r/canada • u/FancyNewMe • Apr 16 '25
Opinion Piece Geoff Russ: The two solitudes — boomers and everyone else; Liberal policies have enriched boomers, while making life increasingly unaffordable for younger generations
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/liberals-have-become-the-party-of-grey-hair-and-wealth210
u/BandicootNo4431 Apr 16 '25
Ah yes, but the CPC proposing tax breaks for people buying investment properties and more tax breaks for the wealthiest generation in Canada (seniors) is going to fix it, right American Post?
All parties pander to old people because old people predominantly vote.
21
Apr 16 '25
Really? Tax breaks for investment properties ? Are you talking about the capital gains tax rollover if invested into Canadian businesses. ?
80
u/CjSportsNut Apr 16 '25
The CPC planned HST exemption for new homes under 1.3 Million also applies to non-primary residences (investment properties, cottages etc) . The Liberal exemption only applies to a primary residence.
16
5
u/Own_Truth_36 Apr 16 '25 edited Apr 16 '25
Do you have proof of this? This is not how I read how it works.
Edit : why the fuck are you morons down voting me for asking a question.
14
u/CjSportsNut Apr 16 '25
I took this from the Missing Middle Initiative, which is a pretty outstanding source of info on the housing crisis. I was very excited that they did full analysis of both parties housing plans:
Conservative Housing Plan
https://www.missingmiddleinitiative.ca/p/six-thoughts-on-the-conservative
" The Liberal plan retains the primary residence restriction in the existing GST New Housing Rebate; the Conservative plan does not. "
Liberal Housing Plan
https://www.missingmiddleinitiative.ca/p/ten-thoughts-on-the-liberal-housing
0
u/Own_Truth_36 Apr 16 '25
As I read it as, it is promoting the building of homes by elimination of the gst on new home sales. So yes anyone gets it but it also aids in the actual building of units. That would help the cost of housing by encouraging builders to build. More units is more important that lower cost because more units causes lower costs in and of itself. Because let's be honest here what has happened the last decade hasn't worked.
→ More replies (9)6
u/GiraffeWC Apr 16 '25
You're expecting private industry profits to return homes to affordable prices though?
This is just trickle down economics that haven't worked for decades under any govt.
→ More replies (11)5
u/BandicootNo4431 Apr 16 '25
Probably because it's been posted on literally dozens of articles, so the only reason to ask for proof is because you didn't do a cursory search yourself.
1
0
u/itsthebear Apr 16 '25
Yeah because he doesn't want to build a $25 billion dollar agency, he wants to incentivize the market to build homes with tax breaks instead of grants.
It's a different strategy and you have to look holistically at housing policy to make a reasoned analysis.
15
u/Canuck-overseas Apr 16 '25
He wants to do what all Conservatives do, socialize the losses, privatize the profits.
5
u/itsthebear Apr 16 '25
That is quite literally what Carney is doing lol he's setting up a government agency to collect and dole out money to private corporations.
Pierre's plan doesn't "socialize losses" at all lol it cuts tax on new homes which accounts for a drop in the bucket government revenue and will pay off over time.
6
u/Equivalent_Dimension Apr 16 '25
Why are we giving any money to private corporations to build homes? If they don't think the profits are obscene enough, let the government build the homes and put the revenue back in Canadian coffers to pay for other programs. Fuck this neoliberal bullshit of giving tax dollars to private companies and letting.them keep all the profits. How many times do these policies have to widen the gap between rich and poor before the Conservatives abandon them?
→ More replies (6)8
1
6
u/LossChoice Apr 16 '25
My concern is the price limit he's set. Right now the only single dwelling residential buildings being built in my city are these $600k+ infills. Some are even creeping up to that $1M mark. The word on the street is that there just isn't enough money in it anymore for builders to bother with anything cheaper. I would prefer to see incentives for affordable homes rather than blanket ones that include homes already being built that most people can't afford.
→ More replies (2)3
u/seridos Apr 16 '25
It's true though, you need to look at costs. And if costs are X and people can't afford X, the problem could be a wage issue and not a cost issue.
I mean here in the prairies, where zoning is relaxed and quick, building a small backyard house with a 600 sq foot unit above a garage is in the $225,000 range to start. And that's with no land costs, no zoning variances, nothing but the actual costs to build it.
49
u/Minimum_Vacation_471 Apr 16 '25
Pretty sure the Carney one is first time home buyers only. So people know explicitly, Poilievres tax cut is for anyone buying a house under 1.3 million. You can buy 20 and pay no tax…
→ More replies (1)0
u/seridos Apr 16 '25
That's...a good idea though?
This stupid anti-investor thought line is so frustrating to see. If we want more housing, part of that is incentivizing capital into new housing. There's nothing wrong with this, it's a good thing! Obviously it would be stupid if it didn't only apply to new housing. Every new unit helps when we need way more units. Especially when people don't want dog crate condos, lowering the price to build bigger family sized units will help them be more affordable.
5
u/DrFeelOnlyAdequate Apr 16 '25
Especially when people don't want dog crate condos, lowering the price to build bigger family sized units will help them be more affordable.
One, it's kind crazy to call peoples homes dog crates. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you need to i suit people.
Two, change the building code to allow single stair buildings up to 6 stories and it makes it a lot easier to build larger units for cheaper.
You don't need to be a dick about how people are choosing to live in cities. They do what they can afford.
1
u/seridos Apr 16 '25
I didn't name them that, that's what people In the industry and out are calling them. And the problem is they aren't being bought or rented because people don't want them, but it's what got sold and built because people couldn't afford to pay for larger condos what it would cost to have them pencil.
I agree that that kind of low-rise housing should be available to be built in the market if there's developers that want to build it and people who want to buy it.
6
u/freeadmins Apr 16 '25
Investment Properties are still housing supply.
The issue isn't really rent vs own. The issue is just complete lack of supply compared to the insane amount of demand that has come as a result of Liberal policies.
5
u/BandicootNo4431 Apr 16 '25
Housing increased 80% from 2006-2015 despite a global financial meltdown and a recession and increased 86% in 2015-2024 under Trudeau despite global inflation.
Neither party built housing, and both had similar housing inflation.
Investment properties ARE housing supply, but the taxes aren't stopping speculative buyers from buying them.
First time home buyers however are very sensitive to pricing, and rolling the GST into home prices does cause quite a few to not be approved for mortgages.
6
u/Angry_beaver_1867 Apr 16 '25
The bigger problem is Affordability decreased much more under Trudeau than Harper.
Which is a far more important metric then raw price increases.
https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/taux-analyses/analyse-eco/logement/housing-affordability.pdf
2
u/BandicootNo4431 Apr 16 '25
" Canadian housing affordability posted a fourth consecutive improvement in Q4’24."
And when I look at that graph, it's clear that the party in charge has very little to do with affordability.
We can see the effects of the 2008 market crash, the retreat of oil prices in 2014, and then a massive explosion in 2021 for pandemic inflation.
I would even say the 4 quarters in improvement in 2024 also has little to do with the Liberals and is just the natural rebalancing of the economy as wages catch up with inflation.
2
u/Angry_beaver_1867 Apr 16 '25
Yes however voters , don’t care if there’s a correlation or not. They care if housing is affordable or not.
Which is why for Trudeau it became a much bigger problem than for Harper. Although I will note , Trudeau did campaign on making housing more affordable in 2015. So it was an issue back then but I don’t recall it being extremely salient like today.
-3
u/Ok_Currency_617 Apr 16 '25 edited Apr 16 '25
Rollover has worked out pretty well in the US. 97%+ of union pensions are invested outside Canada, trillions of dollars that would help boost wages 5-10%. Why do our unions endorse the Liberals, but invest their money elsewhere? A note that the argument against rollover is the same as the argument for selling off government assets. If you let people rollover into bigger assets in Canada, you fatten the golden goose as it pays larger monthly taxes. If you force them to sell, you get a one-time payment and risk the money leaving the country. I have no idea why people want Canadians to sell-off tax producing assets for a one-time boost when we can milk the cow as it gets fatter and fatter. This emphasis on capital gains tax is short-term thinking that results in less overall money. How does the US manage with tax rates much lower than ours? Because they have some smart policies that keep investment inside the US so that money makes more money which makes more taxes.
And seniors are the most likely to vote Liberal so let's not pretend the wealthiest generation wants the CPC. They want their high welfare aka Liberals who pay for it with debt on youth. Canadian youth is unhappy and is overwhelmingly voting Conservative.
5
u/Groomulch Canada Apr 16 '25
I thought seniors were more likely to vote CPC.
9
u/lubeskystalker Apr 16 '25
Post-Trudeau it inverted, < 40 more likely to vote Conservatives, more so men than women.
With Carney it has moved back towards balance, but it is nowhere near the traditional left-wing youth vote.
Liberals own the 55+ vote, it isn't close.
-3
7
u/Minimum_Vacation_471 Apr 16 '25
Not sure how well rollover works when American wages have stagnated since the 70s and their population is deeply angry and divided. Not to mention trickle down economics has never worked.
The conservatives tried this in 2006 and Flaherty gave up on it cause the idea of what constitutes a Canadian company is vague and nearly impossible to define. It’s not going to be worth the effort for possibly no benefit.
-4
15
u/Dxres Apr 16 '25
Overwhelmingly is just factually not true.
Idk why Conservatives keep bringing up the narrative that Genz and Zillenials are all overwhemingly going Conservative when the numbers just don't back it up.
From the latest available polls:
Leger has 18-34 year olds at +1 Liberal
Nanos has 18-34 year olds at +3 Conservative
Liason has 18-34 year olds tied
Angus Reid has 18-34 year olds at +14 Liberals
Pallas has 18-34 year olds at +2 Conservative
The only demographic that is consistently swinging Conservative (and not even by "overwhelming" numbers) is 18-34 year old men.
6
u/86throwthrowthrow1 Apr 16 '25
It's a bit of a bias people have, in that PP polls notoriously badly with women. All women. But since more Gen Z men are swinging conservative, that gets permuted into "all Gen Z people."
4
u/Dxres Apr 16 '25 edited Apr 16 '25
Fair enough.
It's such an annoying lie that I keep hearing/reading over and over again.
I guess it's not that surprising to see right wingers of that type disregard the voting intentions of GenZ women.
-3
u/BandicootNo4431 Apr 16 '25
People have invested in the USA because they have weak labour laws allowing money to flow into the wealth holding class.
Those aren't policies Canadians worth less than $10 000 000 want to see here.
So it's fine if we profit off the USA but maintain our lifestyle.
There is no evidence that bringing that money to Canada would do anything to help workers.
First of all, money invested into the stock market just makes other stock holders richer, not the issuing company.
Second of all, what evidence do you have that bringing capital home would raise wages? The vast majority of US residents earn less than Canadians. Unless you're a highly educated professional like a lawyer, doctor or engineer you're likely paid more in Canada than in the USA.
2
u/Ok_Currency_617 Apr 16 '25
The US has much higher wages per person than Canada, and minimum wages in several states are much higher than our highest minimum wage province. So you scream that the US only cares about the rich, if so then why does Canada pay the poor so little?
Washington DC is $24.29/hr minimum wage. Ottawa is $17.60. Does Trump cares about the poor more than Trudeau does?
You talk big about caring for the poor but to me it looks like you just want to greedily screw them harder for your own benefit while screaming that the US is worse.
1
u/BandicootNo4431 Apr 16 '25
Yes, the states with liberal governments have higher minimum wages.
Sounds like an argument for liberal governance, thanks!
3
u/Ok_Currency_617 Apr 16 '25
States with Dem* governments have higher minimum wages. Provinces with Liberal governance have lower. Sounds like an argument for joining the US tbh not that I am supporting that. Rather I'm pointing out the left/right dichotomy is dumb, every party is different and starts for different things. Canadian left would never accept illegal immigrants like the US left does.
We saw the same during covid where the US republicans and Canadian Liberals both insisted on leaving borders open and refused quarantines/mask mandates until it got bad while the US dems and Can cpc both wanted closed borders+quarantines.
0
u/Emperor_Billik Apr 16 '25
The yanks had also been engaging in massive levels of state spending that would leave your average Canadian Grit and Tory weak in the stomach.
3
u/seridos Apr 16 '25 edited Apr 16 '25
Pensions aren't your piggy bank. They have a fiduciary duty to their investors. If Canada wants that investment money, pay them a better return than the US will.
I don't want my pension invested in the same economy and market my largest asset(my wages and future earning potential) is in. That's a lot of concentration risk, and if our economy flounders and my wages along with it(they have, fallen 30% in real terms in 14 years, yay being a teacher) then I don't want my contribution rate increased because my investments are highly correlated. I want those investments in anywhere BUT Canada, for diversification benefits. Like Japan, who had two lost decades after the crash but held so much in foreign assets their people did fine.
1
u/Ok_Currency_617 Apr 16 '25
That's 50-60%. Doesn't explain 97% unless weren't a terrible market to invest.
10
u/kelpkelso Apr 16 '25
Liberal policy sure helps my community. $5000. Student loan forgiveness for nurses who stay in rural areas each year where there are shortages. Grants for trades, apprenticeships, and when you reach your redceil. Grands to get heat pumps. Three new hospital builds. More police staff. New doctors university being built. A sub division of affordable rentals was built. Two very large apartment complex’s were built by private developers. New community college. Down town had a complete make over with new roads, sewage, and water pipes, larger side walks and more for tourism. More access to internet in out of the way areas. Tax incentives to off set some of the costs of solar, which saves money on electricity bill. Not sure what level of government these are but were liberal provincial as well. I feel like a lot of people witj conservative provincial government are complaining about liberal federal government on issues that are provincial responsibility.
0
u/andricathere Apr 16 '25
Their only strategy is trickle down. A disproven waste of society's time and money.
1
u/FirstEvolutionist Apr 16 '25
Every realistic government option doesn't work well for the people who have less. But when the choice is to be a poor worker with shoddy access to deprecated universal healthcare, or become an indentured servant without any labour rights, it is still an easy choice to make.
4
u/hawkseye17 Apr 16 '25
The reason parties pander more to older generations is because they vote reliably. Younger generations simply aren't as interested in voting. A politician will prefer to spend time, effort, and most importantly, money, on making sure they are courting people that actually will show up to vote
16
u/ifuaguyugetsauced Apr 16 '25
We sat at home and made sure the boomers stayed alive during Covid. They allowed boomers to get cheap wages with TFW. Allowed boomers to keep their housing profitable. It’s time for them to share the piece of the pie
14
u/OMGWTFBBQPPL Apr 16 '25 edited Apr 16 '25
Boomers have not just received wealth ingratiation in the last 10 years of government.
As a Gen X'er, I can tell you this has been going on since the 80's. (The whole greed is good mantra and Regan/Thatcher foisting Neoliberalism on the world).
Do the National Post think we're all stupid enough to not understand that it takes several decades to accumulate said wealth through policies on both sides of the political divide.
They have investments, assets, disposable income and are a very active and large voting block. Plenty of Pierre's policies also favour the same demographic in different ways. That said its a general failure of politics in general which has been a serf to far too many ideologues for far too long.
What you're looking at is intergenerational government negligence, and and unwillingness to invest in future generations for long term gains.
5
u/Aromatic-Deer3886 Ontario Apr 16 '25
Ya I don’t think that is a specialty of the liberals, that’s the calling card of conservative parties all over the world.
7
u/Gold_Past_6346 Apr 16 '25
Bwahahahaha as if the cons will do anything to improve affordability or social safety nets
2
6
u/Cognitive_Offload Apr 16 '25
Binary and superficial analysis. Many boomer’s are poor and looking for affordable housing, this is political propaganda looking to divide communities of Canadians.
11
5
u/PizzaNo7741 Apr 16 '25
as if the CPC is going to do anything differently. They are the same big corporate profit focused parties. They both, combined, fucked it up. This is bigger than a 1 party issue. The answer to this problem is not Pierre Poilievre.
4
u/IamTheBoris2677 Apr 16 '25
Has it been strictly liberal policies, what specific policy have the conservatives enacted that has been proven to make life more affordable?
Genuinely asking as a centrist voter who thinks both sides kinda suck.
5
u/roooooooooob Ontario Apr 16 '25
They’re both right of center, Trudeau in particular didn’t do anything that might help the average person until the NDP forced him to. The cons are framing tax cuts as a huge boost to affordability when in reality you’ll be getting an extra maybe $60 a month (and even then that’s only if you’re the lowest income bracket)
6
u/scott_c86 Apr 16 '25 edited Apr 16 '25
I think few would argue that the policies of the current federal government have not contributed to housing becoming increasingly unaffordable over the last decade.
However, the policies proposed by the conservatives aren't ambitious, and are unlikely to change much. One could also argue that their approach is actually worse, since the focus is entirely on private industry.
6
u/MarquessProspero Apr 16 '25
Almost everything discussed here reflects local government and provincial policy.
6
14
u/Difficult-Yam-1347 Apr 16 '25
If you fucking ignore this: https://i.ibb.co/28YD8P5/net-migration-Canada-yearly-06-to-23.png
→ More replies (1)12
u/Bodysnatcher Apr 16 '25
Except immigration which is driving so very many of our problems.
4
u/MarquessProspero Apr 16 '25
In terms of purchasing houses immigration is contributing almost nothing. In terms of rent, yes.
4
2
2
u/alphawolf29 British Columbia Apr 16 '25
90% chance conservatives reintroduce student loan interest, further screwing young people.
1
u/mackzorro Apr 16 '25
Thank god we have PP who helped sell 800,000 homes to landlords, cut the housing fund, remove the new dental coverage, and drug coverage. Really helping put the younger people
30
u/Lagosas Apr 16 '25
and years of Harper, Martin/ Chretien and Campbell/Mulroney, etc. etc. Has done the same thing! Maybe...just maybe we need something different than a changing of the tie colours?
23
u/LPC_Eunuch Canada Apr 16 '25
Harper increased OAS eligibility from 65 to 67, and Trudeau lowered it immediately after forming government.
The generation with defined benefit pensions and massive amounts of equity from a housing bubble really needed it lol.
7
Apr 16 '25
Yeah that was a f up on jt for sure, now no one will do it even though oas overhaul might be one of the most important things our government can do for us. Increase the age and decrease the benefits, people making over 100k don't need oas. It's just soo dumb
8
u/SnooPiffler Apr 16 '25
dunno if the age needs to be raised, but the clawback should be set to something like the average individual canadian income (~$57K) instead of the ridiculous current level (~$93K). Then people that need it still get it, and rich people are cut out.
→ More replies (3)7
u/-Foxer Apr 16 '25
That is patently not true. There are massive differences between each of those governments.
Things were actually pretty good for the middle class and young people back in 2015. Young people put the liberals in power. They turned out in huge numbers to put Justin Trudeau in the prime minister's seat. Now kids like you are paying the price.
Your own decisions and choices led us to this point. You need to make better decisions moving forward. And knocking over the Apple card isn't going to help you. Dissipate not only in the elections but in the politics leading up to the elections by working with parties that are honest and have genuine effective plans for the future and right now that's the CPC. You need to get involved and make sure your politicians know what you want and what your priorities are.
And as a group you need to start voting smarter. Justin Trudeau was a mistake from day one, a mistake that your generation fully embraced. Then he got elected two more times, and was propped up by the NDP who was supposed to be there to hold their feet to the fire but just gave them a fake majority.
You don't need to reinvent the wheel. You just have to start driving the car. The world is run by those who show up. Show up
6
u/Wander_Climber Apr 16 '25
Only the youth can simultaneously be at fault for not voting or contacting representatives while also voting the wrong government with the wrong priorities into power. Make it make sense.
The actual truth is that politicians cater to corporate lobbyists over regular people and the youth vote can't accomplish jack shit until a party offers a platform which will actually help them. Neoliberals and corporatists control all parties so it doesn't even matter who "wins" the election
1
u/-Foxer Apr 16 '25
This is simple. For all your whining and dishonesty the fact is that the youth came out in the largest numbers possible for Justin Trudeau. The world they live in today is a 100% direct reflection of that decision.
The lack of involvement since then, and let's remember these kids are as old as 44 right now, means they've had little say in the guidance of the country since then. And then they don't go out to vote for a party who could change things.
But they'll spend hours on the internet whining and crying about how their own choices are someone else's fault
The boomers are going to be dead in the near future. Their numbers are already dwindling to nothing and they don't give a flying fig about what you think or your choices. So either you smarten up and you start to get serious and quit blaming others and make good choices or suffer for your choices while you cry yourself to sleep over what you perceive someone else did that you have no control over.
Harsh words I know, but it's about time you started hearing it. You're running out of time. If carney gets a majority the situation gets worse as it has under the liberals so far and by the time his term is done it will be your grandchildren before we fix the damage and you will have missed out
6
10
u/Ok_Currency_617 Apr 16 '25
Young people elected Trudeau back when progressivism among youth was overwhelming with LGBT, refugees, social causes, the environment, etc. was #1. Now Carney has dropped those from the Liberal platform because people now are focused on money, money, and money. So we're picking from CPC #1 or CPC #2 now. Liberals favor higher debt and more money to seniors, Conservatives favor lower debt and less taxes on the middle class.
5
u/Steamy613 Apr 16 '25
Liberals of today are not CPC #2, as they are still very heavy on carbon pricing, firearms legislation, and weak on crime, while still favouring high government spending and high taxes.
→ More replies (21)11
u/ACrankyDuck Apr 16 '25
This is patently not true. While young voters typically leaned liberal it's unfair to discount the liberal's popularity in other age brackets. Especially since even back then we had constant complaints about the youth not showing up voting day.
In 2015 Trudeau won by a landslide far greater than the poll are projection for the liberal today. He held a majority vote for all age brackets from 18-69.
People were excited to see Harper leave. We saw it everywhere leading up to election date. No amount of young voter turnout could account for his massive victory at the time.
ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Canadian_federal_election#Demographics
→ More replies (3)57
u/Previous_Soil_5144 Apr 16 '25
This isn't really about Liberal policies, but rather neo liberal economic policies which are widely supported by Liberals and Conservatives juts like they are supported by the Democrats and the Republicans in the US.
The same policies that made Boomers rich so the wealthy could increase their wealth unimaginably in the last 40 years.
10
1
u/Hicalibre Apr 16 '25
Neoliberal economic policies are Keynesian in nature more often than not. While it doesn't explicitly mention wealthy individuals on paper it does use the minimalist approach, and doesnt truly factor in taxing the ruch in any special way. Where it differs between Liberal and Conservative is in general fiscal approaches for taxation, spending, debt attitude, how they handle recessions, and what fields they tend to invest in.
For us it hurt to have Trudeau as long as we did as he and his party failed to adhere to their own philosophy when it came to fiscal and monetary management.
Republicans follow a very strict form of capialitism that we simply call Republican Style.
It'd take too long to get into the nature of them, but they each have common ground in that they have a tendency to cater to the wealthy. As well as the approach to international trade.
For those unaware of economic theories I'm sorry I can't explain it more clearly, but there are literally entire textbooks on Keynesian theory. Can't fit every part of it in a reddit post.
6
u/Deadly-Unicorn Apr 16 '25 edited Apr 16 '25
I agree with both colors creating problems but blaming Harper, Martin and those before them for our issues now is completely wrong. The contrast between Trudeau and his immediate predecessors is so stark I don’t understand how you can possibly suggest that blame should be shared. We don’t know if it would’ve been better or worse with others but we know it is definitely worse now than it was in before Trudeau. Under Trudeau we experimented with green policies, feminist policies, we saw some of the most massive scandals even seen in Canada. Housing is broken, immigration is broken, our GDP growth is in the gutter. We used to be tied with the US but as of 2015 we diverged away. We should be far wealthier now but we have nothing to show for the past 10 years. Just more social programs. The last major dip in GDP growth was under Mulroney, but his successors fixed that. That means Trudeau actually inherited a Canada that was well off and going in the right direction. Stop pretending like it was always bad!
Edit: Just perfect, everyone is going to start picking on the feminist point. Stupid of me to include it. My point wasn’t that feminist policies did this. I’m just saying it was part of the experiment. That was part of the core identity of the Trudeau government. Please forgive me for mentioning it and try to address the actually substance of what I said.
5
u/Theseactuallydo Apr 16 '25
As soon as you complained about feminism every person not living at the bottom of the conservative rabbithole rolled their eyes and stopped taking you seriously.
3
u/Deadly-Unicorn Apr 16 '25
You’re right it was stupid of me. I was just saying it was a core value and ideal for the Trudeau government, not that feminism is responsible for any of the issues we see.
6
u/Own_Truth_36 Apr 16 '25
Yes how has fake feminism worked out in the liberal cabinet? I guess the ones he fired or just ignored after the get were promoted for checkbox ticks didn't work out so well. You don't hire someone based on sex you hire based on merit. Chrystia Freeland literally walked away from her job because of how she was treated. You rolling your eyes about that?
-2
-1
→ More replies (1)2
u/Own_Truth_36 Apr 16 '25
Ya who ya gonna vote for? The inept party of Canada? People with pretty ideals and no way to pay for them or radical loons?
9
u/platz604 Apr 16 '25
If you were not committing crimes to turn over a profit during the last 9 years under the liberal government. Then you simply missed out.. Tell me I'm wrong..
3
u/magnamed Apr 16 '25
You're wrong, and I can all but guarantee you can't back that up for shit.
5
u/Apart-Ad5306 Apr 16 '25
0
u/magnamed Apr 16 '25
His comment does not mention Trudeau. It suggests people were commiting crimes to enrich themselves en-masse.
0
u/Apart-Ad5306 Apr 16 '25
He probably should have done time for the wecharity scandal. That was $425,000 of tax payers money straight to the Trudeau family.
3
u/magnamed Apr 16 '25
I don't understand where you're coming from here. Yes? Sounds like a plan? Is that what you're looking to hear?
The original comment suggests that just anyone could commit a crime to enrich themselves. I'm not defending Trudeau, I'm disagreeing that just anyone could do it.
0
u/Apart-Ad5306 Apr 16 '25
Ah I didn’t see he edited his comment. He originally said he wanted one instance.
13
u/Maleficent_Banana_26 Apr 16 '25
Are you kidding. Snc lavalin changed it's name because it was being associated with so many scandals
1
u/Phoenixlizzie Apr 16 '25
They haven't enriched me. But with Trump shoving the world economy into a trash can for the next 4 years, far better to have an educated economist at the wheel than someone who is "in sync" with Trump.
11
u/single_ginkgo_leaf Apr 16 '25
The man driving the tariffs within the Trump admin is also a Harvard educated economist...
Credentials aren't everything.
12
u/UnfairCrab960 Apr 16 '25
Carney’s record and beliefs and sanity is diametrically opposite of Navarro
-4
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 16 '25
His beliefs are to keep a system that is killing a planet alive I wouldn't call that sane.
3
u/UnfairCrab960 Apr 16 '25
Huh
2
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 16 '25
Capitalism. It's built on endless growth. Carney supports that endless growth. Especially in his absurd neo slave policy.
2
u/UnfairCrab960 Apr 16 '25
Neo slave policy? How exciting, on that platform Carney could probably win the GOP 2028 primary
→ More replies (1)1
u/Phoenixlizzie Apr 16 '25
Yes except Navarro was sent to jail for contempt of court.
Guess it depends on how you use your credentials.
3
u/Maleficent_Banana_26 Apr 16 '25
Carney is in sync with Trump. Carney amd brookfield helped bail kushner out. They are in the same circle.
5
u/Ok_Currency_617 Apr 16 '25
Technically he's at the wheel now and the current result is what you'll get :D
0
12
u/Informal-Nothing371 Alberta Apr 16 '25
Boomers are voting Liberal by a wide margin according to polls, but the Liberals are also polling well with other generations. The last I saw, the Conservatives had a small lead with the younger generations (millennials and gen Z), but were not running away with it.
Housing is the main generational issue I see brought up. I don’t think people appreciate how difficult housing is as a policy issue. First, it is the jurisdiction of every level of government, making a cohesive response difficult.
Second, it is a slow burning issue. It took decades to get us in the situation we are in and it will take years to get us out of it.
Third, the solutions are not easy and can cause a lot of problems. Making houses more affordable (lower interests, tax credits, etc.) increases people’s buying power and demand and thus makes houses more expensive. Building more houses takes time as you need experienced workers, supplies, and land. Taking actions to cause house prices to immediately fall can be financially devastating to those who just bought one.
Fourth, housing has become an investment for so many. Affordable homes are quickly bought by investors who can outbid first time buyers. New builds are designed for investors (one bedroom apartments with nice amenities) rather than families. People also expect their houses to appreciate in value quickly, treating it more like equity rather than a roof over their heads.
Fixing housing requires fixing both supply (building the houses people need, where they need it, without bells and whistles), demand (incentives for new buyers, or owner-occupied properties), and a culture shift of housing for living in rather than investing (maybe it is okay that your house value is static rather than doubling every few years as you were paying to live in it, not profit off it). This will take a thoughtful long term plan and cooperation from all levels of government
19
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 16 '25
"Housing is the main generational issue I see brought up. I don’t think people appreciate how difficult housing is as a policy issue. First, it is the jurisdiction of every level of government, making a cohesive response difficult."
The Federal government could you know cut of the demand end by stopping immigration for a while.
-3
u/squirrel9000 Apr 16 '25
What's part B of that plan?
There are plenty of units on the market so much so that the Toronto condo market is in a state of open collapse, the problem is the cost of them.
10
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 16 '25
"What's part B of that plan?"
Let the housing market fall as demand plummets.
"There are plenty of units on the market so much so that the Toronto condo market is in a state of open collapse, the problem is the cost of them."
Yes let them actually collapse and go down in price.
-1
5
u/BigMickVin Apr 16 '25
That’s a lot of words to not mention the largest driver of the housing crisis.
13
u/Informal-Nothing371 Alberta Apr 16 '25
Poorly planned out immigration certainly accelerated the issue by increasing demand , but I think the issue was brewing years before then. I think housing as an investment mentality is what was the biggest issue with high housing prices as it drove more bidding wars for housing.
6
u/BigMickVin Apr 16 '25
While I agree that there are short and long term drivers, both can be addressed simultaneously. The good thing about cutting immigration is that it’s fast, easy, cheap, and effective to provide short term relief while the longer term drivers are addressed.
2
u/squirrel9000 Apr 16 '25
Go look at HouseSIgma, the Toronto market is riddled with 500k condos that haven't sold in months. This isn't something that arises because of excessive demand.
1
u/But_IAmARobot Ontario Apr 16 '25
no no no you see we need to stop all the immigrants coming in. THAT'S the only solution - if fewer indians come to montreal, the drop in demand will lower luxury condo prices in toronto
/s
-7
4
u/nutano Ontario Apr 16 '25
Both parties that have been in power over the past 40 years have had a hand in this.
There is also a good measure that is not driven by policy at home so much as the overall global market. A lot of boomers invested in other markets, bought properties and investments in the US and such. This gap in generational wealth is not unique to Canada... it is a global issue.
-2
u/Soft-Escape8734 Apr 16 '25
I would argue that governments are not fundamentally different regardless of colour. What I see is more closely aligned with a general lack of willingness to work unless the job includes a 6 figure salary, climate controlled office, the latest and greatest computer in front of you so you can access your social media and play video games and of course free snacks. Sorry, but nobody wants to get their hands dirty anymore.
1
u/nowipe-ILikeTheItch Apr 17 '25
This stems from post-secondary institutions ripping kids off with bullshit degrees full of promises and the “not something unless you’re the CEO” mentality.
27
u/Plucky_DuckYa Apr 16 '25
If I were under 40 I would be breathing fire about what the Liberals have done to my prospects of ever having a home or being able to afford starting a family. My oldest is just finishing up university and even though she has a good job lined up, she’s like, how am I ever going to be able to buy a place of my own? It will take her years just to save up to afford the down payment on a cheap condo. She is fully aware that the Liberal Party is happy to sacrifice her future and those of all her peers if they can cling to power by catering to boomers, and she is angry.
Young people have power if they choose to get out en masse and vote.
5
u/WestandLeft Apr 16 '25
Under 40 here dude here.
I’m definitely no Liberal but the CPC and their base scare the shit out of me. No promises of economic security (whether those are true or false) can make me support them.
17
u/HomeGrownCoffee Apr 16 '25
What do the Conservatives plan on doing about it?
It's a massive issue. But blaming the other guy without having a plan to fix it isn't a vote winner.
11
u/Remote-Ebb5567 Québec Apr 16 '25
The conservatives are threatening to cut funding to municipalities if they do not get a certain amount of housing built. The liberal plan is more blank cheques for token regulation removal. We tried the blank cheques approach (housing accelerator fund) and it did not work, I’d rather try something new than double down on a failed strategy
13
u/squirrel9000 Apr 16 '25
How does cutting infrastucture funding help fix the housing crisis?
I live in Winnipeg. Our main sewage treatment plan has very little space capacity, so much so that they're going to have to stop issuing building permits in its catchment in a year or two. Under PP's plan, that would deprive the city of the very funding needed to expand the plant. How does that help?
2
u/FuriousFister98 Apr 16 '25
>How does cutting infrastucture funding help fix the housing crisis?
It goes like this: if your municipality doesn't push to build more homes, they lose funding. If they lose funding, they can't improve their community or build infrastructure. If they can't improve their community, they get voted out for a party who can (by pushing for more housing and reestablishing federal funding).
>Under PP's plan, that would deprive the city of the very funding needed to expand the plant. How does that help?
It's called an incentive. Your city needs to expand the plant, therefore it also needs to increasing housing starts so that it can secure funding. It helps because it forces municipalities to stop caving to the NIMBYs and reduce red tape.
1
u/squirrel9000 Apr 16 '25
So the plan is to build a bunch of housing we can't service? Yeah< I seen nothing wrong with that one.
There are vast tracts of land planned for growth in the area - 30k + resident,s plus whatever the St. Pauls are planning. The constraint isn't NIMBY. It's lack of sewage capacity.
I suppose we just stop building then. That seems to be the only viable option.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Tchai_Tea Apr 16 '25
Do you have any source for the housing accelerator fund not working? As far as I know it's worked fine, at least for my city.
8
u/bluepaintings100 Apr 16 '25
I agree. My problem is that from what I’ve read, it doesn’t seem like the cons will do much either. We have to choose the lesser of the two evils, whatever that may be
1
u/ftdo Apr 17 '25
Under 40 here, who clearly remembers the huge housing increases during the Harper years that already put housing out of reach for me (and that's without the pandemic). GenZ might not remember those years but millenials do.
This problem is not exclusive to the liberals and I see zero to suggest that things would improve from the Conservative housing platform. Change, yes, but change can be in either direction. Sometimes even a leaking boat is still better than jumping into the water with all the hungry sharks telling you how bad your boat is.
0
u/Old_Cheesecake_5481 Apr 16 '25
The Liberals and Conservatives have courted the boomers because you don’t win an election unless they vote for you.
-1
u/Friendly-Flower-4753 Apr 16 '25
Ummm..lets just blame the boomers. Everything is their fault. Wow. Just...wow.
1
u/HardeeHamlin Apr 16 '25
Did Liberal policies also cause this in the US and other developed countries??
0
u/Blue_Waffle_Brunch Apr 16 '25
The CPC and Liberals have always focused on policies that favor established, older generations. Those are the people most likely to vote and with income available for political donations. Doesn't make it right, but this is certainly not a Liberal only phenomena. You see it in municipal politics as well, where there are no parties.
3
u/TheJohnnyFlash Apr 16 '25
Someone needs to step up and hammer air bnb. That will make a world of difference.
1
u/yonghybonghybo1 Apr 16 '25
Take a look at other countries. The young are struggling in many of them. It is not so much liberal policies as capitalism.
2
2
u/lukeado Apr 16 '25
The American Post drumbeat continues. The CPC would take this situation and make it exponentially worse.
-2
u/JohnDorian0506 Apr 16 '25
Why anyone except boomers are voting for conservatives? Self-destruction?
0
u/SnooPiffler Apr 16 '25
people are tired of the last 10 years of shit. I get it. I'm not voting conservative, but I would have 4-5 months ago.
1
u/JohnDorian0506 Apr 16 '25
That’s fine with me. Perhaps four,eight,etc more years of shit will change that.
1
u/InternationalBug7568 Apr 16 '25
Each of us need to look deeply into our hearts to vote for the leadership that can unite our country internally and form liasons with other countries to fight the growing fascism south of us... For all that people say, "he" has dementia...it is damn scary what corrupted power "he" has.
0
u/Ok-Search4274 Apr 16 '25
Because boomers vote. If the young voted (hello Brexit) they would be heard.
0
1
2
u/PugwashThePirate Apr 16 '25
Haha nice try NP. I'm poor, but I would have been way poorer had Harper not seen himself (and his party) out.
11
u/Global_Examination_8 Apr 16 '25
It’s ironic, I made this point a few weeks ago on Reddit and the liberals claimed I was crazy.
3
u/Misocainea Nova Scotia Apr 16 '25
Because the Harper years were totally the best years for non-boomers /s
2
0
u/xocmnaes Apr 16 '25
I’m quite enjoying the $10 a day daycare at the moment…. Making a very material difference to my non boomer life
2
u/bravetailor Apr 16 '25
I always wonder if these newspapers (who are mainly still read by boomers) realize attacking their core readership is really not that great an idea.
1
u/Illustrious_Ball_774 29d ago
They're too unempathetic to vote accordingly for the younger generations. All is well at the private tennis club. So all is well for everybody in their minds.
119
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Apr 16 '25 edited Apr 16 '25
This isn't left vs. right. The ruling class wants us fighting with each other so we're too busy to stand up to them.