Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 195 posts

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#131

Post by jhbadger »

sandworm101 wrote: post #128
msbarnett wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another? To me, saying " The Canadian government is doing X", is a statement about the activities of the Federal government. The use of the definite article implies singularity. A provincial government is not the Canadian government -- it's one of many in a federal system. It might in some narrow sen…

Texas is a bad example. The US is a federation of what are essentially 50 different countries, or at least different sovereign governments. Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. It's its own government with its own constitution and areas of absolute authority (See 'states rights'). Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute au…

There's not really much difference between the idea of states and provinces. Just like US states, they have laws and elected officials to themselves. It's the same in many other countries as well. It's pure American exceptionalism to think their "states" are somehow unique in this.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#132

Post by AdrianB1 »

tjl wrote: post #117
ersii wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd seriously be fine with that. I would not mind giving up all social services, especially not if I got a cashback. That said, I would expect this to come with 'no taxation in the future' as well. That said, I am not everybody.

Would you be seriously fine with the nearest grocery store being an hour away (over deteriorating roads) and it possibly being 3x as expensive? Plus, what are you going to do about garbage? People forget that is also a social service.

Garbage collection is not a social service, it is a commercial paid service in most of the world. In Europe I don't pay taxes for garbage collection, I pay the garbage company for the quantity they pick up.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#133

Post by trapperkeeper79 »

CountSessine wrote: post #126
guardiangod wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a pre-sell buyer decides to flip the property immediately, what harm is there in that http://www2.jurock.com/articles/columnist.asp?id=9370 But in 2008, worldwide financial markets tanked and with it condo markets in Vancouver. By December 2008, some 200 presale unit owners were offering their contracts on Craigslist - often at a loss. (On March 20, 2012 there were just 39.) When that did not work, many simply did…

I don't quite understand; this column simply re-iterates what I said. Needless to say, developers once burned have now tightened up the contracts. Buyers must realize that developers get their financing on the basis of pre-sales and rightfully expect and deserve all pre-sales in their development to complete. So, the pre-sale game changed. But probably for the better. Builders offer the 'pre-sale discount' because th…

In Toronto, I heard stories of brokers buying 5-10 pre-release condos and selling them all before taking possession. These people didn't have cash to pay more than the deposit and became millionaires overnight. I don't know how pervasive this was though. There are not too many asset classes where one can pull this off .. so I guess kudos to those people.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#134

Post by trapperkeeper79 »

abz10 wrote: post #105
speeder wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish there was ANY government willing to do that in the entire world. Most governments won't ever do that, because it effectively means allowing a independent nation in their lands. For example: I am from Brazil, and I am most certainly paying in taxes much more than I get in services, police is unreliable (even simple calls to emergency number because I saw shady shit, never worked, sometimes it didn't even connec…

I hear you. Panama and Belize are poor man's tax havens if you can work remotely with a foreign source of income. I live in Panama. I haven't seen a homeless person since leaving SF.

Err .. if you have foreign employment income in the US, you will be taxed at the source, no?

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#135

Post by AdrianB1 »

speeder wrote: post #98
abz10 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about stopping the services as well a stop taxing them? Then if it is viable they can stay.

I wish there was ANY government willing to do that in the entire world. Most governments won't ever do that, because it effectively means allowing a independent nation in their lands. For example: I am from Brazil, and I am most certainly paying in taxes much more than I get in services, police is unreliable (even simple calls to emergency number because I saw shady shit, never worked, sometimes it didn't even connec…

Not paying taxes does not mean an independent nation. The purpose of a government is not to collect taxes, it is to provide services the people need, want and are willing to pay for (all 3 conditions). The taxes are supposed to cover for these services, not whatever politicians want or what the neighbors vote for.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#136

Post by AdrianB1 »

abz10 wrote: post #71
abz10 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about stopping the services as well a stop taxing them? Then if it is viable they can stay.

Could the down-voters at least tell me why? Thx

The explanation is simple: Canada is socialist. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.". The problem with Canadians is that they don't like to run out of money to support their socialism, so even suggesting to consider giving up to taxes is worse than blasphemy, it's counter-revolution.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#137

Post by trapperkeeper79 »

abz10 wrote: post #99
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High interest rates are great for buying a home. Both for the house prices falling, and for having the option of refinancing at a lower rate later. The big complicating factor is that most people buy and sell a house at the same time, and lower interest rates sound like "lower prices".

I think the wrinkle is that many people see rent as a function of mortgage payments and low interest rates and other rebates are seen as a way to lower rent and provide a win-win. Homeowners get value appreciation and renters get cheaper rent. Of course this is a temporary effect and will only persist during a period of accelerating asset price inflation - which is impossible to maintain long term.

At this point, the average million dollar home in the far suburbs of Toronto costs about 4K a month (mortgages, utility bills, etc.). A condo in a better location costs 1500 a month. We're just starting out our family (which is why we need a house, but we can also not depend on my wife's income). A 10K salary results in 6k after taxes. While we could put everything into the house, I am very very afraid to do so. When I've asked how others do it, I get crazy answers from parents helped get the downpayment down big time to unregistered rental suites. Craziest story I've heard is people buying a house and living in the basement. It all makes my head spin.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#138

Post by AdrianB1 »

blackbagboys wrote: post #51
ryandrake wrote: post #47

> After appeals were settled, a total of 95 residents received ballots. Ninety percent of them needed to approve the move for it to pass. That’s 86 votes. They got 85. Seems kind of daft to make it all-or-nothing AND set such a high bar. Why weren't the 85 residents who wanted to leave allowed to participate on their own, taking the money and leaving those 10 trolls behind to enjoy living in Nowheresville?

Most likely it would be legally difficult for the government to shut off services to the area if any residents remained.

What exactly are those services? There is no public education, no fire department, there is probably nothing, but they cannot just recognize "we give you nothing but we want you to pay taxes, so move somewhere else where we can give you something so you continue to pay up". It's a tax game, not a service game.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#139

Post by abz10 »

trapperkeeper79 wrote: post #134
abz10 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you. Panama and Belize are poor man's tax havens if you can work remotely with a foreign source of income. I live in Panama. I haven't seen a homeless person since leaving SF.

Err .. if you have foreign employment income in the US, you will be taxed at the source, no?

You need to be a contractor, not an employee, then a lawyer can sort it out so you're all good.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#140

Post by sandworm101 »

jhbadger wrote: post #131
sandworm101 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas is a bad example. The US is a federation of what are essentially 50 different countries, or at least different sovereign governments. Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. It's its own government with its own constitution and areas of absolute authority (See 'states rights'). Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute au…

There's not really much difference between the idea of states and provinces. Just like US states, they have laws and elected officials to themselves. It's the same in many other countries as well. It's pure American exceptionalism to think their "states" are somehow unique in this.

Does any other country have separate courthouses for the local and federal governments? Courthouses that hear virtually identical cases, but apply different rules of evidence and procedure depending upon in which states the litigants reside? Courthouses that literally cannot be allowed touch each other? There are four or five standard courses at US law schools virtually dedicated to state/fed splits. The American system of divided sovereigns is exceptional. It's weird.
Post reply on HN