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

161–170 of 195 posts

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

#161

Post by Canada »

tjl wrote: post #147
AdrianB1 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Canada, it's generally the case that your taxes go to pick up the garbage. They might hire a company to do it, but it's usually the municipal government that pays. I'm living in a co-op and we get a tax break since we contract ours separately. Even if it's a commercial paid service, how many companies are going to do that in a dying community?

Not in highrises. Residents for that on their own. Though it's a municipal issue, so it may depend on where you live.

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

#163

Post by Canada »

msbarnett wrote: post #155
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…

> Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. As recent as the 1949 it was an entirely separate country. It is a latecomer to the Canadian Confederation. America is not unique in its federalism. > Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smalle…

> And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government.

Name one indictable offense unique to any province.

Name one indictable offense that has force in another part of Canada but not one or more provinces.

There is a real difference between the sovereignty of a Canadian province and a US state. In Canada the federal government has substantially more legal authority. Actually, a better way to look at it is that a province has a lot less authority.

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

#164

Post by Canada »

msbarnett wrote: post #154
jhbadger wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Provincial courts are a thing in Canada in addition to Federal courts. I'm not sure about the "not touching" rule, but they are separate, because many offenses at the provincial level (i.e. not having a sign in French for your business in Quebec) aren't offenses at the Federal level.

Hell, the entire Quebec legal system is distinct from anywhere else in Canada, owing to its roots in France's legal traditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law

Only civil law.

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

#165

Post by Canada »

acveilleux wrote: post #97
abz10 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not how Canada works. We're way to the left of the US. Furthermore, that's outside the power of the provincial government to do.

It is within the power of a province to credit 100% of provincial taxes back, although I wouldn't want to try that if I was governing a "have not" province, especially if part of the deal was cutting essential services subsidized by transfer payments.

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

#166

Post by scythe »

mason240 wrote: post #118
dmix wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people with houses near the coast are retired, they just want to live a peaceful life near the sea, they don't want to relocate, What about social services? We have public health care in Canada and seniors are the most expensive. Plus, with no industry where are they going to get medication and food? And it's not all seniors, the person in the article isn't leaving because he scared he won't be able to find wo…

>What about social services? This a pretty strong argument against social services. These people who have paid their share into society are now being to forced to move because it's convenient for the government.

Why not give them the option to pay a private company for those services?

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

#167

Post by andkon »

trapperkeeper79 wrote: post #133
CountSessine wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is equivalent to betting on the margin — the downside is that you end up holding a contract that commits you to paying for the whole condo, and if you can't get rid of that contract when the market goes down or you become incapable of paying, the developer will sue you (see above comment about what happened in 2008 in Vancouver).

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

#168

Post by sandworm101 »

msbarnett wrote: post #153
sandworm101 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sys…

> Does any other country have separate courthouses for the local and federal governments? The very country we're discussing here, Canada, does. Federalism is not a uniquely American institution. Canada is a federal state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism

No. All canadian courts are under the SCC. We have a single sovereign. So-called "provincial" courts are directly answerable to the SCC. They are not the highest courts in their provinces on any matters. The US system of state/fed courts is totally different. Take it from someone who actually practices in both.

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

#169

Post by sandworm101 »

msbarnett wrote: post #155
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…

> Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. As recent as the 1949 it was an entirely separate country. It is a latecomer to the Canadian Confederation. America is not unique in its federalism. > Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smalle…

>>>This so-called not-withstanding clause effectively grounds British-style parliamentary supremacy at the provincial level.

Um, that is my point. All of Canada is under a single constitution and, technically, one Queen. The US has multiple constitutions, at least one of which (MA) predates the US federal. Find a Canadian province with a constitution allowing it to ignore actions of the national government, ignore without separating. I can cite dozens, hundreds of areas where US states can tell the feds to take a hike. In the community of nations, that is strange.

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

#170

Post by acchow »

wmil wrote: post #49
throw20160915 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because Toronto is in a state of transition. No one complains about NY, London, HK real-estate because it's already understood to be expensive in the mainstream. But Toronto real-estate being expensive is relatively new such that you have people who grew up in Toronto not being able to afford it in adulthood. People are slowly realizing that TO is now just another global city out of reach to the middle class unl…

The other big issue is that there's no local economic boom driving the increase. Which is very confusing to locals -- salaries aren't going up, unemployment is fairly high, but prices are skyrocketing. Apparently low interest rates are a big driver. If they increase then many people won't be able to afford their mortgages.

> salaries aren't going up

This. You can really see the disparity when looking at the divergence between Toronto rental prices (what people who work can afford to pay with their jobs) and purchase prices (what investors can afford to pay, which probably includes a lot of foreign investment and homeowners remortgaging their homes to invest in a 2nd).

Rental prices haven't increased nearly as much as purchase prices.

Post reply on HN