News   Apr 24, 2024
 950     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 620     0 

Public Housing solutions

I have an idea which could possibly create thousands of new subsidized units, dispersed throughout the city and province if not nationally without the need of public funds.

In brief, with the backing and guaranties of some level of government, homeowners get a low cost loan for home renovations with the specific purpose of creating accessory apartments/residences. This money would only be available to privately owned residences where the owner plans to remain as a resident.

Homeowners who choose to enter the program get a streamlined development process with rapid application processing. They get the benefit of guarantied income with rent subsidies paid directly to them by the government.

Tax benefits could be offered for entering the program with current value appraisal freeze, holding the line on property tax, HST rebates and even a RRSP type income tax credit for rental income.

Some bureaucracy would be necessary for the purpose of matching tenants with homeowners, conflict resolution and the like. With a setup such as this, where the landlord shows pride of ownership over their personal home, the expectation would be that tenants share in this pride of their home to a greater extant than those living in a vertical slum.

It would be necessary to establish guidelines for sale of the property, estate transfers and for those wishing to withdraw from the program but at such a time, guarantied mortgages would have to be redeemed, tax incentives ended and proper tenant protection policies followed.
 
Those ideas may sound 'good' but their far from being the silver bullet.

Raising minimum wages also increase cost of basic food items. How do you think this will impact food prices when all of a sudden Loblaws/Metro's variable costs shoot up by 30 to 50%? Mininum wage jobs are paid to those that perform a minimum skill job. You will always have a pay gap for those that are performing more advanced/skilled based jobs requiring more education/experience.

Taxation requires a balanced approach, when you 'over tax' people at the highest bracket, it will stifle their motivation to generate more income. The net result will be less tax dollars.

Basic example, I'm at the cusp of a tax bracket where I'm left with decision of continuing in the next bracket, or simply sustain my current income level. If I continue to 'work harder', the chunk the tax man takes from me is an absolute dis-insentive for me to work harder. As I result, I've decided to be complacent, and not further my income level for now. This doesn't provide me with the income to buy a fancier car (generating manufacturing jobs) and I actually pay less taxes due to my flatlined income as opposed if I was taxed at the same bracket.
Taxation isn't about taxing this group or that group, but it's trying to determine a level that will generate the most amount of Gross taxes.

p.s. Denmark also has a 70% highest tax bracket. Name me one major corporation that's head officed there?

It's amazing that people will take a little snipets from other countries but don't actually account for the full picture. Both Denmark and Australia have xenophobic immigration systems. Not good examples to take from.

I can't be the only one laughing after reading this.. i just.. i cant.. oh god, hahahahaaha.
 

Back
Top