PT6A posted:

Well, of course. But if the law is designed around a supposition that someone would lower their own standard of living just to spite their lower-earning ex, then it seems advisable to also design it around the supposition that a spouse might use it out of sheer greed and spite to control their higher-earning ex.

Do you think it would matter how long a change in jobs had been planned? If you decide to take a vow of poverty two weeks after you separated, I agree that's some bullshit. If you said, "honey, I hate my job, I'm going to do X instead now," and they divorced you because they're pissed off at that decision, I see that as a different matter. If you've been taking classes to change careers for a year or two, and the divorce is unrelated, the amount of reduction in income shouldn't matter since the spouse knew this reduction in income would be coming in any event.

Number19 posted:

In your hypothetical it could go a lot of ways and there's no real way for me to predict the outcome because I'm not familiar enough with the case law. I'd imagine that it would come down to the quality of lawyers involved.

Number19 posted:

Some former spouses will use support payments and money in general as a way to exert control over their ex. They will gently caress with the timing, the amount, cause little disputes, etc. It's not about the actual money, but about controlling the other person.

PT6A, this really isn't an argument you can be making if you haven't been involved in one of these or have had a close friend or relative who has been hosed over by a vindictive ex. The poo poo that gets done is brutal and unfortunately in family law justice is expensive to pursue. A lot of people just give up which I feel is terrible.

e: governments should provide a LOT more money for family law legal aid. There are so many people (mostly women) who are coming out of abusive relationships with nothing and have very little recourse with which to get proper help.

PT6A posted:

Agreed 100% on the family law legal aid part.

The penalties for willful noncompliance should also be very severe, to avoid people purposely doing bullshit as a form of control.

PT6A posted:

Exactly this. Provided that assets are divided equally, and the payer of support does not hide income, then if payments are made on the basis of actual, present income, aren't the two households roughly equal?

THE BEATWEAVER posted:

Huh, I could have sworn you are one of the most offensively rich goons on the forums thanks to your silicon valley bullshit and would have no problems paying child support regardless of income.

PT6A posted:

I guess the real lesson is: don't marry a lunatic, so whatever goes wrong, you can hopefully come to a reasonable and amicable agreement in the event of divorce.

quote:

Vancouver’s empty-homes tax to rake in $30-million in first year; many properties exempted

Vancouver’s tax on empty homes will bring in $30-million of revenue in its first year, but that will come from only a tiny proportion of homeowners.

More than 5,000 properties out of 8,500 deemed vacant by city staff received exemptions under rules of the new tax bylaw, which is a first for Canada and is being watched closely around the world.

Nearly 1,000 homeowners among the 8,500 whose properties were designated vacant are disputing the classification.

So only 1,200 properties are being assessed the tax in the first year, some paying as much as $250,000 for the 2018 tax period. Another 1,100 or more may be added from Vancouver residents that failed to make any declaration about their properties.

But Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson is pleased with the results anyway.

“Thank you for contributing to Vancouver’s affordable-housing fund,” the mayor said wryly at a news conference outlining the details of the new tax. He acknowledged it’s not clear yet whether the tax has caused any owners to rent out their apartments or houses, which is one of the city’s goals.

But, he said, the city needed to do something to ensure that desperately needed housing is available.

“It’s unacceptable to have homes sitting empty when so many people are looking for a place to live.”

The 1,200 to 2,300 homeowners who may eventually pay the tax are far less than the numbers that have circulated for years about empty units.

Two years ago, the city said 10,800 units were unoccupied for a year or more, after a comprehensive study of electrical use.

It’s also far less than the 25,000 often cited based on numbers from the census of May, 2016. That number is often challenged, as it is based on only one day and includes housing used by students, or units classified as a basement suite even though owners may not use them that way.

Green Party Councillor Adriane Carr said she is concerned the numbers are so low.

“It doesn’t gel to me when I talk to people in neighbourhoods about how many houses on their block are empty.”

She also said she is waiting to see if the new tax helps increase the vacancy rates, which are currently around 0.8 per cent.

Mr. Robertson said citizens will decide what kinds of housing initiatives the revenue should finance.

He said it could go into more homeless shelters, the city’s rent bank, which lends people money if they are in danger of being evicted, or toward buying more land for housing.

Not all the money will go to housing. About $7.5-million is needed for start-up costs for the new program and $2.5-million a year is needed to run it.

Some of that operating money is going toward thousands of audits the city is doing to ensure that those who should pay the tax are not exempted.

People who can’t prove their Vancouver home is a principal residence can be exempted if they can prove they are renting it out long term, it was being renovated or redeveloped, their strata doesn’t allow rentals, or they work in the city for at least 180 days a year.

According to the city’s statistics, 560 homes were exempted because their strata doesn’t allow rentals, 2,480 because the title to the property changed hands during the year and 1,560 were being renovated or redeveloped.

Cold on a Cob posted:

Two things that can drive people into full-spite mode for some reason: paying/receiving alimony and paying their taxes.

the talent deficit posted:

a friend of mine drove his 3 series into a lake rather than let his wife get it in the divorce

Cold on a Cob posted:

https://www.thestar.com/business/real_estate/2018/04/12/torontos-housing-bubble-cost-sellers-136-million-report.html


Worth a read. A special lmao at this part:

Many were parents buying homes for children still in elementary school because they feared their kids would never get on the property ladder. 

Femtosecond posted:

The NPA is insinuating that Vancouver city council is corrupt, presumably giving sweetheart deals to favoured developers. I don't really like the way community amenity contributions are handled, but I haven't seen any substantial hint of city council favouring certain developers. Link an article if you know of an issue I'm missing.

Based on what I've seen from Vision in action I think the accusations that they're in bed with developers is overblown. In the last city council meeting I sat in on the Urban Development Institute, the NPA and a host of random developers were all speaking out telling Vision that the development fees for a certain package of rezonings were too high but Vision stood firm.

quote:

The other bill amends the Real Estate Development Marketing Act, forcing real estate developers to report when a condo unit is flipped prior to the completion of construction, and allowing the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate to investigate if there is evidence that such information is not being disclosed.

Number19 posted:

e: governments should provide a LOT more money for family law legal aid. There are so many people (mostly women) who are coming out of abusive relationships with nothing and have very little recourse with which to get proper help.

UnfortunateSexFart posted:

On the other hand, an idiot sold their deceased mom's place in our building for $50,000 less than he could've got, and that'll gently caress us somewhat.

Majuju posted:

this is from a few pages back but this article just surfaced on my Twitter feed:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3910790/vancouver-onni-rentals/

to say nothing of the bullshit around the Concord Pacific lands.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/GMPaiella/status/988823777789308928

B.C. government to give cities power to create rental-only zoning, cracks down on presale flipping posted:

Local governments in B.C. could soon have the power to zone areas for rental housing.

Municipal Affairs Minister Selina Robinson introduced the Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act in the legislature Tuesday, which would give municipalities the following powers:

- Zone undeveloped land for rental housing, or mandate a certain percentage of units on the land be rental.
- Force existing rental properties to remain rental only after redevelopment.

The changes were promised by the government in February's budget, as part of its 30-point housing plan.

"We are committed to ensuring that local governments have the supports, the resources and information they require to decide how they can best address the housing needs in their community," said Robinson.

However, municipalities can choose not to use the new zoning tools, or only mandate a small percentage of units in rental areas actually be rentals.

"Local governments have to have autonomy. What might work here in Victoria might not work in Merritt," said Robinson.

"They're facing this housing affordability crisis along with us ... so I expect local government will continue to work [with us] in making sure there's the kind of housing people need."
Finance Minister Carole James (right), along with Municipal Affairs Minister Selina Robinson (centre) and Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps (left) speak to reporters about the new housing legislation on Apr. 24, 2018. (Mike McArthur/CBC)
Cracking down on flipping of presales

The government also brought forward two other pieces of legislation on Tuesday related to housing.

One amends the Real Estate Development Marketing Act, forcing real estate developers to report when a condo unit is flipped prior to the completion of construction, and allowing the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate to investigate if there is evidence that such information is not being disclosed.

Penalties have also been increased by more than 1,000 per cent — up to $250,000 fines for individuals and $500,000 for corporations not complying with a requirement. If criminal charges are laid, fines will be up to $1.25 million for individuals or corporations in a first conviction, and up to $2.5 million for a second conviction.

"It will be significant. We know how important it is, and that British Columbians expect that everyone pay their fair share of taxes, and if someone is avoiding their taxes ... on a condo presale on a contract flip, then they're not following the law," said finance minister Carole James.

The final bill will force municipalities to put out a report on housing needs every five years to help with community planning. The government is providing $5 million over the next three years to assist with the data collection.

Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps said she was optimistic the changes to rental zoning would spur action.

"I think this will also be welcomed by the development community interested already in building rental housing," she said.

"They know if they build on that land, and they build rental, they don't have to jump through any hoops, they just have to get their shovels in the ground."

Urban Development Institute CEO Anne McMullin agreed, and was generally complimentary of the multiple pieces of new legislation. But she cautioned that the onus was on municipal governments to quickly prezone for rental — and said permitting times in many cities was onerous for a type of housing that generates less revenue than condominiums.

"We've got to work through this quickly. It can take four to five years to approve projects in the City of Vancouver, and then it's got to get built. So we're eight, 10, 12 years from any relief, so we've got to move fast."

Math You posted:

Because they can. Certain models sell like loving hot cakes. If you already have production shortages of a particular model, why offer cheap financing?

The only reason any car manufacturers makes small sedans and hatches now adays is to get young people into the brand, so those are often the vehicles with the best financing terms. Ford doesn't make any loving money if you buy a Fiesta, but when you come back in 6 years for an Explorer? CHA CHINNGGGG

rgocs posted:

Incidentally, just heard on the morning News: Ford is scrapping all their sedan production. Will only keep producing Mustangs and trucks.

rgocs posted:

Incidentally, just heard on the morning News: Ford is scrapping all their sedan production. Will only keep producing Mustangs and trucks.

Coxswain Balls posted:

Laaaame. My twelve-year-old Focus hatchback is still going strong, and my local dealership is easy to deal with. Whenever mine kicks the bucket I was hoping to get another one.

The Butcher posted:

The Butcher posted:

cowofwar posted:

Also I potted up my avocadoes and put them outside. Started from seeds and they’re now 2-3’.

quote:

Sometimes avocado plants will begin growing fruit after they’re 3 or 4 years old, others take 15+ years to grow fruit, and some never do. It helps to have several avocado trees growing together to aid with pollination. However, don’t expect the fruit to be anything like the avocado that yielded your seed.

The Butcher posted:

Playing the long game eh?

Lobok posted:

Never thought I'd see the day when I could own a home and eat food prepared outside of said home. Y'know, maybe this capitalism thing is okay after all.

Coxswain Balls posted:

Laaaame. My twelve-year-old Focus hatchback is still going strong, and my local dealership is easy to deal with. Whenever mine kicks the bucket I was hoping to get another one.

Math You posted:

They are keeping the Focus as well. It's the Fiesta, Fusion, Cmax, and Taurus being scrapped. Which leaves the Mustang and Focus.

quote:

“The car segment in Canada has been declining steadily since 2012 and now makes up just 33 percent of the overall market,” [Ford Canada PR person] Hollander said. “Going in the other direction, SUV and crossover sales have been growing steadily since 2012 and now account for about 44 percent of all vehicle sales in Canada. And that trend of car sales declining as more consumers choose SUVs is expected to continue. So, we are focusing our efforts on vehicles customers prefer.”

Seat Safety Switch posted:

The Focus is becoming the Focus Active (a "crossover-ified" version of the Focus; think Subaru Crosstrek) and won't be sold in Canada.


Hope you like Mustangs as much as a certain other Canagoon does.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/04/hilarious-canadians-cant-even-buy-focus-active-fords-new-plan/