karlhungus @ karlhungus @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

137

Joined

2 yr. ago

As a parent, this is a parenting/personal issue, fuck off and please spend my money doing useful things (like supporting health care, or housing) not attempting to protect my children.

Skim the article, it's 20 large municipality's, nowhere is 0 mentioned

It seems like you maybe thinking this is saying police do nothing, it isn't.

No consistent association means the data doesn't back up higher or lower funding having an impact on crime. It doesn't say anything about rates when the funding is zero or when funding is very high.

I think it means can't pay to reduce crime, or not pay and expect crime to go up.

Testing for zero would be extremely difficult, because we only have one Toronto sized city in Canada.

I'm guessing here but I suspect that there's a significant number of places with zero police presence that have very little crime. And this article suggests that there are very well funded police presences where crime still happens.

How is it impossible to be true?

I'm not sure how you could make this argument without making assumptions about base crime rates.

Could be in vogue and also true

I think I favour building lots of (hopefully well made) public housing, and taxes on non primary dwellings. I'm not in any way an expert though.

I don't really understand why the statements in your second paragraph are true.

If you bought your house for $600k you should hopefully be prepared to pay that $600k over time, whether or not interest rates go up.

Unfortunate reality is sometimes rates jump, predicting 10 years out what your income will be, and how interest rates change is sort of impossible. IMO a lot of this uncertainty on the part of the buyer is mitigated by history, while the banks only have to take that risk in 5 year chunks (idk if there are longer renewal periods).

faster by kicking people out and foreclosing

short googling seems like people tend to declare bankruptcy first in canada. It all around seems like a terrible situation -- and not one we'd want to encourage, hence: we probably shouldn't actively lower existing housing prices to pandemic or 2010 prices.

Selling and purchasing aren't the only time you'd feel it. Any time interest rates go up you'd also feel it (now you get to pay more on large amount). With very large principals you'd be paying it for longer. Anytime the mortgage goes up for renewal no bank would want to touch you, or maybe they'd love you, just with really unfavorable terms (idk much about banks).

Having a large mortgage when the asset tanks can be thought of having a big debt where the collateral for that debt is suddenly with way less.

I finally see what you are trying to say. You wouldn't mind losing value in your house, so "the statement remains false" for you.

All i was saying originally is: lowering housing prices would be hard to pull off politically because there will be a significant portion of the 65% of canadians that own houses, that would mind losing that value.

Stagnation is way different then reduction, I'd also be fine with that, as i suspect would be other home owners.

Tank "to suffer rapid decline, failure, or collapse" is different from stagnate. The OP said:

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

This jives with tank, but not with stagnate.

The statement was all home owners want prices to increase.

This statement was never made.

I could care less if it tanks

If you have a mortgage, you should care, you should probably care if you don't.

Lets imagine that a $656,6253 house were to go back to it's 2010 price, about $339,030.

If you have a mortgage you now have about 600k in debt on an asset worth 340k.

https://media.tenor.com/GxfSlJG_H7AAAAAC/confusion-visible-confusion.gif

I policy like this may ignore them, but housing prices can reduce on their own without any government intervention...

This is all i was saying, it is not a simple thing, as the original post said

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

Makes it sound like "hey it's simple we just fuck 65% of people in canada" is not a winning political strategy.

Stagnation might be the only reasonable solution. I'm all for taxing home speculation by companies, and raising taxes on secondary/rentals. Hell, i'd be for a subsidies for buying houses even to the poorest people. I want to live in a pleasant place, part of that means everyone lives and works comfortably.

Artificially reducing building supply while people cannot afford to rent or purchase is pretty fucking shitty

I don't know who's doing this or how it relates to the original post

I've sold at a loss twice. It sucks. But that's a risk of ownership.

Presumably prices were also cheaper when you bought in that market, so there's some

Bonus point for undertaxed homes, and suburban regions that survive on pushing the ponzi scheme further out or leeching on city core taxes; for LVT is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't know anything about this

I remain unconvinced the original statement is false. I don't care about being correct.

No, we've been purchasing a thing for years, we have not been saving. We can sell that thing, but it is under no obligation to be valued higher than when we bought it.

What do you mean "no", I never said "people who bought houses must get a higher return on money spent", i said a policy like this would ignore those people.

What i said originally:

I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike...

Was in response to:

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

This policy would ignore anyone in a house. That also seems shitty

See my original comment:

I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike

A higher standard means ignoring voting citizens?

That seems unfair

Your one example is pretty easy to refute, I own my house I don't want houses to lose that stored value, or all the money I've been shoveling into my mortgage I could have been saving for w/e. It ignores that people with houses have been saving for years.

Reduction and stagnation are different.

I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike, every one who's in a house is going to hate loosing that value, and any politician who lowers the current value of property will have to deal with upsetting that category of voters. It seems like building more affordable houses would be better, it'll have a similar effect, but probably not as drastic.

If they put effort into making them environmentally friendly and employeed/educated people to do that we could make our country a nicer place to live. Just have to breakup the grocery conglomerates and things would be looking up