(Reuters) - Canada on Sunday announced a two-year extension to a ban on foreign ownership of Canadian housing, saying the step was aimed at addressing worries about Canadians being priced out of housing markets in cities and towns across the country.

Canada is facing a housing affordability crisis, which has been blamed on an increase in migrants and international students, fueling demand for homes just as rising costs have slowed construction.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 months ago

    How do you define ‘corporate’ ownership? If you can own 100 properties as an individual, does that count as ‘corporate’? If it doesn’t, that seems like an easy loophole. If the intent is to ban large quantities of homes owned by single entities, then doing it by quantity sounds more sensible.

    That might redistribute old homes, but it doesn’t necessarily solve the drip feeding of new homes that we have going on right now. For example, the UK used to build 250k+ houses every year during the 1950-1980s period. 50% of that was government built council houses for those in need. It’s estimated that we need to build 250k more homes than we currently do in the UK, and the private housing industry has not done its part.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1711 months ago

      Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?

      1. ban company/ corporate ownership of standalone housing.

      2. increased scale of taxation on any property past PPR. One house gets you 10% increase. Two gets you 20%, etc. oh it’s empty? Now you got an empty property tax as well

      3. fuck up developer scarcity. Set hard time limits between land purchase and development / sale. Give land use laws teeth

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?

        I’m not, please don’t assume that. It sounds like we’re in agreement here, so I’m not debating you, but rather adding to your post, I suppose. It sounded like you wanted to extend the conversation towards solutions to the housing crisis in general.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          611 months ago

          all g I realised that came across a bit more antagonistic than intended. I meant it more as “let’s do ALL of it mwahhahaa”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 months ago

        Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?

        Because it’s a common tactic used to confuse an issue and get the discussion bogged down in irrelevant details and “hah! Gotcha!” moments.

    • @maness300
      link
      English
      511 months ago

      You’re the kind of person who sits on their hands and only gets off of them when you tell others to sit on theirs.

    • @Wwwbdd
      link
      English
      111 months ago

      How do you define ‘corporate’ ownership? If you can own 100 properties as an individual, does that count as ‘corporate’?

      It’s how you report the income. A corporation pays corporate tax rate on profit. An individual pays income tax. If someone wants to pay the individual income tax on 100 properties, that’s awesome. 33% over 250k. Corporate tax rate can easily be half of that.

      Plus filing your taxes is waaaaaay easier having a corp hold all the assets and generating revenue, and the individual as an employee who draws a salary. If you’re just an individual with 100 properties and you get audited, you’re in for a bumpy ride trying to pick apart personal vs rental purchases