67
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
67 points (95.9% liked)
Ontario
3093 readers
26 users here now
A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Perhaps cities, provinces, and/or the federal government could buy up those properties instead of corporate landlords. Then they could charge geared-to-income rent instead of whatever the market will bear.
Amazing the things that one can come up with when one stops thinking only in terms of housing as a commodity
This is what needs to happen, not a one-time subsidy for a landlord. This way the province gets something out of its investment and continues to supply proper housing. Handing out cash is just throwing money away.
Who pays for that? The taxpayer, which means a MASSIVE increase in taxes because the average house in Canada is now about 700,000.
Lets say the gov wants to buy 1000 homes in a city, thats 700,000,000. How much do you think taxes would have to go up to spend nearly 3/4 of a billion dollars for 1000 homes in a major city? If they did that in 30 Canadian cities thats 21,000,000,000.
21 TRILLION DOLLARS! Currently Canadas entire national debt (the highest in Canadas history) is 1.4 trillion. So you'd have to make it 15 times bigger to buy those houses. If everyone taxes TRIPLED we couldn't pay that off.
You think thats workable? Not a chance. And thats just for 1000 homes per city. Vancouver for example currently has about 125,000 rentals, Toronto has 550,000 rentals so 1000 is barely a drop in the bucket.
Amazing the things that one can come up with when one doesnt do the math.
Real estate doesn't cost money, it makes money. That's not 21 trillion () dollars of cash. That's 21 trillion () dollars of debt in mortgages. Which earns an income and pays for themselves.
I agree! The correct number is 21 billion, not trillion. Don't worry, you were only off by a factor of 1000!
$21B is about 1/8th of what Carney is proposing to spend annually on defence.
Absolutely doable.
Huh, you are indeed correct. Hoisted by my own petard.
And your preconceived biases, don't forget those. You were eager to believe your mistakes.