I’ve heard 4% rule, but for myself I use an investment firm that does monte carlo projections, with ages, spending rates, and current assets to give you a rough idea of likelihood of assets lasting till death.

Ive also played with a few of the retirement calculators made by the FIRE crowd i.e. https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/beyond-4-rule-how-much-can-you-spend-retirement

oh yeah, not saying it’s a good thing at all…

To my limited knowledge (reading https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1551870) this seems to be the Canadian norm: you don’t own the land under your land

20 years, 15%. That is a very low amount. Title is terrible.

I haven’t read the article…yet (after a skim I agree with the article). I really don’t know how to feel about the gay/trans issue as I’m fine with my kids being gay or trans, but I don’t want anyone dictating to me what religion or philosophy I raise my kids with, so I feel like I shouldn’t get to say what the nut jobs believe it what they tell their children (to a point)… This is tough

You aren’t a parent are you? Cause children will actually hurt themselves badly, and really do need active care at an early age.

For older children setting boundaries for your children so they aren’t assholes is “determining best interests”.

I don’t want people telling me what religion or philosophy to raise my kids in, I kind of think of this as parents rights. Of course as kids get to be adults those go away.

Skim the article, it’s 20 large municipality’s, nowhere is 0 mentioned

It seems like you maybe thinking this is saying police do nothing, it isn’t.

No consistent association means the data doesn’t back up higher or lower funding having an impact on crime. It doesn’t say anything about rates when the funding is zero or when funding is very high.

I think it means can’t pay to reduce crime, or not pay and expect crime to go up.

Testing for zero would be extremely difficult, because we only have one Toronto sized city in Canada.

I’m guessing here but I suspect that there’s a significant number of places with zero police presence that have very little crime. And this article suggests that there are very well funded police presences where crime still happens.

How is it impossible to be true?

I’m not sure how you could make this argument without making assumptions about base crime rates.

I think I favour building lots of (hopefully well made) public housing, and taxes on non primary dwellings. I’m not in any way an expert though.

I don’t really understand why the statements in your second paragraph are true.

If you bought your house for $600k you should hopefully be prepared to pay that $600k over time, whether or not interest rates go up.

Unfortunate reality is sometimes rates jump, predicting 10 years out what your income will be, and how interest rates change is sort of impossible. IMO a lot of this uncertainty on the part of the buyer is mitigated by history, while the banks only have to take that risk in 5 year chunks (idk if there are longer renewal periods).

faster by kicking people out and foreclosing

short googling seems like people tend to declare bankruptcy first in canada. It all around seems like a terrible situation – and not one we’d want to encourage, hence: we probably shouldn’t actively lower existing housing prices to pandemic or 2010 prices.

Selling and purchasing aren’t the only time you’d feel it. Any time interest rates go up you’d also feel it (now you get to pay more on large amount). With very large principals you’d be paying it for longer. Anytime the mortgage goes up for renewal no bank would want to touch you, or maybe they’d love you, just with really unfavorable terms (idk much about banks).

Having a large mortgage when the asset tanks can be thought of having a big debt where the collateral for that debt is suddenly with way less.

I finally see what you are trying to say. You wouldn’t mind losing value in your house, so “the statement remains false” for you.

All i was saying originally is: lowering housing prices would be hard to pull off politically because there will be a significant portion of the 65% of canadians that own houses, that would mind losing that value.

Stagnation is way different then reduction, I’d also be fine with that, as i suspect would be other home owners.

Tank “to suffer rapid decline, failure, or collapse” is different from stagnate. The OP said:

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

This jives with tank, but not with stagnate.

The statement was all home owners want prices to increase.

This statement was never made.

I could care less if it tanks

If you have a mortgage, you should care, you should probably care if you don’t.

Lets imagine that a $656,6253 house were to go back to it’s 2010 price, about $339,030.

If you have a mortgage you now have about 600k in debt on an asset worth 340k.

https://media.tenor.com/GxfSlJG_H7AAAAAC/confusion-visible-confusion.gif

I policy like this may ignore them, but housing prices can reduce on their own without any government intervention…

This is all i was saying, it is not a simple thing, as the original post said

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

Makes it sound like “hey it’s simple we just fuck 65% of people in canada” is not a winning political strategy.

Stagnation might be the only reasonable solution. I’m all for taxing home speculation by companies, and raising taxes on secondary/rentals. Hell, i’d be for a subsidies for buying houses even to the poorest people. I want to live in a pleasant place, part of that means everyone lives and works comfortably.

Artificially reducing building supply while people cannot afford to rent or purchase is pretty fucking shitty

I don’t know who’s doing this or how it relates to the original post

I’ve sold at a loss twice. It sucks. But that’s a risk of ownership.

Presumably prices were also cheaper when you bought in that market, so there’s some

Bonus point for undertaxed homes, and suburban regions that survive on pushing the ponzi scheme further out or leeching on city core taxes; for LVT is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don’t know anything about this

I remain unconvinced the original statement is false. I don’t care about being correct.

No, we’ve been purchasing a thing for years, we have not been saving. We can sell that thing, but it is under no obligation to be valued higher than when we bought it.

What do you mean “no”, I never said “people who bought houses must get a higher return on money spent”, i said a policy like this would ignore those people.

What i said originally:

I think there might be a balance here that’s hard to strike…

Was in response to:

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

This policy would ignore anyone in a house. That also seems shitty

See my original comment:

I think there might be a balance here that’s hard to strike