Jump to content

      



























Photo

Affordable Housing Question


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#41 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 01 November 2016 - 11:17 AM

I dont live in an affordable housing complex. I actually pay market rent for the top floor of a house.



#42 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 01 November 2016 - 11:28 AM

 If everyone paid higher market rates for rents (removing the limit of how much rent can go up), that would put many on the street or as many across this country do, go without food just to pay rent. The market doesnt differentiate between rich or poor.

 

 

I am not a business owner or a homeowner but doesnt mean I am not aware of what is going on.

 

Fortunately my wife and I dont live beyond our means and are good with our money. I was smart enough in my 20s to start saving up for a house, but that doesnt seem to be the case with many.


Edited by UrbanRail, 01 November 2016 - 11:29 AM.

  • weirdie likes this

#43 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,238 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 01 November 2016 - 11:32 AM

 If everyone paid higher market rates for rents (removing the limit of how much rent can go up), that would put many on the street or as many across this country do, go without food just to pay rent. The market doesnt differentiate between rich or poor.

 

 

I am not a business owner or a homeowner but doesnt mean I am not aware of what is going on.

 

Fortunately my wife and I dont live beyond our means and are good with our money. I was smart enough in my 20s to start saving up for a house, but that doesnt seem to be the case with many.

 

There's two sides to the equation. I'm all for removing the limits. That's one side.

 

The other side is removing the barriers to increasing supply. Make it super easy to develop.



#44 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 01 November 2016 - 12:26 PM

There's two sides to the equation. I'm all for removing the limits. That's one side.

 

The other side is removing the barriers to increasing supply. Make it super easy to develop.

I am not keen on removing the limits if it means that I have to go from 2/3 of my paycheck to like 80% of my paycheck. If more supply reduces rent (I doubt it would), that could be an option.



#45 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 01 November 2016 - 12:31 PM

the problem is many canadian families have to choose between paying rent and buying food and removing the limits which protects those who are renting, will make it that more problematic.

 

I guess there are two sides, its too easy to say reduce the rent, and its too easy to say remove the limits to increase the rent.



#46 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 01 November 2016 - 04:44 PM

Seniors have never been more wealthy than they are today, in North America.

 

 

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm beginning to have more and more problems with the whole 'seniors on a fixed income' whinge....aren't we all on fixed incomes? It's not like I can go to my boss tomorrow and demand a raise, or I'll go elsewhere.  I suppose, if I were some sort of an independent professional I could boost my hourly rate, but then I run the risk of losing customers to my competition.

Not only that, but today's seniors are going to inherit a sh!tload of cash from their parents...:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...tance-1.3617891

 

With the average inheritance being $180K I don't see that as a bonanza.



#47 http

http

    Data Sans Practicality

  • Member
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 01 November 2016 - 05:10 PM

For what it's worth Aaron, why should the government even be in the housing business? how would you like it if they were in the graphic art business and offering their service for less than you can provide it.[ snip ]

 

 

Prices are so high partially because the government is in the housing business (CMHC) and takes on all the risk at below free market rates.   Sure, let's get the government out of the housing business, prices would certainly be lower.

 

OK, which is it?  Do the CMHC's activities raise prices or lower prices?


"Who are those slashdot people? They swept over like Mongol-Tartars." - F. E. Vladimirovna

#48 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 01 November 2016 - 09:44 PM

OK, which is it? Do the CMHC's activities raise prices or lower prices?


Raise. No question. Then other parts of the government spend money to try to lower prices again.

#49 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 05:25 AM

OK, which is it?  Do the CMHC's activities raise prices or lower prices?

 

Think you just saw the answer this morning. TD is raising their interest rates partly due to CMHC taking on less risk.



#50 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 05:53 AM

Raise. No question. Then other parts of the government spend money to try to lower prices again.

 

This is correct, from the way I see it.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#51 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,238 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 02 November 2016 - 07:33 AM

Think you just saw the answer this morning. TD is raising their interest rates partly due to CMHC taking on less risk.

 

Do higher interest rates raise or lower prices? From a supply and demand perspective, higher interest rates should mean less demand. That means lower prices, not higher.

 

So correct, the more the CMHC covers, the higher the prices. CMHC drives interest rates lower, resulting in more demand.


Edited by lanforod, 02 November 2016 - 07:34 AM.


#52 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 09:17 AM

Do higher interest rates raise or lower prices? From a supply and demand perspective, higher interest rates should mean less demand. That means lower prices, not higher.

 

So correct, the more the CMHC covers, the higher the prices. CMHC drives interest rates lower, resulting in more demand.

 

It's their policy trend that matters.   From about 1990 to 2008 but especially 2000-2008 they were focused on making credit easier and cheaper to access.   They went from 25 year maximum amortizations and 10% down to 40 year amortizations and 0% down, while removing the maximum value caps for insured mortgages.  That drove prices higher.

Then in 2008 they reversed course and every year they added new restrictions to insured mortgages, limited amortizations back to 25 years, increased down payments to 5% (and 10% above $500,000), limited refinances, increased cost of insurance, etc.   They are overall doing a pretty good job of trying to moderate the market.   They are still selling insurance at below market prices but it isn't as bad as it used to be.  


  • lanforod likes this

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users