31–40 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Canada’s Business Immigration Program, specifically the investor stream, is a primary cause of the housing crisis, according to Gordon. This “cash for citizenship” program has allowed wealthy individuals (net worth $1.6 million or higher) to come to Canada. https://the-peak.ca/2016/05/vancouvers-housing-crisis-caused...
That program hasn't existed in years.
I don't think you need to look far to figure out that foreign cash purchases are coming from... foreign rich people who realize that housing is the best long-term investment possible.
Canada, and the USA, need to make buying our land harder, especially for foreigners. In the USA, all it takes to buy a house is money. A wealthy person sitting anywhere can buy a home with a email, and a few clicks, or a phone call. All it takes is money. If a person can't legally live in the home he bought, why are we selling it to them? I know the answer, but don't like it. I don't know of any other country that ma…
An irrelevant sideshow. If they made housing plentiful and cheap then nobody would buy it for any reason other than shelter.
Do you feel that's a bad outcome? The phrasing suggests so, interested in why you feel that way.
An irrelevant sideshow. If they made housing plentiful and cheap then nobody would buy it for any reason other than shelter.
New Zealand has a similar housing problem. House prices are skyrocketing and pricing out young people. A 25-30% rise in the past year has meant few people are saving fast enough to get a deposit. But two or three years ago the govt. banned overseas buyers. There is no reason to suggest the ban is not effective. It even bans non-permanent residents, so plenty of legitimate residents (work visas) can't purchase propert…
Should housing be a primary vehicle for investment and the de facto way of making money? Or should it serve as a necessity and basic aspect of life?
I've been thinking about it ever since, particularly that money usually flows between these 3. The exponential growth required for compound interest to work is only possible in a shortage. Stocks in companies follow a contract-expand business cycle. Governments grow linearly at best. But property has been increasing exponentially due to an increasing population.
I fear the day when companies realise that they'll make more money by starting a war, which would devastate governments and property. Many people of a similar age are getting married and buying houses, but I don't know feel that the future is stable enough to make either of those decisions. The kind of house I'd want now as a single guy is different to a house that would be suitable for kids (in the right school zone), or a house for retirement. I think the only safe investment is philanthropy: give it all away, and if I'm still alive, hope that some of those people I help now will be able to support me in my old age after economic, political, and environmental disasters strike.
In this scheme, a common man will not be able to buy/own any house but they can only rent it. It will be very similar to SaaS model in which Houses will be provided as a service.
Surely a role played by Chinese Govt. Why no one talks about that?
Should housing be a primary vehicle for investment and the de facto way of making money? Or should it serve as a necessity and basic aspect of life?