Everyone crying about affordability because they want what they cant afford, tons of unit across the GTA as we speak are under 360K with living space! most of us looking to buy champagne with beer budget, we would all like to travel first class but we walk the extra steps to the back of the plane to save a few hundred dollar and spend hours / days online searching for a good deal, we can do the same here.
Who is able to buy $1,800 + per sq.ft. for a good location and luxury building let them! #skyview
 
flavakid32 said:
Everyone crying about affordability because they want what they cant afford, tons of unit across the GTA as we speak are under 360K with living space! most of us looking to buy champagne with beer budget, we would all like to travel first class but we walk the extra steps to the back of the plane to save a few hundred dollar and spend hours / days online searching for a good deal, we can do the same here.
Who is able to buy $1,800 + per sq.ft. for a good location and luxury building let them! #skyview
Click to expand...
Exactly. Since when is affordability a 'right'? Why do we must have affordable housing in the city? I know I'm being overly simplistic, but there is plenty affordable housing, at market rate, outside the city. I clearly don't get why people from all walks of life insist they must live in the city and be able to afford it. It's not how capitalism works.
 
raptor said:
Exactly. Since when is affordability a 'right'? Why do we must have affordable housing in the city? I know I'm being overly simplistic, but there is plenty affordable housing, at market rate, outside the city. I clearly don't get why people from all walks of life insist they must live in the city and be able to afford it. It's not how capitalism works.
Click to expand...

I don't even know how this came out of the thread. Speaking about housing affordability as a 'right' is an imprecise use of terminology at this time, but there are plenty of reasons why relegating and concentrating an underclass of society to suburban locations is undesireable from a societal perspective. If you can't understand why people argue strongly for housing affordability, you're either being obtuse or cruel.

Also, capitalism is a system of valuing goods and services, not a philosophy mean to guide all human interaction -- you are actually in favour of a plutocracy. While we're at scorning housing affordability, why don't we just do away with progressive taxation, the healthcare system, public education, childcare benefits, the CPP, or the hundreds of other ways humans attempt to be human in society that isn't strictly based on market income.

There isn't a single purely 'capitalist' society in the world, and where the word has been twisted closer to the plutocracy you argue for, the majority of society suffers.

Maybe just stick to talking about the building.
 
Last edited:
raptor said:
Exactly. Since when is affordability a 'right'? Why do we must have affordable housing in the city? I know I'm being overly simplistic, but there is plenty affordable housing, at market rate, outside the city. I clearly don't get why people from all walks of life insist they must live in the city and be able to afford it. It's not how capitalism works.
Click to expand...

By that logic, people who are poor, or who have mental health issues, or who have a tragic event that destroys their net worth shouldn't be helped. I am thankful that we are capitalist mixed society where government is able to intervene with regulations when necessary. We take care of those who can't take care of themselves, regardless of whether that state is permanent or temporary. It's less cold and inhumane then the purely libertarian society you've illustrated.
But more importantly, I think by your definition of "affordable housing" you mean only applied to ownership, rather than renting, am I correct? I don't think I've heard many say owning is a right, but should anyone who isn't wealthy have to leave the city entirely? That seems to be what your advocating. I think that creates a rather boring monoculture at minimum.
 
mcornett said:
I don't even know how this came out of the thread. Speaking about housing affordability as a 'right' is an imprecise use of terminology at this time, but there are plenty of reasons why relegating and concentrating an underclass of society to suburban locations is undesireable from a societal perspective. If you can't understand why people argue strongly for housing affordability, you're either being obtuse or cruel.

Also, capitalism is a system of valuing goods and services, not a philosophy mean to guide all human interaction -- you are actually in favour of a plutocracy. While we're at scorning housing affordability, why don't we just do away with progressive taxation, the healthcare system, public education, childcare benefits, the CPP, or the hundreds of other ways humans attempt to be human in society that isn't strictly based on market income.

There isn't a single purely 'capitalist' society in the world, and where the word has been twisted closer to the plutocracy you argue for, the majority of society suffers.

Maybe just stick to talking about the building.
Click to expand...

Except that we already have very high and progressive taxation that pays for free healthcare, public education, police services, free water, social assistance and programs. No-one is arguing they should be eliminated. The Province already has a massive deficit. So the question is can we afford to tax people even more or run higher deficits so that families can live spaciously in desirable parts of downtown? I's say no.

But if people really wanted to solve the problem, they'd open up all major arteries to mid-rise redevelopment ignoring any NIMBY objections in the process. If city Councillors did this, would increase the supply of land and drive down the prices enabling more affordable construction. This would hurt speculators, but tax-payers cant take any more hits.
 
buildup said:
Except that we already have very high and progressive taxation that pays for free healthcare, public education, police services, free water, social assistance and programs. No-one is arguing they should be eliminated. The Province already has a massive deficit. So the question is can we afford to tax people even more or run higher deficits so that families can live spaciously in desirable parts of downtown? I's say no.
Click to expand...
Not to deviate even more from the subject, but affordable and social housing are essential, and we don't have "very high" taxation. Ontario has the second lowest income taxes in Canada, and the city has lower property taxes than surrounding areas. The fact that it is possible to sell such a building at $1,600 per sq. ft. is a good indication that a higher taxation level would be possible and desirable.
 
Bayer said:
Not to deviate even more from the subject, but affordable and social housing are essential, and we don't have "very high" taxation. Ontario has the second lowest income taxes in Canada, and the city has lower property taxes than surrounding areas. The fact that it is possible to sell such a building at $1,600 per sq. ft. is a good indication that a higher taxation level would be possible and desirable.
Click to expand...

Have you paid 2 taxes just to move? We pay taxes through the nose here and that seems to be the solution for everything. Problem? Raise taxes! Create taxes! How about a temporary tax that we will "remove" down the road and not actually remove it? How about vacancy tax! Lets put a tax on primary residences! Foreign investor tax! More taxes...

No thanks on the higher taxes. The money is often squandered. All these politicians can do is use taxation instead of coming up with actual solutions to problems.
 
TheKingEast said:
Have you paid 2 taxes just to move? We pay taxes through the nose here and that seems to be the solution for everything. Problem? Raise taxes! Create taxes! How about a temporary tax that we will "remove" down the road and not actually remove it? How about vacancy tax! Lets put a tax on primary residences! Foreign investor tax! More taxes...

No thanks on the higher taxes. The money is often squandered. All these politicians can do is use taxation instead of coming up with actual solutions to problems.
Click to expand...

That people hate taxes doesn't change the fact that they are lower here than in other jurisdictions, and that public expenses are among the lowest as well. As we saw in the municipal elections, with even Keesmaat saying she would limit property tax increases to inflation, there is an annoying allergy to tax increases in a province and in a city that can amply handle them.

To get back to the building in question, one thing the market will eventually solve is the overinflation that makes $500K 315 sq. ft. apartments seem normal, merely 17 years after I paid $229K for 1,200 sq. ft. in the same area. But until then, housing is unaffordable for many people who actually work in this city, and the solution is affordable/social housing/rent geared to income, and for this we need public funds.
 
Affordability factors greatly in the future growth potential of Toronto's economy. 350K to live in some under serviced, aging, corner of the GTA is not very competitive. Real estate is boom/bust by nature. Our heavy reliance on real estate development to boost our economic output will eventually come to bite us. It's hard to to say when. Informed people have made educated guesses throughout the past ten years and have all failed. It's easier to predict that the longer it continues. the deeper the bite will be.
 
Bayer said:
That people hate taxes doesn't change the fact that they are lower here than in other jurisdictions, and that public expenses are among the lowest as well. As we saw in the municipal elections, with even Keesmaat saying she would limit property tax increases to inflation, there is an annoying allergy to tax increases in a province and in a city that can amply handle them.

To get back to the building in question, one thing the market will eventually solve is the overinflation that makes $500K 315 sq. ft. apartments seem normal, merely 17 years after I paid $229K for 1,200 sq. ft. in the same area. But until then, housing is unaffordable for many people who actually work in this city, and the solution is affordable/social housing/rent geared to income, and for this we need public funds.
Click to expand...

Part of affordability is income. We have really low income levels for such an educated workforce. So while prices may be too high, wages are too low.
 
Bayer said:
Not to deviate even more from the subject, but affordable and social housing are essential, and we don't have "very high" taxation. Ontario has the second lowest income taxes in Canada, and the city has lower property taxes than surrounding areas. The fact that it is possible to sell such a building at $1,600 per sq. ft. is a good indication that a higher taxation level would be possible and desirable.
Click to expand...

Ontario has the highest top blended marginal rate in Canada (aside from Nova Scotia) at 53.5%. Plus property taxes and retail taxes.
Your view is basically Marxist. Just because someone else can afford $1,600 per square foot you think you deserve to help yourself to more of their money (through taxation).
 
Bayer said:
But until then, housing is unaffordable for many people who actually work in this city, and the solution is affordable/social housing/rent geared to income, and for this we need public funds.
Click to expand...

To be clear, by "public funds" you mean taking even more money from other people.
 
buildup said:
Ontario has the highest top blended marginal rate in Canada (aside from Nova Scotia) at 53.5%. Plus property taxes and retail taxes.
Your view is basically Marxist. Just because someone else can afford $1,600 per square foot you think you deserve to help yourself to more of their money (through taxation).
Click to expand...

The top marginal rate is only part of the story. I'm self-employed with a six-figure income; I can guarantee that I'm not Marxist, but I care about social justice. My point about the cost of these apartments is that the fact that they sell like hotcakes is an indication that people can afford higher taxes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top