Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Economy

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

Published

7 months ago

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.
Related Topics:

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

More from this author
conflict / 3 hours ago

White House Reportedly Worried About Russia’s Sudden Momentum Months After Biden Declared Putin ‘Already Lost’ War

Censorship Industrial Complex / 4 hours ago

Jim Jordan Exposes Biden’s Censorship-Industrial Complex

Crime / 4 hours ago

Slovakian prime minister who opposed WHO Pandemic Treaty shot in assassination attempt

Automotive

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

Published on May 15, 2024

By

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.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Automotive

Red States Sue California and the Biden Administration to Halt Electric Truck Mandates

Published on May 15, 2024

By

From Heartland Daily News

By Nick Pope

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country”

Large coalitions of red states are suing regulators in Washington, D.C., and California over rules designed to effectively require increases in electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Nebraska is leading a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a 17-state coalition suing the state of California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California over its Advanced Clean Fleet rules. Both regulations would increase the number of heavy-duty EVs on the road, a development that could cause serious disruptions and cost increases across the U.S. economy, as supply chain and trucking sector experts have previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country,” Republican Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement. “Neither California nor the EPA has the constitutional power to dictate these nationwide rules to Americans. I am proud to lead our efforts to stop these unconstitutional attempts to remake our economy and am grateful to our sister states for joining our coalitions.”

(RELATED: New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business)

While specifics vary depending on the type of heavy-duty vehicle, EPA’s emissions standards will effectively mandate that EVs make up 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractors sold by 2032, according to The Wall Street Journal. The agency has also pushed aggressive emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles that will similarly force an increase in EVs’ share of new car sales over the next decade.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleet rules, meanwhile, will require that 100% of trucks sold in the state will be zero-emissions models starting in 2036, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While not federal, the California rules are of importance to other states because there are numerous other states who follow California’s emissions standards, which can be tighter than those required by the EPA and other federal agencies.

Critics fear that this dynamic will effectively enable California to set national policies and nudge manufacturers in the direction of EVs at a greater rate and scale than the Biden administration is pursuing.

Trucking industry and supply chain experts have previously told the DCNF that both regulations threaten to cause serious problems for the country’s supply chains and wider economy given that the technology for electric and zero-emissions trucks is simply not yet ready to be mandated at scale, among other issues.

Neither CARB nor the EPA responded immediately to requests for comment.

Nick Pope is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Service.

Originally published by The Daily Caller. Republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Trending

X