167
submitted 1 year ago by RehRomano@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 42 points 1 year ago

I disagree. Homeowners of multi-million-dollar properties have something others really want — property — but they also usually don’t actually OWN the property; they have mortgages.

And if they sold their property, some of them would be wealthy, but they’d also be homeless. And as soon as they attempted to buy another property (or even rent), they’d be back to having very limited disposable income.

So yeah; they’re still middle class. Someone else is holding the purse strings; the purse is just bigger.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 year ago

For anyone who purchased a house in the last 5ish years sure. Much longer than that and they are sitting on a whole lot of equity.

Yes if they sold the house they would have 1/2 - 1 million dollars in cash and be homeless. But that's a lot of dollars better than all the other people who currently also don't own a home and don't have all that cash.

Which is sorta the point the article is trying to make.

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago

Yeah; I agree with that point, but not how they couched it — those people are still middle class.

The real kicker is that all the people who currently don’t own a home and don’t have the cash… are lower class. Despite thinking of themselves as middle class.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I don't agree with that take.

Those house owners likely fall into upper middle class rather than middle class.

Another way to look at it. Depending on who you ask middle class roughly covers household income of about 75k-150k

If one of those home owners sold their home and made 1 million in equity, that money could be expected to make them ~50k a year. For many current home owners that hypothetical raise would push them above the middle-class bracket.

[-] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

"We're not middle and lower class, we're all working class"

Most home owners, if they cash out their home, and either rent or downsize, will still absolutely need to work to eat, and if they don't they will find themselves homeless before long.

For that small portion that could actually live on the equity from downsizing their housing, yeah, they are upper class, but there are a lot fewer of those than you would think. For a single person, a million in equity (50k a year) might get you by, but not luxuriously and not safely, and most houses are owned by couples though (so cut that in half), and many have dependents.

[-] pbjamm@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

(50k a year) might get you by, but not luxuriously and not safely

I am sure it is possible to find a deal on a rental somewhere out in the bush, but in (or near) the city a 2br place will eat up half your monthly allowance.

[-] pbjamm@beehaw.org -2 points 1 year ago

1 million in equity, that money could be expected to make them ~50k a year

Except that they will need to take the lion share of that and buy a new also-very-epensive home. Certainly wont leave a lot of investment cash.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Did you not read the earlier comments in this thread? That very point was already addressed.

The point the article is trying to make is that after selling the house, even after mortgage is settled, these homeowners have a lot of cash. Much more than their renter peers who are in the same position (houseless) and trying to find something they can afford.

The point above seems obvious when it's put like that, but it's still hard for people to grasp.

This is why the article argues that people who are in the privileged position of having huge equity in their house need to also consider what that does to their wealth class, even if they themselves don't believe it. A lot of home owners who have had a house for 10-15 years (and even more who paid off their house years ago) have no clue how much harder it has gotten for middle class income people to buy houses.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

This article is a smear job trying to say “owning a home makes you wealthy” and ignores the fact that “the cash to own 7 homes” is the real problem.

[-] atomWood@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I certainly agree. Seeing as all property values skyrocketed in the past few years, those whose homes are now worth $1 million only kept up with everyone else.

Seeing as over 60% of Canadians own their home, that means that the rise of property costs merely widened the gap between those that own and those who rent. While the rise of property costs certainly isn’t a good thing, those who own property realistically aren’t any better off than they were before.

[-] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

What's the statscan definition of homeowner? Aren't myself and my partner considered owners because we live with my parents in their house, so there are 4 "homeowners" living in the house.

I could be wrong but I remember reading what they consider a homeowner does not match what common sense says it is. Please point me in the direction of something if I'm wrong, I've tried looking but can't find anything.

[-] atomWood@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

That’s a great question, and I can’t seem to find an answer. I got my information from stats Canada, but I can’t seem to find how they define a home owner.

[-] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Looks like it's people who report ownership on their taxes, i.e. legal owners. So either one or both parents would be a "homeowner", depending on whether it's singly or jointly owned, but other adult tenants wouldn't be (unless they were partial owners).

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Ownership rates are around 65%, but mortgage rates in Canada are only about 30%.

So less than half of homeowners have a mortgage, and another good chunk of those mortgages were small to begin with and are approaching being paid off.

You don't need to sell the house to benefit from owning it or it having a higher price either. You get to live in it for the cost of taxes and maintenance, that's a massive amount of freed up monthly cash flow. The house value being higher means you're paying less comparable to someone who has to rent at current market values (like a young adult moving out)

It would be less beneficial to own the house if the value was lower and rents were dirt cheap.

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Mmm, headline mentions 'impact on renters' though - so we're already talking about people who not only own a house, they own a house that is not their residence and earns money for them

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

It kinda sorta does, but even the article body flip flops between “homeowner” and “owner of $3.2mil property” and likewise between “landlord” and “airbnb magnate”. The headline implies that landowners don’t understand the plight of the renter, and asserts that the landowner isn’t middle class anymore.

While there are good points in there, the headline misses the point that the “wealthy” don’t need to work, and can be independently wealthy purely through extracting rent from use of what they own.

Most property-rich householders aren’t there; their equity isn’t enough to sustain them.

There’s no denying the gap between renters and landholders. Renters are way worse off. But those renting out a carriage house or basement suite to be able to make the mortgage payments aren’t in the same class as the likes of Dorset Realty and those who own them.

this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
167 points (81.0% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
485 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS