Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Population of countries has a major impact on it all. Canada with 30Million and U.S. with 300Million+. We are forever being compared with these small populated countries.
It's poverty more than population. It costs money to dig up the streets and replace lead water pipe. It costs money to upgrade and properly operate waste treatment plants. Affluent places have environmental inspections so people aren't dumping toxic waste into the water supply. The counties that make the top 50 wealthiest list don't have water quality problems. Flint? Not so much.
Thanks for the explanation. I am not sure about capital gains tax exemptions about rural properties here as we have always lived and invested in urban areas.
Is negative gearing being blamed in Canada for unaffordable housing as it is here? As we not only deduct interest, rates, repairs and the depreciation of many items, it is very popular with people paying higher personal income tax rates.
The median price of houses in Sydney has hit 13 times median household income in Sydney, apparently second highest in the world, after Hong Kong. More than 20% of Australians live in Sydney so it affects many young people badly.
On the other hand, it has created a good amount of wealth for quite ordinary people. Friends have sold a fairly ordinary house they have inherited for over $2 million and passed some on to their kids. So people are torn about the issue.
Similarly the government are probably torn by the negative gearing issue. If it is abolished it will likely decrease the pool of rental accommodation and push up rents without necessarily helping buyer affordability.
Renting long term is not overly popular here as tenants have less rights than in many countries and also the pension system favours home owners. So all a vexed issue.
I think the current problem in Canada is foreign investment and house flipping. I'm not completely familiar with the details, but I think new rules were implemented in BC regarding foreign investment and house flipping because it raised the house prices beyond the reach of most prospective house buyers.
I once listened to some idiot relatives-by-marriage explain how because their pickup needed tires that would cost $400, they bought a new pickup for which the payments were the same $400. A month. On a 60mo loan.
Most arguments for the financial advantage of renting/leasing don't come up to that standard.
I won't argue that home ownership is some kind of perpetual gold mine or even a net wealth builder in the long run, not with mortgage costs and those $1,000 plumbing jobs. But historically long-term ownership has shown appreciation that more than exceeds most routine maintenance and minor repairs. Flippers, suckers and millennials who are going to chase jobs across the country every two years excepted.
...but if you're optimizing for wealth creation, you're much better off renting something inexpensive and investing the difference in the market. For the freemkt types, the problem is income, not rent vs own.
This thread is the same as the other one. Canada probably counts the individual's assets in the two national pension plans. You would get the same type of data skew if you divided 401k assets over all individuals.
It seems to me that alone of all the civilized countries, it's only the US who thinks renters are inferior to property owners.
Our country was also built on people coming here from all over the world to own land of their own. Many emigrants owned land for the first time in generations after they arrived in America and the importance of owning land is still endemic in our culture.
We also see the building of subdivisions as being good for the economy. We never say that building blocks and blocks of apartment buildings is a sign of the economy roaring back.
The result of that here in the US is that we look down on renters and don't consider them the equals of homeowners. I think more people would rent rather than buy if that discrimination weren't so obvious. At that point, we would have people with much more income renting instead of buying and we could then say the Americans also have renters who have more wealth.
But before we can do that, we're going to have to start building some apartment buildings instead of houses. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
I'm the last person to discount an international viewpoint, but have you ever actually lived in the US, or are we a show on CNN to you?
More than 50 years in the US (including home ownership), 20 in Canada, and a few more years in several other countries. I'm glad you asked, instead of leaping to a conclusion.
More than 50 years in the US (including home ownership), 20 in Canada, and a few more years in several other countries. I'm glad you asked, instead of leaping to a conclusion.
No, you were either a native with a (justifiably) dismal view of the US, or an expat who can now afford to live on accumulated wealth in a much cheaper country. As long as you're transparent about your viewpoint, I have no problem with it.
I have a general hives reaction to people who make their personal pile in a place that actually has jobs, pensions, schools, good medical care, safe living and QOL for couples and kids... and then move to a place that has none of those things, where they would have had trouble living paycheck to paycheck and raised kids with no future... and slag the sh*t out of where they made it. Just sayin'.
It seems to me that alone of all the civilized countries, it's only the US who thinks renters are inferior to property owners.
I'm not sure that's even generally true, except in a narrow economic sense.
It's already been said that there are (at least) two tiers of renter, and I can't think of anything negative about mainstream renters other than the assumption they'll buy someday... which many or most do. But bets are off when you're talking about the bottom tier of renters - subprime, scraping, low-rent, whatever you want to tag them. That class catches a lot of opprobrium, some earned, some not, aside from being "ewwww... renters!"
It seems to me that alone of all the civilized countries, it's only the US who thinks renters are inferior to property owners.
Our country was also built on people coming here from all over the world to own land of their own. Many emigrants owned land for the first time in generations after they arrived in America and the importance of owning land is still endemic in our culture.
We also see the building of subdivisions as being good for the economy. We never say that building blocks and blocks of apartment buildings is a sign of the economy roaring back.
The result of that here in the US is that we look down on renters and don't consider them the equals of homeowners. I think more people would rent rather than buy if that discrimination weren't so obvious. At that point, we would have people with much more income renting instead of buying and we could then say the Americans also have renters who have more wealth.
But before we can do that, we're going to have to start building some apartment buildings instead of houses. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
Well... I'm just saying... our present rental is a house. It just happens to be for rent. There is a definite difference in the quality, size, and utility of everything in a house vs. an apartment. The appliances in our most recent rental were 50 years old! In the last new construction rental that we broke the lease on after just two months to move into the house that hadn't been updated since the mid-70's the appliances were all brand spanking new. But the refrigerator was half the size of the one we have now. Stainless steel with an ice-maker, but cheap and tiny. When a real estate company build apartments they source very different build materials and appliances from when a construction company builds a home for direct owner purchase. That isn't the case in most of Europe and other places. The bias against renters and renting is very strong in this very thread. People would sooner have a body part amputated than consider renting a home. Only part of it is the quality of rentals because as I prove every day, one can rent a house as easily as renting an apartment. But renting = bad, buying = good. Even if you wind up underwater, foreclosed, or otherwise #@$%. You owned by gum. You owned!
Well if you are renting in most of Australia you will have to provide your own refrigerator, washing machine and dryer. This can be a shock to renters from overseas who are not made aware of it.
There can be a strong prejudice here against renters too. However the cost of selling and buying a new place in Sydney can be over $100k because of the state government tax, called stamp duty, paid by the buyer. So it is increasingly common to own one property and let it out and rent another in a more convenient location to live in.
My mother' apartment has been rented out for about four years as she is in a nursing home. The first tenant was a single man, with an excellent job and from Europe. First issue that came up was with the appliances (or lack of them) Then the owner residents started on his smoking on the balcony (which was not, at that stage entirely banned) When he left he said that he loved living there except he felt under surveillance.
We currently have a small family there who sold their house and are taking their time finding another. Such a relief that apparently the other residents are happy with them.
Tenants here in NSW often are bannned from owning pets, hanging anything on walls, smoking anywhere on the property, etc. After being two weeks late with the rent they can be given an order to pay and evicted within a few weeks. So it is understandable that the issue of tenants rights is getting some attention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
