Connect with us

News

Albertans Concerned About Interest Rate Hikes & Housing Bubble

Published

6 minute read

A new survey released by MNP LTD finds that Albertans are concerned about the uncertainty of a potential housing bubble and impending interest rate hikes, adding financial stress to households already carrying a record level of debt.

Six in ten (61 per cent) of Albertans and nearly half (48 per cent) of Canadians homeowners are concerned about the impact rising interest rates will have on their finances. At the same time, more than half of Albertans (59 per cent) are worried about the potential impact that a decline in house prices might have on homeowners.

“So many are over-leveraged right now. Making matters worse, many are not making regular payments against the principal. With the financial stress of the downturn, and the threat of an increase in interest rates, many are going to find it even harder to make ends meet,” says Donna Carson, Licensed Insolvency Trustee at MNP LTD, a division of MNP LLP.

Nearly four in ten (39 per cent) homeowners in Alberta say that they will be faced with financial difficulties if the value of their home goes down, the highest proportion among other provinces. Even if home values don’t decline in the near future; three in ten Albertans (31 per cent) who have a mortgage agree that they are ‘in over their head’ with their current mortgage payments.

Homeowners aren’t the only ones concerned. Nearly eighty per cent of Albertans rate their ability to cope with a 1% interest rate increase as less than optimal. The vast majority of Albertans (83 per cent) would have difficulty absorbing an additional $130 per month in interest payments on debt.

“We’ve become far too comfortable paying only the minimum payments on our debts. It’s time to start assessing our ability to pay down those debts and ask ourselves if we can truly afford them if there is a rate change,” says Carson.

When asked about their personal debt situation, the majority of Albertans don’t feel optimistic. Nearly seven in ten (69 per cent) rated their debt situation as less than good, while sixteen per cent rated their situation as bad. On a scale of one to ten, from terrible to excellent, Albertans gave themselves an average rating of 6.

With nearly four in ten Albertans (38 per cent) finding themselves within $200 per month of financial insolvency, there is little wiggle room left to pay any unexpected bills or debts. If that amount is increased to $300 per month, a staggering forty-two per cent of Albertans would be on the verge of insolvency, with nearly one in four (22 per cent) not making enough to cover their bills and debt payments. Four in ten (42 per cent) say they are concerned about their current level of debt.

“Albertans should be bracing themselves for what’s ahead, especially those who already consider themselves to be in financial distress. Seek professional advice and start creating a realistic plan to deal with that debt,” says Carson.

Survey Highlights include:

  • Three in ten Albertans with a mortgage agree they are ‘in over their head’ with their current mortgage payments
  • Nearly four in ten homeowners in Alberta agree they will face financial difficulties if the value of their home goes down, six in ten Albertans think we’re in a housing bubble
  • Six in ten Albertans agree they are concerned about the impact of rising interest rates
  • Nearly eighty per cent of Albertans rate their ability to cope with a 1% interest rate increase as less than optimal
  • Over a quarter (27%) of Canadians with a mortgage agree that they are ‘in over their head’ with their current mortgage payments. This includes more than one in three Quebecers (35%), followed by residents of BC (32%), Alberta (31%), Atlantic Canada (25%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (23%), and Ontario (21%).
  • Half of Canadians (51%) are concerned about the potential impact on home owners that a decrease in house prices might bring.
  • Over forty (44%) of Canadians are within $200 of financial insolvency at the end of the month, down 8 points from March 2017, and 12 points from September 2016.
  • Women are significantly more likely (48% women vs. 39% men) than men to be within $200 of insolvency at month-end.
  • Gen X’ers are more likely (48%) to be within $200 of insolvency at month-end, compared to Millennials (43%) and Baby Boomers (40%).
  • Half of Canadians (50%) are $300 per month away from being financially insolvent.
  • Atlantic Canadians are the most likely to rate their personal debt situation as ‘bad’ – the highest in the country at 22%
  • While two in three Canadians (67%) think we’re in a housing bubble, only a minority (43%) expect that bubble to burst through a decline in house prices in the next year. Half (51%) are concerned about the potential impact on home owners that such a decrease might bring.

 

Follow Author

International

Cheatle resigned after two articles of impeachment were filed against her

Published on

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-South Carolina

From The Center Square

Two articles of impeachment were filed against U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle just before she resigned Tuesday over security failures at the Pennsylvania campaign event where former President Donald Trump was shot.

A Florida congresswoman asked for criminal charges to be brought against her, and two Republicans, Greg Steube, R-Florida, and Nancy Mace, R-South Carolina, took actions for her to be impeached.

After she resigned, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said Cheatle “will not get to slither away and enjoy retirement.” She still needed to be investigated for her “role in the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. There may be criminal charges coming in the future. I think she showed up to the Oversight Committee, refused to answer our questions, did not bring any of the information that we asked her to bring in subpoenaed, she came in and participated in a full cover up and then resigned … that speaks a message loud and clear.”

If Cheatle hadn’t resigned, she might have been the second cabinet member to be impeached by the House after her boss, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Mayorkas was impeached on two counts in February for his role in creating the border crisis. Multiple Congress members and others have called for Mayorkas to resign following the July 13 assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump.

Greene also said Cheatle and Mayorkas “will face accountability for actions, including possible criminal investigations.”

Although Cheatle was an appointed officer, impeachment could still be possible. One presidential cabinet member was impeached after resigning, Secretary of War William Belknap, over corruption charges in 1876. The Senate said he was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned, according to the Congressional Research Service. He was later acquitted.

“The Secret Service calls themselves ‘one of the most elite law enforcement agencies in the world,’” Steube said. “What happened under their watch in Butler, Pennsylvania, was an international embarrassment and an inexcusable tragedy.”

On Monday, he filed one article of impeachment against Cheatle “for her dereliction of duty as it relates to the assassination attempt on President Trump’s life.”

The article states Cheatle “has negligently failed to uphold the agency’s mission and statutory charge to ‘ensure the safety and security’ of ‘protectees, key locations, and events of national significance.’”

It describes a range of security failures and conflicting statements Cheatle made to media outlets. It also addresses her action to shift the focus of the Secret Service from “solely providing the best protection services possible for protectees to meet arbitrarily set diversity hiring quotas.”

Mace also filed a privileged motion, requiring the House to vote on impeaching Cheatle within 48 hours. By the time she resigned, she had 24 hours left.

“This is an unprecedented resolution – never in American history has the House voted to impeach what is called an ‘inferior officer,’ or an appointed member of the administration who is not subject to Senate confirmation,” Mace said in a statement.

Cheatle’s “gross dereliction of duty since July 13th led to an unprecedented security breach and a preventable tragedy,” Mace said after an “absolutely egregious” performance at Monday’s Congressional hearing, where Cheatle testified. “She failed to provide us with answers. She failed to tell us a timeline. She failed in every way imaginable. As a result, her failure not only cost the life of someone, but also undermined the trust and confidence placed in the Secret Service by the American people. After today’s hearing – with the extreme lack of transparency and accountability, this impeachment resolution is a necessary step to hold her accountable for her actions.”

After several hours of committee members expressing frustration over Cheatle not answering questions, Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Kentucky, told her, “You answered more questions with an ABC News reporter than you have with members of Congress. You’re here with a subpoena and we expect you to answer the questions.”

Mace then hammered Cheatle with a series of yes or no questions. She first gave Cheatle the opportunity to use her five minutes to draft her resignation letter; Cheatle declined.

She asked if the Secret Service had “been transparent with this committee?” to which Cheatle replied, “yes.” Mace then asked if “the fact that we had to issue a subpoena to get you to show up today” was transparent and Cheatle attempted to answer but Mace cut her off saying, “no, we had to issue a subpoena to get you to show up today.”

In response to Cheatle stating earlier that the Secret Service wasn’t political, Mace asked her how her opening statement was leaked to three media outlets several hours before the hearing. Cheatle said, “I have no idea how my statement got out.” Mace replied, “well that’s bull****.”

She also asked Cheatle if the Secret Service was fully cooperating with the committee; Cheatle replied, “yes.” Mace said the committee sent her a list of demands for information on July 15 and still hadn’t received answers. Each time Mace asked a question, Cheatle replied, “I’ll have to get back to you on that,” to which Mace replied, “that is a no.”

“You’re just being completely dishonest,” Mace said. “You are being dishonest or lying. These are important questions that the American people want answers to and you’re just dodging … we had to subpoena you to be here and you won’t even answer the questions. We’ve asked you repeatedly to answer our questions. These are not hard questions.”

Continue Reading

International

Texas judges issue additional rulings blocking Title IX revisions

Published on

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

From The Center Square

Rule change blocked in 15 states

Two federal judges have ruled in favor of Texas and Texas plaintiffs in separate lawsuits filed to block a Biden administration Title IX rule change from going into effect.

Texas is now the 15th state where the revisions are blocked from going into effect ahead of an Aug. 1 deadline.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division on Friday granted the state’s request in a lawsuit filed by the state and two University of Texas at Austin professors. Kacsmaryk enjoined the U.S. Department of Education from “implementing, enacting, enforcing, or taking any action any manner to enforce” a new rule that revised Title IX pending the resolution of the case.

“The Final Rule inverts the text, history and tradition of Title IX: the statute protects women in spaces historically reserved to men; the Final Rule inserts men into spaces reserved to women,” Kacsmaryk said in his 32-page ruling.

In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, said, “Texas has successfully blocked Biden’s Department of Education from destroying Title IX protections for women and forcing radical ‘transgender’ ideology on Texas schools. Biden’s rule would have forced our schools to accommodate biological men on women’s sports teams and in female bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms, and required students and teachers to use incorrect pronouns. A federal judge has halted Biden’s rule pending a final ruling. It’s an honor to defend our State from Biden’s unlawful subversion of Title IX.”

Also on Friday, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor issued a preliminary injunction against the rule in favor of Carroll Independent School District. In May, the district’s board of trustees, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, passed a resolution denouncing the Title IX changes and sued asking the court to block it from going into effect.

Also in May, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott instructed the Texas Education Agency and Texas colleges and universities not to comply with the changes, The Center Square reported. In the last two legislative sessions, Abbott signed bills into law to strengthen student safety and “protect the integrity of women’s sports by prohibiting men from competing against female athletes.” Abbott said, “I will not let President Biden erase the advancements Texas has made.”

Judge O’Connor said in his ruling, “The compliance costs also go beyond monetary harm given the potential to infringe on constitutional rights. Privileging gender identity over biological sex is in no way authorized by the statutory text. And the consequences based on this statutory distortion appear limitless. For these reasons, and those stated by other federal courts, Carroll ISD is likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the final rule.”

The rulings were issued after O’Connor in June vacated a guidance issued by the DOE and the Department of Justice requiring schools to implement similar policies to the rule change before it was finalized. He also issued a permanent injunction against its enforcement in Texas, The Center Square reported.

Texas sued in June 2023 over the agencies’ mandates; the agencies are responsible for administering and enforcing Title IX.

At issue is Title IX, part of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

The law was enacted at a time when women and girls had limited athletic opportunities. Despite widespread opposition, including from women’s groups, the Biden administration began amending Title IX through several methods, arguing doing so would “advance educational equity and opportunity for women and girls across the country.”

It’s guidances and rule changes redefine biological sex to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

In response, 18 AGs argued the changes “demolished” women’s and girls’ rights, “making a mockery of Title IX’s fundamental organization principle – basic biology.”

After the Biden administration finalized the rule, multiple states sued. Texas sued on its own. Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho filed a lawsuit. Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming filed another. Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia filed a separate lawsuit. Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina filed another.

So far, federal judges have ruled against the Biden administration.

In June, Louisiana, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty was the first to rule against the administration, blocking the administration’s changes from going into effect in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho.

O’Connor also ruled against the agency Title IX mandates in June.

In Kansas, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves blocked the rule change from going into effect in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

Then in July, in Kansas, District Judge John Broomes ruled against the administration, blocking the changes from going into effect in Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming. And Judge Kacsmaryk blocked the rule from going into effect in Texas.

Continue Reading

Trending

X