Canada

7200 readers

317 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Raptors

Soccer

List of All Teams: unknown
General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Universities

UBC
UWaterloo
SFU
UoGuelph
OTU
McGill
U Western
UofT
UofA: unknown

💵 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

[email protected]

Are ‘mom-and-pop’ investors pricing out first-time homebuyers? (globalnews.ca)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 42 points 7 months ago (12 children)

I'll repost a comment I made before again here:

If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.

We should all work so that each person has one home.

And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.

context: https://lemmy.ca/comment/4927203

[+] [email protected] -15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

Not everyone wants to own and not everyone that doesn't want to own wants to rent an apartment and it's not the government's place to own single family houses for rent (all provincial governments should have a non profit crown corporation owning all rental properties over a certain number of doors though).

Edit: Downvote all you want, I know tons of people that don't want to have to deal with the maintenance responsibilities that come with a house, they still have a family and don't want to live in an apartment, would you rather force them to own the place they live in?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It is most certainly the government's business providing housing for its citizens. Like we did, the state- and thereby the people (who own the fucking state), collectively owned like half of all homes in the country. Rent was dirt cheap, anything belonging to the apartment or house was the responsibility of the landlord (a communal entity) to maintain on their own buck, everyone could easily get a home, and it was considered one of the social wonders of the world.

Then the capitalists bought their way into government, sold it all, and now we have a "housing crisis".

Conservatives- they sure know how to create a good life for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah, as I said, they should have a crown corporation for rental properties above a certain number of doors, but single family housing (which actually make cities worse) aren't their responsibility.

Also, when exactly did the State own half the homes in the country?

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)