If I agree to babysit your kids, and then don't show up, I can't reasonably say "well, they're not MY kids, so I'm not responsible". The feds chose to involve themselves in this, so it's not unreasonable that voters would hold them accountable.
Discussion
Loading...
At any rate, I wish knowledgeable people would stop sneering at the electorate, citing an overly simplistic reading of constitutional responsibilities.
@mikepmoffatt Australian here, but we're basically having the exact same debates. And obviously we inherited a very similar system of federal parliamentary democracy from the British.
There's some additional ones that we have that I don't think you guys share, like negative gearing. (Basically, our federal government gives people a tax break if they lose money while renting out an Investment property. You can imagine how that distorts our property market.)
But there are some more big factors that I think might be common.
The first is: Which level of government is best placed, in terms of resources, to fix the problem?
Which level of government /could/ provide a lot of funding for new rail projects that could support new TODs?
Which government has the most access to resources that could be used to set up a public property development agency?
Which level of government could fund the most public housing, if it wanted?
The second is: Which level of government is responsible for regulating the banks?
Particularly relevant, given (at least here, and I'd imagine also in Canada) its banks that provide housing loans.
And third: Which level of government could disincentivise land banking by introducing a nationwide land tax?
Australia had such a national land tax from 1910, but it got repealed in 1953: https://www.pbo.gov.au/about-budgets/budget-insights/budget-explainers/tax-mix/brief-history/1901-to-1950
Let’s consider two other factors. Flat wages, push housing that’s undergoing constant inflation out of reach over overtime.
The enthusiasm with which the banking sector to offer loans is directly related to housing inflation. The math for this is pretty straightforward. Since the number of houses on market is relatively inelastic, the chief source price increases. Is the size of the mortgage on offer for housing.
Banks make more money off of larger loans. They also make a lot more money over time with higher interest rates, but also the length of the loan term *Now 30 year loans typically means they collect twice as much or more money as the principal amount lent.
The terms and conditions apply to the secondary mortgage market, where banks sell mortgages to other investors determines the kinds of loans they will accept. Longer mortgage terms mean higher prices as well.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @aj @mikepmoffatt
Pretty much, but imho this can be generalized and simplified.
The elites run the money printers hot - doesn't matter what kinds of loans we are talking about - one way or another the debt gets rolled over and is increasing ever faster.
This fresh money is used by the rich and anyone who gains access to the newly printed money to stash it away in something that they hope will keep the value and one main category of assets is housing inflation
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @aj @mikepmoffatt
This will never stop - no matter what will happen, money printers continue to print more and more money and those who get the money have fewer and fewer options - and housing is kinda like "high-end art" in the eyes of those who want to preserve their wealth.
I think if there is any way to boil things down and agree on this as the main overriding reason and know all other effects or reasons are marginal compared to it, its much easier to find solutions
1+ more replies (not shown)