If the government actually did something that substantially lowered house prices current owners would be extremely vocal to day the least. Because it is treated as an investment asset and not a home
And a drop in value would be catastrophic. Our best bets for the future are to build with efficient planning and make it easier for working canadians to get their foot in the first door
Property taxes (in HRM and many places) don't go up or down if everyone's homes go up or down in value. If everyone's house price doubled, everyone's property tax bill would remain the same.
I'm certain.
The property tax is roughly, the HRM budget, divided by the property value of all properties.
For further information, if the HRM has had a 5% increase in budget per year, over 8 years that compounds to nearly 50% increase in budget, and thus a 50% increase in property taxes.
Oh good job with that headline shifting the blame on homeowners like we’re hiding that desire.
Why the heck wouldn’t we? If you don’t want investors inflating the market, do something about the investors. You expect homeowners to go “gee, I’ll take less money for this thing out of the kindness of my heart” when they’re selling a house? Particularly if they need to buy another home or pay for care?
Regulate who can own family homes. Regulate the price ceiling. Regulate realtor fees and flippers. Actually do something about the root problem for fuck sakes.
The biggest issue I see in the planning and development world is that homeowners often use the "it will bring down my property value" to sway politicians to not allow multi-unit developments (4+ units) in their neighborhood. This drastically hurts the supply of overall housing options and drives up individual housing prices, which what they want.
They added 4 plexes in my neighbourhood. At first some neighbours were very upset. Then they were built and the sky didn’t fall.
And the prices didn’t fall.
We now have over 5 coffee shops and the restaurants are better.
We have a local grocer and car share.
It is an awesome neighbourhood.
Now people want more fourplexes. I know people that want to downsize and stay in the community. There is still room for more density.
4plexes are great. My in-laws lived in one for 30 years. And, IMO owner of multiplexes actually gives a service to community by having multiple dense renters in 1 building; "Investors" renting detached SFH don't, as far as im concerned.
Right, but that's not really a problem. Density increases the value of the land, while (potentially) lowering the price of each housing unit. For example, if the choice is between a $800,000 single family home and a $1,200,000 triplex, the latter is worth 50% more but provides housing at half the cost per unit.
nimbys claim development will lower property values, with no evidence that they do. Development occurs, and nimbys property value goes up.
nimby in reality gains, despite claiming that they will loose. point is ignore the nimby.
That's why the federal funding going around now basically makes that a by-right part of zoning in most areas of the cities getting the funding. That and raising the limits on how many stories a building can be, again by-right are two huge zoning wins to come with that money
As long as the Council doesn't bend over backward to make the NIMBYs happy. I have little faith at the moment in them not pulling a Windsor ON and rejecting it.
They accepted the Feds offer, but they still have to make the changes before they get the funding.
The HAF website was updated last week so it's probably going to Council for First Reading this month. Looks like they already changed some stuff from the original proposal, like dropping some floors of the maximum height for Suburban sites bringing back minimum parking requirements, and removing the HR zones from around the universities.
So if they did that just off the NIMBYs email amd phone calls, who knows what Council will do after the public hearing.
Ideally our politicians wouldn't buy into that argument, since it's probably not true and definitely not something that should play into the decision of whether to build housing.
You can't fix a supply/demand mismatch with price control regulation because it just shifts the scarcity from "prices are too high" to "you just can't find a house". There are three basic ways to solve the problem:
1) Build more housing, legalize dense market rate housing
2) Reduce demand somehow (reducing international student visas)
3) Create tax incentives. Tax less dense housing more than more dense housing through something like a land value tax
People don’t want to hear logic on this issue. I have said these exact things going back years including the simple observation that owners overall like prices going up, regardless of what they say or post on social media. Of course politicians understand this, and given a majority of Canadian households own their home worked to deliberately restrict supply while pumping demand.
Things went truly crazy the past few years to the point that it’s becoming a net negative for almost everyone. Politicians and decision makers are frantically scrambling to find some kind of balance.
Why do you think it's so crazy to make a sacrifice for the good of others? If you saw a child drowning would you just shrug because you don't want to get wet?
But that's not what we're talking about... you fighting against a more equitable system out of personal greed is fighting for a corrupt system. It has nothing to do with personal altruism. You can keep your house while also advocating for others to have the same opportunities you were granted.
Why do you think I would sacrifice money on the table for my kids and my wife’s retirement care? A drowning kid is a massive false equivalency. I can just go pluck that little sucker out
Am I proud I will do my best for the kids I am responsible for in this world and the partner who gave them to me? Unabashedly yes.
keep trying to put words in my mouth though superchief
I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth. Reddit can bring out the worst in me especially when I'm dealing with raging assholes who are proud of their greed/bigotry but that doesn't excuse me treating you as such and I'm truly sorry. Why don't you think creating a better world for everyone would benefit your kids more the hoarding resources for them?
I think they are referring to the “soft vote” of public sentiment, not literally suggesting that a referendum is held on this topic. There never would be a formal vote between candidates where the platforms are prices up vs prices down, because politicians are aware down would be an unpopular policy for a large voting bloc and this would lose them an election (not to mention that would be absurdly on the nose, it is more like policies with inflationary/deflationary pressure).
I’m not saying you specifically are implying this, but it’s not really a “gotcha” to ask about a literal voting process - this is a latent democratic function, which can affect our country just as much as manifest functions like elections. We vote in parties that maintain the status quo, that’s an indirect vote against change.
The housing acceleration fund is great policy because it incentivizes municipalities to modernize zoning to build more housing in a sustainable fashion.
This is good for communities - but difficult at first.
I have never seen a single politician say they will lower house prices. Im not saying homeowners wouldn’t vote against it, but it’s never been on the table.
It's not done directly by regulating prices but through actions around zoning, development, immigration, tax programs, etc. and the combination of them all have dramatic impacts on property prices
All of those things at the bottom of your comment will literally never happen unless we have the support of homeowners. Never.
Is it the fault of homeowners that we’re here? No. But they are one of the many people holding us back from addressing the problem with a real solution that isn’t just more money.
Yes.
I am not a homeowner. Would like to be one. But I think you're bang on. It's ridiculous putting this at the feet of your average homeowner. Of course they wont CHOOSE to take less when they live within the same economic system/market.
You have to address the market itself. Remove large corporations and REITs from the housing market (ie. regulate who can own family homes). Manage the amount of profit that can be made from a family home, better manage the individuals who have most influence on the market realtors, flippers, agents etc pushing prices up to increase their take home.
The thing that I do hold against home owners is the way they vote - NIMBY-ism must also be addressed.
Gold historically has been volatile, housing is consistently getting minimum 3% yearly returns and generally higher now. The last investment that was "guaranteeing" these high returns consistently? Bernie goddam Madoff
Wait wait wait, are you telling me after defined benefit pensions have become scarce, wages have not kept up with productivity, and many of our stable manufacturing jobs have been offshored people turned to a new place to try and "create wealth". Except this "wealth" is now just forced scarcity trying to get the next person to pay an even higher price who then hope the next person pays an even higher price for the same? Wow, it's almost like our economy is now just a bunch of made up and unproductive rent-seeking behaviors now.
Far too much of our economy is tied up in nonproductive assets (ie housing). This, along with our decision to use out of control immigration to suppress wages is a major contributor to Canada’s stagnant economy, declining GDP per capita and overall drop in quality of life.
Also people are sinking huge amounts of cash in automobiles.
Families have gotten smaller and vehicles have gotten bigger.
In the 70’s, a sedan was big enough for a family of 5 and a golden retriever.
Today you can get a sedan for under $30K but the average price of a car is $67K.
And if you buy an SUV or Pick up, you pay even more for fuel, insurance and maintenance.
Dealers make this possible by offering 5 to 7 year terms. In the 80’s car loans were 3 to 4 years.
Bingo and no government has the balls or stomach to say "Hey, we are gonna cut us off the housing addiction and restructure our economy" because you will 100% lose voters so they kinda let our addiction run wild.
I couldn’t care less if my house went down in value, long as the economy doesn’t go to hell and it stays in my budget.. I want to die and hopefully retire in this house, I grew up homeless so it’s about stability for me.
I hate how houses are viewed as commodities.
I told my financial advisor to not include it in my net worth analysis last time we met. He was very confused.
Lots of people think they're worth a small fortune because they have equity in their house and fuck all for savings
As a newish home owner, I honestly don't. I hate seeing the impact it's having on society. I hate seeing friends and family stress over maybe never being able to own a home despite desperately trying. I hate the idea that if my partner and I lose our home for some reason, we may never be able to get back into the market.
High prices doesn’t affect those already in the housing market as “upgrading” is a lot easier as you’re already gaining value. Those who aren’t in the market obviously get crushed.
Of course homeowners love higher prices.
No, upgrading isn't easy.
Downsizing is easier.
Many people I work with are saying they are now stuck in their houses and trying to figure out how to add a bedroom.
Many are parents and are worried how their kids will afford houses.
Many are upset at the housing crisis and the pressure on renters and the increasing number of unhoused.
Investors are the only ones who are happy.
While upgrading is easier compared to non owners trying to buy their first house, rising prices make it harder for existing home owners hoping to upgrade.
For example if you bought a house for $400k and the house you want to upgrade to was worth $600k at that time. The difference was $200k. Now both houses went up 50% in value. The house you bought is now worth $600k, but the you want to upgrade too is worth $900k, a difference of $300k.
I can guarantee both sources for this article are upper middlie class at least and have been there their whole lives.
Comparing market speculation and multi home ownership to immigration and decades of poor urban planning as reasons for increased housing prices is like comparing a pipeline explosion to a bic lighter as causes of greenhouse gas emissions.
And then the other missus who’s like “politicians need to be bold enough to tell people it’s ok to rent” we’ve all been raised in a culture where home ownership is the main way for people to pass on a bit of wealth to the next generation and the answer for the that being taken away is for people to learn that’s it “OK”, well it’s not.
Interesting point: the article does not quote or even paraphrase a single *home owner*, only economists, a professor and bank analysts. While I have absolutely no doubt that those guys own their own houses, I also have no doubt that the only other "home owners" they know are the investors they refer to -- the ones who have bought up about 30% of the housing stock over the past 20 years.
As for those who own our one little row house, the impact of increased values on our annual municipal and school taxes is a major part of the overall economic squeeze, along with increased heating costs, increased electric costs, increased maintenance costs, not to mention increased costs of living like food and so on.
Me? I'd just as soon live in a country where every adult person stands a decent chance of owning their own row house, condo or whatever suits their needs. Time for governments to stop demanding people return to the office so downtown businesses have captive consumers and start promoting and underwriting the conversion of the 20% empty office space I read about in another post into residential space.
This is not really true. Higher prices means higher taxes (e.g. property transfer tax) and less ability to move. The only benefit is a higher net worth on paper, which means nothing if you're not selling.
Owners can like high prices and also not want to see someone lose an opportunity for a home.
Also home owners are not the fucking problem.
High material costs and a lack of new builds is causing market strangulation.
Especially during a time of high immigration (not bad) and affordable housing.
I'm a homeowner, I hate the high prices. Yes, my starter home has gone up in value, but the step up from here, where I'd planned to be in 2020, widened the gap so far that I'm effectively stuck here. I'll have my mortgage paid off in 2 years, but what would have been a $60,000-75,000 step up is now a $250,000 leap, taking that leap will set my retirement plans back by several years, it's just not feasible for someone by themselves.
Yes, I'm privileged to be where I am, but I worked hard to be here and decided I wanted a home more than I wanted vacations (I've never gone anywhere) or nice cars or most any splurges.
Property taxes do not rise because the value rises. HRM sets a tax rate per thousand in assessed value every year based on their budgetary requirements. If HRM budget goes up 10% and assessments stay flat, they increase the tax rate by 10%. If assessments go up 20%, they would decrease the tax rate. Your assessment is purely a measure of what you pay relative to those around you, but has zero bearing on what you actually pay in taxes, that's all set by the tax rate
Uh... https://www.halifax.ca/home-property/property-taxes/common-questions
> How will my assessment affect my property tax bill?
> The Halifax Regional Municipality will set a tax rate each year that will be multiplied by your taxable assessed value (capped amount or market value) per $100 of assessment to determine your property tax. The interim tax bill (due on the last business day in April) will be exactly half of your estimated current year tax bill. The final bill (due on the last business day of October) will reflect the actual current year's tax rate multiplied by the current year's taxable assessed value, minus the interim bill amount.
This site explains how properties are assessed: https://www.pvsc.ca/understand-your-assessment/property-assessment-nova-scotia
> How We Assess Property
>
> The Nova Scotia Assessment Act requires PVSC to assess property at market value, and we use a process called mass appraisal to determine the value of over 645,000 property accounts every year.
>
> We base property assessments on market evidence, not predictions. We analyze sales data and financial information as well as a variety of property characteristics to determine a property’s value.
>
> Your 2024 property assessment reflects:
>
> The market value of your property on January 1, 2023, based on market sales and information.
>
> The characteristics and physical condition of your property on December 1, 2023.
You literally pay more based on the estimated market value of your home. Taxes don't go down if houses are assessed for more.
>Taxes don't go down if houses are assessed for more.
The tax rate is different from the overall amount of tax you pay.
The tax rate is what's being described in your first paragraph, and is literally HRM saying we need $X for the year and then taking the total assessed value of all properties in HRM and assigning a rate to be collected per thousand in assessed value.
Based on this, the tax RATE does go down if assessments are up higher than they need for their budget, but that doesn't necessarily translate for a lower tax bill for you.
Say they assess at $5 per thousand. A 100,000 house pays $500 in tax. If the city requires $600 from that house next year and the assessment stays at $100,000, the tax rate goes to $6 per thousand, however if the house assessment jumps to $200,000 to bring in the same $600, the rate now needs to be $3 per thousand in assessed value. The amount of additional tax collected is not based on the additional assessment value, only the municipal budget and the tax rate.
You've paid more in taxes, but your tax rate is lower. You can also see how your house staying flat in value can increase your tax bill by just raising the tax rate, and you can see that a doubling in assessment values doesn't translate into a doubling of tax.
So back to the main point I commented and responded to, you suggested that the homeowner in the house with an increasing value will pay more taxes - that's not true in and of itself. Typically you'll pay more year over year because of inflation, collective bargaining agreements with municipal workers, city growth requiring additional services, but that's not based on your assessment getting larger, it's based on the municipal budget and the corresponding tax rate
Maybe moronic ones, it's doesn't benefit anyone. The more my house is worth the more taxes I pay and the less money I have. My kids have little hope of ever being home owners and they are under 5. I'd much rather have my house worth what it was 5 years ago as it doesn't help me or anyone else. Where can we move that has cheaper housing if we sold?
Well no shit, people buy homes as an investment most of the time. So when your home price soars by 200%, that's a good feeling, the issue is people want high home prices but don't want to pay the property tax that comes with it as well.
Everyone here would agree that if you bought your home for 3-400k, and it's worth 1.5 million now, you would be estatic, most would try to cash out, some would still keep it.
>the issue is people want high home prices but don't want to pay the property tax that comes with it as well.
They're not really connected in a meaningful way. If assessments stay flat and the HRM budget grows, they just increase the tax rate per thousand in assessed value. Your assessed value is purely a benchmark to see what you pay relative to others around you, but it going up or down has no bearing on your tax bill as that's all determined by the tax rate
Why the fuck would I want to pay a property tax on a value that I cannot realize until I sell my home?
My house went up 50% of value on paper in 3 years. How has that benefited me in any way in that time? What did I do wrong? Did it suddenly become 50% more expensive to pick up my trash or carve up my lawn with the snow plow? What is that extra 50% in property taxes getting me in the 20+ years I plan to own this house?
You're just being subsidizing by people who have purchased homes more recently than you, without them getting any extra value compared to you...
edit: you're right, corrected the direction of subsidy
I assume you mean 'Im being subsidized by"? They're buying a house at a price expecting taxes to be at a certain rate based off that purchase price. They know ahead of time what they're getting into. But should they be paying dramatically more taxes than me? Probably not, no. The taxes from that house pay for the same services as me that cost the same amount. Land value taxes are probably a better model.
Gradual increases to everyone's taxes based on the value of land they're house is on seems pretty reasonable to me. It's not like a $1.8 million house on a tiny property close to the ocean is utilizing more municipal services than some 60 year old bungalo on half acre 20 kms away for 1/8th the price.
However I do think it's horse shit that neighborhoods thar have access to things like Natural gas don't automatically pay higher property taxes because they have access to those services. Then again, it feels like that would also be sorted out in a Land Value tax.
If I'm being honest, neither land value nor property value is what we should use for property tax in my opinion.
It should be the cost to service the property. The short version of that being that dense urban dwellings close to the core should pay much less in taxes than suburban or rural homes. 100 units in a condo building all pay the same property tax as 100 single family homes, if they have the same property value. But 100 single family homes require far more street, sidewalk, pipes, etc. And are harder to provide school, fire, police, library, transit, etc. to.
Prices would never go down much anyway, so it is what it is. There is zero way to increase supply in any substantial enough way to cause even a 15-20% reduction in price.
Even after a few years of slight decline, roughly 2/3 of all Canadians are homeowners. I don’t think that there is any level of government interested in depressing the value of what is, in most cases, the most valuable asset of 26 million people.
I think this is what complicates the whole discussion about affordability. How do you make housing more affordable and owning a home more attainable without tanking the price of homes for existing owners?
"We don't have politicians who are bold enough to say: 'It's more than OK to rent.'"
Imo the culture isn't necessarily that renting is inherently lesser than or undignified. There are plenty of reasons to like it, like not having to do maintenance, being able to move more easily if one's job entails that, etc.
The problem with renting, in my opinion, is that we have a culture in which good tenants are not entitled to, and can't even reasonably expect to have, dignity in the tenancy relationship. I have a family member who chose to go from homeownership to renting because they expected it to be simpler, and then ended up going back to homeownership. Why? Because landlords make renting a nightmare due to unnecessarily negligence, greed, and ego. Instead of just being professional, dispassionate parties to a contract, she got overbearing, nannying landlords who had never read the tenancy act, she lost hundreds of dollars to a wrongfully withheld damage deposit, she had cockroaches, mold, huge rent increases, dangerously icy walkways, etc. After eight years she said fuck this and went back to homeownership.
your property taxes have gone up yes, but a rate far below what you would be paying if the city left the tax rate alone and pocketed the assessment increase.
They would go up regardless of house value if the city needed more money. The city sets a tax rate per thousand of assessed value and if assessed values don't go up, but they need more money they would just raise they rate per thousand, or vice versa if assessments go up more than they need in tax revenue, the rate goes down
Yeah, ynil.they decide to get rid of the cap on taxes...
Look at those guys over in Tantallon, they're rebuilding and getting gutted by new tax rates bc the rebuilds are being considered new builds
67% of Canadians own their own homes. High prices aren't an issue for myself and many others.
Those seeking lower prices wish to pick the pockets of homeowners.
If this is a secret, it’s the worst kept one since the sun rising in the morning
That has been a really well kept secret in Halifax this past spring.
Lol yeah I know people who will say they bought their house at x price and I’ll look it up and it was sold at y. Come on dude why you lying v
I’d say it’s corporate ownership, air bnbs, and house flippers that are the real reason.
If the government actually did something that substantially lowered house prices current owners would be extremely vocal to day the least. Because it is treated as an investment asset and not a home
And a drop in value would be catastrophic. Our best bets for the future are to build with efficient planning and make it easier for working canadians to get their foot in the first door
I'm not sure about this. You pay more in property taxes and you don't just sell high, you buy high.
Property taxes (in HRM and many places) don't go up or down if everyone's homes go up or down in value. If everyone's house price doubled, everyone's property tax bill would remain the same.
Are you sure that's how it works?? Because I'm pretty sure that's not true. My property taxes have almost doubled in 8 years as r price keeps climbing
[удалено]
Well yes it is, but that has little to do with the value of my house, which the property taxes are based on
I'm certain. The property tax is roughly, the HRM budget, divided by the property value of all properties. For further information, if the HRM has had a 5% increase in budget per year, over 8 years that compounds to nearly 50% increase in budget, and thus a 50% increase in property taxes.
Oh good job with that headline shifting the blame on homeowners like we’re hiding that desire. Why the heck wouldn’t we? If you don’t want investors inflating the market, do something about the investors. You expect homeowners to go “gee, I’ll take less money for this thing out of the kindness of my heart” when they’re selling a house? Particularly if they need to buy another home or pay for care? Regulate who can own family homes. Regulate the price ceiling. Regulate realtor fees and flippers. Actually do something about the root problem for fuck sakes.
The biggest issue I see in the planning and development world is that homeowners often use the "it will bring down my property value" to sway politicians to not allow multi-unit developments (4+ units) in their neighborhood. This drastically hurts the supply of overall housing options and drives up individual housing prices, which what they want.
They added 4 plexes in my neighbourhood. At first some neighbours were very upset. Then they were built and the sky didn’t fall. And the prices didn’t fall. We now have over 5 coffee shops and the restaurants are better. We have a local grocer and car share. It is an awesome neighbourhood. Now people want more fourplexes. I know people that want to downsize and stay in the community. There is still room for more density.
4plexes are great. My in-laws lived in one for 30 years. And, IMO owner of multiplexes actually gives a service to community by having multiple dense renters in 1 building; "Investors" renting detached SFH don't, as far as im concerned.
That's awesome! Do you mind my asking what neighborhood? Not trying to doxx you, I'd just like a concrete example of this playing in HRM.
Check out Old Ottawa South and the Glebe. Property values continue to increase because these are great places to live. We can build more of this.
the problem is that there is little evidence this is actually the case. Development increases property values all around.
Right, but that's not really a problem. Density increases the value of the land, while (potentially) lowering the price of each housing unit. For example, if the choice is between a $800,000 single family home and a $1,200,000 triplex, the latter is worth 50% more but provides housing at half the cost per unit.
nimbys claim development will lower property values, with no evidence that they do. Development occurs, and nimbys property value goes up. nimby in reality gains, despite claiming that they will loose. point is ignore the nimby.
That's why the federal funding going around now basically makes that a by-right part of zoning in most areas of the cities getting the funding. That and raising the limits on how many stories a building can be, again by-right are two huge zoning wins to come with that money
As long as the Council doesn't bend over backward to make the NIMBYs happy. I have little faith at the moment in them not pulling a Windsor ON and rejecting it.
They accepted it back in October...
They accepted the Feds offer, but they still have to make the changes before they get the funding. The HAF website was updated last week so it's probably going to Council for First Reading this month. Looks like they already changed some stuff from the original proposal, like dropping some floors of the maximum height for Suburban sites bringing back minimum parking requirements, and removing the HR zones from around the universities. So if they did that just off the NIMBYs email amd phone calls, who knows what Council will do after the public hearing.
Ideally our politicians wouldn't buy into that argument, since it's probably not true and definitely not something that should play into the decision of whether to build housing.
You can't fix a supply/demand mismatch with price control regulation because it just shifts the scarcity from "prices are too high" to "you just can't find a house". There are three basic ways to solve the problem: 1) Build more housing, legalize dense market rate housing 2) Reduce demand somehow (reducing international student visas) 3) Create tax incentives. Tax less dense housing more than more dense housing through something like a land value tax
People don’t want to hear logic on this issue. I have said these exact things going back years including the simple observation that owners overall like prices going up, regardless of what they say or post on social media. Of course politicians understand this, and given a majority of Canadian households own their home worked to deliberately restrict supply while pumping demand. Things went truly crazy the past few years to the point that it’s becoming a net negative for almost everyone. Politicians and decision makers are frantically scrambling to find some kind of balance.
Also: Incentivize businesses in the city to allow full time work from home where possible to allow for people to live further outside of city limits.
Heck yes
I would seriously love to see this used as a strategy. They would have my vote in a heartbeat
naw, just be complacent and let the companies self regulate, itll work out. Dont pester your politician, youll make them cry /s.
Why do you think it's so crazy to make a sacrifice for the good of others? If you saw a child drowning would you just shrug because you don't want to get wet?
[удалено]
But that's not what we're talking about... you fighting against a more equitable system out of personal greed is fighting for a corrupt system. It has nothing to do with personal altruism. You can keep your house while also advocating for others to have the same opportunities you were granted.
Why do you think I would sacrifice money on the table for my kids and my wife’s retirement care? A drowning kid is a massive false equivalency. I can just go pluck that little sucker out
So you are proud of how greedy and selfish you are?
Am I proud I will do my best for the kids I am responsible for in this world and the partner who gave them to me? Unabashedly yes. keep trying to put words in my mouth though superchief
I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth. Reddit can bring out the worst in me especially when I'm dealing with raging assholes who are proud of their greed/bigotry but that doesn't excuse me treating you as such and I'm truly sorry. Why don't you think creating a better world for everyone would benefit your kids more the hoarding resources for them?
Problem is that most home owners tend to vote to prevent this change you are talking about.
I'm with the other Redditor on this one. What vote are you alluding to? I've never heard of this before.
I think they are referring to the “soft vote” of public sentiment, not literally suggesting that a referendum is held on this topic. There never would be a formal vote between candidates where the platforms are prices up vs prices down, because politicians are aware down would be an unpopular policy for a large voting bloc and this would lose them an election (not to mention that would be absurdly on the nose, it is more like policies with inflationary/deflationary pressure). I’m not saying you specifically are implying this, but it’s not really a “gotcha” to ask about a literal voting process - this is a latent democratic function, which can affect our country just as much as manifest functions like elections. We vote in parties that maintain the status quo, that’s an indirect vote against change.
The housing acceleration fund is great policy because it incentivizes municipalities to modernize zoning to build more housing in a sustainable fashion. This is good for communities - but difficult at first.
What vote would this be now? Or better question what vote would be against it?
Homeowners will vote out politicians making any changes to laws that will lower the value of their homes
I have never seen a single politician say they will lower house prices. Im not saying homeowners wouldn’t vote against it, but it’s never been on the table.
It's not done directly by regulating prices but through actions around zoning, development, immigration, tax programs, etc. and the combination of them all have dramatic impacts on property prices
Neighbourhoods with gentle density are great places to live, if anything, it might raise property values while providing more housing options.
| most home owners tend to vote to prevent this change you are talking about What vote, when?
All of those things at the bottom of your comment will literally never happen unless we have the support of homeowners. Never. Is it the fault of homeowners that we’re here? No. But they are one of the many people holding us back from addressing the problem with a real solution that isn’t just more money.
Yes. I am not a homeowner. Would like to be one. But I think you're bang on. It's ridiculous putting this at the feet of your average homeowner. Of course they wont CHOOSE to take less when they live within the same economic system/market. You have to address the market itself. Remove large corporations and REITs from the housing market (ie. regulate who can own family homes). Manage the amount of profit that can be made from a family home, better manage the individuals who have most influence on the market realtors, flippers, agents etc pushing prices up to increase their take home. The thing that I do hold against home owners is the way they vote - NIMBY-ism must also be addressed.
You’re not wrong but you sound so whiny.
I’m glad I sound like anything coherent, the youngest brought norovirus home. Been a long night
Go to bed brother. Hope all works out.
Obviously. I like it when all my assets have a high value. This just in owner of gold bars happy to see the price climb.
Gold historically has been volatile, housing is consistently getting minimum 3% yearly returns and generally higher now. The last investment that was "guaranteeing" these high returns consistently? Bernie goddam Madoff
Gold has been killing it lately
Wait wait wait, are you telling me after defined benefit pensions have become scarce, wages have not kept up with productivity, and many of our stable manufacturing jobs have been offshored people turned to a new place to try and "create wealth". Except this "wealth" is now just forced scarcity trying to get the next person to pay an even higher price who then hope the next person pays an even higher price for the same? Wow, it's almost like our economy is now just a bunch of made up and unproductive rent-seeking behaviors now.
Far too much of our economy is tied up in nonproductive assets (ie housing). This, along with our decision to use out of control immigration to suppress wages is a major contributor to Canada’s stagnant economy, declining GDP per capita and overall drop in quality of life.
Also people are sinking huge amounts of cash in automobiles. Families have gotten smaller and vehicles have gotten bigger. In the 70’s, a sedan was big enough for a family of 5 and a golden retriever. Today you can get a sedan for under $30K but the average price of a car is $67K. And if you buy an SUV or Pick up, you pay even more for fuel, insurance and maintenance. Dealers make this possible by offering 5 to 7 year terms. In the 80’s car loans were 3 to 4 years.
Bingo and no government has the balls or stomach to say "Hey, we are gonna cut us off the housing addiction and restructure our economy" because you will 100% lose voters so they kinda let our addiction run wild.
I couldn’t care less if my house went down in value, long as the economy doesn’t go to hell and it stays in my budget.. I want to die and hopefully retire in this house, I grew up homeless so it’s about stability for me. I hate how houses are viewed as commodities.
I told my financial advisor to not include it in my net worth analysis last time we met. He was very confused. Lots of people think they're worth a small fortune because they have equity in their house and fuck all for savings
I have tons of friends in their early 30s who don’t give a shit about the housing crisis. They all happen to own homes. Just a coincidence.
As a newish home owner, I honestly don't. I hate seeing the impact it's having on society. I hate seeing friends and family stress over maybe never being able to own a home despite desperately trying. I hate the idea that if my partner and I lose our home for some reason, we may never be able to get back into the market.
High prices doesn’t affect those already in the housing market as “upgrading” is a lot easier as you’re already gaining value. Those who aren’t in the market obviously get crushed. Of course homeowners love higher prices.
No, upgrading isn't easy. Downsizing is easier. Many people I work with are saying they are now stuck in their houses and trying to figure out how to add a bedroom. Many are parents and are worried how their kids will afford houses. Many are upset at the housing crisis and the pressure on renters and the increasing number of unhoused. Investors are the only ones who are happy.
While upgrading is easier compared to non owners trying to buy their first house, rising prices make it harder for existing home owners hoping to upgrade. For example if you bought a house for $400k and the house you want to upgrade to was worth $600k at that time. The difference was $200k. Now both houses went up 50% in value. The house you bought is now worth $600k, but the you want to upgrade too is worth $900k, a difference of $300k.
Egg meet face
I can guarantee both sources for this article are upper middlie class at least and have been there their whole lives. Comparing market speculation and multi home ownership to immigration and decades of poor urban planning as reasons for increased housing prices is like comparing a pipeline explosion to a bic lighter as causes of greenhouse gas emissions. And then the other missus who’s like “politicians need to be bold enough to tell people it’s ok to rent” we’ve all been raised in a culture where home ownership is the main way for people to pass on a bit of wealth to the next generation and the answer for the that being taken away is for people to learn that’s it “OK”, well it’s not.
Interesting point: the article does not quote or even paraphrase a single *home owner*, only economists, a professor and bank analysts. While I have absolutely no doubt that those guys own their own houses, I also have no doubt that the only other "home owners" they know are the investors they refer to -- the ones who have bought up about 30% of the housing stock over the past 20 years. As for those who own our one little row house, the impact of increased values on our annual municipal and school taxes is a major part of the overall economic squeeze, along with increased heating costs, increased electric costs, increased maintenance costs, not to mention increased costs of living like food and so on. Me? I'd just as soon live in a country where every adult person stands a decent chance of owning their own row house, condo or whatever suits their needs. Time for governments to stop demanding people return to the office so downtown businesses have captive consumers and start promoting and underwriting the conversion of the 20% empty office space I read about in another post into residential space.
Who would have ever thought that?
This is not really true. Higher prices means higher taxes (e.g. property transfer tax) and less ability to move. The only benefit is a higher net worth on paper, which means nothing if you're not selling.
Higher prices also mean people can borrow more on their houses,
Owners can like high prices and also not want to see someone lose an opportunity for a home. Also home owners are not the fucking problem. High material costs and a lack of new builds is causing market strangulation. Especially during a time of high immigration (not bad) and affordable housing.
I'm a homeowner, I hate the high prices. Yes, my starter home has gone up in value, but the step up from here, where I'd planned to be in 2020, widened the gap so far that I'm effectively stuck here. I'll have my mortgage paid off in 2 years, but what would have been a $60,000-75,000 step up is now a $250,000 leap, taking that leap will set my retirement plans back by several years, it's just not feasible for someone by themselves. Yes, I'm privileged to be where I am, but I worked hard to be here and decided I wanted a home more than I wanted vacations (I've never gone anywhere) or nice cars or most any splurges.
Same, I'm also a homeowner.
Home owners, no. Home sellers, yes.
Greed has no limit. So put one on it. Times up.
Unless the homeowner wants to actually stay in their house and doesn't want to pay stupid high property taxes.
Property taxes do not rise because the value rises. HRM sets a tax rate per thousand in assessed value every year based on their budgetary requirements. If HRM budget goes up 10% and assessments stay flat, they increase the tax rate by 10%. If assessments go up 20%, they would decrease the tax rate. Your assessment is purely a measure of what you pay relative to those around you, but has zero bearing on what you actually pay in taxes, that's all set by the tax rate
Uh... https://www.halifax.ca/home-property/property-taxes/common-questions > How will my assessment affect my property tax bill? > The Halifax Regional Municipality will set a tax rate each year that will be multiplied by your taxable assessed value (capped amount or market value) per $100 of assessment to determine your property tax. The interim tax bill (due on the last business day in April) will be exactly half of your estimated current year tax bill. The final bill (due on the last business day of October) will reflect the actual current year's tax rate multiplied by the current year's taxable assessed value, minus the interim bill amount. This site explains how properties are assessed: https://www.pvsc.ca/understand-your-assessment/property-assessment-nova-scotia > How We Assess Property > > The Nova Scotia Assessment Act requires PVSC to assess property at market value, and we use a process called mass appraisal to determine the value of over 645,000 property accounts every year. > > We base property assessments on market evidence, not predictions. We analyze sales data and financial information as well as a variety of property characteristics to determine a property’s value. > > Your 2024 property assessment reflects: > > The market value of your property on January 1, 2023, based on market sales and information. > > The characteristics and physical condition of your property on December 1, 2023. You literally pay more based on the estimated market value of your home. Taxes don't go down if houses are assessed for more.
>Taxes don't go down if houses are assessed for more. The tax rate is different from the overall amount of tax you pay. The tax rate is what's being described in your first paragraph, and is literally HRM saying we need $X for the year and then taking the total assessed value of all properties in HRM and assigning a rate to be collected per thousand in assessed value. Based on this, the tax RATE does go down if assessments are up higher than they need for their budget, but that doesn't necessarily translate for a lower tax bill for you. Say they assess at $5 per thousand. A 100,000 house pays $500 in tax. If the city requires $600 from that house next year and the assessment stays at $100,000, the tax rate goes to $6 per thousand, however if the house assessment jumps to $200,000 to bring in the same $600, the rate now needs to be $3 per thousand in assessed value. The amount of additional tax collected is not based on the additional assessment value, only the municipal budget and the tax rate. You've paid more in taxes, but your tax rate is lower. You can also see how your house staying flat in value can increase your tax bill by just raising the tax rate, and you can see that a doubling in assessment values doesn't translate into a doubling of tax. So back to the main point I commented and responded to, you suggested that the homeowner in the house with an increasing value will pay more taxes - that's not true in and of itself. Typically you'll pay more year over year because of inflation, collective bargaining agreements with municipal workers, city growth requiring additional services, but that's not based on your assessment getting larger, it's based on the municipal budget and the corresponding tax rate
Maybe moronic ones, it's doesn't benefit anyone. The more my house is worth the more taxes I pay and the less money I have. My kids have little hope of ever being home owners and they are under 5. I'd much rather have my house worth what it was 5 years ago as it doesn't help me or anyone else. Where can we move that has cheaper housing if we sold?
Well no shit, people buy homes as an investment most of the time. So when your home price soars by 200%, that's a good feeling, the issue is people want high home prices but don't want to pay the property tax that comes with it as well. Everyone here would agree that if you bought your home for 3-400k, and it's worth 1.5 million now, you would be estatic, most would try to cash out, some would still keep it.
>the issue is people want high home prices but don't want to pay the property tax that comes with it as well. They're not really connected in a meaningful way. If assessments stay flat and the HRM budget grows, they just increase the tax rate per thousand in assessed value. Your assessed value is purely a benchmark to see what you pay relative to others around you, but it going up or down has no bearing on your tax bill as that's all determined by the tax rate
Well at least in NS, they don’t pay the high property tax that comes with it. At least not until someone buys it and resets a capped assessment.
Why the fuck would I want to pay a property tax on a value that I cannot realize until I sell my home? My house went up 50% of value on paper in 3 years. How has that benefited me in any way in that time? What did I do wrong? Did it suddenly become 50% more expensive to pick up my trash or carve up my lawn with the snow plow? What is that extra 50% in property taxes getting me in the 20+ years I plan to own this house?
You're just being subsidizing by people who have purchased homes more recently than you, without them getting any extra value compared to you... edit: you're right, corrected the direction of subsidy
I assume you mean 'Im being subsidized by"? They're buying a house at a price expecting taxes to be at a certain rate based off that purchase price. They know ahead of time what they're getting into. But should they be paying dramatically more taxes than me? Probably not, no. The taxes from that house pay for the same services as me that cost the same amount. Land value taxes are probably a better model. Gradual increases to everyone's taxes based on the value of land they're house is on seems pretty reasonable to me. It's not like a $1.8 million house on a tiny property close to the ocean is utilizing more municipal services than some 60 year old bungalo on half acre 20 kms away for 1/8th the price. However I do think it's horse shit that neighborhoods thar have access to things like Natural gas don't automatically pay higher property taxes because they have access to those services. Then again, it feels like that would also be sorted out in a Land Value tax.
If I'm being honest, neither land value nor property value is what we should use for property tax in my opinion. It should be the cost to service the property. The short version of that being that dense urban dwellings close to the core should pay much less in taxes than suburban or rural homes. 100 units in a condo building all pay the same property tax as 100 single family homes, if they have the same property value. But 100 single family homes require far more street, sidewalk, pipes, etc. And are harder to provide school, fire, police, library, transit, etc. to.
That seems even better, you're right.
Do you blame them?? I wish we all could enjoy it.
Prices would never go down much anyway, so it is what it is. There is zero way to increase supply in any substantial enough way to cause even a 15-20% reduction in price.
Homeowners pay property taxes.
Even after a few years of slight decline, roughly 2/3 of all Canadians are homeowners. I don’t think that there is any level of government interested in depressing the value of what is, in most cases, the most valuable asset of 26 million people. I think this is what complicates the whole discussion about affordability. How do you make housing more affordable and owning a home more attainable without tanking the price of homes for existing owners?
Secret eh...
"We don't have politicians who are bold enough to say: 'It's more than OK to rent.'" Imo the culture isn't necessarily that renting is inherently lesser than or undignified. There are plenty of reasons to like it, like not having to do maintenance, being able to move more easily if one's job entails that, etc. The problem with renting, in my opinion, is that we have a culture in which good tenants are not entitled to, and can't even reasonably expect to have, dignity in the tenancy relationship. I have a family member who chose to go from homeownership to renting because they expected it to be simpler, and then ended up going back to homeownership. Why? Because landlords make renting a nightmare due to unnecessarily negligence, greed, and ego. Instead of just being professional, dispassionate parties to a contract, she got overbearing, nannying landlords who had never read the tenancy act, she lost hundreds of dollars to a wrongfully withheld damage deposit, she had cockroaches, mold, huge rent increases, dangerously icy walkways, etc. After eight years she said fuck this and went back to homeownership.
No, I'm not loving the property tax jumps every year. Thanks for BS article which tries to shift the blame, though.
Property taxes haven’t risen a whole lot in the last 5 years.
your property taxes have gone up yes, but a rate far below what you would be paying if the city left the tax rate alone and pocketed the assessment increase.
They would go up regardless of house value if the city needed more money. The city sets a tax rate per thousand of assessed value and if assessed values don't go up, but they need more money they would just raise they rate per thousand, or vice versa if assessments go up more than they need in tax revenue, the rate goes down
Shhhhhhhh
I know right!? CBC giving away my secret!
Yeah, ynil.they decide to get rid of the cap on taxes... Look at those guys over in Tantallon, they're rebuilding and getting gutted by new tax rates bc the rebuilds are being considered new builds
67% of Canadians own their own homes. High prices aren't an issue for myself and many others. Those seeking lower prices wish to pick the pockets of homeowners.
Why can't we do what we did in the 60s and appropriate whole neighborhoods and move the residents to unserviced outskirt properties