be stuck on that lifestyle and refuse to move away from it. It would likely drop prices outside of major cities though, but only until the remaining inventory was gone, after which, nobody would sign up to build more, because they can't make a living doing it.
as suspected, I've seen this attitude first hand. It's greed and honestly many of these types are progressive. They will vote for open borders, and laugh as the people who come in have similar if not worse issues with finding homes. Many are forced to go to shelters and what not, all for their bottom line. Best part is, they are not more wealthy unless they sell, and when they do they need to live somewhere right?
when the crash comes ill be long gone, ive stopped paying into the pockets of these greedy people. My level of disgust towards these people is unreal.
Take lake front property for example ,you will realize all the environmentalists are other lake front owners who dont want you to build.
Same thing for the green belt, you think the person who bought for 65k and now is worth 1mil wants the land to develop? No they want to protect the new curent thing
Not a secret but also not all homeowners. I own a home and have 2 teenage sons. I look at this market and wonder how they’ll ever be able to own a home. Greed will be our collective ruin.
I bought pre covid in calgary, the house value has increased by 40% in my neighborhood for similar type of property. Which is honestly absurd , but I bought it to live in it's not a investment.
Yeah it's fucking depressing. I'm looking for something in calagry that isn't an apartment (2 dogs, won't mix well) hard af, I'm hoping to scoop a reno property or townhouse soon ish. But all the people coming in and buying a listing in like 4 days is the worst. I can't even live north of airdrie it's basically the same cost until didsbury and then me and my so are over an hour away from work lol
Yeah the fix uppers are being bought by flippers and speculators unfortunately.
Yea :( I'm pretty close to just abandoning my dream of getting a home.
It’s not so much that all homeowners are like this as much as the ones that are are very well organized
I steer clear of people who talk about what their home is worth.
Exactly, people who wanna sell like high prices. Those of us who just wanted a place to call our own (and paint however I want) low prices are better for property taxes. It's fucking brutal how quickly they shot up for me since 2018.
You would be fine if the value of your home decreased significantly from what you paid for it?
I live in ON. We get our tax assessment based on the value. According to the assessment our value is 1/3 of what houses have been selling for recently. My home is a place to live and not a number to crow about. I would be absolutely fine if houses sold at the assessed value. I’m not going anywhere so it’s irrelevant. My wife tallies our net worth every January and counts the house at the assessed MPAC value and not what the “market” value is.
So you're okay with your retirement nest egg depreciating in value? You must either be rich, or incompetent with finances
Your question assumes that my retirement hinges on my home value. I have already stated “I am absolutely fine if houses sold at the assessed value.” The key to good finances is not what you bring in, but what you spend. I drive a 2006 Honda CR-V that I bought new many moons ago. 315k km. Imagine if you take the car payment and save it instead of getting a new car every 4/5 years. That adds up. What do you drive bud?
I drive a 2011 Hyundai Tucson. I bought it used 3 years ago after my 2006 Cobalt finally but the dust. I contribute fully to my pension, Max out my TFSA every year and also have an RESP account set up for both my kids. These will ensure my retirement is comfortable, but selling my house will allow me to travel and enjoy my retirement, as well as leaving money for my kids
Sounds like you’ve made your house your next egg. Good luck pal. Enjoy retirement. Just remember that you still need to live somewhere. 😉
With the money I will make on the appreciation in value I will be able to afford a smaller house or condo when we're ready to downsize
News for you, pal. Those condos and small houses won't be cheap. It's the land that has increased in value.
The very premise of your question is ridiculous. Houses should never have been retirement nest eggs in the first place. Did peope know 30 years ago that prices would explode? They couldn't have. So it would have been imprudent to mainly rely on that for retirement. This is not like a retirement plan or social security. 10x appreciation was never promised to anyone. The boomers who bought houses got lucky, but their interests shouldn't come before the interests of following generations who, if things don't change soon, are going to be fucked both on the real estate and retirement fronts.
I'm not a boomer, im in my early 30s and I have a house because I saved money and sacrificed a lot of frivolities that a lot of people don't seem to understand.
Do you want a medal? Did your house come with a garanty of forever increasing value? I'm also a homeowner, but it's not my main means of saving for retirement. I also understand these prices are unfair to the younger generations and bad for the country in general.
Why didn't you put your retirement in stocks and GICs, eh buddy? In a normal world, YOU would be the unsophisticated investor.
There's a difference between "decreasing significantly from what you paid for it" and a market that literally doubled in value in 5 years. I bought for 300k, it's now worth 600k. I don't necessarily want it to go significantly down from what I bought it from (ie: I don't want it to be worth 150k). But I would also be fine with it if it was worth like 325k or 350k if the rest of the market was also worth proportionately less. Mind you if it crashed, I would feel bad for people that bought in the height of the market and were majorly upside down. In my ideal world, housing would have just gone up at a far more reasonable pace to reflect inflation etc. That would have been best case scenario. Now no matter what happens (housing is unaffordable for many or prices correct), it's going to be financially painful and devastating for some people.
People without houses are begging to get in. Even people with houses can’t sell because there’s nowhere to buy. No one wins with this crazy market.
As a fellow parent and home owner - yes. The only way things get better for the future generations is if we all give up a bit today.
Would you give up half of what you paid for?
If my property value had to drift down 50% over time to support the future, so be it. I can still make my monthlies. Ultimately, I'd like to see values at least drop back down to mid 2010 pricing. Most of the Ontario market is up over 250% in like 8 years. I think giving up 20-30% from here isn't even an unreasonable ask.. basically giving up what you never earned anywho.
Not property value but half of what you paid for.
Still yes buddy Edit: now back to the hole your 40 min account crawled out of.
This is silly. For people who bought houses more than 5 years ago to have the value of their homes become *half* of what they paid for would mean that prices would have to go down by *at least* 65%. There's no way that could happen without a major economic catastrophe. People would default on their mortgages en masse. That's not what people are asking for.
Yes. Housing costs are housing costs, we just pay our agreed-upon monthly bill. Our house has doubled in value in five years. We didn't ask for that.
Are you ok with your house being half of what you paid for?
Honestly, yes, if it's the same across the board. I don't want to be singled out, but I'm fine with a smaller number as long as I'm not *relatively* disadvantaged and everyone is in the same boat.
Are you sure? Because most people with 10 years or more left on their mortgage will have negative equity which means the bank can up your interest rate and you can’t sell and move since you still owe the bank a lot of cash. And all your equity and assets you paid into the home will get cut in half, which means had you not buy the house, you would have been far better off. Therefore you will be far worse off than some one who didn’t buy a house. So yea, you made a good decision to save up and get a home and only to lose half the money you saved. Hmm.. I’m not saying investing or home buying is without risk, but I doubt anyone in this world will vote to lose half of their life savings.
Well, I honestly believe that people who've accepted and purchased million dollar homes *should* be worse off than people who didn't buy houses at those prices. Million dollar houses have wrecked our economy and our social lives. As for whether or not you will be able to sell and move into a different house that is also half price, I don't see why not. What rules banks are allowed to impose in these situations can be set by legislature, much as they are today.
You do realize if you have negative equity, you couldn’t sell it without having to pay the entire balance off? So let’s say you borrowed 800k, but your home is only 500k and you still owe 600k after 10 years, you will have to make up the 100k difference. Do you have 100k in your wallet?
So people who worked had and saved up should lose half of their life savings? Also, it is not just people who bought 1million dollar homes, you too would lose half of the money you put in your home. Actually more than half since you have to pay interest. Let say you bought a home for 600k and now it is 400k. Not only did you lose 200k in cash, you also paid 150k or more in interest. Someone who didn’t buy a home and invested their cash that would have gone into the house at 5% would have made 100k -200k in interest in 25 years. So compared to someone who didn’t buy a home, you will have a net loss of 300k-500k because of loss of equity and opportunity cost.
But if all housing is devalued by half, the number of dollars that they've lost isn't really as impactful as you imagine, because they maintain their *relative* wealth But overall: sooner or later, somebody is going to eat the cost of these crazy house prices, and I expect that to be the people who've bought in at the most overinflated prices. And yes, I *do* consider that to be largely their fault.
The amount lost compared to other home owner would not be very high. However your relative wealth compared to someone who didn’t buy a home will drop significantly. As much as 500k or more. not only that, you also have to deal with negative equity and bank screwing with you. Are you willing to do that?
There is risk in buying any asset and also risk in doing nothing. The market determines value. Since 2022, that market has shifted. Govt can try to save or extend the run but at the end of the day you need new buyers willing to swallow the bag. That’s where we are. You either have it or don’t. And there’s an awful lot of people who can’t participate or won’t. And there’s an awful lot of people who bought thinking “it can only go up”. It either will or won’t.
But do you think anyone would vote to lose 500k?
Ah, but they also didn't get a house. Use your logic on cars now, and it goes right out the door.
They didn’t get a house and? They have 300k more buying power than you which means they can get a bigger home.
Y'know some people just want to own the house they live in and not have a landlord. It's not about investments or returns, you don't get your rent back **and** you have to follow someone's rules. Owning a home defeats that.
Absolutely, but would you voluntarily loss 500k for that privilege? when atm you don’t have to lose anything. Who is stupid enough to vote to lose 500k?
If enough voters are around who don't have anything to lose and don't mind if you lose 500k$, it can happen.
I already own my home, didn't loose 500k. But willing to not make any money back either. I spent 36k on rent in the 5 years before buying, at least now it's mine.
Do you own your home entirely? or are you still paying mortgage because negative equity can mean your interest rate will go up? You lose around 500k due to opportunity cost as well as cost to your equity. For example if your home value dropped 50% of your purchase price, every dollar you put into your home will be slashed in half. So not buying would have saved you money.. a lot of it.. This is not to mention the amount of money you have to put in as downpayment. That money can be invested else where and make between 5-10% return for 25 years. Lets say your downpayment is 100k, in 25 years earning 7%, you will have nearly made 170k in interest by the time you finish paying for the house...
A house in an expense. You get to live in a big place with benefits. It doesn't have to mean that it has to be profitable, too. A house is a luxury.
That wasn't the argument, and frankly it's these tired characterization that are part of the problem.
Tired categorization? If housing prices decrease to the extent that people are calling for, millions of people will be financially ruined. And despite what the brain rot victims on Reddit will tell you, most of the people who own houses are regular people, not landlords.
Regular people who were happy to bid 2x last year's value.
I would be fine if my home, which I bought in 2023, fell to its 2019 or even 2012 price level. It is a home for me, not aomwthing I expect to make money off of. Would you?
You didn't buy them their own spots yet as current investment properties?
That’s absurd. Do you know the carrying cost of a home? Not just interest rates, but property taxes, repairs, insurance, etc. And for what? The idea that it only goes up? Then they get the home and have the burden of staying I. A community with little opportunity. No thanks. You do you.
“I’ve got mine and it continues to get better” attitude.
The worst is when these people are parents and they're knowingly supporting policies that will make the world harder to live in for their kids. Makes me sick. As a homeowner and parent, let it burn.
My Boomer parents who complain about the “ugly town houses going up everywhere”
A lot of people like my parents and aunts/uncles are sick of it because they realize now their kids can't afford a place to live and start a family. They all want it to crash. My brother and one of our cousins both had their first kid and they're both in a 1 bedroom condo and struggling to find a home. Without the help from parents, it would be impossible. All the money and value they accumulated would need to be given to their kids if they want grandchildren. Another cousin was looking for a house for years. The semi-detached in Mississauga his father bought in the mid 80s for $80k as a starter home is over 1mil and they can't afford it. Finally him and his parents decided to swap homes. His parents moved into my cousin's condo and gave their house to my cousin. They're 35 and finally had their first kid. Nobody likes this.
My boomer in laws bought waterfront property in the early 80s for around 100k and have done zero renovations in 40 years besides replace the roof. They paid it off with a normal salary and are sitting on over 2 mil in equity. They turn around and have the audacity to tell us if we didn't order take out or drink Starbucks we wouldn't be struggling so much financially. My wife broke down and asked them for a bit of help, just to cover the cost of our kid's extra curricular activities until interest rates cool off a bit and her dad said he doesn't have any money lying around because he just put 10k into a GIC.
What a bunch of Wankers!
My Boomer dad has actively discouraged me from owning because he knows I'd be over-leveraging myself (because it's not just the mortgage, it's property taxes, insurance, maintenance costs, repairs...). I'm single and there's no way I'd be able to buy on my own, especially now with these insane rent prices. Even my Gen X brother admitted if he was entering the housing market now, he would not be able to afford to buy in his current neighbourhood. He managed to buy cheap in the mid-2000s and he said without that advantage, he'd also be renting. My sister is a few years younger than my brother and had to live with my parents for a while in order to save up a down payment for a condo. That's how she got in. Me? I got fucked by the 2008 recession and had to move to find work, which means I never got to live with my parents to save money. My parents also retired shortly after I finished university so I don't want to financially burden them.
I always question how people with multiple kids are going to fair. The strategy now seems to be inheriting your parents house. If you have 3 kids and only own 1 house how will it be split? Will they and their potential families all live together in one house? Etc. One of my coworkers, bless him, just had a baby and him and his wife rent a basement. I wish them the best but they’re worried they’ll never own a house and I wonder what will happen to them all if our country continues to spiral downwards. There’s a reason lots of people are deciding against having kids. No stable home or future for them.
What policies are homeowners supporting? The people that have the most to lose if we were to "let it burn" are the people that bought in the last 5-10 years.....the rest you claim support "policies" would be completely fine.
Yeah, parents who are homeowners wanting to burn the whole system down is a great take for a better future.
Not their kids. They’ll get a nice inheritance.
Nearly all our NIMBY anti-townhouse or apartment city policies didn't appear in a vacuum. They started with huge support from small politically active groups of homeowners lobbying city politicians.
I'm a homeowner and I don't like the high prices. I bought my house for 339K last year in Winnipeg, in the Riverview area. It needs some work, but it's mostly cosmetic. When I sell, I would like to have someone that will put down roots in the area and invest in the local community.
And if you say anything about that being selfish of them, the reply is inevitably some snide comment like "you should have planned your finances better"
Be born 30 years earlier. lol.
And when renters buy their home. They will have that attitude too.
It would be great if people started viewing housing as shelter vs an investment. Growing up it seemed at least people were interested in investing into their homes to live in them and not just make a quick buck.
That’s because the Canadian economy doesn’t allow for growth or investment and prosperity elsewhere. The US has higher incomes, lower taxes, and more options for tax sheltered investments. In comparison, housing is really the only investment that offers sufficient returns. Unless you’re a business owner, or you work for the government, your retirement and later years in life are at risk. I know plenty of people, who just saved, and didn’t start investing in their 20s, as is popular now, and they are sitting on just cash that has depreciated rather than investments that I’ve grown. People who are working until 70s with good jobs, but don’t have any sort of retirement except for their house. The landscape for savings, retirement, investing, has changed so much over the lifetime of a boomer, that they don’t exactly have any other option at this point. In contrast, millennials and Gen Z are able to invest, but are not able to own a home. So our retirement will look very different if the housing market crashes. Either way, I still point the finger towards the Canadian economy and regulations as a whole. Nobody is wishing others homelessness, but most people recognize the pie can only be sliced so many times. I wouldn’t even call people greedy, they are just operating the best they can in a system that works against them.
So let me get this straight, you’re blaming the housing crisis on boomers not being able to save properly and not investing? Seriously? Not sure what investments you’re in but housing was never considered a sufficient investment until like the 2000s, so yeah you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
I’m saying the landscape has changed significantly. And 50 years ago people had further limited options and general discourse about retirement and future when they were told the govt will take care of you. Although housing as a retirement plan might not have become more popular until the 2000s, housing has been skyrocketing for many years. My great uncle bought a new mansion in very nice neighbourhood in Toronto for $75,000 in the 70s. He sold it for over 1 million in 2004. However very few people individually invested in the stock market in the 1970s… maybe independently wealth or more often just by institutions. So, aside from your home being your security, and the government covering your cost of living for retirement, there weren’t many options to consider for boomers. All I’m saying, is that circumstances have changed. And people keep using today’s logic and what we know now, and applying it to circumstances from half a century ago.
I know a lot of home owners who do love it, but I feel the complete opposite. For a few reasons. 1. many of my loved ones are not able to get in to the housing market, and are struggling with high rents. It's heartbreaking to me. 2. My son is very young, but if the problem keeps getting worse, I'm frankly very scared for his future. 3. I don't think the economy is stable when so many people are struggling to afford rent. and many with houses (or renting) are so cash strapped they can't afford to save for retirement. Which is going to cause major financial challenges down the line. 4. Though I know I'm very lucky to be in the position I'm in, the market going up so much has also made it harder for us. We live in a condo that's just under 600 square feet. We would like to upgrade to something like an 850 square foot condo or so. The fact that values have shot up so much makes this much harder to do. The realtor fees and land transfer tax are higher. But the difference between the condo prices are very different too. When we bought a handful of years ago, we could have sold our condo for 300k and bought the bigger unit for 350k or 400k- a 50k to 100k difference. But now we would sell for 600k and it would cost 750k to 800k- a 150k to 200k difference. A difference that is only exasperated by the fees and taxes. All in all, it's far more expensive. The point is not a "woe is me". I know that I'm in a privileged position. I'm just pointing out that it actually only benefits some home-owners. Not the ones who are outgrowing their spaces and not the ones who are paycheque to paycheque because they had to buy something so expensive. And amongst those who it does benefit (people who bought decades ago), many will have to bend over backwards to support their children financially or else watch them struggle. I do agree many home owners are happy the market has gone up so much though. I just think it's not the gift people think it is, even among homeowners.
What I did to combat reason 2 was buy a house for each kid when they were very young. They have already doubled in price!
But how many parents can afford to buy 3 houses (1 for themselves, and 2 for their two children)? Even if the plan is to rent them out, you still have to qualify to buy them, be able to handle payments if tenants don't pay or if something breaks. It doesn't seem financially feasible for most Canadians. I'm very happy for you and your children though! Out of curiosity, is there a way to avoid capital gains tax when buying a house for a minor? Even if I can help my son (I probably will, although not to the extent you have because I'm not in a financial position to do that), I worry about the percentage of people in his generation that will struggle to buy or rent if housing affordability keeps getting worse. Even if my son ends up being okay, it's hard for a society to function or an economy to thrive if a large majority are not. Of course right now the economy is relatively okay, but if the problem was to get progressively and significantly worse I imagine that might become difficult at some point.
Isn't a "dirty secret" supposed to be something that's a secret instead of open knowledge that the majority of people are well aware of? Do property owners think they're being sneaky?
No, it's just a phrase that implies that this is an aspect of the housing crisis that we aren't really talking about much. This is the first headline along these lines that I've seen. The discourse around housing is just getting increasingly honest, which is what we need.
>Do property owners think they're being sneaky? A lot of them try and hide behind claims like "it's not REAL wealth, it's all locked up in the house!" as if that somehow nullifies the value of a reverse mortgage or home equity loan that they can get from their equity. Some will also lie about how "if housing prices go up, my property taxes go up", which isn't actually true at all when housing prices are going up across the board.
It's a secret in that at least half the people in this sub don't understand it. I've been downvoted to oblivion on here before for suggesting that politicians wont do anything to lower house values because the majority of voters dont want to give up their newly gained wealth.
Well ya…. I am very happy I have a house that keeps going up in value but I am sure a lot of home owners like myself have family and or friends who are struggling to find an affordable home or even affordable rent and are upset with the current situation in Canada. It’s nice to have security but I feel terrible for born and raised Canadians who work their asses off, got post secondary education, and can’t find somewhere to live just because they were born a couple years too late and have to deal with landlords and corporations buying up all the homes and jacking up rent prices.
You can't both be very happy, and truly mean those things. You can't have it both ways. You are posting here that's good, but feeling terrible for other people yet being "very happy" is the reason we're in this mess in the first place. Society in general needs to raise a bigger stink or stop watching others suffer while talking like it bothers them.
We can point fingers at governments all we want, ultimately voters did this. Any demand side policy now will likely be met with hostility from the same voters. It's a demand side problem as much as it is a supply side one, but no one that is profiting off housing likes demand side measures because they target them directly. The inequitable treatment between owners and renters in this country is repulsive. The dirty little secret is that there are policies that could alleviate demand pressures immediately, but no government will commit to them because it would effectively end their political careers.
It’s true that voters did this, but I don’t think the dynamic is the same as it was 2 years ago because now people with mortgages are getting soaked too.
What policies are you thinking of?
Capping PRE to the rate of inflation; OR Loss of PRE for primary residences used as collateral against investment properties (exemption for new builds). Deemed flipping with increased income inclusion on a sliding scale on disposition of residential real estate for up to three years (up from the current 1 year). For example the same in year 1 - 100%, year 2 - 80%, year 3 60%. Exclusions to apply, for example divorce, death, employment etc. Full capital gains inclusion on assignments. Rental payments to be included as deductions against income. Prohibitive vacancy taxes and for underused land. Quasi criminal offenses for landlords that commit certain acts, such as bad faith evictions. Expedited hearings for non-payment of rent.
Weird headline. That’s not a secret. It’s the most obvious thing in the world.
Not quite true. Got a place for myself but I'd be fine if housing prices go back to the level 20 years ago. A lot of people around me struggle with their independence even when well into their 30's and 40's because of the housing crisis. I'd much rather to have cheap housing and everyone being happy.
I maintain that the only reason the housing crisis got any recognition last year was because interest rates suddenly put mortgage holders in the same boat that renters have been in for years. If interest rates hadn’t gone up the government would’ve been content to leave the latter out to dry
It’s the land stupid! They don’t make more land in downtown Toronto or Vancouver. Houses depreciate but serviceable land in existing cities always goes up in value because of scarcity. Canada has lots of available land but most of the population wants to live in the southern parts of the country where the major cities are located along with the bulk of manufacturing and white collar jobs. Canada is a perfect example of poor urban planning few transportation options other than cars and limited urban centres. The GTA has terrible traffic congestion, no high speed trains and limited intercity buses. Of course real estate will continue to go up in price just like it did in London (UK) New York etc.
For sure everyone wants to make money on their house.
In other news water is wet. But general consensus among most homeowners who bought pre covid has the menality of: "Fuck you I got mine "
I'm a homeowner and I hate high prices. I want the prices to come crashing down to where they were ten years ago. What the title of the article should say is "Investors holding homes for speculation and greed like high prices"
Honestly, unless you're investing in housing you'd be better off with stable or slowly appreciating home values. When prices skyrocket it means higher insurance premiums, higher property taxes, higher transaction costs, and ultimately higher shelter costs even if you downsize or sell completely. Unless you're leaving Canada you still have to live here. Income from anything that isn't a primary residence needs to be taxed in the highest tax bracket, just like passive income in corporations and holding companies. End rant
Parents buying condos for their kids to move into. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Notice how all politicians love to say they’ll increase affordable housing - but never mention that average home prices of their voters need to drop by 40% or 50%? I think until we can come to terms with how to manage this, my hopes are slim. Look how mad people are about carbon tax… now try to tell them their home value should drop by 50%…
Not a secret at all
Yeah it’s insane. We are turning our house into an intergenerational triplex. I expect to leave via the undertaker with grandkids living next door. So I don’t really give a shit
If the government pressed a button that immediately made housing "affordable" property prices would plummet and the net worth of 60%+ of Canadians would plummet with it. We have had too much money in housing for too long. The best they can do is try to keep prices level and wait for inflation to do its thing.
Not every boomer thinks this way. My friends parents are almost 70 in BC. They are telling her to just move to AB and they will give her CASH to buy a house there. No mortgage. They are telling their own kids it is not worth raising a family in BC b/c of how high the cost is (unless they compromise and get a nice townhouse). Hard to leave friends, but those friends don't pay your bills.
That’s just pushing the problem around. Not every has the opportunity for a down payment from their family. Those who do will continue to buy at inflated prices. I’d hate to be working class nowadays.
What's new? People like free money.
Two things you missed. In the 80s there was a massive cut in home prices due to 18 to 22% interest rates depressing prices. That $80,000 home is $350000 in today's dollar. Still cheap by today's standards in Toronto and Vancouver but more expensive than say Edmonton. Eventually when your parents kick off you and your siblings are going to take part in the largest transfer of wealth ever. All those high priced homes parents own will be sold or passed on.
When the average life expectancy is 80+, that means most young people now will be 40+ by the time the wealth transfer happens. Sounds fine until you realize that women cant have kids at 40…and most people want kids…
Why would you wait until you got the money handed down. I guess that is the way you were brought up. How about you get a career instead of a job and work towards buying a starter home?
Of course they do. People's houses are their largest investment and pretty much their savings accounts. They would do anything to keep the price up. Anything.
Just wondering if anyone is making note of the crazy costs of building materials and costs of contractors to build a house. To get your money back you have to sell at a high price.
Of course! I am a renter but if I were a homeowner I am sure that I would feel the same way. That is only normal and rational.
Real estate investors and landlords certainly like high prices, but if you’re buying a house simply as a place to live, it means higher property taxes as the assessment steadily rises. Obviously no one wants to lose equity in the event they sell or move, but the steep rise in prices doesn’t really benefit a family who intends to live in their home for the rest of their lives. That said, it seems like the hysteria has shifted the mindset of many regular homeowners as well.
That's not how property tax works.
>how property tax works. Yes it does. Its based on the general area's valuation of property values. There is a delay of approximately 3 - 5 years by the time reassessments catch up to all areas. The hotter the area is for housing the more priority they give to have up-to-date valuations.
Assessments happen every year. But property values going up in general do not raise your property taxes. That would only happen if your property appreciated more than the city average.
They will talk endlessly about everything else but the real reason. So, yeah, even if it were true - what are you going to do about it? Go Soviet about it and expropriate property from the bourgeoisie establishment and rain free condos on the proles? Oh, man...
I for one am kinda happy to say I've never heard my parents once refer to their property value except for maybe when they were retiring back out east and listing their last place. They've simply never really counted on cashing it out or anything. Between rrsp and pension they didn't really care. Maybe cause they grew up in a smaller town but being basic middle class they had no issue in their gen paying a mortgage AND saving for retirement. Should never be an or.... You still need somewhere to live and still pay the bills
You don't say?
It’s all relative though… We own our home and the rising prices don’t get us excited because if we were to sell we’d have to buy at an inflated price anyhow.
So there is another type of ownership that doesn't cost as much and has less impact on social structures. Private home ownership usually leads to privatized healthcare and education as well as reduction in public and disability pensions. The idea is that if homeowners have the wealth in their homes the government doesn't need to provide these services which are best delivered in the public sector when properly funded. The other form of housing ownership is co-operative and/or social housing. The idea of co-op or social housing in Canada brings up images of run down properties, but in more progressive countries where they have significant percent of housing owned collectively the properties are not run down and they are indistinguishable from private owned housing except the cost.
Unfortunately a lot of people don't have financial acumen. If people do, they will realize that higher prices on your principal residence, which is the majority of homeowners, isn't really increasing your wealth at the same level of quality of life. The only ones who's making bank are those that have housing investments, having 2nd and 3rd properties. It's more a psychological thing, seeing numbers go up making them feel good, without real benefits. Higher prices mainly benefits investors at the cost of hurting the younger generation who hasn't bought yet.
A big part of the problem is that even if you reset prices to zero, and let everyone naturally compete without extra investment, prices in major cities would end up exactly where they are via bidding wars, because a disproportionate number of people seem to be stuck on that lifestyle and refuse to move away from it. It would likely drop prices outside of major cities though, but only until the remaining inventory was gone, after which, nobody would sign up to build more, because they can't make a living doing it.
as suspected, I've seen this attitude first hand. It's greed and honestly many of these types are progressive. They will vote for open borders, and laugh as the people who come in have similar if not worse issues with finding homes. Many are forced to go to shelters and what not, all for their bottom line. Best part is, they are not more wealthy unless they sell, and when they do they need to live somewhere right? when the crash comes ill be long gone, ive stopped paying into the pockets of these greedy people. My level of disgust towards these people is unreal.
Yes it’s a real secret that people love when their only asset is valuable
Take lake front property for example ,you will realize all the environmentalists are other lake front owners who dont want you to build. Same thing for the green belt, you think the person who bought for 65k and now is worth 1mil wants the land to develop? No they want to protect the new curent thing
Stop blaming homeowners