New posts

Freestyler's posts

1082 posts found

Jan. 23, 2017, 7:27 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
2016 BC Property Assessment

The GFs two year old townhouse has property that was assessed at 3x the building value.
This city is fucked.

fret not. the gov't that assessed that value has also raised the threshold to subsidize it. As along as your under 1.6 million, your good. Oh, if you try to change that or vote for someone who wants to reform the grant so that goes to ppl that ACTUALLY need it she'll lose money. So its best to maintain the status quo… and got $500 for looking the other way on all that jazz.

(but seriously, that IS ridiculous and shitty for her)

Jan. 23, 2017, 7:18 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
Donald Trump... Narcissist in Chief!

^ such a great example of alternative facts.

I'll counter that with the alt-fact that 71% of the world's surface is covered by water and water known to be blue. clearly the earth is majority democratic and Trump doesn't have a mandate to lead the free world.

Jan. 16, 2017, 7:06 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
Dawn of Canadian Trumpism

And it begins.

Kevin O’Leary, Shark Tank host and leading Conservative leadership candidate, floats the idea that Senate seats should be bought.

Jan. 15, 2017, 9:34 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
2016 BC Property Assessment

would a means test just turn it into another form of income tax?

Careful there cowboy. That's a slippery (but a valid) slope.

A means test with a subsidy/grant for those that fall on one side of threshold is not the same as an income tax. Certainly, compared to what we have now, reserving the current scheme could be easily be argued as new form of income tax.

But again, what's the purpose of any type of gov't assistance grant? It's to help those that need it. Otherwise, why not just lower property tax rate across the board? It'd save alot of bureaucracy and effort.

Jan. 15, 2017, 9:26 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
2016 BC Property Assessment

How about US Federal tax code, where you get to deduct mortgage interest against your income and have to pay tax on capital gains over $250k (500k for a couple) on sale of property? Sounds like a way to control speculation, but it didn't seem to make a dent in lead up to 2008. I guess, like Love and Justice, Greed is blind.

Doesn't control speculation below 250k(500k/cpl) cap gains. To me, only encourages it. Their problem wasn't that tho; it was the popping of unregulated high risk mortgage / debt securities that got bundled, pawned off as safe and resold a load of times. Seems like risk compounds the more you sell it. :/

Jan. 15, 2017, 8:54 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
2016 BC Property Assessment

correct me if I'm wrong,but the more people the gov can help get into the market the deeper the taxpayer well gets,no?

Yes, but put this into context.

Property tax revenue (broadly stated and includes property tax as we're talking about it) is forecasted for 16/17 to be only ~26% of income tax revenue and is less than %5 of the total provincial take. (Page 16).

It's not the depth of the well, but the use of the money in it that matters.

(seriously and respectfully with no between the lines shit) Why do you support, or do not support, giving a grant to everyone up to 1.6 mil in house price, regardless of means? This means the same $s go to a WW2 vet on assistance as a family with a take home of [HTML_REMOVED]150k? Should the provincial gov't encourage even more growth (the downpayment grant) even when things are without debate seen as bonkers to the Median 2013 BC family's pre-tax take home of 76k/yr?

For me, I don't support any of it. It's pants-on-head-stupid and irresponsible to me.

I'll circle back and say it again. The Trump election proved it. When 2 groups diverge so much and one doesn't see it or isn't willing to compromise, the other will get to the point that burning it all down makes more sense than fighting for reasonable and perceived changes that the other isn't willing to take.

Jan. 15, 2017, 8:14 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
2016 BC Property Assessment

the home owner is the taxpayer ffs.:stupid: who do you think pays the lions share of taxes in our system anyhow.

Confine this to what we're discussing - the grant and rising property taxes; Do think tax breaks should go to those that can easily afford it? To me, a person who is can afford it, that's greedy and downright irresponsible.

Say there are 1 Mil homeowners, each receiving the full 570. That's 570 Mil.
Now, take that same amount of money, apply a means test to that group and only help the bottom 25% that truly need it. They go from 570 to 2280 from the grant, a possible life changing amount. The rest are stuck with rationalizing a one year's increase of '000,000s in property gains at a net of +1-2k/year. Shucks, seems pretty reasonable to me.

This f'd up market cuts both ways.

Jan. 15, 2017, 6:53 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
2016 BC Property Assessment

I see the HOG opposite to how you guys do. They are putting a premium tax charge on people who own property but don't live in it. But it's way easier to sell the idea of a discount to the majority who live in the home they own than to propose an extra tax to those who don't.

None of you are lining the pockets of principal resident homeowners with your tax dollars. It's the owners of multiple properties who are being charged extra.

So a discount to single home principal resident homeowners is actually a premium tax on those that own multiple homes? Do I have that right?

Under 65? The criteria are clear. Own a principle residence up to 1.6Mil, get 570 from the gov't/taxpayer.

And before you suggest that you are unfairly treated because you get that tax passed onto you as a renter, consider the fact that you have no skin in the game and have taken on zero risk as a renter. I see a number of comments here that between the lines suggest that owning property is a risk free way to easy street. If so you're assuming two things; real estate always goes up, and just because it did the owner's basement filled with cash as a result. Look south for evidence to the contrary to point one.

No-one here is saying any of that; there's no-one saying between the lines that homes are risk free. What is being said is that there no sympathy when youre net worth increases 100-400k from last year and your property taxes go up as a result. Specifically, it's absurd that taxpayers are giving owners $570 with no means test. MSP, EI, Social Assistance/Disability reductions are based on income… what makes property tax reductions so special?

And there's no risk as a renter? That's as hyperbolic as saying the Homeowner's grant is just a premium tax on those multiple properties owners in disguise.

And as far as point two is concerned, consider your own deal and tell me how different your financial situation would be if the value of your piece of shit 45 year old car quadrupled and the insurance, gas and maintenance went way up too. Wouldn't mean shit unless you were to sell it and buy a scooter; the trunk is not full of cash.

I would say that my car is worth x4 more and run the numbers on the new costs relative to those gains. Plus, unlike cars, you can also borrow against those against those gains through leverging.

But i don't live in my car and wont be forced to sell if my income, or lack thereof, couldn't cover the 500-1k increase. And IF that increase really did put me in the position of real hardship where it just consumed, say +20% of my disposable income, I would sure hope that the level of help afforded to me is not the same level of help extended to those there it consumed 2% of someone else's disposable income.

It's a personal choice not to sell, grab the gains and reduce your costs of ownership. But it's not MY choice to support you, without advocating gov't to demand a test to determine whether or not you need taxpayer support. Especially in the face of '000,000s dollars in gains y-o-y.

And don't say property gains are really zero. By that analogy are the value of one's stocks/equity in a business/pension(if youre so lucky) also zero until you sell? No, that's just silly; ppl's net worth isn't wholly based on the the cash in their mattress.

Jan. 14, 2017, 4:40 p.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
2016 BC Property Assessment

so nice of people to automatically think that because a person who has a property worth 1.6Mil that their bank account and income reflects that , that,s fucking ignorant !!

I know lots of single income family blue collar workers sitting in situations like that because they where smart 25yrs back and bought land with a small house in the sticks .

Completely understandable and I would be proud to support tax money into this grant to those that need it. Just put in a some sort of threshold test on this grant (eg: an income test?). That way instead of throwing taxpayer money at those that can easily cover any rises, we can give those grant $s to ppl like you mention and provide give much more help.

^^ cause homeowners aren't paying any taxes. It's all just perks.

Do you think ppl in DemonMike's example are pleased about their tax dollars propping up those that make enough to cover any rise?

Jan. 14, 2017, 6:38 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
2016 BC Property Assessment

So glad you poor poor home owners are getting the property tax break you need. Chin up eh?

fist bump

"your place went up 200k last year and is worth ONLY 1.3 mil? awe, poor muffin, i bet things are hard so here's some taxpayer money for your assessment increase"

Taxpayer grants for ppl with property values up to 1.6mil? Taxpayer funded downpayment schemes? Does anyone here think that subsidizing the country's highest cost property ownership is a responsible use of gov't effort and taxpayer money? Seriously… I just dont get it. What is the logic behind your support in subsidizing such a 'well off' segment of the population?

Sadly I'm starting to see how ppl like Trump get elected now; At some point a situation between two groups becomes so divergent that one group would rather burn the whole thing to the ground to try and instigate a change in just one area… I think BC might be close to this point. And like the Trump election, I bet that more than a few ppl don't understand how that can happen and don't see the small compromises needed ahead of time to avoid it.

Oct. 22, 2016, 6:48 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Asked some associates who happen to be lawyers and showed the pics of the signs. And according to them the signs are written based on Ontario Trespass Laws

Makes sense…
There's been a big deal out east regarding private and public lands access (among others, recall the teenage girl who was clothesline'd with a wire when she was cutting through private land on a atv).

While it doesn't explain why the CMHC operated within a silo, it may explain some of the motivation for the signs.

Oct. 21, 2016, 10:05 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

… I can't really picture someone staying at the Shangri-La for a week and driving to and from the North Shore with their dirty mountain bike everyday to ride our trails.

My experience with BCBR is a good counter to your assumption.

While I dont have the numbers but it always seems to me that 1/2 or more are not from BC each year. Many are internationals that spend 5 to +10k just to attend the wk's race. Specifically, there was one year where a group of baller Mexicans racers stayed around in the area for at least a week after the race to 'recover'. I can assure you they were not staying at shitty places and a couple ended up renting bikes and touring around trails in NV and Whis. But ya, my point is "Fancy Hotels" will cater to this level of guest and certainly deal with their muddy bikes (for a fee of course).

Oct. 2, 2016, 10:25 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
How much do you know about financial independence?

EFT = emotional freedom techniques??

Or ETF = exchange traded fund??

Morning plus lack of coffee = Typos
:P

(but thanks for catching that)

Oct. 2, 2016, 9:23 a.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
How much do you know about financial independence?

Ok now we're talking.

- Any recommendations for the best brokerage firm to set one up?
- Simple as transferring from one TFSA to another?

Adding to Heckler:

Two 'big' ways to do this.
A) Do as you said, and setup with a company. They will assist with everything.
Or
B) Do it yourself.

Details on A)

  • firms will charge you. There's a bunch of terms for this but they all basically take % of your earnings off the top (or in some setups even the remaining principle in the case of loses). Say your investments make 7%, and the fees are 3%, your left with a 4% net.
  • One big term is management expense ratios (MERs), look them up and how they can eat away at an investment. It's a lot over long periods of time.
  • fees range from 0% to +3%. anything over 2% is considered robbery. acceptable MERs are generally around 0.5 to 1.5% range. Lower is always better.
  • firms act in their own interests. This is obvious, but important. They make a living off of you. Fullstop. Everything said to you should be treated with huge skepticism followed by you hitting the google and asking others you trust.
  • The big pro: They are super easy to use. You give them money, they assess how comfortable you are investing, (known as risk tolerance) and then manage it accordingly. Often there is other advice that will come along with these firms for free. Such as an adviser sitting down with you and getting your expenses/finances in a row. This is always good thing to do anyways, but keep the previous point in mind. A financially healthy you means they will benefit as well so use that to your advantage.

Details on B)

  • It's more work but not a lot. For better or worse, you are the one at the helm. You dont have to cram all at the start, but getting involved in this stuff is truly a life skill worth developing over time.
  • With most banks it's a simple online application to setup a TFSA investment account. usually [HTML_REMOVED]24hrs for approvals and shows up as just another online account. Transfer money from chequeing or savings into it and then start buying funds. Usually your bank will have online resources to show you how to do this functionally. otherwise ask questions :)
  • There are tonnes of online guides to help you self manage and plan these things. mrmoneymustache.com and canadiancouchpotato.com are two great ones to start getting into. The CCP links directly to model portfolios.
  • Research something called ETFs. By example: Vanguard ETFs have some of the lowest MERs around and have huge offerings; by definition ETFs are not a single holding of one company, but instead you own units that hold a small % of hundreds or even thousands of individual stocks within. This make them great ways to invest while diversifying and lowering risk without really thinking about it.
  • Once your account is setup, you can buy and sell ETFs as if they were a stock ticker. For simplicity at the start, stick to ETFs that are offered on Canadian exchanges (eg: TSX) as getting into other markets is a deep well of things to consider. (eg: foreign exchanges, with-holding tax etc.)
  • TSFAs should be boring as hell. To offset trading fees, save up a few thousand over however long it takes, then do a bulk buy. Dont try to 'time the market' just pull the trigger. Remember that time horizons are usually decades so no need to twitch out on these things and micro manage.
  • What ETFs should you buy? well there's a lot of info out there. This is where the feelings of self induced overwhelminess can creep in. Everyone want to do the best thing to max their money, but what most dont say is that there are a whole load of ways to be do exactly that that. The links above (and Heckler's) will help, and good setup examples are in the CCP link I gave above. For ME, I broke my ETFs into 4 parts all through ETFs offered on the Canadian exchanges. I bought 1 Canadian only ETF, 1 US only ETF, 1 Developed markets outside of North America (Europe) and 1 Developing countries ETF (China/India etc). I set a goal that portioned out a certain target % that I think is good for each, Say 30, 30, 20, 20 = 100%. this is Just one way to do things. Going 100% US only ETF is perfectly fine too. Sometimes I 're-balance' my portions when I bulk buy. Sometimes I put the buy all into one, sometimes I put it into all 4. Depends on the money I've saved and how 'off' the buy makes my target goal. Like I said, there's no single "right" way of doing things.
  • When I did my first go at this self managing thing I ended up learning a lot more about ETFs in the year after I started. When I had my next chunk of money, I didn't even look at the gains/losses on ETFs I had and sold the whole thing and re-bought the funds I wanted in the proportions I wanted. Excluding the gains/losses, it was a $50 lesson. No big deal. But I'm glad I just jumped in and started and didn't wait for 'the perfect time, with the perfect ETFs' or else nothing would've happened for me.

Whatever you do, don't over worry and dont over think - doing almost anything TFSA or savings related is 90% of the battle. Ignore the ups and downs, check on them whenever you've saved enough to buy again, and ask a lot questions. BAM! You're now doing great!

If that doesn't sound like you, then maybe a firm is the way to go. I first started that way myself - I didn't even know self managing existed. The more I learned tho the more I said "I want to do this myself" and Bam! I don't regret the fees, it was just one step in a long learning process. Either way, welcome to your first step.

Oct. 1, 2016, 1:58 p.m.
Posts: 1,084
Joined: May 29, 2003
Free Trade with China

China really likes our coal, so much that they own most of Teck.

Having 1 of 14 board members that is a China official isn't very scandalous. Especially in the context that they are the top markets for the company.

Also couldn't find any info about current (2016) Chinese ownership on either the TSX or NASDAQ institutional owners lists. Which implies that Chinese state is either a) held privately (very unlikely) or b) doesn't exist in the way you're implying.

What you're probably thinking about is this 2009 announcement of the China Investment Corp getting a 17% stake in Teck, but the CIC's Canadian office closed in ~2015 as a result of sustaining massive losses when over a couple of billion USDs where lost in Canada over the same time period.

1082 posts found

Forum jump: