- 0 Posts
- 53 Comments
Yep, in Sask right now natural gas is about 1/7 the cost of electricity, which means at best a heat pump only costs about 2x as much to run as a modern gas furnace. Maybe as our grid transitions to renewables and carbon prices rise those costs will become even or shift towards benefiting heat pumps, but I suspect at this point you’re not going to hit break even over the typical life of a heat pump. Much more affordable to stick with gas for now, and maybe start moving to heat pumps 10 years from now. Same argument for water heaters, gas is going to be cheaper than a heat pump for most cases. Maybe new builds lean towards a heat pump because it doesn’t need venting which minimizes HVAC needs, and/or if a person has a solar system that minimizes their electricity costs.
There’s also methods to potentially shelter some of that too. If a person has RRSP room and doesn’t actually need the whole amount available you can use that to delay paying the tax and hopefully reduce the rate paid. You can also make some investments within a TFSA, which means no taxes owed on the growth. Both of those options have caps on contributions so they’re a great for low-moderate income earners to minimize their taxes, while higher income earners can only shelter a portion of their income.
That’s the argument, but it doesn’t really hold water to me. That would lead to an environment where those with little capital get taxed on their entire income, making it hard to save more capital. Those that already have lots of capital could then leverage that capital to generate a tax-free(or limited tax) income, which seems like exactly what we’re trying to avoid. We do have TFSAs which do allow us to grow our assets tax free, and they’re limited to prevent those with excessive capital from dodging their entire tax burden.
To some extent, you might want it the other way around, those providing labour and covering basic living expenses should pay limited taxes(which is kind of how things work now when you consider the basic exemptions, GST rebates, child tax benefits, etc.) while those who have essentially a passive income should pay a higher rate. The argument for the current capital gains taxation is that you want to encourage people to invest in things like a business that grows the economy, rather than purely financial vehicles like bonds and loans that mostly just concentrate wealth without contributing to a healthy economy.
I like the cut of your jib. Some of the most vocal complaints are things like someone holding a cabin or other piece of land for an extended time, and then having to claim the gains in a single year. Especially in cases like an inherited cabin that’s held for 30 years then passed to next of kin so a particular owner never actually paid or was paid for the property, but probably did spend as much on maintenance over that time as their assessed gains. Spreading those gains across multiple tax years that have already been assessed would seem fair(letting them claim the gains at a lower marginal rate by spreading it over multiple years) though administratively difficult. I would also like the idea of putting in a lifetime exemption around the $250 k range which would make a big difference for those who might only ever pay capital gains due to that one property, but not really affect those who make most of their income as capital gains.
Am I reading this right in that it’s a percentage of homes (dwellings) occupied by the owner compared to the percentage of people that own their home? Like if you have a family of 4 in a house and they rent out a (legal) basement suite to two individual renters, is that counted as one owner-occupied dwelling out of two dwellings on the property; (50% homeowner occupied or 100% homeowner occupied. Compared again to say having 6 people, of which one or two(is that family of 4 a couple or single parent) are homeowners.
On the other hand, providing capital increases the value of the labour applied. Giving a tradesperson and additional capital might mean they can afford better tools that allow them to work more quickly, accomplish more per hour of labour and therefore be able to charge more for that hour while the customer simultaneously pays less for the task being done. The tradesperson is then able to pay back that capital plus some gains for the person providing the capital. Everybody wins, the investor gets more money than they started with, the tradesperson earns more after paying back the investment than if they hadn’t taken it in the first place, and the customer gets a lower rate for the tasks that need to be performed.
The problem is when we let that scale up to the point of there being people with essentially endless funds to spend on things like mega-yachts and ridiculous mansions, while others aren’t even getting their basic needs met. The answer to me isn’t removing the benefits of capital income at all, but adding some progressive taxation to keep the net income more modest, and maybe some stronger/target employment regulation so the capital holders aren’t getting rich off labour that’s supported by government social programs.
This is my answer to pretty much everything. Create a consistent baseline both in terms of consumer services/pricing and for employee work environment/compensation. Then let private industry compete with that crown corp. perfect example, the state of telecommunication services in Sask. Sasktel offers cell, internet and cable TV services while private companies compete along side them. The private companies have to actually be competitive(or at least convince customers that they are) with Sasktel if they want to capture any significant market share. They’re also competing with Sasktel to hire employees into similar roles, so they have to provide competitive wages and work environments. Prices in Sask tend to be lower than elsewhere due to Sasktel’s presence.
I don’t see what we wouldn’t have similar results in other industries, as long as the government actually allows it to happen and doesn’t just sell off the crowns to create a short term budget surplus or reward their buddies in competing private industries.
Most are in my experience. Permanent position really just means there’s no pre-arranged end date for the position as opposed to say covering a maternity leave where you’ve been specifically given that position for just until the permanent employee comes back. Unless otherwise negotiated any permanent employee can be let go with 2 weeks(depending on provincial regulations) notice.
Maybe $300/month, or $3600/year for groceries. Maybe another $200/year each for prescriptions, alcohol, and general housewares to cover the non-grocery items. $150 profit on $4200 of revenue would be about 4% margin. Doesn’t seem that high to me but I also don’t really know how that compares to other businesses in the same market.
I think the biggest one is some departments already have a GPS tracker type thing that’s launchable from a squad car. Then it’s just a matter of deciding if the risk of engaging in the chase is higher or lower than the risk of the suspect escaping. It’s also worth considering that never engaging in a chase makes it simple for people to avoid arrest simply by driving away, so there has to be some expectation in a suspects mind that it might not be worth running.
Hmm, hard to quantify since I’m not sure how much of the population does a significant portion of grocery and other shopping at Loblaws, but in that context it doesn’t seem so bad. If we taxed those profits completely that only puts an extra $50 in everybody’s pocket each year, which doesn’t seem like it’d really have a large financial impact on many households.
Is there anywhere one can get more context in this? Seems to me like Superstore tends to be one of the more affordable options, so how do we reconcile that with them taking excessive profits? Are they doing enough volume compared to the competition that they’re that far ahead in economy of scale, have they been able to convince their staff to accept significantly lower compensation compared to the competition? Is this just people’s dissatisfaction being pointed at the biggest player even though the whole market follows the same trend?
I’m not that knowledgeable about finance and economics, but I feel like the flight thing is overblown. If it’s a company based in Canada making profits outside of Canada, bringing those profits back and deciding to leave then that would be a loss. If it’s a company based in Canada and making profits in Canada and they decide to leave, either we can still tax a cut of their business before it leaves the country or some Canadian alternative can fill the gap. Of course this all assumes there’s somewhere else to go that’s more favourable, and I don’t see a 16% increase in the inclusion rate tipping that scale for a large portion of businesses.
Maybe we should reconsider the environment we provide that would both make that increase significant enough to have a business leave for somewhere else, and also that it’s cheap enough to modify operations that way. Are all the staff going to come too, or is this just some Hollywood accounting that offshores assets with no real change in operations.
Sask Apprenticeship and Trade Certification Commission has a similar policy of no electronic devices in the classroom. They can be outside the classroom during breaks(of which there are many). You’re allowed to have them on you, and leave class to take or make a call if you consider it important enough, just can’t have them out in the classroom. While it would have been nice sometimes to have access to network connected devices to supplement the classes, I can also understand the arguments around privacy, and distraction particularly among children/teens.
Couldn’t read the paywalled article, but most of the commentary on social media seems to be people that completely misunderstand how their taxes on capital gains are calculated, like thinking the inclusion rate is how much tax is paid, or think that paying capital gains on a secondary property is a new thing. Really it’s paying around 8% more in taxes on the gain over $250k. Some think they’re getting taxed on the whole sale price, not just the increased value, some seem upset that they’re taxed on the “investment” that was bought with after tax dollars(even though capital gains is taxed lower than things like a regular investment account). Some think it’s somehow unfair to pay the capital gains on what they consider their retirement plan, even though they have the same option to put those gains into an RRSP to shelter it from taxes, they’re paying a lower inclusion rate than regular income.
One thing that seemed to come out that didn’t change much and seems a big deal to some, is if you want to pass the property to next of kin, make sure your estate is sitting on 25% of the increased value of the property to cover capital gains, or use a trust and pay the gains up front(though this just puts it off so the kids pay more gains to pass it to their kids) before it hits the estate.
Agreed. I’m all for accepting and learning from other cultures. I’m not for propping up low wage employers with immigration, particularly when it involves exploitation in ways that the locals refuse to put up with. We’re reaching a point where the boomers are retiring and there’s not as many gen A/Z to fill those vacated positions. Let those low wage jobs sit unfilled until they can find a way to do business while paying decent wages and providing good working conditions. Or go ahead and let the entry level jobs get automated while the actual well paying ones compete for workers.
Considering the median individual income in Canada is close to $45k, that’s a good point. Maybe there’s an argument that seniors have additional living expenses with healthcare or living in an assisted living or full-time care facility, but I feel like it should then be a lower OAS clawback with supports available for those with particularly high expenses.
Some good points, putting a cap on the primary residence excemption seems more in spirit with the idea of wealth redistribution than simply removing it all together. We could also consider something like letting people claim their capital gains over multiple years which would lower the tax paid on those of lower income while it wouldn’t change anything for those that are consistently earning in the highest tax bracket.
Green space is tough because there’s definite benefits to urban green space. Like moderating urban temperatures, minimizing run-off of precipitation and its effect on the storm sewer system, providing habitat for native species(even if the green space isn’t completely native). Though that green space is probably more efficient if it’s managed by the municipality around denser housing rather than each individual homeowner.
I’m not so sure about the difference between adding units within existing square footage vs adding square footage. I think part of the problem is availability of reasonable quality housing within the budget of minimum wage earners. Having, smaller units available seems more cost effective in this context than larger ones. I think it’s particularly good for more people to be able to afford a smaller unit on their own rather than a splitting of a larger unit between roommates.
It’s a start, and keep in mind their value is based on global operations, but it’s only reasonable for Canada to charge tax on the Canadian portion of the business. We account for about half a percent of the world population, so if everybody else has a similar rule and proportional spending it would work out close to $300 billion per year.
This is the most important part to me. Aside from a handful of fringe cases, this targets exactly the group that many have asked to be taxed higher. Majority of people complaining seem to completely misunderstand how the tax system works and what exemptions apply. In most cases it seems like the changes don’t actually affect the things that people are worried about, or the actual difference is much lower. For example, many are worried about paying tax on the sale of their homes(primary residence exemption), their parents homes(only capital gains on period between transfer of ownership and sale, not all the way back to the parents’ original purchase price), they think the tax rate is 50/66%(that’s the amount of the gain that is considered income and taxes at the marginal rate) or they don’t understand that capital gains tax was already a thing and the actual difference is an additional 16% claimed for amounts over $250k, which means the actual difference in tax paid under the old and new systems is just a few percentage points unless the gains are significantly over $250k.
No capital gains on principal residence. It would only come up on things like rental properties, cabins, or any other second property.
There’s also things like of a person has RRSP room and ends up in the edge case where this comes up just once or a few times in their life, they can use that to hold off the income tax until they can claim it at a lower tax bracket. If one isn’t put over by a single sale, (say selling multiple rental properties at retirement) they could spread those sales over multiple years to maximize that first $250k rate.
I feel like this is just the effect of a new and growing industry. Gas stations are free to set their own pricing, but if it’s more than a few cents off the next nearest place they won’t get any sales. Reliability is also only an issue if there’s few stations, if there’s a station on every block, like we have gas stations now, then people will just go to the next nearest station, which gives companies a pretty good incentive to keep the chargers working.
I’m also okay with allowing different charging structures, but again I think that settles itself when availability increases. If charging per joule is cheaper for the consumer than charging per minute then that’s the station they’ll choose. Really, we just need to make sure it doesn’t end up an oligarchy like the cell networks where everybody just colludes to keep prices and margins high. Or put in some high marginal corporate tax rates to disincentivize those large margins.
I think that guy at the end has the right idea. If the employer wants proof of illness they should be required to pay for it. During the height of COVID in Sask, an group of healthcare providers published a generic note that said something like “it’s a pandemic, we don’t have time to create individual notes so this is our official recommendation that your employee stay home if they don’t feel well”. My last employer, we wouldn’t normally ask for a note, unless we noticed an issue or pattern(things like calling out monthly, or consistently calling out the first/last day of their week, etc.). Usually that involved a referral to a third party claim management company with the requirement that they consult with a doctor who determines if they’re fit for work, require accommodations, or are simply unfit to work. We should also expand protections relating to sick time to other emergencies like loss of childcare, failure of an essential appliance, etc…
Maybe it just changes the kinds of crimes committed and/or the reporting of those crimes. I came from a small town about 30 min from the nearest station. Police would maybe drive through for a couple hours every weekend or two, or when there was an actual call for them. There was a lot of drunk driving, stunting, petty vandalism and similar crime because for the most part people knew there wasn’t police around. You ado got occasional situations like someone from another area coming to the town and breaking into many sheds, or a business because they know the police response time is going to be so long there’s little risk of getting caught.
On the other hand, it was also the kind of place where people would mostly leave doors unlocked, leave things outside in an in-fenced yard, and similar things because those kinds of crime tend not to happen. In an urban setting it’s the kind of crime that people would commit in a neighbourhood distant from their own, but in a small town it’s all essentially the same neighbourhood, so it looks pretty suspicious if your new BBQ shows up the day after someone else’s gets stolen.
The thing to be careful about here is it only spans about 10 years, and it’s based on reported crime rates. That means you get somewhat skewed results because lots of people don’t bother reporting minor crimes thinking nothings going to happen anyway. You may not ever hear back about that police report for your stolen bike, but decisions do get made based on the aggregated reports. You also get things like they make targeted enforcement effort, maybe in a rough neighbourhood, or targeting a specific type of crime that seems to be on the rise and you see the reported crime rate rise because of that effort. We would also expect it to be a lagging metric, an increase in budget doesn’t always mean immediate results. It takes time to decide where to use that increase in funding, maybe time to source new equipment and train officers on its use, maybe they’re able to hire more officers but there’s a training period before you see the results of increased staffing. If budgets aren’t committed ahead of time the department might be conservative about spending on things like increasing the workforce that creates and ongoing cost vs programs that can be rolled back if the budget falls, or capital expenditures that provide value beyond the initial cost.
Cost is also a factor. A modern natural gas furnace is 90+% efficient and even an older one is going to be above 50%. When natural gas is 1/7 the cost of electricity that 50% efficiency is still 1/3 the cost. There’s an argument for using a space heater to heat just the occupied portion of the home, but at 3-6 times the cost of gas ones often just as far ahead to keep the furnace going. On that note, even if the heat pump gets a COP of 3 like your example, that’s still twice the cost of gas for the amount of heat put in the house and 3+ times the cost to install a proper ground loop and heat pump vs a gas furnace.
I suspect part of the issue though is shitty rental units that don’t give the tenant control of their heat and/or the landlord pays gas but passes off electricity on the tenant. Also. If it’s a poorly done build you can get things like the HVAC not being designed to match the floor plan, so you end up with some rooms being cooler and people supplement with electric heat.
It’s a shitty game. The worst part to me is that there’s a whole culture of avoiding credit card debt(which is good), that cut out credit cards altogether and many are never even aware that they’re leaving those rewards on the table let alone the other benefits (fraud protection, extended warranties, price protection, etc.) that are commonly available for credit card purchases.
I think the fee structure could be better, and that would change a lot. In many ways, the merchant fees are worthwhile as the transactions are easier to process than cash, there’s merchant side protections from fraud, it reduces crime(businesses having less cash on hand), etc… The issues are that pricing is negotiable so companies that do the biggest volume pay the lowest fees, its percentage based which hurts companies that tend to have higher transaction values, and bigger companies get more benefit from being able to track customers by their card.
This is entirely regional though. The further you are from the equator, the more seasonal variation there is in sunlight levels, and heating/cooling loads. Around here our solar production is minimized during the season when our energy needs are maximized. We also don’t have variable rate billing, though we only get partial credit for excess generation, so battery storage will never pay for itself until something changes.
My utility gives a 50% credit on excess generation. Thing there is the utility is still the one taking responsibility for having the capacity and scalability to respond to variation in demand and production. When I was getting quotes, adding storage would have doubled the cost of the system for a day or two worth of storage. Probably would cost double again to have a system that would keep up through the winter.
Something kind of unique about UnRaid is the JBOD plus parity array. With this you can keep most disks spun down while only the actively read/written disks need to be spun up. Combine with an SSD cache for your dockers/databases/recent data and UnRaid will put a lot less hours(heat, vibration) on your disks than any raid equivalent system that requires the whole array to be spun up for any disk activity. Performance won’t be as high as comparably sized RAID type arrays, but as bulk network storage for backups, media libraries, etc. it’s still plenty fast enough.
While I think what you say is accurate, I think the main issue here isn’t just the housing crisis being manifested, it’s the part you hinted at where our economy is so dependent on non-essential spending to keep it running. On one hand you have people overspending and going into debt to have new vehicles, RV’s, McMansions, and we have people complaining that this rampant consumerism is killing the environment because people keep spending on single-use items, or trashing otherwise serviceable items to keep up with the Jones’s. On the other hand, if that consumerism goes away, people pay off their debts and don’t buy all the new toys, then the economy and those of us in the working class section of that economy, struggle.
Not just personal, but work/community. We had a year at my work with just a handful of staff cases, then got smacked last April with about 25% of our staff all testing positive over a week or two, plus a few not-COVID sick calls. After about 5 cases in 2 days most people masked up again until the sick calls stopped.
“Save the Children” has been considered the cry of people that can’t put forth a reasonable argument for the thing they want for decades. Right up there with the people that like exclaiming “muh rights” and then either complain about something that’s never been a right, or immediately following up by trying to remove other people’s rights. I feel like using “save the children”(or similar variations) is a pretty good indication that I’m not going to agree with most of what follows.
Definitely a good idea to reduce plastic waste, but I think that putting too much emphasis on grocery packaging can miss the mark. For things like food, it is important to be able to have things sealed for freshness or food safety. The unnecessary waste in my mind comes more from things like packaging of other products, like showy retail clamshell packaging that’s significantly larger than the item being sold, or that only exists as a marketing gimmick to make things look good on retail shelves.
A good model is some things from Amazon that just gets shipped in plain cardboard because that’s more recyclable/renewable than plastic. I also feel that the efficiency of having large warehouses, even when the items are shipped individually is better than having to have a whole retail supply chain that involves creating an appealing retail space. Especially if someone is making a trip in a vehicle to pick up just a couple retail items. Another good example is something like the Lee Valley model where many items don’t have significant packaging at all, and they use a smaller show-room style retail space supplemented by more efficient warehousing storage in the back. Lee Valley even has a program to collect and re-use shipping boxes so they can be directly used multiple time before getting put through a recycling process.
In a lot of ways, it’s up to the consumer to make buying choices based on the sustainable practices of the business they choose to frequent. Just blaming the business for the waste created by the service that their customers choose to use is just kicking the can down the road. If we chose to shop at businesses with sustainable practices or buy products with more sustainable packaging it would create a clear financial incentive for other businesses to follow suit.
What are the gas and electricity rates in your area? In Sask, we’re paying about $0.16/kWh for electricity and about $6.40/GJ. There’s about 278 kWh in a GJ, so the electricity cost works out to about $44/GJ, or about 7 times the cost of gas. A good coefficient of performance for a heat pump seems to be about 3, and modern gas furnaces are easily above 90% efficiency so the actual cost difference for gas to electric heat is about 1:3.
Now, newer houses are better insulated, so your heating load on a 2012 build is going to be a lot lower than a 1977 build. You also didn’t mention your heat source. Ground source pumps are pretty good efficiency year round, but cost a lot for the initial install, while air-source pumps have a large seasonal variation in their efficiency, which is particularly troublesome in central/northern Canadian climates.