“everyone can risk being evicted from their home by the government”

A) The government already has a tool to do that, in Canada it’s called “expropriation” and they happen fairly regularly.

B) That’s actually a feature of this system. People buying up land and never leaving is actually one of the major problems with our current real estate prices. In areas of high demand, if the government just terminated leases and then forced those properties to be developed we wouldn’t have the pricing issues we have now. Does this hurt people? yes, but also not nearly as much. Given that property would be much more affordable under such a scheme moving elsewhere wouldn’t be nearly as difficult.

I agree, but it needs to still be talked about.

People still think we can build our way into affordable homes, which is impossible. Alternatives like this would actually deliver affordable housing, but you’re right that a lot of people would be unhappy about it.

I mean… they can already evict people from land they privately own. It’s called “expropriation” and it happens fairly regularly in Canada.

Not sure why this would change anything related to that.

No because of the distribution side. Unless the dustribution also goes COOP. But you asked for nationalization. Loblaws does both distribution and retail so narionalizing it solves the problem.

There’s a difference between hospitals being public and health care services being public. Drugs for chronic conditions. Dentistry. Optometry. Psychiatric services. Proper handling of transport costs for people not living in large cities who urgently need to see a specialist (Ontario’s reimbursement program for that is joke-worthy). Hospital equipment—constant fundraisers to replace things should not be required. There’s so much stuff that falls between the cracks under the current setup that really should be covered by the government.

Aaah OK I see your point. And, yes, I agree with you there.

Plus, a lot of property taxes and other local/regional usage income can be rolled up into the lease payments. What matters is how those leases are calculated, such that small/cheap properties for the working poor lease for almost nothing, but a McMansion (or actual mansion) would lease for a massive amount.

no, this would not pass, a small minority might be ok with, but the vast majority of millennials and gen Z/Alpha would shoot this down

Why? Most of those groups don’t even own property, and many aren’t ever likely to be able to afford it.

There’s some pretty pissed off young people out there.

government taking control of land where you live = communism to the general public.

In my opinion, almost ALL taxes should be rolled into this, including most income taxes. Remove all the income tax brackets below 2x the median income, and roll that amount into these lease costs. Working families should essentially get net 0, and people who own a McMansion and are retired just pay more for the privilege or sell it and downsize like they should.

That’s an education problem. The government already controls the land.

I understand your point. But I’m worried about government abusing this.

Yeah you can be expropriated, but usually you either get a fair compensation or have legal tools to defend yourself to a certain extent no?

I think my problem is that I have a certain fear of not being able to own my own piece of land because it’s the most essential things to own. It’s your own little part of the world where you are in control.

listen i get yall think your very smart and if you really are that’s great, but you have to swallow the pill and realize there are people who don’t concern themselves with technicalities of every day life or their country. To them, when they buy land, they think they now own it, and not the country. Positioning this as “The government owns the land and rents the houses” will make people spin their heads 5 times over and go “what the fuck no way are we allowing that, that sounds like socialism/commie”

Its all fine and dandy discussions happen on here or reddit about what the government should do or this law or that, but the vast majority of Canadians just don’t have the time or interest to look into things like the average user on here does. Why do you think populist leaders do so well in elections, like doug ford? he talks in plain common words and points, no complicated language that people go “oh this ““nerd”” is talking again”.

Then how would your proposition change anything, except that the government would have even less reason to pay private citizens after forcing them to move?

it’s not extended to every corner of Canada or in communities in far regions

Fuck dude, I live in a major metropolitan area and I still don’t have access to Fiber.

It’s become the pride of Québec*

* Not available in Sherbrooke, parts of Magog and parts of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. They have their own pride there! But that’s cool to!

The Coaticook MRC, MRC du Granit (and others) have their own fiber deployments!

About Sherbrooke:

En 1963, le gouvernement québécois réalise la nationalisation de l’ensemble des compagnies privées d’électricité sous l’égide d’Hydro-Québec. Comme cette nationalisation ne vise que les compagnies privées, les municipalités peuvent continuer d’administrer leur propre réseau. Cependant, depuis cette date, plusieurs municipalités ont cédé leurs installations à Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Sherbrooke est aujourd’hui le plus important réseau d’électricité municipal du Québec. La Ville de Sherbrooke supporte activement l’AREQ, soit l’Association des redistributeurs d’électricité du Québec, qui compte neuf réseaux municipaux et une coopérative d’électricité.

Source

So those that were already public remained so, but are part of the association of electricity redistributors. They remain public. Only the private ones were nationalized under Hydro Québec.

It changes the money part of the equation. You could no longer sell your land because you wouldn’t own it. The government is the beneficiary of any land value appreciation, not private investors.

I mean, the easy way around this is just to jack up property taxes so high that there’s no real difference between you owning it and you renting it from the government.

including most income taxes.

Conditionally agree, except for the immediate effect of income taxes themselves: they are deducted straight from payroll, every time payroll happens, so they are taken on a much more frequent basis and before the paycheque is ever received by the worker.

This means that the worker does not need to allocate anything out of their paycheque towards those taxes because in most cases those taxes have already been fully paid. This dramatically lowers the cognitive load for the worker, who already has significant cognitive loads by virtue of their socioeconomic status.

So there is a downside to that method that I would seek to eliminate or dramatically smooth over so that the working class don’t have yet another brick to trip over in their lives.

This could be ameliorated by having “payroll” (and if need be, even time cards themselves) run through a CRA server that does all calculations and demands a certain amount of money from the employer such that wage theft (aside from tips and a few other things) is almost completely eliminated.

Any employer wanting to dispute when an employee clocked in needs to provide evidence that the employee lied about when they walked in. Government-provided time clocks could then accept standard-issue ID as evidence that the employee clocked in, as any normal person wouldn’t want to just give away their ID, and the employee could track everything through the CRA’s website. Even employee scheduling could be run through this, allowing the CRA to ding employers seeking to game the system for financial gain.

There are many options possible, we just need to engineer the entire system to benefit the working class and (rightly!) treat the employers as the adversarial and untrustworthy belligerents that they are. We could even engineer an entire “worker resources” division which protects the worker against employer depredations, instead of protecting the company at the expense of the worker.