Rick (Master Crayon Eater) on choosing your political horse

[Good2Golf]

sure and its possible that the interest rates continue to go higher notwithstanding inflation as a means of getting housing under control. We already know Tiff and Justin dont care

Just how far does housing have to plummet to be ‘under control?’

Housing is a convenient, but specious justification for interest rate hikes. When the Government slows its massive issue of federal bonds (incr. M2) needed to finance its huge deficits and debt financing requirements, the rates may be able to be eased, but that seems not to be slowing any time soon…and if Team Justin kicks off another election, the federal floodgates are more than likely to open wider, not close…

 

[suffolkowner]

Just how far does housing have to plummet to be ‘under control?’

Housing is a convenient, but specious justification for interest rate hikes. When the Government slows its massive issue of federal bonds (incr. M2) needed to finance its huge deficits and debt financing requirements, the rates may be able to be eased, but that seems not to be slowing any time soon…and if Team Justin kicks off another election, the federal floodgates are more than likely to open wider, not close…

I dont think they raised interest rates due to house prices more the usual inflation but that doesnt mean that they dont take the opportunity. Housing has been too high for a couple decades IMO but the last couple of years its put that to shame

 

[Good2Golf]

Rates were to deal with inflation. Remember, the BoC is ‘totally separate’ from the GoC, and many are so quick to point out.

It was the GoC demonizing housing prices as the principle impact in interest rates until…you know…housing fell 20% and inflation kept rising.

Not sure about others, but food and fuel (tpt and heating) inflation (well, well beyond the 2022 CPI of 6.3%) have been the biggest impacts on my budget ballooning.

 

[dapaterson]

There is no good answer for housing in the short term. Higher rates? Folks who are heavily leveraged who bought because of FOMO will lose their homes, something no government wants on their watch. Lower rates? Without new supply (and we'd need to double current building to make a dent in pent up demand) prices will merely increase.

Add to that restrictive R1 zoning which incentivizes large poor quality single family dwellings that are expensive to service (both to extend services, and on an ongoing basis) and you've got only a small part of the chaos in the housing market right now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Population of Canada is over 38.5M; government policy is aiming for closing on 0.5 immigrants per year. Upward pressure on housing prices.

Inflation is running high, so central banks are raising rates. Downward pressure on housing prices (roughly 10% drop year-over-year since last Jan).

Most workers are agitating for substantial wage increases to match inflation. Success will not be evenly distributed and will tend to favour workers whose employers mostly don't care about running a solvent business. Upward pressure on housing prices.

Inflation isn't due to one thing. Loose government spending, supply chain disruption, and increased cost of energy due to anti-fossil government policies and positions all play a part. To the extent that governments can avoid some of the first and withhold hostility regarding the last, governments bear responsibility. Governments managed things badly in the 70s for several years before things got turned around; no reason to believe current office holders are super-competent.

 

[Good2Golf]

Population of Canada is over 38.5M; government policy is aiming for closing on 0.5 immigrants per year. Upward pressure on housing prices.

Inflation is running high, so central banks are raising rates. Downward pressure on housing prices (roughly 10% drop year-over-year since last Jan).

Most workers are agitating for substantial wage increases to match inflation. Success will not be evenly distributed and will tend to favour workers whose employers mostly don't care about running a solvent business. Upward pressure on housing prices.

Inflation isn't due to one thing. Loose government spending, supply chain disruption, and increased cost of energy due to anti-fossil government policies and positions all play a part. To the extent that governments can avoid some of the first and withhold hostility regarding the last, governments bear responsibility. Governments managed things badly in the 70s for several years before things got turned around; no reason to believe current office holders are super-competent.

Housing…pshaww! We need to take climate change more seriously, even if it means people going homeless. We’ll all be homeless if we don’t address the specter of environmental devastation…

Ontario Greenbelt 'is our jurisdiction,' Ford says after federal environment minister suggests intervening in housing plan

The plan 'flies in the face of everything we’re trying to do in terms of being better prepared for the impacts of climate change,' Steven Guilbeault said

nationalpost.com

 

[Eaglelord17]

Simple things that can happen to correct the housing market.

1) Make it illegal for companies to own homes other than apartment buildings. Homes shouldn’t be a investment for companies, there is many vacant homes in this country due to speculative investing. If those homes were on the market and occupied the prices would go down.

2) Allow those who overleveraged themselves at too high a mortgage to fail, the market needs to correct and part of that is short term hurt over long term pain.

3) Prevent foreigners from owning in country, you don’t live here you can’t own here.

4) Get rid of mortgage insurance (CMHC, Genworth, etc.). These have driven a large part of banks lending bad loans due to the fact they aren’t going to have to face the consequences of their actions. If you default currently the mortgage insurance company takes the house and writes off the loan.

Historically the home was the collateral for the loan and if you failed to pay the bank would then have to recover the debt from sale of the house. The reason this matters is because they won’t give a mortgage they feel you can’t afford or is overpriced in the first place as they won’t make any money on it. Currently they don’t care as they don’t take any sort of hit if you default.

The biggest people harmed by the inflated housing prices aren’t even home owners, its the renters. They have no choice but to pay ever increasing rent to cover the larger and larger mortgages. We are even creating basically a locked in class system in some cities as due to rent control. Many cannot afford to ever move from their apartment due to the massive rent increase that would come from moving anywhere else.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Housing isn't part of the BoC's lane. Central banks work on keeping inflation within set bounds - under 2%, for example. They might pay a little attention to employment rates.

Even with mortgage insurance, banks have criteria they apply. Payments as a fraction of income, for example.

Most people who qualify for a CMHC-insured mortgage are relatively low risks in the first place.

If governments yank out investors and the price of homes really does fall, a lot of non-investors are going to be underwater. I don't know exactly what is likely to result from that, but pretty much every time government fucks with investments, bad things happen.

 

[foresterab]

I wouldn’t have a mortgage if I owed only 25,000. But I’ll play along, what % of gross income would you say someone would be spending on a mortgage for 3x rise in interest to not be a concern?

If I remember the numbers from when I applied for my home I think it was a maximum of 65% take home salary for all debts/expenditures and of that only 45% maximum could be considered the mortgage. So ran some math on an online mortgage calculator based upon $100k annual gross salary, 40% taxes paid and max 45% mortgage payment per month.

Bank was pushing to lend me the maximum 45% rate which on rough math today makes it out for me at $2,250 maximum mortgage payment per month. So ran some math on an online mortgage calculator based upon $100k annual gross salary, 40% taxes paid and max 45% mortgage payment per month. That's the number the bank says....but it sure as heck isn't a nice way to live. I went for a mortgage closer to 35% or $1400.

To use your example of trippling the mortgage...or in my case to move from the $1400/month (@ 3%) to a 9% interest rate...it puts me right at the theoretical maximum allowed at $2170. That would really hurt and frankly I couldn't do it with taxes, heating and food also all much higher.

So to answer your question...and running some numbers I had to have over 75% equity in the home before the interest rate difference resulted in less than a car payment increase in finances.

Or to put in another way less than 18% of monthly cash flow in has to be on the mortgage...that's a fairly small segment of people with mortgages

 

[dapaterson]

My philosophy was to buy much less than the bank thought I could, and pay back at an accelerated rate (ie payments close to the max the bank would have given as a mortgage). Paid down faster; if financial problems hit would have scaled back to minimum payments.

Delayed gratification means no mortgage earlier, but on a smaller house.

 

[ArmyRick]

So about a year later now. I wanted to ask those that participated in the discussion of the original post a question that follows the theme.

How do you decide which politician to choose?

Are you willing to change your mind?

Do you have sound reasons to support your choice or against another?

Curious.

 

[Good2Golf]

For me it is to support politicians who do two things: 1) support legislation and policies that I believe are beneficial for Canadian society in general and for me specifically; and 2) actually follow through with their promises into implementation and maintenance. I don’t appreciate spamming with money at times of influence, only to be disregarded as soon as my usage/influence has benefited the politician.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

For me it is a balance between the local candidate and the party policies. I have to weigh, each time, what I calculate to be the best outcome before I vote.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's still general fiscal philosophy. Without sound finances, everything else eventually falls apart. It doesn't happen all at once. Health insurance is the premier example. We've known for decades that health care spending was likely to increase faster than the revenues to pay claims; that's why the 2004 "health care accord" was created (to provide a few years of 6% funding increases). Based on experience, access to health care is good if you have the information which proves you have a condition meriting the attention of specialists. But you can die waiting to get that information.

Meanwhile we find other ways to spend the revenue increases that wouldn't even be enough to properly fund health care, if the parties that crow so much about public health insurance cared enough to properly fund health care.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sticking this here, because what people understand about economics - and particularly about the importance of being able to trade freely without a bunch of limitations - translates (or should) into the kinds of political philosophies people support. (The zero-sum folks never get it.)

Source here. (Econlog economics blog) in comment added by the OP.

"The instructor handed various items of candy to everyone – one person got Twizzlers, one got a little bag of Skittles, etc. Everyone rated how happy the were with their candy on a scale of 1 to 10. Then, he gave everyone a few minutes to trade with each other – I’ll take your Skittles if you want some Twizzlers, etc – and once that was done, everyone rated their candy again. Before trade, the average score was 6.5 out of 10, and after trading it was 9 out of 10. Even though nothing new had been created, everyone in class was better off simply by being able to trade, because a trade would only happen when both parties benefitted."

 

[foresterab]

Pretty simple set of initial criteria for me:
1) you have to actually campaign in the riding. If I show up on election day and you've made no effort to even put signs up you're not a viable option to support my interests
2) Fiscal accountability is key. Which means not spending like a drunken fool in booms and having a clear set of consistent priorities for how money is spent.
3) I hate regional parties.

 

[ArmyRick]

So, we are approaching a very strong possibility of an election within the next 6 months. I figure I would bring this back. Its about WHAT your looking for in selecting a political candidate.

For me, I plan to select my political candidate like I am running selection. Deeds not words. Don't care who they are but what they stand for and what the plan is. That is my only criteria. Some of you will laugh and say "Your a Pierre a fanboy blah, blah, fucking blah...". No, biscuit, I am not. And I am starting to notice I have been right on a lot of things about Trudeau, go figure. In my view, the party that represents a party, they become one and the same. Don't care if a candidate is an excellent human being, if they represent a garbage party, forget it.
So parties being reviewed.

Liberals (NOT SELECTED)
-Integrity, Accountability and Transparency (ZERO, way too many scandals to list)
-Leadership (Very, very low, Trudeau is a moral coward, see above, add to that, he has NO control over his ministers)
-Economy (Big Fail)
-Military (Big Fail)
-Immigration (massive FAILURE)
-Justice (Bail for all, big failure)
-Border Security (Fail, fail, big fail)
-International Relations (fail but Trudeau does blow a ton of cash on foreign nations, so some may see that as a win)
-Financial Management (Huge fail)
-Natural Resources (Fail. Liberals are half assing it. They pretend they want NO resource extraction to one side and then pretend they are doing massive natural resource extraction).

Conservatives (SELECTED)
-Integrity, Accountability and Transparency (Not too bad, I will give them a 4/5)
-Leadership (Excellent for Pierre, he better stand by what he says)
-Military (Not too happy with Pierre on this one, lets see)
-Immigration (Like his plan)
-Justice (Like his plan)
-Border Security (Like his plan)
-International Relations (Maybe he can do this, lets see, especially handling Trump)
-Financial Management (Really like his plan)
-Natural Resources (Really like his plan).

NDP (NOT SELECTED)
-Integrity, Accountability and Transparency (Very, very low, worst than the Liberals)
-Leadership (Extremely low, I would say worst than Trudeau, keeps flip flopping, at least Trudeau consistently lies)
-Economy (No plan, fail)
-Military (No plan, fail)
-Immigration (Fail, extremely unrealistic)
-Justice (No plan, fail)
-Border Security (No plan, fail)
-International Relations (Fail, don't insult our allies)
-Financial Management (Fail worst than the Liberals)
-Natural Resources (Massive fail).

BLOC (SELECTED -VIABLE QUEBEC OPTION)
-Integrity, Accountability and Transparency (Not bad. They mean what they say they stand for)
-Leadership (Yves Blanchett has shown strong leadership for his party)
-Economy (Not bad, too Quebec focused)
-Military (No plan, fail)
-Immigration (Many valid suggestions)
-Justice (OK)
-Border Security (OK)
-International Relations (Not sure)
-Financial Management (Not sure where they stand)
-Natural Resources (Fail).

GREEN PARTY (RTU immediately)
No

PPC (No show)