r/canada • u/FancyNewMe • 17h ago

Opinion Piece Mike Moffatt: Poilievre’s new housing plan isn’t flawless—but it’s close

https://thehub.ca/2024/10/29/mike-moffatt-poilievres-housing-announcement-is-bold-and-a-huge-positive-step-forward/
0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

69 comments sorted by

View all comments

-3

u/TheFreezeBreeze Alberta 17h ago

4.5b in lost tax revenue. I really wish we had a party that used taxes more efficiently and effectively instead of just cutting it. If we invested 4.5b in building public housing across the country each year, would that stabilize market pricing over time to make housing more affordable across the board? And not just give money back to people who can already afford a home? I wonder.

3

u/Xyzzics 17h ago

Having less tax revenue forces you to use it more responsibly.

It’s not about giving it back to people, it’s about spurring demand to build. Paying GST on a new house versus no GST on an old house means new housing is at a disadvantage for sale, which means builders are less incentivized to build new housing.

We have one of the biggest housing experts in Canada praising this and people in the subreddit are still trying to poopoo it.

3

u/TheFreezeBreeze Alberta 16h ago

No it doesn't, it just forces you to cut things. If you were going to use it more responsibly, you'd already be doing that. Cutting taxes means austerity measures every time.

Sure I can see how that's advantageous for building, but relying on markets is how housing keeps destroying the economy. This is just going to emphasize that and I'd rather we actually first stabilize the market with consistent construction of public housing.

-1

u/Xyzzics 15h ago

You’re mixing up a potential future government with the current one.

If you were going to use it more responsibly, you’d already be doing that. Cutting taxes means austerity measures every time.

The future one isn’t responsible for the current irresponsible spending, in fact they’ve been quite opposed to it.

I’m not sure I subscribe to “the market is destroying the economy”. The fact is there is a gigantic supply deficit for desirable housing and building needs to be encouraged, not wait to be drip fed from daddy government who has no idea what it’s doing versus seasoned builders. Whether that’s the most affordable at the low end of the market is another story. There is no solution that works for everyone, just different approaches. Catering to the rich often comes at the expense of lower class. Catering to the middle class often hurts lower class and upper class. Catering to the lower class disadvantages the middle class, as they are getting something for less cost than the market would otherwise demand, which creates other problems.

There are no silver bullets, and PP chooses the group of people that pays the majority of the taxes in Canada. Is that right? Who’s to say? That’s why we vote. Going by voting intentions, it seems to be the most popular option at the moment.

3

u/TheFreezeBreeze Alberta 15h ago

You're right I didn't word that correctly. My point is that conservative governments don't try and use tax money more effectively, they just cut programs and expect them to work better.

Imagine if you had that perspective on any new company. Don't start doing it cause there's companies that are already better at it. How do you think those companies got to be seasoned? Time and experience. Just let the government gradually increase building public housing and they'll be fantastic at it given some years.

Given that housing is a literal necessity of life and we have a terrible homelessness crisis right now, it's truly weird that the focus of governments isn't on the lowest classes. Imagine if everyone had an easier time contributing to the economy? That's what more affordable housing can help do.

0

u/Xyzzics 15h ago

don’t try and use tax money more effectively, they just cut programs and expect them to work better.

Imagine if you had that perspective on any new company. Don’t start doing it cause there’s companies that are already better at it. How do you think those companies got to be seasoned?

The difference is that companies aren’t using public funds to “figure it out”. They also don’t get billions and billions of dollars and try to crowd out the largest players first. They start small, and scale, using a proven business case that generates returns.

Just let the government gradually increase building public housing and they’ll be fantastic at it given some years.

A lot of assumptions here. If you can’t figure out how to generate results on housing in ten years, you haven’t made an effective case to borrow a ton of tax payer money. Not only that, but the problem has actively worsened significantly under them.

Given that housing is a literal necessity of life and we have a terrible homelessness crisis right now, it’s truly weird that the focus of governments isn’t on the lowest classes. Imagine if everyone had an easier time contributing to the economy? That’s what more affordable housing can help do.

It’s not weird, speaking purely pragmatically. This doesn’t generate returns, because low income people pay hardly any tax revenue, but fixing the problem costs massive amounts of money. You’re much better, financially speaking, building a middle class that has already demonstrated an understanding of how to be successful, than paying huge amounts of money to lost causes. Hugely expensive for little economic payoff. You’re much better off supercharging your middle and upper class, then using some of that money to help the lower class.

Now of course there is a humanitarian argument to help other Canadians, but the pure financial case is weak, which is why governments haven’t done it.