2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

[Northern Light]

Like all things Liberal, some good ideas, some bad ones as well.

Are we going to see a pause on rental property development until the end of 2018 (when the Liberals find their fate)?

Foreign buyers tax, expanded rent control coming to Ontario



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...ing-market-home-prices-rent-control-1.4076283

On rental: for the vast majority of landlords, no change here, vacancy de-control still applies, as do AGIs

On ownership: paper-flipping is one key area which they only committed to looking at w/no real commitment at this time; there is a need to tackle that
and in general pre-market purchases of large numbers of units by VIP Brokers.

On what they could do:

Existing Rental: Force the property tax rate down to the same as single-family residential over a period of time (say 10 years) and order that the savings be passed on renters.

New Rental: The main obstacle to new, affordable rental is not willingness to build, its that the bulk of the rental market have incomes insufficient to pay even entry-level rent in a new build.

Nothing built new will price a 1bdrm under $2,000 a month; or a 2bdrm under $2,400, plus hydro, plus parking.

The market for renters at this segment is not that strained.

Its the market for units at levels of rent at or below $1,500 that's strained.

And no new build can offer units at that price point barring outright subsidy.

The need here is primarily to address incomes. There are many ways to do that, from raising the minimum wage, to lowering income tax in a targeted way on lower and lower middle income households, to tightening the labour supply (thus forcing privately negotiated wages up) by curtailing overtime, or enriching parental leave, mandated greater paid vacations or some other means.

Its likely some combination of these that hit the sweet spot.

Another component has to be raising the rent in pubic housing (off-set by raising the shelter allowance under social assistance, and by a rising min. wage)

No private renter can compete w/rents set as low as $250 per month in some TCHC properties.

The notion here is not to raising those rents to market, but to something no so low as to make the point of competing for the low-income renter a non-starter.

***

On new rental construction, waving minimum parking requirements and amenities requirements would help lower costs somewhat.

When people look at those properties still renting units for under $1,300 a month.......they many notice no pool, or gym or party room etc.

Stripping these frill out could see rents on new building some down a bit.

In combination w/equalizing property tax......

I could see getting new build rents under $1,700 a month which is probably about as good at it'll get.

 

[jje1000]

Interesting notes from Reddit on rent controls in Vancouver:

The unfortunate thing is that it will have an effect like rent control has had in Vancouver: essentially no meaningful addition of purpose rental stock to the city for decades after the policy is implemented. Instead you get cash-only, no written agreement, amateur landlords and the clusterfuck of poor behavior that goes with it.

I'm not sure Torontonians realize that pretty much every "single family detached" house in The City of Vancouver, and most within an hour's commute of downtown Vancouver, have at least one illegal suite in them, if not two or three (I'm lookin' at you Surrey).

You'll get the other common thing that you see in Vancouver - fixed 1 year leases that don't renew. You rent a place for $1500 for 1 year, then when that expires you are expected to move out. But then the landlord offers you first shot at the next 1 year lease with a price of $2000.

Yep. I left Vancouver a couple years ago before rent increases really got going as friends who are still there have told me.

Renovictions, or fixed 1 year, nonrenewable, leases that are followed by huge rent increases are getting pretty common. Maybe not 30% jumps, but 10-15%.

Apparently apartment showings with live open bidding wars between renters is becoming pretty normal as well. What the actual fuck?

Even renting basement suites from families, where traditionally they just want someone quiet and responsible and rent increases were at inflation, or even below, is starting to get infected by this behavior.

The more I read about how fucky both Vancouver and Toronto have gotten, the more I'm glad I left both cities and likely won't be coming back for as long as I have a job in the US (and I have my own issues with living in 'Murica, especially when it comes to the logistics of starting a family and raising a kid which are becoming more important to me in my old age.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/66gnnr/foreign_buyers_tax_expanded_rent_control_coming/

 

[toaster29]

It was clear in the announcement that "Tenants will be adequately compensated if asked to vacate for "landlord use.", and that being asked to vacate still applies even if the lease is up, because it is an expectation that the lease continues if no 2 month notice is given (on either end).
So the notion that you will see, like in Vancouver, fixed 1 year leases that don't renew, is false.

 

[jje1000]

Not really basic income (because basic income is where everyone gets money regardless of their income level so this is more of a partial basic income), but interesting to see how this turns out.

Ontario basic income pilot project to launch in Hamilton, Lindsay and Thunder Bay

Premier Kathleen Wynne announced Monday that Hamilton, Lindsay and Thunder Bay will take part in Ontario's basic income pilot project.

She said in a speech in Hamilton that: "The project will explore the effectiveness of providing a basic income to people who are currently living on low incomes, whether they are working or not. People participating in our pilot communities will receive a minimum amount of income each year— a basic income, no matter what."

The premier said the three-year project will start for people making "just under $17,000 a year, but even that amount may make a real difference to someone who is striving to reach for a better life."

Wynne said "there will be a limit to the number [of applicants] and there will be an application process... We need to address the concerns of those who worry about falling behind, even as they work so hard to get ahead."

"We have chosen these communities intentionally because they are the right size and they have the right mix of population," she added.

Joining Wynne were Minister of Community and Social Services Helena Jaczek and Chris Ballard, the minister responsible for the province's poverty reduction strategy.

Jaczek said that people in the program will be randomly chosen from each region's low-income population and invited to apply.

The program will cost $50 million per year for each of the three years and 4,000 households will participate. That will include 1,000 people from the Hamilton, Brantford and Brant regions.

The ministers have been spearheading the province's effort to experiment with "basic income." That's a strategy for reducing poverty that involves "a system of automatic transfers for those beneath an income threshold," according to a discussion paper on the topic addressed to Wynne and the ministers last summer.

The province has said it will launch the pilot project providing money to low-income households with no strings attached.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/wynne-announcement-hamilton-1.4082476

 

[Avenue]

Not really basic income (because basic income is where everyone gets money regardless of their income level so this is more of a partial basic income)

What? If you already have more than basic income... you have it. Why do you need more 'basic income'?!

 

[jje1000]

A basic income (also called basic income guarantee, Citizen's Income, unconditional basic income, universal basic income, or universal demogrant[2]) is a form of social security[3] in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.

An unconditional income transfer of less than the poverty line is sometimes referred to as a partial basic income.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

4000 people is far too small of a sample pool though- it would be far better if an entire town got it.

 

[Avenue]

Okay I retract what I said earlier.

4000 people is far too small of a sample pool though- it would be far better if an entire town got it.

For the first pilot the entire town would have been too big for implementation and measurement.

 

[christiesplits]

I imagine $17k a year could go a lot further in Hamilton than Thunder Bay, no?

 

[jje1000]

Probably the reason why they're testing it in three cities.

Also the announcement was probably an attempt to cover over the NDP's pharmacare plan and shore up support on the left:

Ontario NDP promises pharmacare plan if elected in 2018

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ont-ndp-1.4081827

 

[Northern Light]

Probably the reason why they're testing it in three cities.

Also the announcement was probably an attempt to cover over the NDP's pharmacare plan and shore up support on the left:

Ontario NDP promises pharmacare plan if elected in 2018

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ont-ndp-1.4081827

Wynne first promised to phase in something similar when running for the Liberal leadership; progress to date: None

This is among my deepest disappointments w/her as its relatively cheap promise to keep, done this way, as illustrated by the NDP's costing
of 435M per year or under 0.4% of the provincial budget.

 

[Northern Light]

Not really basic income (because basic income is where everyone gets money regardless of their income level so this is more of a partial basic income), but interesting to see how this turns out.




http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/wynne-announcement-hamilton-1.4082476

While in many respects, this could be read as a step forward vs. social assistance, certainly, at its base level, much more generous; where social assistance for someone single w/no kids is anemic in stature.....

Yet, I can't quite bring myself to laud the government on this one.

Here's why; setting aside whether I believe this pilot would be rolled out; my suspicion being, that as constructed, that's rather unlikely..........


I think its still set up, in the aggregate as penalizing work.

Let's take the new sum, roughly $17,000 per year, for a single person, with that reduced by 50c on the dollar for each dollar earned.

So let's assume that at 17k, you still require public housing, likely an RGI unit (rent-geared-to-income) in order to make life work.

This produces a rent of $425 per month (assuming 30% of income is rent, which is the most common calculation)

That leaves you roughly $1,000 per month to get by on, outside of housing, which is quite fair I think (again assuming you have the apartment at the noted rent)

****

So you get a min. wage job @ $23000 per year roughly, if its full-time hours.

You'll face deductions for income tax, EI, and CPP of roughly 25% on roughly $12,000 of that income (after factoring for the basic personal amount)

So your take home is $19,000.

Then, the gov't takes back .50c on the dollar of your basic income.

Assuming they used the pre-tax figure......they'll reduce what you had by $11,500.

So you're now down to $19,000 from employment and $5,500 from Basic Income......or $24,500 (after tax)

But wait.....your RGI unit is based on your pre-tax earnings.

So its now 30% of $23,000, + 5,500 or $28,500

Which is $712 per month, an increase of $287 a month or $3,444 per year.

This now leaves you with an annual income of roughly $21,000 adjusted for tax.

So zero hours gets you 17k, 40 hours gets you 21k. Or all that extra work for a reward of $350 per month.

Also still leaves you with an income that likely wouldn't allow for even entry-level market housing.


****

In fairness to the government I haven't seen the detailed calculations, and this may not be the way the program operates in practice.

Still, I have my concerns that this still looks a bit like a poverty trap for low-skill workers.

 

[christiesplits]

In principle I like the basic guaranteed income. However, I've heard that Ontario Works caseworkers often act as sort of 'guidance counsellors' and use strategies like motivational interviewing to encourage recipients to learn new skills, apply for jobs, start a business. or refer clients to other services like mental health supports and counselling. I wonder if this could lead to an impersonal provider-recipient relationship with a simple check arriving in the mail every month.

 

[torontologist]

Still, I have my concerns that this still looks a bit like a poverty trap for low-skill workers.

There will be very few jobs for low-skill workers as AI is improved. That is why universal basic income is so vital right now. We are at the precipice of a massive shift in the distribution of jobs in our economy. (or rather, halfway through a shift that started around 1980)

I'm sure we've all been to a McDonalds where orders are taken by a computer screen.

 

[MetroMan]

They say that Kathleen Wynne is very well liked in Queen's Park — even by those in the opposition. Yet, the public perceives her as unlikeable and as not being genuine and sort of conniving and politically calculated. Today, I got to experience that paradox first hand. And it's so eerie!

Working at Queen’s Park today, I saw Wynne interacting with constituents in spontaneous, unplanned meetings in the hallways, stopping and taking time to speak with them and to listen to them with genuine interest. Then I saw her bumping into members of the opposition and they all seemed to genuinely like her.

I was photographing a member of parliament for a magazine and Wynne came up to us to poke fun at the MPP for being on the cover of Vogue (it’s not Vogue), introduced herself to me and by God… is the woman ever likeable!!! She even remembered my name some time later on her way back and I don't have an easy name to remember. She’s cursed with poor public perception and now I understand why she got emotional about the subject.

I doubt that she's going to keep her job and that must truly suck if you’re a genuinely good person doing the job for the right reasons but somehow can’t connect with people over the barrier of the media for whatever mysterious reasons.

 

[BurlOak]

While in many respects, this could be read as a step forward vs. social assistance, certainly, at its base level, much more generous; where social assistance for someone single w/no kids is anemic in stature.....

Yet, I can't quite bring myself to laud the government on this one.

Here's why; setting aside whether I believe this pilot would be rolled out; my suspicion being, that as constructed, that's rather unlikely..........


I think its still set up, in the aggregate as penalizing work.

Let's take the new sum, roughly $17,000 per year, for a single person, with that reduced by 50c on the dollar for each dollar earned.

So let's assume that at 17k, you still require public housing, likely an RGI unit (rent-geared-to-income) in order to make life work.

This produces a rent of $425 per month (assuming 30% of income is rent, which is the most common calculation)

That leaves you roughly $1,000 per month to get by on, outside of housing, which is quite fair I think (again assuming you have the apartment at the noted rent)

****

So you get a min. wage job @ $23000 per year roughly, if its full-time hours.

You'll face deductions for income tax, EI, and CPP of roughly 25% on roughly $12,000 of that income (after factoring for the basic personal amount)

So your take home is $19,000.

Then, the gov't takes back .50c on the dollar of your basic income.

Assuming they used the pre-tax figure......they'll reduce what you had by $11,500.

So you're now down to $19,000 from employment and $5,500 from Basic Income......or $24,500 (after tax)

But wait.....your RGI unit is based on your pre-tax earnings.

So its now 30% of $23,000, + 5,500 or $28,500

Which is $712 per month, an increase of $287 a month or $3,444 per year.

This now leaves you with an annual income of roughly $21,000 adjusted for tax.

So zero hours gets you 17k, 40 hours gets you 21k. Or all that extra work for a reward of $350 per month.

Also still leaves you with an income that likely wouldn't allow for even entry-level market housing.


****

In fairness to the government I haven't seen the detailed calculations, and this may not be the way the program operates in practice.

Still, I have my concerns that this still looks a bit like a poverty trap for low-skill workers.

Just get a job under the table then.