Will the real Pierre Poilievre please stand up?

[PrivatePilot]

i don't think they need to look that hard to cut things, the Liberals haven't missed many chances to empty the purse

What do you think they'll cut? Affordable daycare? The new dental care system? Social services? Green energy initiavies taken in an effort to move our economy in a new direction with the rest of the world? The military? Human Rights agencies? Things like the food inspection agency?

Will it come down things like museums and public places?

Lets remember that a notable portion of our current debt was pandemic related. It didn't go perfectly (and the CRA is still chasing the results of that in some situations, rightfully so), but it did stop the country from collapsing, people losing their homes and livelihoods, and starving in the dark when they couldn't afford to live.

Again, not saying it's all perfect, but things need to be taken in a measured long term approach to change as opposed to the "I'll fix it all right away" approach that seems unlikely to go as planned without the aforementioned unintended consequences.

It gets great press, great soundbites, the base eats it up, but is it reality?

 

[Evoex]

What do you think they'll cut? Affordable daycare? The new dental care system? Social services? Green energy initiavies taken in an effort to move our economy in a new direction with the rest of the world? The military? Human Rights agencies? Things like the food inspection agency?

Will it come down things like museums and public places?

Lets remember that a notable portion of our current debt was pandemic related. It didn't go perfectly (and the CRA is still chasing the results of that in some situations, rightfully so), but it did stop the country from collapsing, people losing their homes and livelihoods, and starving in the dark when they couldn't afford to live.

Again, not saying it's all perfect, but things need to be taken in a measured long term approach to change as opposed to the "I'll fix it all right away" approach that seems unlikely to go as planned without the aforementioned unintended consequences.

It gets great press, great soundbites, the base eats it up, but is it reality?

People are currently starving (food banks) and living in $2,000 basement apartments. I'm not sure they see much light between then and now.

You are correct otherwise, but put yourself in the shoes of a majority government who ran on cutting deficits and you have 4 years. Go.

Hard decisions had to be made then and will likely continue to be made.

 

[PrivatePilot]

People are currently starving (food banks) and living in $2,000 basement apartments. I'm not sure they see much light between then and now.

Lets remember it was our conservative provincial government who removed rent controls and helped facilitate those $2000 basement apartments. Thank you Doug Ford.

Ever notice how Poilvre treats Ford like kryptonite despite them sharing the conservative name? I don't know many people who really like what Doug Ford is doing to our province right now, and how he's chosing to run it. Poilevre may very well be Doug Ford, the Federal version.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

the CRA is still chasing the results of that in some situations, rightfully so

The CRA can't even do an eighth decent job of prosecuting (let alone get the ill gotten money back from) their own workers who gamed the CERB boondoggle.

 

[Brian P]

The federal government is not going to be able to do anything meaningful about affordable housing. Period. Supply and demand governs.

WHY does that one-bedroom apartment in Toronto rent for $2k per month?
- Because the portion of the cost of the building that it's in which is allocated to that apartment, is probably half a million and it probably has a mortgage on it for most of that. Whatever portion of it doesn't have a mortgage on it, is still tied-up money that could be doing something else as opposed to being tied up in bricks and mortar, so even if there isn't "mortgage interest" on a paid-off building, there's still a lost-opportunity-cost for having money tied up ... call it even.
- Because the interest on that mortgage (or the lost-opportunity-cost investment rate) probably eats up most or all of the rent payments the way interest rates have been lately. Plus maintenance plus property tax plus a risk premium (bad tenants can destroy the investment - and there are sure bad tenants out there, and the landlord and tenant act tips things strongly towards the tenant and against the landlord).
- So, "reduce interest rates". Except, the recent spike in interest rates (which everyone who was paying attention knew was going to happen) was to dampen inflation by intentionally slowing the economy down a little. Which it did. And now the upcoming direction of interest rates is probably down (slowly).
- Or, "reduce housing costs". HOW? Supply and demand governs this!

What of all this, is under the responsibility of the federal government?

Corporate greed/profits is behind some of the unaffordability situation. There's some big companies out there setting record profits ... so, maybe, we (and the americans) need to make sure billionaires are paying their share. But this has to be done internationally, because otherwise they'll bury their profits in some other lower-tax country. Good luck with that!

We know PP wants to "axe the tax" (the carbon tax). Except ... Most people (~80%) are getting a bigger rebate than what they're contributing. (Those who are complaining that they're not getting a rebate, either haven't been paying attention to their bank accounts, or didn't file their income tax last year, or didn't sign up for electronic deposit, or are owing money and the rebate was applied to their balance owing, or something of that sort. I've been getting quarterly rebate deposits.) So, "axe the tax" also means axe the rebate. So then 80% of the population gets (a little) worse off, and the rich get (a little) richer, and it basically doesn't make a difference to government coffers. The nonsense spread about the carbon tax being responsible for businesses going bankrupt is just that - nonsense. If a company was going to go bankrupt because they were heavy energy consumers then it wasn't the carbon tax that put them over the edge, they were going bankrupt anyhow. Now look at this, and tell me where the real money is going: https://www.suncor.com/-/media/Proj...rnings-q2-2023-en.pdf?modified=20230907164333

(Mandatory disclaimer, I own some SU in an investment account.)

 

[Evoex]

The federal government is not going to be able to do anything meaningful about affordable housing. Period. Supply and demand governs.

WHY does that one-bedroom apartment in Toronto rent for $2k per month?
- Because the portion of the cost of the building that it's in which is allocated to that apartment, is probably half a million and it probably has a mortgage on it for most of that. Whatever portion of it doesn't have a mortgage on it, is still tied-up money that could be doing something else as opposed to being tied up in bricks and mortar, so even if there isn't "mortgage interest" on a paid-off building, there's still a lost-opportunity-cost for having money tied up ... call it even.
- Because the interest on that mortgage (or the lost-opportunity-cost investment rate) probably eats up most or all of the rent payments the way interest rates have been lately. Plus maintenance plus property tax plus a risk premium (bad tenants can destroy the investment - and there are sure bad tenants out there, and the landlord and tenant act tips things strongly towards the tenant and against the landlord).
- So, "reduce interest rates". Except, the recent spike in interest rates (which everyone who was paying attention knew was going to happen) was to dampen inflation by intentionally slowing the economy down a little. Which it did. And now the upcoming direction of interest rates is probably down (slowly).
- Or, "reduce housing costs". HOW? Supply and demand governs this!

What of all this, is under the responsibility of the federal government?

Corporate greed/profits is behind some of the unaffordability situation. There's some big companies out there setting record profits ... so, maybe, we (and the americans) need to make sure billionaires are paying their share. But this has to be done internationally, because otherwise they'll bury their profits in some other lower-tax country. Good luck with that!

We know PP wants to "axe the tax" (the carbon tax). Except ... Most people (~80%) are getting a bigger rebate than what they're contributing. (Those who are complaining that they're not getting a rebate, either haven't been paying attention to their bank accounts, or didn't file their income tax last year, or didn't sign up for electronic deposit, or are owing money and the rebate was applied to their balance owing, or something of that sort. I've been getting quarterly rebate deposits.) So, "axe the tax" also means axe the rebate. So then 80% of the population gets (a little) worse off, and the rich get (a little) richer, and it basically doesn't make a difference to government coffers. The nonsense spread about the carbon tax being responsible for businesses going bankrupt is just that - nonsense. If a company was going to go bankrupt because they were heavy energy consumers then it wasn't the carbon tax that put them over the edge, they were going bankrupt anyhow. Now look at this, and tell me where the real money is going: https://www.suncor.com/-/media/Proj...rnings-q2-2023-en.pdf?modified=20230907164333

(Mandatory disclaimer, I own some SU in an investment account.)

these guys?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-job-cuts-calgary-kruger-1.7023995

fyi, more layoffs coming, best friend has been on long term disability there (oil sands) and kept in touch with his manager.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Most people (~80%) are getting a bigger rebate than what they're contributing

Hey now, don't go throwing facts into Poilvres rants about how the carbon tax is putting us all into the poorhouse.

This comes full circle to the fact that there will be a lot of surprises if he becomes PM when all of a sudden the grass isn't suddenly as green as was promised.

 

[Evoex]

The federal government is not going to be able to do anything meaningful about affordable housing. Period. Supply and demand governs.

WHY does that one-bedroom apartment in Toronto rent for $2k per month?
- Because the portion of the cost of the building that it's in which is allocated to that apartment, is probably half a million and it probably has a mortgage on it for most of that. Whatever portion of it doesn't have a mortgage on it, is still tied-up money that could be doing something else as opposed to being tied up in bricks and mortar, so even if there isn't "mortgage interest" on a paid-off building, there's still a lost-opportunity-cost for having money tied up ... call it even.
- Because the interest on that mortgage (or the lost-opportunity-cost investment rate) probably eats up most or all of the rent payments the way interest rates have been lately. Plus maintenance plus property tax plus a risk premium (bad tenants can destroy the investment - and there are sure bad tenants out there, and the landlord and tenant act tips things strongly towards the tenant and against the landlord).
- So, "reduce interest rates". Except, the recent spike in interest rates (which everyone who was paying attention knew was going to happen) was to dampen inflation by intentionally slowing the economy down a little. Which it did. And now the upcoming direction of interest rates is probably down (slowly).
- Or, "reduce housing costs". HOW? Supply and demand governs this!

What of all this, is under the responsibility of the federal government?

Corporate greed/profits is behind some of the unaffordability situation. There's some big companies out there setting record profits ... so, maybe, we (and the americans) need to make sure billionaires are paying their share. But this has to be done internationally, because otherwise they'll bury their profits in some other lower-tax country. Good luck with that!

We know PP wants to "axe the tax" (the carbon tax). Except ... Most people (~80%) are getting a bigger rebate than what they're contributing. (Those who are complaining that they're not getting a rebate, either haven't been paying attention to their bank accounts, or didn't file their income tax last year, or didn't sign up for electronic deposit, or are owing money and the rebate was applied to their balance owing, or something of that sort. I've been getting quarterly rebate deposits.) So, "axe the tax" also means axe the rebate. So then 80% of the population gets (a little) worse off, and the rich get (a little) richer, and it basically doesn't make a difference to government coffers. The nonsense spread about the carbon tax being responsible for businesses going bankrupt is just that - nonsense. If a company was going to go bankrupt because they were heavy energy consumers then it wasn't the carbon tax that put them over the edge, they were going bankrupt anyhow. Now look at this, and tell me where the real money is going: https://www.suncor.com/-/media/Proj...rnings-q2-2023-en.pdf?modified=20230907164333

(Mandatory disclaimer, I own some SU in an investment account.)

reduction in housing costs is not feasible, increase in housing is. and the federal government is directly responsible for the demand portion of S&D

 

[Evoex]

Lets remember it was our conservative provincial government who removed rent controls and helped facilitate those $2000 basement apartments. Thank you Doug Ford.

Ever notice how Poilvre treats Ford like kryptonite despite them sharing the conservative name? I don't know many people who really like what Doug Ford is doing to our province right now, and how he's chosing to run it. Poilevre may very well be Doug Ford, the Federal version.

Sure, but if you`re going to tell the story..tell the whole story.

In 2018, Ontario's Progressive Conservative government took a controversial step to try to address a dearth of purpose-built rentals. Fresh off his election win, Premier Doug Ford rolled back rent controls on all units built or occupied after Nov. 15 that year, saying the move would provide "market-based incentives for supply growth."

A February report by industry groups and Urbanation found the changes did initially generate more developer interest in purpose-built rental projects. Between late 2018 and the end of 2022, the number of proposed rental units throughout the GTA nearly tripled from about 40,000 to more than 112,000, though less than a third were approved.

In the City of Toronto specifically, applications for purpose-built rentals more than doubled in 2019 from the previous year, according to a staff report.

Meanwhile, GTA rental starts (the number of units included in projects with shovels in the ground) hit a three-decade high of 5,958 in 2020, according to the industry report. That's about triple the average pace of rental construction starts of the preceding two decades, it said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rent-control-toronto-ford-series-1.6974129

Want to know what happened next? It starts with C and ends with 'we all got screwed.'

 

[PrivatePilot]

Sure, but if you`re going to tell the story..tell the whole story.

Fair argument, but for the end users, is a $2000/month apartment or a $1000/month apartment preferable? Yeah, more people can chose to live inside a big city now because there's more units, but theyre' half as affordable as they might have otherwise been. A lot of those same people used to live outside the big cities. A lot of them have no actual NEED to live in the downtown core of TO, for example, but they just *like* it despite it being financially difficult for them now.

In the end, it sure seems the only people who won here are the developers and landlords, certainly not the people actually paying those rents now, especially those who *need* to live in the city as that's where their employers are.

Supply and demand wasn't fully and properly taken into consideration, the same as how it doesn't seem to be getting taken into consideration by PP in his currently laid out ideas regarding the federal housing market, and that pesky law of unintended consequences reared it's ugly head again. Will the same happen with the federal picture if he gets his way?

 

[Evoex]

Fair argument, but for the end users, is a $2000/month apartment or a $1000/month apartment preferable? Yeah, more people can chose to live inside a big city now because there's more units, but theyre' half as affordable as they might have otherwise been. A lot of those same people used to live outside the big cities. A lot of them have no actual NEED to live in the downtown core of TO, for example, but they just *like* it despite it being financially difficult for them now.

In the end, it sure seems the only people who won here are the developers and landlords, certainly not the people actually paying those rents now, especially those who *need* to live in the city as that's where their employers are.

Supply and demand wasn't fully and properly taken into consideration, the same as how it doesn't seem to be getting taken into consideration by PP in his currently laid out ideas regarding the federal housing market, and that pesky law of unintended consequences reared it's ugly head again. Will the same happen with the federal picture if he gets his way?

I guess we will find out.

And sure, that's a tale as old as time. 'We' continuously choose want over need. I certainly can look myself in the mirror after making such decisions, I may get hit by the ice cream truck crossing the street tomorrow. F it.

 

[Scuba Steve]

The bond market (free enterprise...) has Bank of Canada 10-year yield at a smidge over 3% and it has been coming down. (Peaked at 4.26 in early October). That says international investors aren't worried about Canadian government debt, and also means future direction of short-term rates is probably down.

Selected bond yields

View or download the latest data for bond yields, marketable bond average yields and selected benchmark bond yields.

www.bankofcanada.ca

Not to mention we currently pay about 7 cents per dollar collected on interest to service the debt compared to 33 cents in 1991 we need to reign in some stupid spending but we are currently in pretty good shape. I wish we could get a reasonable government back like the Cretien/Martin years. Socially progressive and fiscally conservative we don't need to redo the abortion debate etc and that is where we are heading with PP etc.

Sent from the future

 

[GreyGhost]

Lets remember it was our conservative provincial government who removed rent controls and helped facilitate those $2000 basement apartments. Thank you Doug Ford.

Ever notice how Poilvre treats Ford like kryptonite despite them sharing the conservative name? I don't know many people who really like what Doug Ford is doing to our province right now, and how he's chosing to run it. Poilevre may very well be Doug Ford, the Federal version.

Rent control is almost unrelated to market rents. It is a system doomed to fail. If a rent controlled dwelling diverges from market rent, there is huge economic incentive to bring in a new tenant at market rent. Hell, most rents now don't make any economic sense with cost of buying dwelling unless you assume high appreciation in dwelling prices over time. $2000 a month is painful to pay as a tenant but once you take out maintenance, insurance and property tax, that can cover a debt of maybe 150k. When dwellings are selling for 500k+, the math doesn't work.

 

[Scuba Steve]

Rent control is almost unrelated to market rents. It is a system doomed to fail. If a rent controlled dwelling diverges from market rent, there is huge economic incentive to bring in a new tenant at market rent. Hell, most rents now don't make any economic sense with cost of buying dwelling unless you assume high appreciation in dwelling prices over time. $2000 a month is painful to pay as a tenant but once you take out maintenance, insurance and property tax, that can cover a debt of maybe 150k. When dwellings are selling for 500k+, the math doesn't work.

Most people have zero understanding of how much too low rents are in Ontario the whole thing is a disaster. If house prices double rents need to as well and rents haven't doubled from 2020 yet. I have no solution but the 5000 1 bdr apartment can't be far away. We need a major housing correction to fix this.

Sent from the future

 

[Brian P]

Socially progressive and fiscally conservative we don't need to redo the abortion debate etc and that is where we are heading with PP etc.

I want the old Progressive Conservative party back. I might even consider voting for such a thing. (I have, in the past. I hold no party allegiance ... I've cast votes for all three of the main parties plus a couple of smaller ones over the last few decades, depending on circumstances at the time.)

 

[Brian P]

We need a major housing correction to fix this.

But what circumstances could lead to such a correction? A recession/depression on the scale of the 2008 global financial crisis?

Can't say the pain of that would be worthwhile for anything it might do to rein in housing prices.

Housing in Toronto proper is gonna be really expensive. The surrounding area is just going to be merely expensive. Can't see that changing any time soon no matter who's saying they're in charge in Ottawa.

 

[Evoex]

Socially progressive and fiscally conservative we don't need to redo the abortion debate etc and that is where we are heading with PP etc.

Sent from the future

What?

the social conservatives are less than pleased with PPs track record.

Boggle.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Coming back to the "Canada is so horrible" bit...

Russian poet jailed for reciting verses against war in Ukraine

Between late February 2022 and early December 2023, an estimated 19,847 people have been detained in Russia for speaking out or protesting against the war, according to a rights group.

www.euronews.com

Yeah. We've really got it bad here.

 

[Brian P]

Rent control is almost unrelated to market rents. It is a system doomed to fail. If a rent controlled dwelling diverges from market rent, there is huge economic incentive to bring in a new tenant at market rent. Hell, most rents now don't make any economic sense with cost of buying dwelling unless you assume high appreciation in dwelling prices over time. $2000 a month is painful to pay as a tenant but once you take out maintenance, insurance and property tax, that can cover a debt of maybe 150k. When dwellings are selling for 500k+, the math doesn't work.

Who in their right mind would want to be a (legit) landlord in current circumstances?

The city that I live in, is filled with quasi-legal and illegal basement apartments, and everyone knows it, and everyone also knows that this is the only way most people can make a go of it. The city is on a push to get people to license their apartments, but I can't see that happening. People just keep multiple generations in the same house and/or share their house with friends and acquaintances (known tenants) so that there
s no contracts, no rental agreements, no dealing with landlord and tenant act, it just "happens". (Been there myself when I was younger ... both sides of it ...)

 

[Brian P]

What?

the social conservatives are less than pleased with PPs track record.

Boggle.

Same thing as south of us. There are factions that want extreme actions taken, that are not palatable to the mainstream.