Imagine thousands of dumb and dumber students got "educated" by this idiot professor!
Stop all sort of immigration at once, cut all red tapes related to housing, and raise interest to the appropriate 20%+ to that proven formula quoted by Michael and the market will adjust itself FAST.
Lefties like the tax grabbing Prof will dream up anything to tax a part of society that has managed to amass some wealth
A few more logs to throw on the bonfire of housing policy incompetence :
80% of the rental units in the GTA were built before 1980 … why not have the Prof look into why that might be the case ?
A considerable amount of residential properties along heavily subsidized public transit have NIMBY’d higher density that would be a no brainer where there is transportation access
Real Estate taxes on apartment units are levied at twice the rate as single family residences
GST hits harder on rental apartment buildings than single residences
In other words a colossal screw up by governments are behind the problem
And when FORD wanted to free up .3 of 1 % of the Greenbelt to help speed up the fixes ....The leftie media propaganda machines go nuts
Housing in Canada has a significantly higher demand than supply for a whole host of reasons.
Virtually every policy enacted by Municipalities, Provinces, and Federally has increased the cost of construction.
The Canadian (Trudeau desire to have a Net Zero construction Industry) building code planned for 2024 will increases the cost of construction by 8.2% or about $55,000.00 per home.
This will not be an easy fix. Kershaw's idea is foolish and will have the effect of increasing prices even higher and will not address supply.
Taxes have risen as a % of earnings and for me exceeds my cost of food and housing by far, the extreme taxes, fees, development and permit costs on housing dramatically increase costs. To bring in millions of people who need a place to live only throws gasoline on the problem. Some academic has an idea that will just add complexity, more fees and cost to the problem. At least no surprise from a professor whose solution wouldn’t even work on the monopoly board. I was looking at a modest home in Toronto recently which means sub $1,000,000 but just the approx $55,000 transfer tax on a 65 year old home blew my mind. Never mind if it was new, add in another $50k or so for HST.
In addition Permit and lot fees on a new house I’ve seen averaged at over $250k in Toronto…
The Blair view is the one that applies the principles of supply and demand, so it makes sense.
Since when did average "young" Canadians have enough money to buy homes while they were still young.? Did I miss that era? And when did homeownership of the young join the Charter as one of the "rights", justifying taxing others?
The Professor seeks to impose his judgment of what is "fair" and have it imposed by Govt. by taxing those the Professor judges it is "fair" to tax. If implemented it ignores the market distortion it would then cause. It would actually increase the demand, but not the supply for homes. Subsidize some purchases and you would be sure to increase the price of homes.
That may not be "fair" but that is how the market works.
Are we soon to hear that 20 year olds can no longer afford new 4-wheel drive pickup trucks so those that can afford expensive cars should be taxed extra, so young Canadians can buy trucks?
Do Iphones or any smart phone over $X (perhaps $1000) need to incur double HST to subsidize cell phones for children whose parents can't afford to buy them a phone?
Hello. Please notice that you are engaging with just one of the dozens of policy adaptations that I recommend. I encourage you to review the entire framework, which is available here: https://www.gensqueeze.ca/housing_solutions A tax shift (lower taxes on incomes paid for by higher taxes on housing wealth) is necessary. But it is not sufficient. There is no silver bullet. But there is silver buckshot. We need to use every policy tool in the tool box to restore housing affordability forever, and to reduce housing wealth inequality. Best, Paul
With respect Professor Kershaw, and with congratulations for your awards and valuable research, the only way to restore housing affordability forever is to largely deregulate the housing industry, free up our massive land masses for development, and eliminate tax burdens on developers. It is specious to assert "housing wealth inequality" when the inequality that exists is not caused by higher home prices but by lower valued currency and government intervention in markets capable of producing homes for $200 a square foot (Altus Group annual report on construction costs here https://www.altusgroup.com/insights/canadian-cost-guide/) yet see them priced for $1,000 a square foot owing to federal, provincial and municipal policies that frustrate market forces and monetary and fiscal policies that intend there to be inflation while pretending they encourage price stability. I own a home in Ottawa Valley my forefathers built in 1850 and it is as square and sound today as when built, but did not suffer from zoning, building code, HST, carbon tax, development charges, etc. It is still in use, meets local codes in every respect, and is my ancestral home. Located in rural Ontario and away from the NIMBY rules and intrusive municipalities, it would sell today for about $80,000.
Fwiw it’s very easy to bring in millions of immigrants, when Costa Rica charges $250k for citizenship and Canada gives it for free with generous university, free healthcare, OAS etc etc, however the hard part is housing, policing, education, healthcare etc to handle all the people.
Another big plus is getting into the USA, it’s easier from Canada, and many of out new immigrants are being picked up crossing into US.
You replace “Canada” with “Australia” and your post would accurate too. High immigration, red tape, rent controls, high stamp duty, low interest rates. At least Canada has nuclear energy
Imagine thousands of dumb and dumber students got "educated" by this idiot professor!
Stop all sort of immigration at once, cut all red tapes related to housing, and raise interest to the appropriate 20%+ to that proven formula quoted by Michael and the market will adjust itself FAST.
Lefties like the tax grabbing Prof will dream up anything to tax a part of society that has managed to amass some wealth
A few more logs to throw on the bonfire of housing policy incompetence :
80% of the rental units in the GTA were built before 1980 … why not have the Prof look into why that might be the case ?
A considerable amount of residential properties along heavily subsidized public transit have NIMBY’d higher density that would be a no brainer where there is transportation access
Real Estate taxes on apartment units are levied at twice the rate as single family residences
GST hits harder on rental apartment buildings than single residences
In other words a colossal screw up by governments are behind the problem
And when FORD wanted to free up .3 of 1 % of the Greenbelt to help speed up the fixes ....The leftie media propaganda machines go nuts
Housing in Canada has a significantly higher demand than supply for a whole host of reasons.
Virtually every policy enacted by Municipalities, Provinces, and Federally has increased the cost of construction.
The Canadian (Trudeau desire to have a Net Zero construction Industry) building code planned for 2024 will increases the cost of construction by 8.2% or about $55,000.00 per home.
This will not be an easy fix. Kershaw's idea is foolish and will have the effect of increasing prices even higher and will not address supply.
Taxes have risen as a % of earnings and for me exceeds my cost of food and housing by far, the extreme taxes, fees, development and permit costs on housing dramatically increase costs. To bring in millions of people who need a place to live only throws gasoline on the problem. Some academic has an idea that will just add complexity, more fees and cost to the problem. At least no surprise from a professor whose solution wouldn’t even work on the monopoly board. I was looking at a modest home in Toronto recently which means sub $1,000,000 but just the approx $55,000 transfer tax on a 65 year old home blew my mind. Never mind if it was new, add in another $50k or so for HST.
In addition Permit and lot fees on a new house I’ve seen averaged at over $250k in Toronto…
The Blair view is the one that applies the principles of supply and demand, so it makes sense.
Since when did average "young" Canadians have enough money to buy homes while they were still young.? Did I miss that era? And when did homeownership of the young join the Charter as one of the "rights", justifying taxing others?
The Professor seeks to impose his judgment of what is "fair" and have it imposed by Govt. by taxing those the Professor judges it is "fair" to tax. If implemented it ignores the market distortion it would then cause. It would actually increase the demand, but not the supply for homes. Subsidize some purchases and you would be sure to increase the price of homes.
That may not be "fair" but that is how the market works.
Are we soon to hear that 20 year olds can no longer afford new 4-wheel drive pickup trucks so those that can afford expensive cars should be taxed extra, so young Canadians can buy trucks?
Do Iphones or any smart phone over $X (perhaps $1000) need to incur double HST to subsidize cell phones for children whose parents can't afford to buy them a phone?
Hello. Please notice that you are engaging with just one of the dozens of policy adaptations that I recommend. I encourage you to review the entire framework, which is available here: https://www.gensqueeze.ca/housing_solutions A tax shift (lower taxes on incomes paid for by higher taxes on housing wealth) is necessary. But it is not sufficient. There is no silver bullet. But there is silver buckshot. We need to use every policy tool in the tool box to restore housing affordability forever, and to reduce housing wealth inequality. Best, Paul
With respect Professor Kershaw, and with congratulations for your awards and valuable research, the only way to restore housing affordability forever is to largely deregulate the housing industry, free up our massive land masses for development, and eliminate tax burdens on developers. It is specious to assert "housing wealth inequality" when the inequality that exists is not caused by higher home prices but by lower valued currency and government intervention in markets capable of producing homes for $200 a square foot (Altus Group annual report on construction costs here https://www.altusgroup.com/insights/canadian-cost-guide/) yet see them priced for $1,000 a square foot owing to federal, provincial and municipal policies that frustrate market forces and monetary and fiscal policies that intend there to be inflation while pretending they encourage price stability. I own a home in Ottawa Valley my forefathers built in 1850 and it is as square and sound today as when built, but did not suffer from zoning, building code, HST, carbon tax, development charges, etc. It is still in use, meets local codes in every respect, and is my ancestral home. Located in rural Ontario and away from the NIMBY rules and intrusive municipalities, it would sell today for about $80,000.
Fwiw it’s very easy to bring in millions of immigrants, when Costa Rica charges $250k for citizenship and Canada gives it for free with generous university, free healthcare, OAS etc etc, however the hard part is housing, policing, education, healthcare etc to handle all the people.
Another big plus is getting into the USA, it’s easier from Canada, and many of out new immigrants are being picked up crossing into US.
https://wgme.com/news/local/human-smuggling-is-reportedly-on-the-rise-in-northern-maine-aroostook-county-us-border-patrol-houlton-mars-hill-fort-fairfield-van-buren-e-united-states
You replace “Canada” with “Australia” and your post would accurate too. High immigration, red tape, rent controls, high stamp duty, low interest rates. At least Canada has nuclear energy