this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)

CanadaPolitics

1947 readers
3 users here now

Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Carney said he’s propose “some big changes and some bold new ideas” in the coming weeks to address those economic issues. He vowed the Liberals “are going to win the (next) general election” despite the party’s months-long polling slump under Trudeau.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

We have to pay for the speculation otherwise from the homeowner's perspective, they have again just lost all that value, regardless of how it was acquired. That's literally the whole issue.

I don't believe this is true and I speculate there are good reasons enough homeowners (like me) will sign up for such a scheme. For example that this shields them from the risk of devaluation which can happen in number of unrelated ways. Another example is that many are worried and understand their children will not be able to afford a home unless prices fall. Ultimately the only way to know for sure is to see how people vote on a proposal like that. Homeownership is around 60% so you don't even need most homeowners to go along with this for it to have broad support. I'm just speculating enough will. Could be wrong.

You can't just hand wave and say there's infinite money if we just raise wages or tax corporations more. We probably could tax corps more but there's all sorts of secondary consequences to that.

I didn't do that. I did a back-of-the-napkin feasibility calculaton like you did and I think it shows what I suggested is feasible. No more, no less. If other first world countries have such schemes and are doing alright, likely we could too.

[–] Lauchs 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

How does your scheme protect from devaluation? If my home drops say, 200k but you're going to offset some of that in pensions, okay, let's put aside the lost equity, how does this stop me losing say, half the equity in my home from some random devaluation?

Providing a living pension doesn't mean I'm no longer interested in the investment I've spent 20 years paying off...

or we could free them from it and have wages rise proportionally or increase corporate taxes.

This is not a napkin calculation, this is handwaving!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The value of what I proposed is 320K. If I signed up for the scheme, I will get 320K guaranteed by the government pension and I no longer care what my home is worth. If I don't and the market crashes for whatever reason, I lose whatever the market shaves off from my property's equity. I guess you wouldn't like this deal. I would. ☺️

[–] Lauchs 1 points 3 days ago

I'm fairly confident few people would choose this scheme because otherwise you would've already sold your homes and kept the difference...