Warhippy Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 10 hours ago, Boudrias said: The standard response to government debt was that the country would grow itself out of the debt. For years the anticipated GDP growth was +/- 2.5%. The Americans are blowing that number out of the water but here in Canada we struggle to reach 0%. This is why I suggest PP will look at energy exports, both oil and LNG. Growing this industry will benefit the entire country. They blew that chance in 81-82 when they told the eastern bastards to freeze in the dark 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 10 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: I can also see a small tax being implemented on your principal residence. I don’t see a conservative government increasing personal taxes. YOu havent been paying attention then eh? A conservative government will absolutely increase or raise personal taxes directly or via a decrease in services but no decrease in spending. What you won't see is them actually taxing the wealthy or corporations 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 7 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: The problem with comparing Trudeau to those other PM's is that back in the days of Mulroney and Chretien, house prices were dramatically lower, but wages were still pretty high in comparison. So, you got more value for your buck. Back in the 1990's I had friends as well as myself who were making six figure incomes. A detached home in the 1990's was around $300k in East Vancouver. So, as you can see life was much better back then. I bought my first condo for $86,000 back in the 1990's. I only needed to save up for one year to buy it. Actually, really only 6 months. Plus buying a car only took a few months of savings. Eating out was not a problem. I remember the days of $9.99 all you can eat sushi. Our purchasing power was dramatically higher in those days. Even when Harper took over it still wasn't too bad. Things went off the rails around 2007 or so. By 2016 it was a complete shit show and hasn't changed since in close to a decade. House prices have more than doubled in the last decade. Which has made real estate completely unaffordable for even a person making a six figure income. Fast forward to today. If you are making $100k today you are still not able to even really live a good life. You are paying the bills and maybe going out for diner once a month if you are a family. And how long will it take to save up to buy a car? What about a condo? That's the difference. Your purchasing power is almost nothing today. And that is because wages have not kept up with real estate prices or even other goods and services. At the end of the day, there really isn't any good solution to the problem. Is PP going to fix everything? Of course not. He may make things worse. But Trudeau isn't fixing everything either. So, it's a lost cause no matter who is in charge. With our current deficit, I don't think things will ever get better. Not in the next decade or so anyways. As with every other government, people eventually want change. I am pretty hard on Trudeau these days, maybe I get too emotional in this thread, so I am guilty of that like you and many others. Politics is a hot button issue and discussing it isn't for everyone. Most people on CFF and the old CDC stay far away from the political threads. These threads were so bad on CDC that they had to be put into a private section. So that tells you everything you need to know. I can make a comment to a post and then I will get 3-4 sarcastic responses afterwards. This happens all the time. You know this as you read the posts. It doesn't help discussion and pushes people away from these threads. One more thing. As for Gen Z being able to buy a home and that house prices need to tank to accomplish that, well that is never going to happen. I mean, even if house prices dropped by 50%, they would still be unaffordable for the average person. The only way that Gen Z has a hope to be able to buy a property is if there is a massive amount of supply that comes onto the market, and also that supply has to be smaller condos where the price point drops considerably. Same with houses. You just need to build smaller homes. This comes with multi-family units, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. If you build the smaller homes with the smaller price points, then people may have a shot at getting into the market. We DO need to build more, and more affordable types, of housing. Things that largely fall under the purview of provinces and municipalities (our local ones are making headway there). They're also things PP utterly failed at while working in the housing Ministry. People DO need to demand better compensation for their work to reduce growing wage disparity. That largely falls under the purview of personal negotiation skills and/or unionization. Honestly, we need unionization en masse to flip some of the power back to workers. Do the Conservatives strike you as a union friendly political party given their history? 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureQuickness Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 18 hours ago, Duodenum said: Maybe it is. Canada has resources galore, yet leadership doesn't know how to use it. It's not. I get that there's an obsession to link Benning to everything, but this is not a good analogy. I've just explained why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Canada's maple syrup reserve almost empty as sap season at risk of becoming another casualty of the winter that wasn't The implicit assumption of pancake-eaters nationwide, is that maple syrup will always be available for breakfast. But a collision of forces have brought the billion-plus dollar industry to an uncertain moment. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/canadas-maple-syrup-reserve-almost-empty-as-sap-season-at-risk-of-becoming-another-casualty/article_6f498bce-e788-11ee-8773-c71464d8be74.html - I'll never understand people who don't think Canada has a duty toward the environment. If we're not going to have a carbon tax, in what other ways are we going to meet our climate goals? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureQuickness Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 16 minutes ago, Warhippy said: YOu havent been paying attention then eh? A conservative government will absolutely increase or raise personal taxes directly or via a decrease in services but no decrease in spending. What you won't see is them actually taxing the wealthy or corporations They also don't have any concrete plan to address climate change - except not use carbon tax. While carbon tax in itself is not a fix, the Conservatives, thus far, are stuck in the past. They WANT the oil industry to continue (i.e. building pipelines), even though this is not a feasible route. The inability to adapt is the problem with the Conservative party. Whether or not they can identify their weakness will determine if they'll succeed in helping Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 9 minutes ago, 112 said: Canada's maple syrup reserve almost empty as sap season at risk of becoming another casualty of the winter that wasn't The implicit assumption of pancake-eaters nationwide, is that maple syrup will always be available for breakfast. But a collision of forces have brought the billion-plus dollar industry to an uncertain moment. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/canadas-maple-syrup-reserve-almost-empty-as-sap-season-at-risk-of-becoming-another-casualty/article_6f498bce-e788-11ee-8773-c71464d8be74.html - I'll never understand people who don't think Canada has a duty toward the environment. If we're not going to have a carbon tax, in what other ways are we going to meet our climate goals? "Justin-flation" about to hit a pancake breakfast near you soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 8 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: The problem with comparing Trudeau to those other PM's is that back in the days of Mulroney and Chretien, house prices were dramatically lower, but wages were still pretty high in comparison. So, you got more value for your buck. Back in the 1990's I had friends as well as myself who were making six figure incomes. A detached home in the 1990's was around $300k in East Vancouver. So, as you can see life was much better back then. I bought my first condo for $86,000 back in the 1990's. I only needed to save up for one year to buy it. Actually, really only 6 months. Plus buying a car only took a few months of savings. Eating out was not a problem. I remember the days of $9.99 all you can eat sushi. Our purchasing power was dramatically higher in those days. Even when Harper took over it still wasn't too bad. Things went off the rails around 2007 or so. By 2016 it was a complete shit show and hasn't changed since in close to a decade. House prices have more than doubled in the last decade. Which has made real estate completely unaffordable for even a person making a six figure income. Fast forward to today. If you are making $100k today you are still not able to even really live a good life. You are paying the bills and maybe going out for diner once a month if you are a family. And how long will it take to save up to buy a car? What about a condo? That's the difference. Your purchasing power is almost nothing today. And that is because wages have not kept up with real estate prices or even other goods and services. At the end of the day, there really isn't any good solution to the problem. Is PP going to fix everything? Of course not. He may make things worse. But Trudeau isn't fixing everything either. So, it's a lost cause no matter who is in charge. With our current deficit, I don't think things will ever get better. Not in the next decade or so anyways. As with every other government, people eventually want change. I am pretty hard on Trudeau these days, maybe I get too emotional in this thread, so I am guilty of that like you and many others. Politics is a hot button issue and discussing it isn't for everyone. Most people on CFF and the old CDC stay far away from the political threads. These threads were so bad on CDC that they had to be put into a private section. So that tells you everything you need to know. I can make a comment to a post and then I will get 3-4 sarcastic responses afterwards. This happens all the time. You know this as you read the posts. It doesn't help discussion and pushes people away from these threads. One more thing. As for Gen Z being able to buy a home and that house prices need to tank to accomplish that, well that is never going to happen. I mean, even if house prices dropped by 50%, they would still be unaffordable for the average person. The only way that Gen Z has a hope to be able to buy a property is if there is a massive amount of supply that comes onto the market, and also that supply has to be smaller condos where the price point drops considerably. Same with houses. You just need to build smaller homes. This comes with multi-family units, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. If you build the smaller homes with the smaller price points, then people may have a shot at getting into the market. I need to make something clear with you. It is very difficult to engage in a discussion with someone who almost entirely relies on anecdotes to support their opinion. Your entire belief system is based on perception alone. I am basing my opinions on official statistics (which you have wholly dismissed), budgetary reports and global data. If you aren't going to take any of that stuff seriously, it simply isn't worth my time to research and pull up those numbers. It's not like posting JFresh cards. What is the point of all this if you intend to just brush all of it off? An example: "You can't have a good life with 100K." What am I even supposed to say to something like that? Like, seriously - how is anyone supposed to respond to such a value-based claim? If you're trying to say something like "Canada is experiencing decreased purchasing power parity", that's at least a concrete statement that can be addressed. That is a statement you've just made, and the data completely goes against what you're saying. You can try to spin it however you like, but you need to accept that your opinion goes completely against the actual facts. It's not up for debate. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/december-2023/inflation-spending-power/ So I'll say this again: If you intend to ignore actual statistics/data and just rely on your personal experiences, please don't waste my time anymore. Because facts don't care about your feelings. P.S.: For housing, you're suggesting housing companies put in so much supply that the selling price gets cut in half. That is simply not how market economics work. For the same reason any store can influence price by controlling supply (ie. a fast food joint jacking prices up), there is simply no reason for a business to build two houses at half the price. They can make just as much money building one house. EDIT: My words are coming off a bit too harsh. You can try and criticize the methodology of some of this data, but you can't just use your personal experiences to dismiss it. Edited March 24 by Miss Korea 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Anti-authority narratives could tear 'fabric of society,' intelligence report warns Violent threats have become increasingly common outside of elections, report says https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/threats-of-violence-canada-elections-1.7153960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 18 minutes ago, PureQuickness said: They also don't have any concrete plan to address climate change - except not use carbon tax. While carbon tax in itself is not a fix, the Conservatives, thus far, are stuck in the past. They WANT the oil industry to continue (i.e. building pipelines), even though this is not a feasible route. The inability to adapt is the problem with the Conservative party. Whether or not they can identify their weakness will determine if they'll succeed in helping Canadians. im absolutely no fan of additional taxes. bc has had one since like 2007 But there's literally zero attempt to address the obvious climate change happening. Look at the river in PG right now for verification. Something HAS to change 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 22 minutes ago, PureQuickness said: It's not. I get that there's an obsession to link Benning to everything, but this is not a good analogy. I've just explained why. If you insist lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maninthebox Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Warhippy said: im absolutely no fan of additional taxes. bc has had one since like 2007 But there's literally zero attempt to address the obvious climate change happening. Look at the river in PG right now for verification. Something HAS to change Could you post a link, please? I couldn't find anything relevant, and I don't want to call my mother today! ie: the river, specifically Edited March 24 by Maninthebox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 I am sure Piuerre and the Conservatives with their issues with lobbying will have this addressed immediately right? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jenni-byrne-lobbying-conflict-angus-1.7151735 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 This report has been mentioned here before. No mention of which 'side' the bulk of the culprits are on but I have my suspicions. Anti-authority narratives could tear 'fabric of society,' intelligence report warns Violent threats have become increasingly common outside of elections, report says https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/threats-of-violence-canada-elections-1.7153960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Maninthebox said: Could you post a link, please? I couldn't find anything relevant, and I don't want to call my mother today! ie: the river, specifically PG in Nov https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/local-news/drought-conditions-worsening-across-prince-george-region-7902326 Someones video from a few days back https://www.facebook.com/898795415/videos/1353126305353869/ I know the Nechako and Fraser are low this point of time of year and that the rivers always seem to look dry around the bend in the rail bridge. But this has been ongoing since Nov which is now almost 5 months without any appreciable increase in flow through the Nechako and Fraser at a time where the start of the freshet should be filling these rivers. Edited March 24 by Warhippy 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maninthebox Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Doh I can't view Facebook stuff! I did read that November article, as well as a more recent bit about the 'warm weather not a concern for flooding' (paraphrasing). There's still potential for spring weather to build up snow packs, but it's been a rough period for drought, no question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Just now, Maninthebox said: Doh I can't view Facebook stuff! I did read that November article, as well as a more recent bit about the 'warm weather not a concern for flooding' (paraphrasing). There's still potential for spring weather to build up snow packs, but it's been a rough period for drought, no question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 12 minutes ago, Maninthebox said: Doh I can't view Facebook stuff! I did read that November article, as well as a more recent bit about the 'warm weather not a concern for flooding' (paraphrasing). There's still potential for spring weather to build up snow packs, but it's been a rough period for drought, no question. Sorry my dude, I will have my buddy Jesse send me an actual photo/video I can link up here to look at. Needless to say though it's insanely low for this time of year and for how warm it has been in the region Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, Miss Korea said: I need to make something clear with you. It is very difficult to engage in a discussion with someone who almost entirely relies on anecdotes to support their opinion. Your entire belief system is based on perception alone. I am basing my opinions on official statistics (which you have wholly dismissed), budgetary reports and global data. If you aren't going to take any of that stuff seriously, it simply isn't worth my time to research and pull up those numbers. It's not like posting JFresh cards. What is the point of all this if you intend to just brush all of it off? An example: "You can't have a good life with 100K." What am I even supposed to say to something like that? Like, seriously - how is anyone supposed to respond to such a value-based claim? If you're trying to say something like "Canada is experiencing decreased purchasing power parity", that's at least a concrete statement that can be addressed. That is a statement you've just made, and the data completely goes against what you're saying. You can try to spin it however you like, but you need to accept that your opinion goes completely against the actual facts. It's not up for debate. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/december-2023/inflation-spending-power/ So I'll say this again: If you intend to ignore actual statistics/data and just rely on your personal experiences, please don't waste my time anymore. Because facts don't care about your feelings. P.S.: For housing, you're suggesting housing companies put in so much supply that the selling price gets cut in half. That is simply not how market economics work. For the same reason any store can influence price by controlling supply (ie. a fast food joint jacking prices up), there is simply no reason for a business to build two houses at half the price. They can make just as much money building one house. EDIT: My words are coming off a bit too harsh. You can try and criticize the methodology of some of this data, but you can't just use your personal experiences to dismiss it. I understand you are an analytical guy and a stats person. I know this through the hockey threads. I’m not like that. I talk about my own life experiences and what it was like to live in Vancouver 25-30 years ago. So that’s where we differ unfortunately. You cannot validate everything in life through statistics and charts. If that’s all you do then yes we probably won’t be debating much anymore. It’s like when someone on the Canucks is having a bad game, you pull up analytical charts whereas I talk about what I actually saw on the ice. It’s a generation gap. You’re a millennial and I’m a gen x’er, so we look at things differently. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s just we are different. I don’t need to look at charts to know that my life was better 25 years ago than it is now and that my purchasing power was better. I just know it was because that is what I remember. If that bothers you then I can’t help you really. I’m not interested in having debates simply based on charts and graphs. That’s not my thing. If I speak to anyone of my generation they will all tell me the same thing. That’s because I talk to these people daily. There is nobody I know who thinks they are better off now than they were in the 90’s or early 2000’s. Also, you posted a chart about purchasing power disparity between countries. I never mentioned any other countries in my previous post. I don’t give a shit how people are living in other countries and how you want to spin that to say we are better off than someone living in Estonia so Trudeau is good. I only care about what is happening in the country I live in. Our purchasing power as Canadians has vastly decreased since the 1990’s. I don’t need a chart to confirm this. $100k per year wages isn’t a great life these days. You get by and can live decently but not like before. I don’t need a chart to confirm this either. As for housing, you are totally wrong on your analogy. Like you really need to speak with experts in the field to get a better understanding of it. I never said the market needs to crash to bring prices down. Because it won’t matter. Even a 50% drop in prices won’t help the average Canadian to buy a property. That’s how fucked up the real estate market is. What I did say is builders and developers need to build smaller units to get the price per square foot down. They also need to build many more of these units to increase supply so prices don’t escalate. As for your analogy that a builder is better off building one bigger home than two smaller homes, you couldn’t be more wrong. The bigger homes are unaffordable for the average person. Also, if you build a fourplex on a property instead of one single home than your profit on a per square foot basis goes up not down. Let me explain how it works. You build one home on a single 33x122 lot and you can sell it for up to $2.8 million in Vancouver. That’s the going rate. If you build four smaller homes at let’s say 1000sf each, you can sell each individual unit for around $1.1 million. That’s also the going rate. So one unit nets a builder $2.8 million. Four units nets the builder $4.4 million. Plus you just built four smaller units that are much more affordable than the single unit. And you increased the inventory levels by an additional 3 units at more affordable price points for the average person. And the cost of construction is only marginally higher as your most expensive piece is to purchase the land. You may have to pay an extra $300-$400k for the extra finishings and labour, but your profit margin as a builder is still much higher with the four units. Plus it’s easier to sell four smaller and cheaper units versus one bigger expensive home. Does this make sense? And no you didn’t come across harshly at all. I can continue this debate with you anytime my friend. But please understand we are a generation apart so we may not see eye to eye on a lot of things and I am not the analytical person you are, so that may cause an issue with our communications on here as well. But we seem to get along in the hockey threads. So I really don’t have a problem discussing things with you here as well. Edited March 24 by Elias Pettersson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 hours ago, Warhippy said: YOu havent been paying attention then eh? A conservative government will absolutely increase or raise personal taxes directly or via a decrease in services but no decrease in spending. What you won't see is them actually taxing the wealthy or corporations I haven't seen that as a talking point anywhere. I am sure the Liberal government would be all over that if it was true. I can't see anyone, even PP, raising taxes on the middle class at any point in the near future. What I can see is taxes being raised in other ways to generate new revenues. Or new taxes implemented on the housing industry. I'd actually be shocked if it didn't happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 hours ago, aGENT said: We DO need to build more, and more affordable types, of housing. Things that largely fall under the purview of provinces and municipalities (our local ones are making headway there). They're also things PP utterly failed at while working in the housing Ministry. People DO need to demand better compensation for their work to reduce growing wage disparity. That largely falls under the purview of personal negotiation skills and/or unionization. Honestly, we need unionization en masse to flip some of the power back to workers. Do the Conservatives strike you as a union friendly political party given their history? There are ways that the federal government can help with housing costs. GST is a big thing with new construction. They control GST payments. The federal government removed the GST component on the building of new rental homes. They could go one step further and either decrease it or remove it completely from all new construction. That would be a savings of up to 5% on newly built homes and it doesn't come out of the developer's pocket, so it won't affect pricing. Of course, the revenue stream would take a big hit with that move, so that is the problem we face and why the housing situation is so fucked up. The federal government along with municipal and provincial governments already have their revenues accounted for to make their budgets., so any decrease in revenues would screw everything up. We already discussed the fact that the federal government shouldn't be involved in the construction of homes and I agree with that. But they can provide subsidies for rental homes and newly built homes, but again where is that money going to come from? New taxes? More borrowing? Again, that is the issue. Anything the federal government tries to do to help the housing crisis involves directly affecting their revenue streams. Wages have been too low since the 1990's. A teacher making $50k in the 90's only had to pay $300k to buy a house. Now a teacher making $90k has to pay $2 million for the exact same house. The disparity between wages and housing costs is to a point where even a 50% increase in a teacher's wage tomorrow still wouldn't help them to be able to buy a home. Plus, interest rates were kept artificially low for the better part of a decade, which further fueled the exponential rise in house prices. No, The Conservatives aren't the party for union workers, I do understand that. I know that in the construction field alot of the large developers don't use union workers. Reason why is it would simply add more cost to the construction of homes, which would ultimately be passed on to the consumer. I'm no expert on unions and wouldn't really know if more unions would help with wages, so I will defer that to others to speak about.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 15 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: There are ways that the federal government can help with housing costs.... Or they could just sink 4 billion dollars into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 39 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: There are ways that the federal government can help with housing costs. GST is a big thing with new construction. They control GST payments. The federal government removed the GST component on the building of new rental homes. They could go one step further and either decrease it or remove it completely from all new construction. That would be a savings of up to 5% on newly built homes and it doesn't come out of the developer's pocket, so it won't affect pricing. Of course, the revenue stream would take a big hit with that move, so that is the problem we face and why the housing situation is so fucked up. The federal government along with municipal and provincial governments already have their revenues accounted for to make their budgets., so any decrease in revenues would screw everything up. We already discussed the fact that the federal government shouldn't be involved in the construction of homes and I agree with that. But they can provide subsidies for rental homes and newly built homes, but again where is that money going to come from? New taxes? More borrowing? Again, that is the issue. Anything the federal government tries to do to help the housing crisis involves directly affecting their revenue streams. Wages have been too low since the 1990's. A teacher making $50k in the 90's only had to pay $300k to buy a house. Now a teacher making $90k has to pay $2 million for the exact same house. The disparity between wages and housing costs is to a point where even a 50% increase in a teacher's wage tomorrow still wouldn't help them to be able to buy a home. Plus, interest rates were kept artificially low for the better part of a decade, which further fueled the exponential rise in house prices. No, The Conservatives aren't the party for union workers, I do understand that. I know that in the construction field alot of the large developers don't use union workers. Reason why is it would simply add more cost to the construction of homes, which would ultimately be passed on to the consumer. I'm no expert on unions and wouldn't really know if more unions would help with wages, so I will defer that to others to speak about.... All this is precisely why you're barking up the wrong tree. Anything the the federal government does to combat housing is going to either decrease tax revenue, decrease needed social services (budget cuts elsewhere to pay for it) or cause an even greater inflation of government debt/deficit. A problem (government debt) that's as bad/worse than the housing issue, as you yourself have stated . To fix something that isn't really the responsibility of the federal government in the first place. Does this help clarify why some of us are so utterly confused at your insistence if laying this all that the feet of the Liberals/Trudeau? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) Tired of a new corruption scandal every week. Trudeau promised he would be different instead we got worse corruption...htf do they get away with paying $20 million to a 2 person firm to work on the arrivecan app who don't even do IT work? And this is ok to most people? Edited March 24 by bolt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 21 minutes ago, aGENT said: All this is precisely why you're barking up the wrong tree. Anything the the federal government does to combat housing is going to either decrease tax revenue, decrease needed social services (budget cuts elsewhere to pay for it) or cause an even greater inflation of government debt/deficit. A problem (government debt) that's as bad/worse than the housing issue, as you yourself have stated . To fix something that isn't really the responsibility of the federal government in the first place. Does this help clarify why some of us are so utterly confused at your insistence if laying this all that the feet of the Liberals/Trudeau? Well, you will need to speak to the millions of Canadians who also utter the same talking points as I do. I don't get paid to run the government, if I did, I would spend alot more time coming up with ideas to help with housing costs. That's why I defer this to the politicians, some of whom shouldn't really be making these types of decisions for Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.