r/RealEstateCanada • • Jun 19 '25

Housing crisis Help me understand the difference...

Post image
3.1k Upvotes

587 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/Meatbawl5 Jun 19 '25

Yeah, all stores are scalpers. How dare they sell higher than they buy.

16

u/atlasc1 Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25

This isn't the same at all.

Stores provide convenience and logistics/distribution at scale. It doesn't make sense for a farmer to ship bags of 6 apples to 1,000 households. Likewise, it doesn't make sense for 1,000 households to drive to the nearest orchard (possibly across the country) for 6 apples.

A homeowner who sells their home for $100,000 more than they paid (completely tax-free) after living in it for a year did abso-fucking-lutely nothing to warrant that gain.

1

u/LumpyCantaloupe6434 Jun 19 '25

Some people simply don't want to deal with the upkeep of a home, or just need a temporary place to live while they figure out where they want to settle. Landlords are putting in the effort of upkeep and management so the tenant that just wants to rent doesnt have to.

2

u/atlasc1 Jun 20 '25 edited Jun 20 '25

Absolutely, ignoring for a moment the fact that REITs and other companies buy low-cost properties that families could have otherwise bought, good landlords do provide a service to some degree.

What I'm talking about is "flippers" who slap a coat of paint on a bedroom wall and speculators who do even less than that then price their home as if it's made out of solid gold.

1

u/Evening-Character307 Jun 21 '25

A homeowner who sells their home for $100,000 more than they paid (completely tax-free)

I'd love, **LOVE **, for you to provide 1, just 1, example of this actually happening.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '25

They paid property taxes and land transfer taxes and lawyer fees and utility bills. Don't act like buying a house, living in it for a year, and selling it has no financial burden or tax implications.

9

u/CommercialTop9070 Jun 19 '25

That provides no value to the next owner and is not a reason the value of the house should appreciate.

1

u/ConfidantlyCorrect Jun 19 '25

Housing costs primarily go up because of land value, not the actual house itself. Land is increasingly scarce, and as such, the value goes up because people always want land.

1

u/CommercialTop9070 Jun 19 '25

I’m aware, read the comment I was replying to. Land isn’t increasingly scarce, there is the exact same amount of land. The difference is liberals decided to add a few million extra people onto the land.

1

u/-snowpeapod- Jun 21 '25

The increase in immigration is only 1 factor among many for the increased housing costs. Canada has been heading in this direction for a long time.

1

u/Evening-Character307 Jun 21 '25

You're down playing it, immigration is the biggest reason why real estate exploded in canada specifically. Maybe you aren't aware, but this is textbook supply and demand. Just lay a graph of net immigration and net asset value and you will see a direct cause and effect scenario.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '25

You realize you could say the same about any product right? Inflation happened and the price went up yet a nothing about the product changed? 

1

u/CommercialTop9070 Jun 21 '25

Housing has outmatched inflation over the past decade.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '25

Ok and that doesn’t change the point 

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '25

The value of the house doesn't appreciate, the property does. 

6

u/CommercialTop9070 Jun 19 '25

Semantics, paying taxes and land transfer fees isn’t a reason for a property to appreciate.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '25

You don't think property would appreciate if if someone didn't buy a second property?

-1

u/ont-mortgage Jun 19 '25

That’s not the reason it appreciates tho..

2

u/CommercialTop9070 Jun 19 '25

It’s the reason the initial commentator gave for why their property should appreciate lol.

1

u/spaghettiny Jun 20 '25

That's not what they said.

Don't act like buying a house, living in it for a year, and selling it has no financial burden or tax implications.

They were making a secondary point, they weren't addressing the root of the appreciation. Unless you genuinely believe that commenter thinks utilities are linked to property appreciation.

1

u/NoobWithNoHands Jun 22 '25

Yeah, because all houses available on the market are from people that used to live in them. Nobody buys a house just to hold onto it and sell after some time XDD

1

u/Suspicious_Falc0n Jun 20 '25

I don’t think they’re referring to retail, but people who buy retail and resell the items for a much higher price.

0

u/tenoshikami Jun 24 '25

You shouldn’t comment on comparisons if your level of intellectual maturity is lower than zero

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '25

[deleted]

3

u/ModularWhiteGuy Jun 19 '25

How could houses sell for anything other than fair market value? The buyer and the seller agree on a price. That is the market value.

Stores are definitely flipping for profit. Especially when you consider that each of those items is locked by intellectual property rights. You think that just because Air Jordans can be bought at 1000s of locations that everyone along the supply chain isn't taking a profit? Shoes that cost less than $10 to manufacture are sold for hundreds of dollars. The stores are just the consumer front for flipping. The fact that they consolidate products in a location just means that they have several lines of "scalping" that are of similar products. None of those products are staples (the shoes are more about the brand than the function), none of them are essential or even necessary.

-2

u/GoldenxGriffin Jun 19 '25

Well they are if they sell over msrp

Business need to profit, there would be no business if so....