Canadians 'drowning in debt': 47% will borrow to cover costs, survey says

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I agree. Taking from 'haves' is not necessarily a direct line to making opportunities for 'have nots'. Simply taking assets from the wealthy will not inherently create wealth for the poor. Structural changes need to occur. That is creating better access to housing, education and healthcare. By and large we have accomplished two of these things ( with some major exceptions). Making equitable housing opportunities is the challenge at hand. Truthfully I don't know how to accomplish this. I suppose that simply putting a cap on how much rent can be charged, or how much a property ( that is land within a city or town) is worth would probably #### up the market. That said, it would directly address the issue at hand rather then being punitive without nuance.

Get rid of zoning density laws within 10k of downtowns. No more NIMBYs to development. This would decrease land values of high density zones land. And should Increase the availability of Townhoises and Condos driving down the price.

Caps decrease supply and just lead to a grey market of people selling their leases to each other much like taxicab licenses were. One of the Nordic countries has this problem where their housing program.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by GGG

Get rid of zoning density laws within 10k of downtowns. No more NIMBYs to development. This would decrease land values of high density zones land. And should Increase the availability of Townhoises and Condos driving down the price.

Jesus, I didn't realize how many people on here were closet Communists until I read this thread. Wow.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Jesus, I didn't realize how many people on here were closet Communists until I read this thread. Wow.

This is amusing because I don't think we even have one true Tankie on this forum. It's a wiiiiide spectrum dude.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Jesus, I didn't realize how many people on here were closet Communists until I read this thread. Wow.

You're responding to a post about removing zoning laws. In what way is removing zoning laws communist? It's the exact opposite actually, as it's literally removing a restriction on free market use of land.

Most of the posters here are arguing for measures that increase economic competition. Canada is on the way to the worst of both worlds currently. A ton of socialist style restrictions on mobility and a cementing class system.

[Locke]

What we need is to get serious about Urban Density.

I'm thinking:



Or perhaps...

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Jesus, I didn't realize how many people on here were closet Communists until I read this thread. Wow.

In their defense most of the hard core socialists are pretty open about it on this site.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by blankall

You're responding to a post about removing zoning laws. In what way is removing zoning laws communist? It's the exact opposite actually, as it's literally removing a restriction on free market use of land.

Most of the posters here are arguing for measures that increase economic competition. Canada is on the way to the worst of both worlds currently. A ton of socialist style restrictions on mobility and a cementing class system.

Go easy on him, his name is BigNumbers not BigWords.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

[/B]

It depends on what that $10 million represents. If the person is in an employment situation, he has probably paid $10 million in taxes to end up with it. If it's in a company, the inheritance tax will be on 50% of the deemed sale value at death. And hopefully the company can survive for the benefit of the shareholders and employees.

Hopefully the company can survive after an inheritance tax is applied?

At least the hesitation in your comment implies you have an idea the comment is ridiculous and needs significant revision before being having a chance at being considered seriously. How on earth is the concept of the government taxing companies to the point of bankruptcy a positive thing for the Canadian economy?


I mean, I seriously don't get where some of these comments are coming from unless I literally apply the logic that certain posters have severe misunderstandings on how the Canadian tax system works.

When you die, your assets are taxed via deemed disposition of your entire estate (conceptually, you buy back your own assets at FMV and pay the taxes owing on the gains). There's a deferral for transfers to a spouse, but ultimately, that estate will be taxed.

What some posters are literally suggesting is a serious punitive aspect into the tax system that incurs a significant amount of double and even triple taxation equivalents to high net worth individuals. Out of whatever concept, some of you want to extra two pounds of flesh rather than the fair one pound of flesh. Idiotic concepts like these are the perfect way to watch even more Canadian talent leave the country (which is already happening). If you go beyond that to disallow Canadian talent to leave, then you're not even going to get to the point of developing to bringing talent to Canada.

People hoarding wealth in Canada is awesome and should be encouraged due to trickle down effects. IMO, the issue is not wealth in Canada, but the ability of someone to take wealth out of Canada. If we want to go the punitive route, then put a penalties of high net worth asset transfers/deemed dispositions out of Canada (ie: Over 10MM) and/or significant idle assets in Canada and not on estates full of assets that will remain in Canada. We want to have powerful Canadian entities that can compete worldwide in different markets and bring money from other markets back to Canadian soil. We do not want to implement rules that creates a ton of small fries that would get bowled over by other countries on a consistent basis.


But this tax the rich concept is so beyond the initial topic it's not even funny. High net worth individuals in Canada are not causing others in Canada to get to dangerous levels of debt. Even if you knock these rich Canadians down a peg, the average citizen will look beyond our borders for things to splurge on and will continue that trend of consumption. I think I've long heard others offer sentiments where income tax should be significantly scaled back and tax on consumptive goods other than basic necessities should be increased dramatically. This would be a good idea, but this doesn't solve the debt issue. People who are bad with money and debt loads will continue this trend even if you change other rules. There has to be another way to properly tackle the subject.


Shouldn't we get back on topic about debt loads and tolerances rather than go down the rabbit hole in creating more problems with attempts that wouldn't even remotely close come to helping to solve the issue of Canadians incurring debt to cover costs?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Jesus, I didn't realize how many people on here were closet Communists until I read this thread. Wow.

hang on a second,

Getting rid of central planning and allowing the market to dictate property prices and type is now Communist?

Zoning is the state dictating what you are allowed to build where and restricting what you can do with your property.

[jayswin]

What the heck is going on in here? A guy wants to get rid of zoning density laws, gets called a communist, which then gets thanked by two posters?

[stone hands]

proceeded by a post extolling the virtues of billionaires hoarding finances and to let trickle down do its thing

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by GGG

Get rid of zoning density laws within 10k of downtowns. No more NIMBYs to development. This would decrease land values of high density zones land. And should Increase the availability of Townhoises and Condos driving down the price.

Caps decrease supply and just lead to a grey market of people selling their leases to each other much like taxicab licenses were. One of the Nordic countries has this problem where their housing program.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an issue in Toronto/GTA and Vancouver and relatively a non-issue everywhere else in Canada. Calgary is dealing with a serious issue with oversupply of townhouses and condos over the last 4-5 years. There's no issues with availability right now. You'd be lucky to walk away with only around a 20% loss of value if you had been owning a condo or townhouse in Calgary downtown or inner city since 2015.

Cheaper townhouses and condos aren't necessarily going to change spending habits either. It's 47% of Canadians are borrowing to cover basic costs! If only around 10% of Canadians are below the poverty line (ref below), then I think it's logical to deduce that the majority of that 47% isn't due to crippling debt due to crippling cost of living in a major city.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...90226b-eng.htm

The major issue is that people literally see money in the bank and spend it without considering they have major cost expenses coming up. The more extreme are the ones that see they have unused credit limit and max it out.

IMO this is far less of a government issue than a social issue. It doesn't mean the government can't help, but IMO the government should not be spearheading the solution.

Feel free to disagree with my opinion, but the conversations about consumer spending and financial responsibility were far closer to the topic at hand than any of the government and taxation related conversation that has transpired in this thread.

I'm distilling the whole concept of the initial OP article to Canadians are addicted to consumption and are being graded poorly in their ability to manage debt loads. IMO, the solution to this has everything to do with helping people overcome this addiction, not leave the problem in place and allow it to continue ask more people to carry a heavier load to keep the economy functional.

[rubecube]

It's hilarious to me that capitalists are so defensive of inheritance when it's pretty much the least capitalist thing ever.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by peter12

What?

Originally Posted by puckedoff

I think he is saying that due to market forces, as discretionary income is not used for car purchases/payments by those that live in dense urban areas, more dollars are shifted to other areas such as housing, thus causing an increasing in the price of housing in those areas.

Correct

Originally Posted by peter12

No, it is because downtown areas have enormously revitalized and greater numbers of young people want to live there.

Yes, and demand pushes up price. And price (in this case, percentage of total expenditure) has been able to rise because the lifestyle allows for other expenditure reductions (i.e. vehicles and their associated expenses)

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Torture

Somebody is abusing working from home policies? To me that sounds like a management problem.

No kidding. My productivity is generally much higher when I'm at home because I have ADHD and I struggle with distractions in the layout my office has.

[lambeburger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's hilarious to me that capitalists are so defensive of inheritance when it's pretty much the least capitalist thing ever.

Ah yes, because there is nothing more capitalist than your assets being seized by the government upon death, instead of going to your family who you've been working all your life to provide for.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jayswin

What the heck is going on in here? A guy wants to get rid of zoning density laws, gets called a communist, which then gets thanked by two posters?

I thanked that post because some of these ideas are pretty far left if not outright communist. A social safety net and services provided for citizens is one thing, but wealth redistribution for the sake of evening things out and making sure people are successful, but not too successful is something else entirely.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No kidding. My productivity is generally much higher when I'm at home because I have ADHD and I struggle with distractions in the layout my office has.

Is your home boring??? Need more Xbox’s TVs computers. Dishes to be cleaned. Things to fix. Carpets to vacuum. Oh those are just the things that distract me when I try and work from home haha

[icecube]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

Ah yes, because there is nothing more capitalist than your assets being seized by the government upon death, instead of going to your family who you've been working all your life to provide for.

Are you an 8 figure multimillionaire? If not, you'll be fine.

If you are? I'm sure you'll also be just fine and so will your offspring.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

Ah yes, because there is nothing more capitalist than your assets being seized by the government upon death, instead of going to your family who you've been working all your life to provide for.

Nah, it just exposes the whole notion of capitalism being a meritocracy, where people have equal opportunity as the ridiculous lie that it is; and that luck and which family you're born into play far bigger roles in getting ahead than capitalists are willing to admit.