Connect with us

Economy

Recession Fears Loom, 51% of Canadians Would Miss Mortgage Payment Within Three Months

Published

5 minute read

From RateFilter.ca

By  Alan Harder

New data shows that Canadians are struggling with housing costs, with 62% spending more than the recommended 30% of pre-tax income on housing. Homeowners aren’t as financially secure as presumed, especially those holding mortgages. A concerning 51% of mortgage holders couldn’t survive more than three months without their primary income. This financial strain underscores the urgent need for both individuals and policymakers to address housing affordability.


Key Takeaways

  • 51% of mortgage holders could not make it more than three months without their primary income without missing a payment; 16% couldn’t last even one month.
  • 62% of Canadians exceed the CMHC’s recommended 30% limit on housing expenses, with the average household spending 37% of their pre-tax income on housing.
  • Homeowners generally spend less on housing than renters (average of 34% vs. 43% of their pre-tax income). However, this is skewed by the 35% of homeowners who are mortgage-free. Mortgage holders spend an average of 41% of their income on housing.

The Hidden Struggles Behind the Housing Data

For many Canadians, the dream of homeownership is being challenged by a worrying financial reality. New data reveals a landscape where both homeowners and renters are grappling with costs that exceed the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s (CMHC) recommended limit of spending no more than 30% of pre-tax income on housing.

Homeowners Not as Secure as Assumed

Although homeowners have traditionally enjoyed a degree of financial security, the numbers tell a different story. Yes, 35% of homeowners are mortgage-free, which brings down the average housing expenditure for this group to 34% of pre-tax income. However, that percentage can give a misleading impression of overall financial well-being.

The Precarious Position of Mortgage Holders

When you focus on homeowners with mortgages, the picture becomes quite bleak. These individuals are devoting a whopping 41% of their pre-tax income to housing. Alarmingly, over half (51%) couldn’t manage more than three months without their main source of income; 16% would be in trouble within just a month.

Ongoing Financial Strain Amid Past Rate Increases

Over the past 18 months, we’ve seen a series of rate hikes from the Bank of Canada, which has contributed to an ongoing financial strain for many Canadians. These historical increases have only intensified concerns about housing affordability and financial stability, irrespective of what future rate changes may or may not occur. This backdrop of rising rates adds another dimension to the already challenging landscape of housing costs.

A Critical Time for Financial Health

“These statistics corroborate what we’ve been hearing anecdotally,” says Andy Hill, co-founder of ratefilter.ca. “Many Canadians feel like they’re at a breaking point due to higher interest rates. Even if the Bank of Canada pauses the rate hike, these borrowers will still be dealing with rates at a 20-year high.”

The Fragile Job Market

The data is even more unsettling when considering job security. Despite a low unemployment rate, 16% of mortgage holders could not withstand a month without income before falling behind on their mortgage payments.

Conclusion

These figures underscore the urgency for both policymakers and individuals to address the rising costs of housing in Canada. While the statistics offer a broad view, the individual stories highlight an unsettling financial instability lurking beneath the surface.

Proportion of Pre-Tax Income on Housing

R1. Please think about how much you spend on housing each month. This would include mortgage/ rent, property tax, strata fees, and utility costs such as electricity, heat, water, and other municipal services. Approximately what percentage of your pre-tax income do you spend on housing?

Methodology

  • These results are based on an online survey of a representative sample of 1,548 adult Canadians (including 1,028 homeowners and 650 mortgage holders) surveyed using Leger’s panel, LEO, from October 13-16, 2023.
  • As a non-random internet survey, a margin of error is not reported. For comparison, a probability sample of n=1,548 would have a margin of error of ±2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
  • Any discrepancies between totals are due to rounding.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Economy

Prime minister’s misleading capital gains video misses the point

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

According to a 2021 study published by the Fraser Institute, 38.4 per cent of those who paid capital gains taxes in Canada earned less than $100,000 per year, and 18.3 per cent earned less than $50,000. Yet in his video, Prime Minister Trudeau claims that his capital gains tax hike will affect only the richest “0.13 per cent of Canadians”

This week, Prime Minister Trudeau released a video about his government’s decision to increase capital gains taxes. Unfortunately, he made several misleading claims while failing to acknowledge the harmful effects this tax increase will have on a broad swath of Canadians.

Right now, individuals and businesses who sell capital assets pay taxes on 50 per cent of the gain (based on their full marginal rate). Beginning on June 25, however, the Trudeau government will increase that share to 66.7 per cent for capital gains above $250,000. People with gains above that amount will again pay their full marginal rate, but now on two-thirds of the gain.

In the video, which you can view online, the prime minister claims that this tax increase will affect only the “very richest” people in Canada and will generate significant new revenue—$20 billion, according to him—to pay for social programs. But economic research and data on capital gains taxes reveal a different picture.

For starters, it simply isn’t true that capital gains taxes only affect the wealthy. Many Canadians who incur capital gains taxes, such as small business owners, may only do so once in their lifetimes.

For example, a plumber who makes $90,000 annually may choose to sell his business for $500,000 at retirement. In that year, the plumber’s income is exaggerated because it includes the capital gain rather than only his normal income. In fact, according to a 2021 study published by the Fraser Institute, 38.4 per cent of those who paid capital gains taxes in Canada earned less than $100,000 per year, and 18.3 per cent earned less than $50,000. Yet in his video, Prime Minister Trudeau claims that his capital gains tax hike will affect only the richest “0.13 per cent of Canadians” with an “average income of $1.4 million a year.”

But this is a misleading statement. Why? Because it creates a distorted view of who will pay these capital gains taxes. Many Canadians with modest annual incomes own businesses, second homes or stocks and could end up paying these higher taxes following a onetime sale where the appreciation of their asset equals at least $250,000.

Moreover, economic research finds that capital taxes remain among the most economically damaging forms of taxation precisely because they reduce the incentive to innovate and invest. By increasing them the government will deter investment in Canada and chase away capital at a time when we badly need it. Business investment, which is crucial to boost living standards and incomes for Canadians, is collapsing in Canada. This tax hike will make a bad economic situation worse.

Finally, as noted, in the video the prime minister claims that this tax increase will generate “almost $20 billion in new revenue.” But investors do not incur capital gains taxes until they sell an asset and realize a gain. A higher capital gains tax rate gives them an incentive to hold onto their investments, perhaps until the rate is reduced after a change in government. According to economists, this “lock-in” effect can stifle economic activity. The Trudeau government likely bases its “$20 billion” number on an assumption that investors will sell their assets sooner rather than later—perhaps before June 25, to take advantage of the old inclusion rate before it disappears (although because the government has not revealed exactly how the new rate will apply that seems less likely). Of course, if revenue from the tax hike does turn out to be less than anticipated, the government will incur larger budget deficits than planned and plunge us further into debt.

Contrary to Prime Minister Trudeau’s claims, raising capital gains taxes will not improve fairness. It’s bad for investment, the economy and the living standards of Canadians.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Governments in Canada accelerate EV ‘investments’ as automakers reverse course

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Evidence continues to accrue that many of these “investments,” which are ultimately of course taxpayer funded, are risky ventures indeed.

Even as the much-vaunted electric vehicle (EV) transition slams into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario’s Ford government will pour another $5 billion in subsidies into Honda, which plans to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario.

This comes on top of a long list of other such “investments” including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution, $13 billion for Volkswagen (with a real cost to Ottawa of $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.

All this government subsidizing is of course meant to help remake the automobile, with the Trudeau government mandating that 100 per cent of new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in Canada be zero-emission by 2035. But evidence continues to accrue that many of these “investments,” which are ultimately of course taxpayer funded, are risky ventures indeed.

As the Wall Street Journal notes, Tesla, the biggest EV maker in the United States, has seen its share prices plummet (down 41 per cent this year) as the company struggles to sell its vehicles at the pace of previous years when first-adopters jumped into the EV market. Some would-be EV makers or users are postponing their own EV investments. Ford has killed it’s electric F-150 pickup truck, Hertz is dumping one-third of its fleet of EV rental vehicles, and Swedish EV company Polestar dropped 15 per cent of its global work force while Tesla is cutting 10 per cent of its global staff.

And in the U.S., a much larger potential market for EVs, a recent Gallup poll shows a market turning frosty. The percentage of Americans polled by Gallup who said they’re seriously considering buying an EV has been declining from 12 per cent in 2023 to 9 per cent in 2024. Even more troubling for would-be EV sellers is that only 35 per cent of poll respondents in 2024 said they “might consider” buying an EV in the future. That number is down from 43 per cent in 2023.

Overall, according to Gallup, “less than half of adults, 44 per cent, now say they are either seriously considering or might consider buying an EV in the future, down from 55 per cent in 2023, while the proportion not intending to buy one has increased from 41 per cent to 48 per cent.” In other words, in a future where government wants sellers to only sell EVs, almost half the U.S. public doesn’t want to buy one.

And yet, Canada’s governments are hitting the gas pedal on EVs, putting the hard-earned capital of Canadian taxpayers at significant risk. A smart government would have its finger in the wind and would slow down when faced with road bumps. It might even reset its GPS and change the course of its 2035 EV mandate for vehicles few motorists want to buy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X