Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Frank's happy place wrote a very good overview on how property taxes and assessments work way back in this thread somewhere. There were also others who contributed to the conversation.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 06:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 16:16

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Cultural Imperial posted:

Frank's happy place wrote a very good overview on how property taxes and assessments work way back in this thread somewhere. There were also others who contributed to the conversation.

Yeah it was really good and I had no idea how property taxes actually worked. I think less people understand them than they do tax brackets. Literally not a single person has known how they work when I explain it, and about 75% don't believe me.
"That doesn't sound right, if property values go up people pay more." and I still hear people talking about how the "city needs to help raise property values to earn more tax money". People claiming to know how cities work telling crowds of people that these new condos and gentrification are going to be good because it will raise property values so that the city can afford more social services. I mean that sounds intuitive based on how we understand tax.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 06:04

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

How the gently caress do I even begin to search for this in the thread?

# ? Dec 29, 2015 06:06

Morroque: Mar 6, 2013

Cultural Imperial posted:

How the gently caress do I even begin to search for this in the thread?

You can filter each thread for posts only by one user to narrow it down. These are Frank's, but I still can't quite find it.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 06:16

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Albino Squirrel posted:

Playing devil's advocate: someone who bought their home 20-30 years ago when it was much more affordable might be substantially impacted by the increase in property taxes brought by skyrocketing home prices. If that person's on a fixed income, it's possible they might get priced out of their home despite carrying zero mortgage.

I have zero tears for anyone in this position. You might have a low income, but you're sitting on a valuable asset for which you paid zero capital gains, and for which you can indefinitely defer your property taxes as an oldster at the taxpayer's expense. Figure it out.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 06:22

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Also if you're paying more in taxes it means your home has gone up more than average, so you can sell and move somewhere cheaper. Or if you're on a "fixed income" sell and spend your remaining years renting and living comfortably off the million you made off your house.

I know an old guy who did that. His other old friends thought he was CRAZY to sell and then rent. He sold his place for over a million, traveled around the world and now rents a small waterfront apartment and lives it up while other seniors are struggling with house upkeep and costs. He also knows he can move any time he wants, after traveling he wants to maybe live in other countries for a few years. Why not?? You're like nearly 80 and in good health, go nuts.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 06:29

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Morroque posted:

You can filter each thread for posts only by one user to narrow it down. These are Frank's, but I still can't quite find it.

Franks had a lot of good input in this thread but I think the property tax explanation was someone else who worked in the assessment office.

Basically;

City Tax Bill * ( Your assessment / City's Total Assessment ) = Your tax bill

That said, if you own a house you are probably paying WAY more taxes than 10 years ago based on the difference in appreciation.

E: Actual explaination

ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Dec 29, 2015

# ? Dec 29, 2015 06:32

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

That's the post I was thinking of. Sorry Baudin. Credit to you.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 06:46

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Albino Squirrel posted:

It's a Scottish company and 'Sg�rr' is Scots Gaelic for 'peak'. I've seen a lot dumber.

Ok, that's fair, but for the 99.9% of people on earth who don't speak Gaelic it looks like they Tech Bubble 3.0'd "Sugar" in the most abominable of fashions.

Baronjutter posted:

I know an old guy who did that. His other old friends thought he was CRAZY to sell and then rent. He sold his place for over a million, traveled around the world and now rents a small waterfront apartment and lives it up while other seniors are struggling with house upkeep and costs. He also knows he can move any time he wants, after traveling he wants to maybe live in other countries for a few years. Why not?? You're like nearly 80 and in good health, go nuts.

You're going to spend nowhere close to even $250k on rent for the remainder of your life at that age, so yeah, that guy is living the dream and a grade-A baller.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 06:53

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/1...mn/paul-krugman

quote:

In May 2009 Congress created a special commission to examine the causes of the financial crisis. The idea was to emulate the celebrated Pecora Commission of the 1930s, which used careful historical analysis to help craft regulations that gave America two generations of financial stability.

But some members of the new commission had a different goal. George Santayana famously remarked that �those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.� What he didn�t point out was that some people want to repeat the past � and that such people have an interest in making sure that we don�t remember what happened, or that we remember it wrong.

Sure enough, some commission members sought to block consideration of any historical account that might support efforts to rein in runaway bankers. As one of those members, Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote to a fellow Republican on the commission, it was important that what they said �not undermine the ability of the new House G.O.P. to modify or repeal Dodd-Frank,� the financial regulations introduced in 2010. Never mind what really happened; the party line, literally, required telling stories that would help Wall Street do it all over again.

Which brings me to a new movie the enemies of financial regulation really, really don�t want you to see.

�The Big Short� is based on the Michael Lewis book of the same name, one of the few real best-sellers to emerge from the financial crisis. I saw an early screening, and I think it does a terrific job of making Wall Street skulduggery entertaining, of exploiting the inherent black humor of how it went down.

The film achieves this feat mainly by personalizing the tale, focusing not on abstractions but on colorful individuals who saw the rot in the system and tried to make money off that realization. Of course, this still requires explaining what it was all about. Yet even the necessary expository set pieces work amazingly well. For example, we learn how dubious loans were repackaged into supposedly safe �collateralized debt obligations� via a segment in which the chef Anthony Bourdain explains how last week�s fish can be disguised as seafood stew.

But you don�t want me to play film critic; you want to know whether the movie got the underlying economic, financial and political story right. And the answer is yes, in all the ways that matter.

I could quibble over a few points: The group of people who recognized that we were experiencing the mother of all housing bubbles, and that this posed big dangers to the real economy, was bigger than the film might lead you to believe. It even included a few (cough) mainstream economists. But it is true that many influential, seemingly authoritative players, from Alan Greenspan on down, insisted not only that there was no bubble but that no bubble was even possible.

And the bubble whose existence they denied really was inflated largely via opaque financial schemes that in many cases amounted to outright fraud � and it is an outrage that basically nobody ended up being punished for those sins aside from innocent bystanders, namely the millions of workers who lost their jobs and the millions of families that lost their homes.

While the movie gets the essentials of the financial crisis right, the true story of what happened is deeply inconvenient to some very rich and powerful people. They and their intellectual hired guns have therefore spent years disseminating an alternative view that the money manager and blogger Barry Ritholtz calls the Big Lie. It�s a view that places all the blame for the financial crisis on � you guessed it � too much government, especially government-sponsored agencies supposedly pushing too many loans on the poor.

Never mind that the supposed evidence for this view has been thoroughly debunked, or that before the crisis some of these same hired guns attacked those agencies not for lending too much to the poor, but for not lending enough. If the historical record runs counter to what powerful interests want you to believe, well, history will just have to be rewritten. And constant repetition, especially in captive media, keeps this imaginary history in circulation no matter how often it is shown to be false.

Sure enough, �The Big Short� has already been the subject of vitriolic attacks in Murdoch-controlled newspapers; if the movie is a commercial success and/or wins awards, expect to see much more.

The thing to remember, when you see such attacks, is why they�re taking place. The truth is that the people who made �The Big Short� should consider the attacks a kind of compliment: The attackers obviously worry that the film is entertaining enough that it will expose a large audience to the truth. Let�s hope that their fears are justified.

It's been a while since I last read Kruggles' blog. Ever since google shitcanned their RSS reader I've been wandering the desert that is twitter (gently caress feedly).

# ? Dec 29, 2015 07:22

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

Cultural Imperial posted:

(gently caress feedly).

Ever try Feedbin? Reeder compatible, $20 a year, no extras I don't need. I have used it for a few years since Google Reader shut down. A great substitute.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 08:48

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/1...mn/paul-krugman

It's been a while since I last read Kruggles' blog. Ever since google shitcanned their RSS reader I've been wandering the desert that is twitter (gently caress feedly).

Theoldreader but once you get too many feeds it costs :10bux:

# ? Dec 29, 2015 08:55

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Mandibular Fiasco posted:

Ever try Feedbin? Reeder compatible, $20 a year, no extras I don't need. I have used it for a few years since Google Reader shut down. A great substitute.

If CI sends me $20 a year, I'll build him a webpage with the words "Canada's economy is hosed" he can visit anytime he wants. Same effect :colbert:

# ? Dec 29, 2015 11:11

OhYeah: Jan 20, 2007; 1. Currently the most prevalent form of decision-making in the western world

2. While you are correct in saying that the society owns

3. You have not for a second demonstrated here why

4. I love the way that you equate "state" with "bureaucracy". Is that how you really feel about the state

vyelkin posted:

Jokes aside, they are bad and only capable of beating up on failed states like Ukraine and Syria. The only reason anyone should consider them more than a regional power is because of their poorly maintained nuclear arsenal.

That aside, though, the Russian economy is in awful shape and its collapse will probably be even worse than Canada's.

You are right about the state of their economy. The number of our Russian customers has fallen drastically since Putin went full war mode Eastern Ukraine and their economy tanked due to the sanctions and low energy prices.

You are very incorrect about their nuclear arsenal, though. It is the only part of their military that has received steady funding throughout the decades. Russia's nuclear forces are the best maintained forces they have, I don't know if that is a comforting thought or a scary one.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 15:06

mastershakeman: Oct 28, 2008; by vyelkin

Telling seniors that they should choose between selling their house or reverse mortgaging/helocing it to pay property taxes is a non starter. People aren't rational and they don't want to move away from their few friends and family and the area they've been comfortable in for a long time.

Hell, in America my wife's grandma is 95 and refuses to move out of her single family home in one of the nicest parts of the region. Her property tax bill is well into the five figures but she can walk to the downtown and see her friends and get groceries and whatnot. Old people want to be independent and not worry about getting evicted when the landlord ups their rent (something my mom is struggling with). Plus let's face it, they have tons of physical possessions that are sentimental to them that they want to keep with them.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 15:33

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Yes and seniors also refuse to give up their drivers licenses and regularly write out their children from their wills who report them to the DMV yet here we are with difficult life choices to make :shrug:

# ? Dec 29, 2015 16:33

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Albino Squirrel posted:

Playing devil's advocate: someone who bought their home 20-30 years ago when it was much more affordable might be substantially impacted by the increase in property taxes brought by skyrocketing home prices. If that person's on a fixed income, it's possible they might get priced out of their home despite carrying zero mortgage.

This guy (edit: Dan Eaton) is not the best example of that phenomenon.

lolling at people who can't pay a extra $500 or $1000 each year.

Another dumb article on rich people complaining about tax increases

http://www.cknw.com/syn/107/108391/premier-mulling-tax-hike-on-top-earners

quote:

�You can�t solve the kind of deficit problem we have by going after upper-income Manitobans, because there just aren�t enough of them and they don�t make enough money in the first place.�

McCallum estimates that such a hike would likely only affect 5,000 or so people, and could discourage ambitious young workers from staying in the province.

�In a slow economy, one of the worst things you can do is raise taxes because you get all kinds of consequences that you didn�t anticipate. Once you get through 50 per cent [of a person's income] psychologically, that takes a toll on people. They start to say, �Would I rather just be watching the NFL in my basement than trying to solve your problems?��

Selinger says nothing has been set in stone but it could be an issue that he asks for the public�s input for ahead of the spring election.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 16:47

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

etalian posted:

lolling at people who can't pay a extra $500 or $1000 each year.

Another dumb article on rich people complaining about tax increases

http://www.cknw.com/syn/107/108391/premier-mulling-tax-hike-on-top-earners

They left out the part were they would lower taxes in the middle 2 brackets, similar to the federal government which is it's own level of dumb.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 17:24

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/1...mn/paul-krugman

It's been a while since I last read Kruggles' blog. Ever since google shitcanned their RSS reader I've been wandering the desert that is twitter (gently caress feedly).

Michael Lewis is pretty awesome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stnGC9jL8Fk

He worked in the FIRE sector for a few years until he became disillusioned with the whole culture of greed and callousness.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 17:37

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP7k08Ytdq4
A year in review in Chilliwack. Exhibit A on why not only should many current drivers have their licenses taken away, but should not have been issued one to begin with.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 17:46

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Baronjutter posted:

Also if you're paying more in taxes it means your home has gone up more than average, so you can sell and move somewhere cheaper. Or if you're on a "fixed income" sell and spend your remaining years renting and living comfortably off the million you made off your house.

I know an old guy who did that. His other old friends thought he was CRAZY to sell and then rent. He sold his place for over a million, traveled around the world and now rents a small waterfront apartment and lives it up while other seniors are struggling with house upkeep and costs. He also knows he can move any time he wants, after traveling he wants to maybe live in other countries for a few years. Why not?? You're like nearly 80 and in good health, go nuts.

A portion of the reason for the big spikes in East Vancouver real estate value in the last few years is likely due to this. Boomers from the West Van and the Westside of Vancouver taking advantage of the absurd increases to the value of their properties and are cashing out. If they're downsizing to a big penthouse condo they're ending up in Yaletown or Coal Harbour, but if they're getting a house they're moving east to Mount Pleasant, Fraser, etc.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 20:29

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

mastershakeman posted:

Telling seniors that they should choose between selling their house or reverse mortgaging/helocing it to pay property taxes is a non starter.

Yeah, we should make sure that no one is inconvenienced by having to pay property taxes on their million dollar, capital gains exempt property (in a place where property taxes are already pitifully low). So we allow anyone who is over 55 or a parent (probably like 50% of homeowners, and the wealthiest 50% at that) to defer their taxes indefinitely (BC link), and of course we make the interest rate even lower for people who are 55+ (the richest generation of Canadians).

blah_blah fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Dec 29, 2015

# ? Dec 29, 2015 21:01

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

A million dollar assessed Vancouver home would have 3700 yearly in property tax.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 21:08

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

etalian posted:

A million dollar assessed Vancouver home would have 3700 yearly in property tax.

In fact, that person could reduce their property tax by $570 via the home owner's grant, and by a further $275 if they are over 65. So under $3000 for a senior with a million dollar home.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 21:15

Guest2553: Aug 3, 2012

Not saying I want it to happen, but I for one won't get too terribly upset by seeing a few boomers wallow in their own obsolescence, and perhaps the occasional tin of cat food.

In other news, some dude at BMO capital markets thinks the TSX will outperform the S&P in 2016 because the majority of global money managers are very underweight in Canada after the summer sell-off. Other knowledge bombs he drops:

-Canadian financials will provide near-term outperformance

-the magical 4th quarter recovery has only been delayed and will boost 2016 numbers

-the TSX will hit 15,300

:catdrugs:

e. There's been a lot of good effortposts the past page and I do appreciate them, I'm just not smart enough to be able to contribute in ways that don't involve schadenfreude.

Guest2553 fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Dec 29, 2015

# ? Dec 29, 2015 22:09

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Guest2553 posted:

Not saying I want it to happen, but I for one won't get too terribly upset by seeing a few boomers wallow in their own obsolescence, and perhaps the occasional tin of cat food.

In other news, some dude at BMO capital markets thinks the TSX will outperform the S&P in 2016 because the majority of global money managers are very underweight in Canada after the summer sell-off. Other knowledge bombs he drops:

-Canadian financials will provide near-term outperformance

-the magical 4th quarter recovery has only been delayed and will boost 2016 numbers

-the TSX will hit 15,300

e. There's been a lot of good effortposts the past page and I do appreciate them, I'm just not smart enough to be able to contribute in ways that don't involve schadenfreude.

lol

# ? Dec 29, 2015 22:14

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-g-belski-8397004

Its OK this guy is a loving clown with a general studies degree from St cloud St university. Whatever the gently caress that is.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 22:28

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.scmp.com/comment/blogs/a...PSocialNewsfeed

quote:

Equity before affordability: Justin Trudeau�s vacuous response to Vancouver�s housing crisis

There is something deeply worrying about the recent response by Canada�s new prime minister to Vancouver�s housing affordability crisis.

Vancouverites are used to the apparent lack of interest from their leaders in challenging the forces that have driven prices into the stratosphere, regardless of their political inclinations, so Justin Trudeau�s following suit shouldn�t come as any great surprise. But his justification for this failure represents a new kind of logical contortion.

Because Trudeau suggests he�d love to tackle unaffordability � just as soon as he�s sure that doing so won�t bring down prices. It is an utterly vacuous position.

Prior to the election, his Liberal Party promised to �review escalating home prices in high-priced markets, like Toronto and Vancouver, and consider all policy tools that could keep home ownership within reach�. Then in an interview that aired on Global TV on Christmas Day, Trudeau cited a lack of �concrete data� about foreign investment as a reason not to immediately impose curbs on these flows.

So far, so normal: the relative lack of data about the processes driving Vancouver�s real estate prices is a near-universal concern, since Canada (unusually) makes no attempt to track foreign money entering the market.

But this is where things get weird.

�You know you have to be cautious about decisions like that that are based on a single factor because at the same time that would potentially devalue the equity that a lot of people have in their homes right now,� Trudeau said, adding: �We have to be very, very cautious about restricting foreign investment in our country at a time where we know we need foreign investment in businesses, in resource development.�

Eh? Citing a lack of data as a reason not to switch off the foreign money tap, because it might turn out that it doesn�t play a big role in Vancouver�s market, is a common refrain. But citing that same lack of data as a reason not to switch of the tap, because you are worried that foreign money might play TOO BIG a role, and that it might �potentially devalue equity�? It�s beginning to sound like the primary issue here isn�t a lack of data, it�s the lack of willingness to turn off the tap - regardless of what the data shows.

Sadly, you can�t have it both ways. You can�t dedicate yourself to protecting the equity of current owners as well as challenging home-price affordability in a meaningful way.

The lesser of two evils? Then just say so
The levers that control the market in Vancouver - where incomes are among the lowest in Canada, but prices are by far the highest - are likely in the hands of Trudeau, and not the provincial and city administrations (these have, however, shown no interest in pressing the case with federal authorities).

Because despite protestations to the contrary - Trudeau himself described the available information as �anecdotal stories� - there is quite a lot of rigorous data to support the contention that Vancouver�s market is being fuelled by foreign funds brought to the city via immigration. It doesn�t matter exactly where these foreign funds come from. What matters is that they are not being earned in Vancouver.

Peer-reviewed analysis has long indicated this: the historical correlation between foreign immigration to Vancouver and the city�s home prices is +0.94 (from 1977-2002), according to Oxford-educated UBC professor David Ley, perhaps the most eminent geographer in Canada. Ley concluded in his landmark 2010 book, Millionaire Migrants, that this link was �unusually decisive�. The correlation between Vancouver�s prices and other oft-cited factors? Insignificant or even negative: interest rates (-0.12), domestic migration (-0.32), joblessness (+0.16), rental vacancies (-0.03).

Now, correlation is not proof of causation. But it is evidence of causation, if accompanied by a plausible causal mechanism, which in this case is very simple: Vancouver attracts lots of rich immigrants, and rich immigrants buy real estate.

Ley�s not alone. In a separate 2010 peer-reviewed analysis (The Globalization of Urban Housing Markets:Immigration and Changing Housing Demand in Vancouver), academics Markus Moos and Andrejs Skaburskis concluded there had been �a de-coupling of local housing [prices in Vancouver] from labour markets as recent immigrants� housing consumption became less tied to their local labour market participation�.

Anyone who doubts the scale of these money flows should note that Vancouver has historically been the world�s most popular destination for wealth-determined millionaire migrants. From 2002-2014, more than 60,000 such migrants (including family members) likely arrived in BC.

And while the previous Canadian government shut down its federal immigrant investor programme in 2014, Quebec�s equivalent programme, which operates with the co-operation of federal authorities, continues to pump thousands of millionaires into Vancouver�s real estate market. It�s also clear that millionaire migrants who arrive under these schemes declare pitifully low Canadian incomes, no matter how long they live in Canada � in other words, their home-buying behaviour is fuelled by either undeclared foreign-earned funds, or pre-existing foreign-earned wealth.

That the overwhelming bulk of these flows comes from China makes no difference to their desirability or otherwise. Worrying about these money flows BECAUSE they are Chinese veers dangerously into racist territory. But the fact that they are Chinese is irrefutable, and is crucial to a raft of other (non peer-reviewed) data that points to their scale. When folk with non-Anglicised Chinese names make up 66 per cent of detached home buyers in the Westside (and 85 per cent of C$3 million-plus buyers); and when only 15 per cent of Vancouverites spoke Chinese as their mother tongue in 2006; and when ethnic Chinese in Canada actually tend to earn below average, then we are faced with an inescapable conclusion: Most of those recent, wealthy buyers are relatively new arrivals from China.

It could well be that Vancouver has already attained the critical mass of foreign-earning millionaires required to sustain the runaway reactor that is the city�s housing market. But instead of at least attempting to cool things down, all levels of government seem content to see more plutonium plunged into the core.

If Vancouverites� political leaders have genuinely concluded that unaffordability is the lesser of two evils, compared to the pain of a major price correction, then they should respect the intelligence of the city and just say so in plain language.

If they are more concerned about protecting the equity of current homeowners and propping up the real estate industry than they are with helping non-owners who feel shut out of the market and forced out of the city, well, they should just say so.

And if they feel that current owners are somehow more entitled to hang onto the huge capital gains that many enjoy, than their fellow Vancouverites are entitled to an affordable city, then they should just say that too.

They should have the courage to be judged on these calculations.

Instead these leaders of various political stripes have hidden behind spurious �analysis� churned out by the property industry; behind dark warnings about �racist tones�; behind tricky wording about �foreign, non-resident� buyers; and now behind blatant illogic.

Vancouver deserves better.

Also, today Brad Lamb said something that wasn't loving stupid.

https://twitter.com/LJKawa/status/681834517154369536

Here's the original source: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/12/23/Only-draconian-rules-will-cool-hot-housing-market-Condo-King.aspx

quote:

The man dubbed Toronto�s �Condo King� says Ottawa�s efforts to cool red-hot housing markets in Toronto and Vancouver will amount to no more than a symbolic gesture.

�A lot of people are making noise about trying to slow down real estate in Toronto and Vancouver. You�re not going to slow them down through government intervention, unless it�s draconian and stupid,� said Brad Lamb, the president and CEO of Lamb Development Corp in an interview with BNN.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau targeted Toronto and Vancouver in his remarks following the decision to tighten lending rules earlier this month, branding the cities as �pockets of risk� in the housing market.

Starting in February, mortgages backed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) will require a 10 percent down payment � up from five percent � on the portion of the loan over $500,000. The current five percent minimum remains in place for homes under $500,000. The maximum purchase price must be below $1,000,000 on all CMHC insured mortgage loans.

�When you were buying a $999,000 condo or house you used to have to put down $50,000 down, now you have to put $75,000 down. When you�re buying a million dollar house you can find another $25,000,� said Lamb.

Lamb says the federal government should embrace rising demand for condo housing, rather than putting up roadblocks for homebuyers, in order to guard against a weaker economy.

�What�s carrying the Canadian economy is my industry, the construction industry. I don�t think you want to monkey with it, or you�ll have a recession for sure,� he said.

namaste friends fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Dec 29, 2015

# ? Dec 29, 2015 23:38

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

blah_blah posted:

In fact, that person could reduce their property tax by $570 via the home owner's grant, and by a further $275 if they are over 65. So under $3000 for a senior with a million dollar home.

Nothing makes me think "gently caress boomers" with searing hatred quite like this sort of omnipresent bullshit.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 23:50

The Lord of Hats: Aug 22, 2010; Hello, yes! Is being very good day for posting, no?

Cultural Imperial posted:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-g-belski-8397004

Its OK this guy is a loving clown with a general studies degree from St cloud St university. Whatever the gently caress that is.

Hey, this is a thing that I know! SCSU is a pretty alright school in Minnesota, but it has "Not the state's main public school"-itis, so its reputation is approximately nil. Had a bit of a reputation for being easy, but I may just have heard that because I was in the private school in the area so of course we'd say that.

# ? Dec 29, 2015 23:53

Guest2553: Aug 3, 2012

Lexicon posted:

Nothing makes me think "gently caress boomers" with searing hatred quite like this sort of omnipresent bullshit.

Yet when I try to use sovereign citizen legalese to dodge paying taxes, I'm the bad guy. There is no justice :smith:

e. I take back my last comment about not wanting to see this bitch burn down. Cat food for everybody.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 00:10

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

I wonder, if I got dual citizenship in a country with an incredibly low income tax rate, could I incorporate as a business and then claim that I have no income after expenses because Canadian me has to pay licensing fees to Zimbabwean me?

# ? Dec 30, 2015 00:19

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Guest2553 posted:

Yet when I try to use sovereign citizen legalese to dodge paying taxes, I'm the bad guy. There is no justice

e. I take back my last comment about not wanting to see this bitch burn down. Cat food for everybody.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at - I have no problem paying taxes; in fact I'd happily pay a lot more. I want them used for anything, anything other than further enriching rich old bastards at the expense of everyone else.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 00:21

Guest2553: Aug 3, 2012

It was (supposed to be) a tongue-in-cheek commentary about the inequality baked into the system - the protected demographic can do x, but another group is denigrated for trying to do the same thing. Not quite a perfect analogy but it was only supposed to be one-dimensional.

I too have no issue with paying taxes, I just wish that every single level of canadian politics didn't exist between somewhere between willfully negligent and obviously corrupt. At the risk of sounding like some sort of revolutionary, It's a combination of :argh:

and

seeing money wasted on stupid bullshit pork-barrelling by stupid bullshit politicians. I get that some level of smoke and mirrors is required to govern and get poo poo done, and am personally pragmatic enough to overlook some things as long as there`s some sort of greater good being served. But it feels like those most in need of support of the trappings of state get hosed, those who don`t need breaks get them, and those with the ability to change things won`t because the status quo benefits them. And it`s largely all done in brilliant negationist fashion to keep people from organizing against their own long term interest for what at best amounts to a short term payout.

Hence a boomer can pay peanuts in property tax through a legal method that has no meaningful social impact where someone who would legitimately benefit from that system get burned by it.

imho.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 04:38

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

and yet these motherfuckers still complain about it

# ? Dec 30, 2015 04:44

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-projects-15-billion-budget-surplus-for-2015/article27503093/

quote:

Quebec projects $1.5-billion budget surplus for 2015

The Quebec government is on schedule to balance its budget this year and has decided to open the money tap a little for the province�s beleaguered education system.

Finance Minister Carlos Leitao delivered the province�s fiscal update on Thursday, forecasting a $1.5-billion surplus this year, down slightly from the original $1.6-billion projection. Mr. Leitao said economic growth is weaker than expected at 1.5 per cent, down from his forecast six months ago of 2 per cent.

But Mr. Leitao said he is not worried further economic deterioration could threaten his goal of reaching a small surplus. �It will take some unexpected disaster for us not to reach our target this year,� Mr. Leitao said. �I�m not too worried about that.�

Mr. Leitao relented on a near-freeze in education spending implemented in the budget six months ago, announcing $20-million extra to be spent immediately on primary and secondary schooling and $80-million next year. Parents and teachers have taken to the streets in recent months to protest against cuts to education services. Teachers, along with other public servants, are negotiating a new contract amid monthly rotating strikes.

�We have finally regained total control of our finances and we are in a position to reinvest in public education,� Mr. Leitao said. �Last year�s deficit is much smaller. This year, we are right on track.�

The government also confirmed a further $120-million cut in funding for the province�s publicly financed daycare program for 2016-17. The program has been a prime Liberal target for cutbacks. System advocates say they will have to cut thousands of jobs to meet the latest cut.

�They�re taking away from little brother to give to big sister,� said Parti Qu�b�cois finance critic Nicolas Marceau, who pointed out the ratio of GDP to debt has deteriorated since the budget.

�It shows stagnation in the economy,� Mr. Marceau said. �Austerity measures are self-defeating, and that�s where we are in Quebec.�

Philippe Couillard�s government has bristled at critics who described the most recent two budgets as part of an austerity program, given overall spending has grown slightly. Most of that spending growth has gone to health care, while other programs have had budgets frozen or cut, with hikes in service fees or cuts in services.

uh is this even credible?

# ? Dec 30, 2015 05:43

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Guest2553 posted:

It was (supposed to be) a tongue-in-cheek commentary about the inequality baked into the system - the protected demographic can do x, but another group is denigrated for trying to do the same thing. Not quite a perfect analogy but it was only supposed to be one-dimensional.

I too have no issue with paying taxes, I just wish that every single level of canadian politics didn't exist between somewhere between willfully negligent and obviously corrupt. At the risk of sounding like some sort of revolutionary, It's a combination of and seeing money wasted on stupid bullshit pork-barrelling by stupid bullshit politicians. I get that some level of smoke and mirrors is required to govern and get poo poo done, and am personally pragmatic enough to overlook some things as long as there`s some sort of greater good being served. But it feels like those most in need of support of the trappings of state get hosed, those who don`t need breaks get them, and those with the ability to change things won`t because the status quo benefits them. And it`s largely all done in brilliant negationist fashion to keep people from organizing against their own long term interest for what at best amounts to a short term payout.

Hence a boomer can pay peanuts in property tax through a legal method that has no meaningful social impact where someone who would legitimately benefit from that system get burned by it.

imho.

Couldn't agree more.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 05:56

Guest2553: Aug 3, 2012

e. ^^^

Cultural Imperial posted:

uh is this even credible?

Well if you count your revenue in US dollars and your expenditures in South African Rands then uh

e2. vvv ahaha what an awesome icon, when did that become a thing?

Guest2553 fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Dec 30, 2015

# ? Dec 30, 2015 05:57

leftist heap: Feb 28, 2013; Fun Shoe

Guest2553 posted:

It was (supposed to be) a tongue-in-cheek commentary about the inequality baked into the system - the protected demographic can do x, but another group is denigrated for trying to do the same thing. Not quite a perfect analogy but it was only supposed to be one-dimensional.

I too have no issue with paying taxes, I just wish that every single level of canadian politics didn't exist between somewhere between willfully negligent and obviously corrupt. At the risk of sounding like some sort of revolutionary, It's a combination of and seeing money wasted on stupid bullshit pork-barrelling by stupid bullshit politicians. I get that some level of smoke and mirrors is required to govern and get poo poo done, and am personally pragmatic enough to overlook some things as long as there`s some sort of greater good being served. But it feels like those most in need of support of the trappings of state get hosed, those who don`t need breaks get them, and those with the ability to change things won`t because the status quo benefits them. And it`s largely all done in brilliant negationist fashion to keep people from organizing against their own long term interest for what at best amounts to a short term payout.

Hence a boomer can pay peanuts in property tax through a legal method that has no meaningful social impact where someone who would legitimately benefit from that system get burned by it.

imho.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 06:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 16:16

UnfortunateSexFart: May 18, 2008; ð» ððð« ð·ððð·
ð ð ð ð« ð®ð ð¾ð ð ð¡ððð

Earthquake in Vancouver - time to buy buy buy!

# ? Dec 30, 2015 08:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »