PT6A posted:

Oh Jesus christ, this times 1000.

On the other hand, why do we even need "brackets?" Couldn't we have a piecewise function where, between a minimum and maximum income, your tax rate is a function of your taxable income, such that it's progressive and simple to understand that you'll never lose money from having more income? Brackets seem so inelegant.

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

Sure, and I agree with this. I did make the choice to blow money with no regard to how I'd afford it later. At the time, I was a complete imbicile about money. I spent and spent and eventually maxed the card out with interest and such. I'm still paying it off, ten years later, because I just didn't know enough about how credit works to have been given that kind of access to it; I've been in lovely finances since and only been concentrating on paying it down the past year or so. I'll get there eventually.

Anyway, I really should not have been given the limit I was given. I hosed myself with a generous amount of help from my bank, and I'm still dealing with the fallout. Not all of us grow up in financially competant homes, after all; both my parents are so bad with money they've each declared bankruptcy twice. Neither one of them was competant enough to advise me on how to handle that card, and I've had to learn an excruciatingly hard lesson as a result. (My avatar says the things it says to remind me.)

PT6A posted:

Oh Jesus christ, this times 1000.

On the other hand, why do we even need "brackets?" Couldn't we have a piecewise function where, between a minimum and maximum income, your tax rate is a function of your taxable income, such that it's progressive and simple to understand that you'll never lose money from having more income? Brackets seem so inelegant.

Lexicon posted:

That's pretty much what brackets are, though you might argue more levels would be useful since it's not computationally problematic to have more now.

PT6A posted:

Everyone knows enough math to read a simple graph, though, right? We could easily create a smooth graph of net vs. gross income, expressed as a single function, that would easily express to people that they can't lose money by having more income. This is high school level math or below, right? How much simpler can we make it?

EDIT: Mind you, tax brackets should be easy to understand too, so I just don't know what the gently caress.

Cultural Imperial posted:

My favourite is the hmrc. Two loving tax brackets. And they implemented a third one after the GFC.

LemonDrizzle posted:

It's actually 5, or 8 if you include student loan repayments collected via the tax system

Lexicon posted:

But it already is simple, and it's not widely understood.

LemonDrizzle posted:

Debt should be a human right. Not having access to credit is a scary place to be in. Instead of borrowing money to fund my purchases I have to rely on savings, which is not fun at all. It’s like my finances are being suffocated. Imagine how constrained a start up business would feel if it can’t get a bank loan. Without using debt I feel like my options are severely limited. I can’t wait for the new year when I can go on shopping sprees again.

tagesschau posted:

At first I thought you were jokingly paraphrasing him, not directly quoting him.

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

I wish it was a little harder to get credit, honestly. Then maybe I wouldn't have been given a $2000 Visa when I was 19 and making $7/hr. The people at RBC who set me up with that card should really be ashamed; what made them think it was appropriate to give someone with no credit history that much limit?

I'm choosing to believe in good faith here, guys, that they didn't screw me on purpose

Lumius posted:

isn't that really just the same thing.

ChairMaster posted:

That seems to me like a little bit like blaming the people who sold you the bottle of liquor you got wasted on that night when you got too drunk and crashed your car or something.

quote:

The term honest property developer has just been officially added to the new Oxford dictionary as an example of an oxymoron - just kidding.
We bought our apartment off the plan as our first, and last home. We started being home owners very late in life after years of renting. Needless to say we were very excited. We signed a contract for an 80 sqm 2 bedroom apartment with a car park in a security controlled building with 9 visitor car spaces. There are commercial tenants on the lower levels and resident apartments above. One lift, no other resident facilities.
Things started to go wrong before we even took possession. The developer decided that they would also run the building, so they registered themselves as OC managers and signed a contract with themselves for 5 years. They also kept ownership of most of the commercial suites. They changed the plan of subdivision so that all of the visitor spaces were transferred to the ownership of the commercial suites - which they own, but didn't change the entitlements and liabilities on the plan of subdivision. In essence, they received 9 secure undercover car parks in a major activity centre worth about $450,000, paid for by the the people who purchased apartments - people like us.

They also changed the plan of subdivision so that they now own the roof. Gone are any opportunities to be green and install solar panels to supply the common areas. They wrote into the OC rules that any decisions of the OC could not disadvantage the commercial interests of the developer.

The OC manager bypassed some of the security measures so that customers of the commercial suites were not hindered in any way when entering the building. This reduced the level of security of the residents, and eventually resulted in a VCAT hearing. The only outcome was that the OC manager/developer charged the OC thousands of dollars in VCAT attendance fees. The actions of the OC manager were criminal, yet it seems that there is a reluctance for VCAT to punish OC managers. This proved that there are no clear lines of separation between managing the OC and being an employee of the developer.

Our 80 sqm apartment turned out to only be 74 sqm. Stamp duty was quoted at 360 in the developer's sales documents, but was actually $1400. Not a lot for a $500,000 apartment, but still 4 times that advertised. The OC fees we were quoted at $2700 per year (0.0054% of purchase price), but were actually $4100 (0.0082% of purchase price). After doing some research, I have discovered that this is the kind of fee for apartments with swimming pools, gym and rooftop garden. We have 1 lift and a stairwell which is so dirty that you need to be wearing a dust mask to use it.

A few weeks after we moved in, we saw a notice that the same developer was to build an 8 storey building next door. This building which blocked 80% of our northern light didn't satisfy them. After construction had began, they took the council to VCAT to increase the hight so it would block 90% of our light. Our local ward councillor couldn't vote on the hight issue at council meetings because the developer had made a donation to the charity she was the patron of. Convenient. The industrial strength air conditioner outlets for the building point directly at our bedroom window. I feel even sorrier for the tenants who now have their living rooms and only ventilation source through the light well between the two buildings.

One day I was looking around the outside of my building and noticed power, water and data connections between my building and the construction site next door. The developers were clandestinely using our power and water supplies to construct their building. We were never informed about this. I suspect that if I had not stumbled upon the poorly hidden conduits they never would have told us. When I complained to the the OC manager, I was told that the developer had every intention of reimbursing the OC for the costs. The actual costs would be determined by the developer - and no, I could not see proof of this as it was confidential information. Any mention that the connection of power and water was less than honest brings a threat of legal action from the OC manager.

I think the developers planned this very well. Getting residential buyers to subsidise the running of commercial interests which they own. What can we do? I am the secretary of the OC committee, but feel powerless. The developer controls the OC through the manager, and the majority of votes. At the last AGM, the OC manager controlled 16 of the 19 votes present - out of a possible 37.
Governments will never be successful in getting people to embrace medium density living unless they have an effective system to stop criminals developing and running these buildings.
I once dreamed of winning the lottery so I could buy a large detached house. Now I dream of winning enough money to hire a lawyer and get these crooks jailed.

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Jesus Christ, even making a large purchase one month on my credit card and paying it off over the next two to three months feels risky to me. I'll never understand people who just run up the bill like the minimum payment will never go up with no plans about what to do when the debt needs to be paid off.

melon cat posted:

If you think that's bad, you should see the people who not only run their cards up to their limit, but they continuously transfer it between different credit card companies under 6-month long 1.99%/2.99% balance transfer promotions. It's like a screwed up shell game of high-interest consumer debt that's several grades worse than living "paycheque to paycheque". I don't know how they sleep at night.

eXXon posted:

I got my first offer for a balance transfer recently - 1% of the balance in exchange for 6 months interest free. That's, uh, lower than inflation, so I think this is a far better deal than any almost any other kind of debt.

I mean, if you save enough to be able to afford to pay off the balance once the balance transfer offers stop (if they ever do), and if the offers are at a lower interest rate than most government bonds, let alone typical index fund returns... why not?

Cultural Imperial posted:

I know someone who recently consolidated all his cc debt into a car loan for a kia soul.

eXXon posted:

I mean, if you save enough to be able to afford to pay off the balance once the balance transfer offers stop (if they ever do), and if the offers are at a lower interest rate than most government bonds, let alone typical index fund returns... why not?

eXXon posted:

I got my first offer for a balance transfer recently - 1% of the balance in exchange for 6 months interest free. That's, uh, lower than inflation, so I think this is a far better deal than any almost any other kind of debt.

I mean, if you save enough to be able to afford to pay off the balance once the balance transfer offers stop (if they ever do), and if the offers are at a lower interest rate than most government bonds, let alone typical index fund returns... why not?

Cultural Imperial posted:

Are they even allowed to go around looking at your balance and then cold calling like that?

ductonius posted:

Yes they are. You're doing business with them. It is categorically a part of what they do to know everything about your accounts and to look inside them whenever they want.

And if you do actually have a big rear end pile of cash why not invest it yourself. You post in the Canadian Finance thread.

ductonius posted:

The bank certainly carries responsibility in the situation as a party to the contract, and furthermore carries greater responsibility as the party with the greater resources and capacity to understand the financial situation in the deal.

quote:

This is why bankruptcy courts routinely tell unsecured creditors like CC companies to go pound sand.

Lexicon posted:

Just... don't. Investing with leverage is a risky enough proposition, and this is not the way to go about it.

Guest2553 posted:

What would you do with the money that could make it worth it, unless you're already deep in the hole and trying to save on interest? Using it as leverage to invest is bad with money

Cultural Imperial posted:

I had a TD rep call me to ask me to come in and discuss how to invest my big rear end pile of cash. No offer of an LOC though.




Are they even allowed to go around looking at your balance and then cold calling like that?

cowofwar posted:

Buy gasoline and ammo.

Cultural Imperial posted:

I didn't know that. It was the first time TD ever contacted me for anything.

Yeah I already actively manage my money. gently caress TD.

Xoidanor posted:

The general gist of it is that banks shouldn't be awarded for handing out loans that they themselves don't expect to get paid. That's the business model of a loan shark.

Guy DeBorgore posted:

Xoidanor posted:

The general gist of it is that banks shouldn't be awarded for handing out loans that they themselves don't expect to get paid. That's the business model of a loan shark.

etalian posted:

Yeah a good amount of the real estate crash is just the banks being greedy and throw underwriting common sense to the wind.

Also in a increasingly lovely economy like Canada i'm sure it becomes safe to find safe loans, so the banks start taking bigger risks by relaxing loan requirements.