Connect with us

News

Albertans Concerned About Interest Rate Hikes & Housing Bubble

Published

7 years ago

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.

 

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 2 hours ago

‘Context Of Chemsex’: Biden-Harris Admin Dumps Millions Into Developing Drug-Fueled Gay Sex App

Crime / 3 hours ago

Mexican cartels are a direct threat to Canada’s public safety, and the future of North American trade

Business / 3 hours ago

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Business

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill

Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.

In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.

This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.

However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.

Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.

Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.

Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.

Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.

Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.

Authors:

Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill
Continue Reading

National

Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election

Published on November 12, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Pushing back the date would preserve the pensions of some of the MPs who could be voted out of office in October 2025.

Aides to the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed that MPs from the Liberal and New Democratic Party (NDP) did indeed hold closed-door “briefings” to rewrite Canada’s elections laws so that they could push back the date of the next election.

The closed-door talks between the NDP and Liberals confirmed the aides included a revision that would guarantee some of its 28 MPs, including three of Trudeau’s cabinet members, would get a pension.

Allen Sutherland, who serves as the assistant cabinet secretary, testified before the House of Commons affairs committee that the changes to the Elections Act were discussed in the meetings.

“We attended a meeting where the substance of that proposal was discussed,” he said, adding that his “understanding is the briefing was primarily oral.”

According to Sutherland, as reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, it was only NDP and Liberal MPs who attended the secret meetings regarding changes to Canada’s Elections Act via Bill C-65, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act before the bill was introduced in March.

As reported by LifeSiteNews before, the Liberals were hoping to delay the 2025 federal election by a few days in what many see as a stunt to secure pensions for MPs who are projected to lose their seats. Approximately 80 MPs would qualify for pensions should they sit as MPs until at least October 27, 2025, which is the newly proposed election date. The election date is currently set for October 20, 2025.

Sutherland noted when asked by Conservative MP Luc Berthold that he recalled little from the meetings, but he did confirm he attended “two meetings of that kind.”

“Didn’t you find it unusual that a discussion about amending the Elections Act included only two political parties and excluded the others?” Berthold asked.

Sutherland responded, “It’s important to understand what my role was in those meetings which was simply to provide background information.”

“My role was to provide information,” replied Sutherland, who added he could not provide the exact dates of the meetings.

MPs must serve at least six years to qualify for a pension that pays $77,900 a year. Should an election be called today, many MPs would fall short of reaching the six years, hence Bill C-65 was introduced by the Liberals and NDP.

The Liberals have claimed that pushing back the next election date is not over pensions but due to “trying to observe religious holidays,” as noted by Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen.

“Conservatives voted against this bill,” Berthold said, as they are “confident of winning re-election. We don’t need this change.”

Trudeau’s popularity is at a all-time low, but he has refused to step down as PM, call an early election, or even step aside as Liberal Party leader.

As for the amendments to elections laws, they come after months of polling in favour of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre.

A recent poll found that 70 percent of Canadians believe the country is “broken” as Trudeau focuses on less critical issues. Similarly, in January, most Canadians reported that they are worse off financially since Trudeau took office.

Additionally, a January poll showed that 46 percent of Canadians expressed a desire for the federal election to take place sooner rather than the latest mandated date in the fall of 2025.

Continue Reading

Trending

X