Yep, it’s a shitty system, but most people’s finances are tight enough that they don’t want to give up that 1-3%(plus other perks) just on principle. Good example though of how those with the lowest income won’t qualify for a credit card but still pay the fees baked into store prices while those with the highest incomes qualify for the cards with the best befits.
Isn’t the WealthSimple card a Visa though? Costco only takes Mastercard so you wouldn’t be using it there. Costco card is 3% on Costco gas and restaurants, 2% on other gas and Costco.ca. For me that’s a big part of my spending.
Now if someone doesn’t do Costco then the WealthSimple card is probably a better option than lots of other cards. Particularly if they qualify for not paying the monthly fee.
I’ve got the Costco Mastercard and it looks pretty comparable. Phone/ purchase protection, travel insurance, etc… Costco is 2-3% on some purchases and 1% on everything else, though you can only spend the cash back at Costco. Maybe if I took the time to pick between each I could average an extra 1/2%. More choice is always good though and this helps squeeze other issuers to get more competitive.
I think it’s easier to qualify for the Costco card though than the no fees for the WealthSimple one.
Been a little while since I looked up the utility rates, but last I remember gas is about 1/7 the cost of electricity in Saskatchewan. Makes it hard to justify heat pumps for heating in most places. Hope the technology continues to improve and it’ll be a more sustainable option when we have a more sustainable grid.
I’m torn. With broadcasting there’s an argument that the bandwidth is publicly owned so there should be some oversight in the content that’s transmitted. Mandating Canadian content here seems okay, kind of like how we control .ca domains and have some say in who gets to use them. For streaming though it seems to be private infrastructure, it’s been built using public funds, but the people running the infrastructure aren’t really making decisions about the content it caries. They just lease it out to anybody with minimal oversight. It’d be kind of like mandating that some% of phone calls need to be Canadian content.
Then again, we do control the .ca domains so we might argue that foreign companies using them should make some effort to carry or promote Canadian content. Get too restrictive though and companies just shut down the .ca domain and make us use the .com version which we can’t really control.
Sure, but to some extent you could say the same about any necessity. Groceries, clothing, healthcare, etc… Then we could extend that to the things that are required for those necessities, transportion, natural resources, sections of the labour market, etc… Maybe housing does actually have a larger gap between input costs and market rate, and it’s probably the single largest expense for most and particularly those at the lower end of the income scale so it’s good place to start making changes.
If we trusted most people to manage their budgets we wouldn’t need things like EI and CPP, people would just be setting aside enough to cover that. People also need time to build those emergency or planned upgrade funds so telling someone who’s only been on their own to make sure they have enough se aside to cover a major repair isn’t very practical.
I would argue that landlords provide a service in providing a relatively predictable monthly cost of housing. On any given month a homeowner(and/or landlord) could have anywhere from $0 to thousands of dollars of unexpected expenses, things like a major appliance failing or plumbing/electrical issue. Plus there’s intermittent expanses that can be planned for, things like replacing shingles or proactively replacing an appliance approaching its end of life.
It also seems like a market with relatively free competition, given that the cost of purchasing a rental property can be relatively low compared to opening another kind of business. It’s relatively low risk since most of the expense is an appreciable asset, but also relatively low return (historically and over an extended period) than other market investments. Many would actually come out ahead by renting their home and putting the equivalent of what would go to toward their home’s equity into something like a mutual fund.
I think the biggest issue is just lack of good options at the lower end of the housing market. So much new construction is above the average home pricing because that’s where the builders are able to make a reasonable return. The more affordable properties are usually older units, often with significant issues. The Canadian government seems to be on the right track to getting more affordable units built. We don’t need more 1500+ ft^2 units, we need more units in the 500-700 ft^2 range. Something that a single person or young couple with minimal possessions can use as a starter home to build equity. Even if it gets bought by someone to use as an investment property, it can still have a relatively affordable rent while still providing a landlord a reasonable return on their investment.
More affordable units also reduces demand for the currently available units, bringing down prices for the mid-range market as well.
That’s an issue, but it’s not the whole issue. You’re not going to get a reasonable home down to the price of a budget vehicle. It’s not just home prices alone that have gone up over 60 years, it’s most essential goods combined with stagnating wages that means people need to spend a greater portion of their of their income on basic essentials and don’t have as much left to save for future big purchases.
Don’t get me wrong, homes need to be more affordable, but arbitrary reductionist ideas like let’s ban landlords don’t really work.
Some other ideas might be to increase minimum wages, yes this increases inflation but the people at the lower end of the wage scale still come out ahead. Have a crown corp for housing, even if it needs to be subsidized. Give people affordable and reasonable quality options and make private industry have to compete against that. Some better benefits for tradespeople, like lower the exemption on the trade tools tax credit to make construction more affordable. Though there’s a weird thing that happens where companies bring in big crews of apprentices for cheap labour and then lay-off the journeypeople so they don’t have to pay Journeyperson wages. I guess this keeps costs lower, but it’d be nice to see something combat this so there’s better job prospects for people that complete their apprenticeships.
Housing is one of the most expensive purchases most people will ever make. Are you saying everybody must be able to commit to that to have a place to live?
Reminder that “engagement” is likely a major factor regardless of whether it’s agreement or not. Commenting that you disagree with something is the same as commenting agreement as far as the algorithm is concerned. Ignoring things that you don’t want to spread seems like a good way to combat this, but that leaves you with the “echo chamber” issue. If we only engage with things we agree with then our ideals are never challenged and we don’t have an opportunity to improve. Seems kind of damned if you do damned if you don’t.
I’m not sure how effective it is, but it seems like CRA has been tightening up on some kinds of business expenses, or at least my previous employer interpreted it that way. When people have things like company vehicles or phones, or get comparable benefits from work the value of those things being used for non-work related purposes is taxable. That’s also why there’s standards for things like mileage or per-diems so people can be compensated for realistic expenses, but not use it as a way to avoid income taxes.
We should also be careful about how we close some “loopholes”. Like it makes sense that a person can mortgage their personal property and use that to fund their business. It also makes sense that they can claim the interest on that mortgage as a tax deduction since it’s kind of a business related expense. It feels different when someone with a net worth less than a million does that compared to someone worth more than a billion, so I don’t think it’s closing the loophole altogether but putting limits like only claiming interest on something like $300k of debt (or something close to the average amount owed on a home of an average valuation).
I’ll also add that the idea behind reduced taxation on capital gains is it encourages people to invest in businesses and grow the economy. That makes sense economically. Canada also does better than some places(USA) in this way because capital gains are considered realized and paid on death so there’s not really a way to avoid them altogether, at best you’re putting it off for 60ish years. We also have things like the TFSA, which allows us to invest without being subject to capital gains tax. A person able to max out their RRSP/TFSA/CPP contributions would have a very comfortable retirement, while people earning significantly more have more limited options in deferring/eliminating their tax burden.
Exploitation is the key term here. Things like Co-ops and Crown corporations work to put capital back in the hands of the workers/customers/tax payers, but they can have a hard time competing with private industry. People like the idea of supporting local/sustainable/family owned/etc. but budgets are tight and Walmart or Loblaws fill your grocery cart for 10% less than the local Co-op. This all snowballs, the chains can pay less because they’ve got more positions to fill, they keep things cheap through economy of scale or negotiating power and keep that scale because they’re a bit cheaper then the socially responsible options. People work for the chains because there’s not enough jobs available at the local stores and they can only afford to shop at the chain because they’re being paid chain wages. If we could get enough people together we could enact a change, but that’s hard to do when so much of the population is one missed paycheque away from not being able to pay rent or groceries.
That kind of leaves regulatory or Crown-corps as the better solutions.
It gives more options to customize layout. Removing the second staircase also removes the need for a hallway all the way through the middle between staircases. Since bedrooms need windows, removing the staircase also opens up space to add 1-2 more bedrooms per floor. Part of the issue with the hallway and 2 stairs is you get a corner unit on each one and everything in between gets just one outside wall. Making a bigger building footprint doesn’t help a lot because the floor area increases more than the wall space(which you need to put windows so your apartment doesn’t feel like a dungeon. Which is why apartments tend to be long and narrow, or sometimes wrapped around a central courtyard.
I read somewhere about North American vs European apartments, particularly the smaller 2-4 floor/3-4 units per floor ones, and the European ones tended to have a smaller footprint, but more wall space and more practically usable space than the North American designs.
Sounds about right. We took advantage of the Greener Homes Grant a few years ago to get all our windows replaced in our late 70’s build. It’s a very long process where you have to pay up front for an inspection/evaluation from one of their approved providers, which are often booked months in advance, then you have to pay up front for all the work done. In our case we paid 50% up front then had to wait a few months for the work to be done, then had to book another inspection/evaluation. If one wants get multiple qualifying items done they all have to happen between both evaluations. After that second evaluation you can ask to close it out and receive the grant. Most, but not all of the cost of those evaluations is covered when the grant is approved. IIRC the grant ended up covering about 20% of the cost, but it was over a year to go through the whole process. The Greener Homes Loan came out after we had already received our grant, and if we wanted to do more work to take advantage of it now we’d be on the hook for another post-work evaluation. It is a step in the right direction since you it helps cover some of the up front costs of eligible retrofits. Sask also had a home renovation tax credit available at the time(conveniently implemented just after I built my shed which would have qualified) so it was nice to double dip and get another 10% of the cost rebated, but it’s also something where a person has to pay up front and wait for tax time to see the benefits.
Its great for people that can afford to have the work done and in our case it was probably the difference between us being able to do all our windows at once vs just doing the high priority ones and leaving others for later. It’s pretty much worthless for so many that are already struggling day to day and would probably see more energy savings than those who can otherwise afford to keep up with modernizing their home.
I feel like I’ve also seen the same effects of overestimating energy savings that the article brings up. It’s like they’re standard is a home that’s 50+years old and has seen minimal upgrades done in that time. Air sealing and insulation is more impactful if you have an ancient, lower efficiency furnace, than a modern high efficiency one. That goes the other way too in that an old drafty house will see more benefit from a new furnace than a well sealed and insulated one. Really, without these kinds of grants available it’s rare for energy upgrades to actually provide a real return, aside from a handful of relatively cheap/simple ones like air sealing or adding attic insulation.
One program that does really benefit those in need is the one from Sask Energy. It’s free to participate, and rental properties are eligible(with landlord approval). It includes things like a clothes drying rack, sink aerators, LED bulbs and a smart (ecobee lite) thermostat. They also have a newer program that I haven’t really had a chance to look into yet that does things like doors. These are the kinds of programs we really need.
Yep, this is the tricky part. We can’t just roll over and take it because in the long run that just ends up hurting us and they get their way. We have to be careful about our response since they’re going to try spinning whatever we do as making us more responsible for the negative effects of the tariffs then the tariffs themselves. I think the key is targeting the response in a way that hinders the people responsible for this mess, mainly those billionaires that know that they can take advantage of the upcoming chaos to further concentrate their wealth.
Definitely helps if the EU and elsewhere gets in with us on some things. Coordinate on the things that the US really can’t or would be prohibitive to do locally. Raise prices on those resources that Trump keeps saying they don’t need. Charge Hollywood through the nose to film in popular locations, limit access to core technology patents, or ease up on local copyright/patent legislation that tends to benefit American interests.
It’s tough for Canada alone to win an economic fight against the US, but I think it’s in the best interests of most places to get involved because what’s to say the US won’t just keep expanding their reach as long as it works.
I think you still need a minimum wage, probably something in the range of 1/1800th of what the UBI is. Otherwise we end up with UBI essentially subsidizing businesses that would get away with paying arbitrarily low wages. Then you just scale up regular income taxes so people can still see a significant benefit from working those minimum wage jobs compared to the current system where benefits can get clawed back so hard that the difference between working full time min wage and being on benefits is negligible.
Tell that to the people that follow those restrictions. Kosher is one thing that we never really got into at my last job, but the people that don’t eat beef or only eat halal don’t really feel accommodated when you only have vegan options rather than a halal and/or non-beef meat available. The vegan options also aren’t necessarily halal, and the kosher people expect a pretty high standard of cleansing of equipment used on multiple products. Though in all cases there’s people that are more or less demanding when it comes to someone else doing their best to accommodate.
I’m also looking at it from the perspective of University food service where you have students on meal plans where you’ve committed to certain accommodations and providing for their complete nutritional needs. Most restaurants can get away with just not having halal proteins or just not having kosher options at all, but Universities that do dorm style housing with full meal packages have to put fort a little more effort.
Their 60% number is maybe misleading. What it probably means is all their meal items are served separately so if they’re doing a beef roast with roasted potatoes, and steamed veggies, that’s 66% of those offerings are vegan. It’s hard to get a good metric for what that means without also considering things like which vegan options are high in complete proteins, do all meals have good and varied options(if it’s the same vegan soup and salad bar for all three meals that gets old quickly) and if most of the vegan options are essentially side dishes for meat forward dishes or something that stands out as it’s own thing.
Admittedly it can be tough, because there’s so many groups to support. Some need vegan, gluten free, halal, dairy free, no pork, no beef, plus less common allergies. It’s hard to accommodate everything with dishes that are still going to appeal to people that don’t have those restrictions, or significantly increasing costs to accommodate 10% of your customer base.
Yep, like anything it’s hard to get the full story through the media and people seem to latch on to parts of the story while ignoring other parts. I got the impression the farmer was being shady, deliberately using communications that the buyer would reasonably interpret as agreement while intending to dispute the validity of the contract when it went poorly for him.