The guy who runs Generation Squeeze says building more homes isn’t enough to lower prices, because most people buying houses are already property owners. Property owners can either sell their current house to get a load of cash, or borrow against it to get a load of cash. Either way, they can pay a lot for their next property.

As evidence, he mentions that Alberta has less supply per capita than the rest of the country, but house prices are half those of Ontario and BC.

Here are the good bits:

While building more supply is absolutely important, setting ambitious targets does little good if property values continue to rise. Unless they are deeply subsidized by tax dollars, new market units will price in today’s high land values – which have soared well beyond what most can afford with local earnings whether the new homes are intended for renters or owners.

Plus all the focus on “Build! Build! Build” ignores that lack of supply isn’t the only, or even primary, factor influencing the price of rent and ownership. You could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, since undersupply has become the dominant narrative shared by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and a variety of financial institutions.

The Bank of Nova Scotia, for instance, published reports lamenting that Canada has a smaller number of private dwellings per capita than the G7 average, blaming this ranking for much of our unaffordability problem. This leap in logic begs questions, since the same Scotiabank data also show that Alberta has lower levels of housing supply per capita than most other provinces, yet home prices in Alberta are about half as expensive as those in Ontario and B.C.

Mr. Pomeroy [who published a study about this stuff] encourages us all to widen our focus to include the vicious cycle by which rising home prices drive rising home prices.

First-time homebuyers are a minority of purchasers. They compete with many Canadian buyers who have already owned in the market. Bolstered by the equity they’ve gained from surging home values, existing homeowners bid up the price of housing to levels that are disconnected from earnings paid by local jobs. This was especially true prior to recent interest-rate hikes, because historically low interest rates made it cheap for homeowners to liquefy wealth windfalls created by skyrocketing home values.

Some homeowners bid up the price of housing simply to relocate. Others do so to purchase an investment property in search of additional wealth windfalls.

The latter are among the one in six Canadian homeowners who own multiple properties. Most are over the age of 55. To pay the mortgages on their investment properties, they increasingly collect rent from younger residents with dashed dreams that a good home should be in reach for what hard work can earn.

This reveals that the vicious cycle by which those enriched by high home values bid housing costs ever higher isn’t just ruining the market for aspiring owners. It is also breaking the rental market, as confirmed by the record-high rents reported this summer.

To disrupt this vicious cycle, political leaders must help break Canada’s cultural addiction to rising home prices by endorsing the plan that governments will use all available policy tools to stall home prices for the foreseeable future.

  • @sbv@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    61 year ago

    I looked at tax rates for Boston:

    That means that the owner of a $500,000 house pays $5,370 this year, not counting the city’s homeowner exemption

    That’s very similar to what the tax rate in Ottawa is. According to this random calculator, tax on a 500k home would be $5,846. I’m not sure how representative Ottawa is, however.

    • @Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      With the conversion rate, Boston is about 25% more.

      USD $5,730 // $4,352

      CAD $7,213 // $5,846

      edit: WTF is this? is this a joke? “Owners of units that remain vacant for more than half of the calendar year will be charged an extra fee equivalent to 1% of the property’s assessed value”

      A whopping $12 per $1,000 accessed? leaving a $8.8 million dollar property would cost $1,000…

      • @sbv@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        WTF is this? is this a joke? “Owners of units that remain vacant for more than half of the calendar year will be charged an extra fee equivalent to 1% of the property’s assessed value” A whopping $12 per $1,000 accessed? leaving a $8.8 million dollar property would cost $1,000.

        Is that Ottawa 's vacancy tax? It’s self reported, so without decent verification (or snitch lines), I doubt it’ll make a difference.

    • @alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Oh yeah, should have been more precise. In the USA, property taxes are set more locally. Often even below the State level. So it does vary.

      I should not have said it’s better in the USA. It’s more accurate to say that, in the USA states and counties have extra tools to tax property and some have used it to good effect.

      Perhaps I should have even said had tools, since it seems Trump put a ceiling on the state and local tax deductions.

      To illustrate what I meant, this house in Houston was assessed at $250K and paid about $4K in property tax in 2018. That $4K would then be deductible from federal income tax, so for a working person, it would be easier to pay than for an investor. Texas also didn’t/doesn’t have state income tax.

      https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/12107-Laneview-Dr-Houston-TX-77070/28357645_zpid/

      I don’t know what happened after 2018, I guess they lowered property taxes and the house is now for sale for $450K.

      Also found this overview. It seems most of the USA doesn’t follow the model:

      https://www.fool.com/research/property-tax-rates-by-state