|
Landlords have tax deductions for mortgage interest as well as depreciation. The risk of interest rates is unusual in Canada, as mortgages are typically on a 5 year cycle compared to the US where you can get a fixed rate for 30 years. Any landlord complaining about mortgage interest deserves what they get for not recognizing the exposure to upward interest rate changes. Some tenants are bad, it still comes back to laziness of the landlord in choosing tenants, or not setting the rent to a market clearing price that gives you a choice of good tenants. I would like to see a federal registry of rental properties to catch tax cheats.
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Lack of parking in new developments is naive. People will have vehicles to go to the mountains or other weekend trips. Lack of resident parking will just cause problems. There are certain benefits to sfh that we should try to also include in designing high density housing to reduce the demand for sfh.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2024 02:55
|
|
|
I am all for public transit, it should be funded and developed more. If you want to transition people from sfh to high density which is a good thing you need to provide what they need or think they need to maintain their lifestyle and perceived freedom from dependence on public transit. If they move in and the car sits unused in a parking spot or it is used for bikes or other storage that is good. In Europe, even carless cities have garages and storage on the outskirts for people to keep their vehicles. Here you are developing new and can include underground parking directly within the development. Also North America is different in terms of scale and population and infrastructure outside of major population centers. You will not get train service to whistler like you do to zermatt
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
$40k is nothing over the life of a building and an extra year of development is also worth it to build it imo. People deserve to live in a functional building and have equitable access to a middle class lifestyle. That includes taking kids to enrichment and sports after school and on the weekends. Is it possible without a vehicle sure but the time cost of using public transit to accomplish it will result in less kids participating. Building a more flexible high density building to fit different lifestyles is what is needed to get people to consider apartment living vs sfh.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Thats how I understood it. $40k a spot is fine amortized over the life of the structure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
Visitor parking is also a necessity for anyone who is remotely social. I lived in a building that had 1 spot per unit and it was a huge PITA. Everyone in the building wished there was more parking. For new builds we can learn from the past what doesn’t work. I now live sfh and enjoy it so much more. I still want apartment dwellers to have it better than the absolute minimum.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
We need to focus on the real problems - where to park all our cars.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2024 00:20
|
|
|
COPE 27 posted:So CRA has decided that renter peasants should be forced to be their lords' taxes lmao This is a stupid ruling for many reasons. Non residents have non resident tax account numbers assigned by the CRA that are used when remitting rental withholdings. (25% due 30 days after each rental payment) So the CRA can keep track of the payments made throughout the year. There are some serious penalties that accrue if you remit late. I am surprised that the CRA didn’t go after the property (It would be a good way to develop government owned rental stock.) I have thought about rental income and taxes and there really should be a system in place for tenants to check the address they are living at to see that the owners are reporting the income. It is too easy for owners to commit intentional tax fraud when the system relies on self reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2024 15:30
|
|
|
The only reason that I could see the CRA going after the tenant is that they think the tenant and the owner were colluding somehow (the tenant was of Italian descent) Otherwise 1. the CRA went after the wrong target 2. The defense lawyer was bad 3. The judge is a dope The owner should have paid the taxes because she will have a tenant from hell now (deservingly so) Ideally, the tenant should be able to apply any incurred fines, withholding, court costs against incurred rent and live there until the balance is zeroed. Maybe just squat forever and just keep paying the 25% to the CRA. The owner is lazy/stupid because with depreciation, she would get most of the withholding back each year if she bothered to file a non resident tax return. She is also probably not reporting properly in Italy so the CRA or tenant should also contact the Italian tax authorities.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Once a unit is rented it should be treated as essentially being owned by that tenant so long as they are paying rent. The solution is more government owned rental buildings designed for the middle class that are not crap. Raise taxes to pay for it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2024 20:14
|
|