Canada is going through the same type of censorship, but under the guise of promoting "Canadian content" As if our culture is in danger of disappearing if we cant watch "Canadian" movies and "Canadian" news. The dangerous side is that the gov wants content providers to manipulate their algorithms to promote some deemed "Canadian" content and demote others. Dangerously close to state controlled media with a prettier veneer so it doesnt look like authoritarian play it is. So far there's enough pushback to keep the bill from passing but that doesnt stop the gov from continuing to push.
People generally dont hang out that close to where the flow is active, however during the 2018 flow into Puna, there were a lot of people who got very close to it. Some wore gas masks, like the volcanologists who were taking lava samples but mostly because the fumes are noxious not because of Pele's hair.
Hearing their voice is important. I once matched with a women who looked intriguing, met up for coffee after texting and as soon as she started talking my overwhelming shock was "dear god, she sounds EXACTLY like my ex-wife!" That went nowhere in a hurry.
I don't believe, as an ex-English teacher, that any teacher thinks a student is 'acing' their essay if that's not shown in their other writing.
Little Johnny, with his poor spelling and grammar, does not suddenly turn in an excellent paper with exemplary grammar, spelling and punctuation. So unless they teach computers how to screw up in the exactly the same way that Johnny does every time he writes a sentence, any teacher worth his salt is going to know it's not his work.
As for those with excellent writing skills, well, they have less need to cheat but even they would be sussed out with in class essays and assignments.
> unless they teach computers how to screw up in the exactly the same way that Johnny does every time he writes a sentence
You can ask an image generator for something like "Barack Obama painted by Picasso" and get a passable result, so it's probably possible to augment a writing model to mimic the style of Johnny's past essays.
Not kill. Control. Like Tesla deleting features that the original owner paid for. Like BMW charging a monthly fee to activate features already built into the car. Like UI updates that are automatic and make options worse but you can't stop the updates.
Being harmed is also a concern. I don’t own any other products where a software bug or compromised system has quite the same potential to physically harm me.
But underlying that is the fact that there are no networked features that I personally want my car to have. So however small the risks (of both physical harm and being effected by bizarre networked car dark patterns), they are risks that I would be taking exclusively for the benefit of the manufacturer of the product for which I am supposedly the customer. As long as there is an acceptable alternative to such a product, I will always choose the alternative.
I found the solution to getting hired a long time ago. Be self employed. My boss is a bit of an ogre and he never gives bonuses, but at least I get to sleep with his wife, so that's a plus.
Im one of those 'greedy' old farts who owns more than one home. We have one for ourselves and 5 rentals.
Im starting to agree with those who are feeling priced out of the market. What would make me stop buying homes? A graduated tax would.
If there were no sales tax on the first two, and then 15% tax on the third, 25% tax on the 4th, and going up by 10% for each subsequent house, it would definitely make me quit buying likely by the 3rd or maybe the 4th house. Too expensive after that.
Then that money could go half to the gov, and half to subsidizing first time homeowners by giving them no interest loans for downpayments, or even grants if they qualify at a low enough income. I wouldnt object to that - real estate has been good to me, I think it would be fine if my taxes were helping others to start out.
I agree this is closer to the root of the problem. It's not just foreign capital, or faceless corporate ownership (although both are part of it).
IMO it's that every professional / business / owner / wealthy person in Canada can basically easily borrow against their existing home equity, use that to purchase add'l rental units, and claim the mortgage interest as an expense against the rental income (thereby making the loan "free" of cost, although obviously you're still on for the principle). You have the risk of the housing market crashing, but that hasn't seemed realistic for the past 10+ years or so.
I'm not sure what the solution would be. I hesitate to even call it a "loophole" since to me, from a business POV, it makes sense (the cost of the debt is an expense to be put against the income, so you shouldn't have to pay tax on it).
Then, even if you're just breaking even as a landlord after the interest, property tax, maintenance, vacant times, etc - the underlying asset is appreciating as well.
So there needs to be solutions (like graduated tax on subsequent properties, or perhaps changes to being able to claim your mortgage interest as deductible, etc) to change this underlying dynamic.
Yes, dramatically increasing the supply of housing would be a better fix, but that's not likely to change quickly while economically de-incentivizing the real estate investment I described above would change things.
Your loop-hole doesn't make any sense. Mortgage interest is deducted against income but that doesn't make your loan "free" from cost since the tax rate isn't 100%.
Example:
$1000 in net operating income, $500 in mortgage interest, 25% tax rate
I think what happens is then your wife goes through her 4 houses and then your kids, etc. It's a good idea though. I'd prefer all homes get high taxes and then give a homestead exemption to the one you live in for 6+ months out of the year at a normal tax rate.
Well I have to ask you whether or not you participate in zoning board meetings? Have you actively fought or supported any motions to restrict mixed use development or anything that would bring the "missing middle" to your city?
If you haven't done the following then I don't think you're the problem but a symptom. Sure, we could tax small landlords more over an arbitrary amount of real estate valuation or something but I would suspect that due to how corporate structuring can be handled that it would be mitigated by such things. I think it'll be a complex set of decisions that'll need to be taken before North American cities become economically viable for most folks in the lower income brackets. Until the various benefits are exceeded by the hidden costs of keeping them for multiple take holders, nothing will change.
I'm curious is there not a property tax effect? Here where I live in Illinois I pay property taxes on my home. Where I live it is currently about 4.4% of my home's real value every year. I am able to deduct it from income only for state income tax purposes. There are limitations there that I don't reach based on my income but also I can only do so for a small handful of connected parcels. So in your case you would only be able to deduct for one of your homes. Can you please explain how it works where you live?
Additionally for a home sale in US I have to treat it as income for income tax purposes. In my state there are state, county, and often local transfer taxes as well. Here $1 for every $1000 of sale price to the state and an additional 50c for every $1000 to the county are typical numbers. There are also a number of other fees like recording fees, but those are flat rates.
I pay a ton of property taxes. About 1500 a month but its all deductible against rental income except for my primary dwelling.
And Ill pay a lot in taxes when I sell the rental houses. My primary dwelling is tax exempt for capital gains but the rest are taxed at 50% of the gain.
Eg. If I bought for 300,000 and sold for 400,000 then 50% of the 100,000 is taxable. So if I made 100,000 that year then my new income is 150,000 and that will be taxed at about 36% so Id pay 54,000 in taxes that year instead of 36,000.
Similar to tax avoidance which people tend to loathe, you’re only doing what makes economic sense. So long as it makes sense, it’s hard to criticize or resent someone for making sound investment in their economic well-being.
I do think it’s a problem when a handful of people have 5 houses and far more have none, but I really don’t see the problem as one originating from the people who own 5 houses. It’s a systemic issue.
I’m not sure your tax solution would work well. Like most individually limited purchases, people can simply forward purchases to family members or in some cases subsidiary corporations.
I don’t see a way through this without major reform. As long as housing is a commodity I don’t think we can fix anything.
Would you object to a graduated tax that gets applied to your existing mortgages in addition to an outright ban on new purchases of secondary properties within the metro area? I'd be fine with it.
I don't any reason why we shouldn't do that. It discourages people in your position from hanging on to multiple residences, and it levels the playing field a bit, at least until some equilibrium is reached in which existing and incoming demand approximate the available stock and pace of development.
Stocks aren't as attractive as they used to be, because people seem to be pessimistic about the development of the economy. Stagflation is the word that keeps emerging again and again in conversations of people who never used it two years ago.
At the same time, cash is obviously losing its value.
So the only thing that attracts investment is real estate, which cannot be printed at will, nor can it really "stagnate" as long as certain cities act as a magnet for immigrants, domestic and/or foreign.
Basically, this situation reflects our collective pessimism for the future. If/when people start believing that strong economic growth is around the corner, stocks will soak up some of the money that now flows into bricks and mortar.
The government isn't a for-profit organization, its profits are our profits. We all get to profit off it. If the government makes profit off it, that's just corruption.
This is true for an ideal and perfect bureaucracy. But in practice, some government employees will use bigger budgets to arrogate more power to themselves - bigger projects, more headcount.
Now we do need a degree of bureaucracy, but it’s best to have most of the money circulate in the market where there is pressure to employ it efficiently or lose it.
It's not unreasonable to want to protect your hard-earned money. Inflation forces people to invest in assets. We have reached a point where everything is overpriced (stocks, homes, etc.) and inflation is rampant. So unless you want to have less purchasing power than you did last year, you invest in what you think gives the best return.
Placing the burden on the individual to "do the right thing" is scapegoating in the same way that it's common to ask people to use less energy to fight global warming. Individuals going about their life are not the problem.
" I think it would be fine if my taxes were helping others to start out. "
so that poster was saying having his taxes jacked up to help someone out is 'ok with them', and yet he has the power to help others out already - without the law forcing him/her to do it - he obviously thinks he can afford it, and is in favor of it - but he is not going to do it without the law requiring him to - i.e. he is virtue signaling.
as usual, "someone should do something", once again really means "someone else should do something"
Let's not get carried away here with emotional language. Perhaps you could see it as a giant rock lying on someone's leg and this guy is saying "If others will help, I will lend my strength to lift the rock". He just doesn't want to push the rock by himself alone because it won't work. Rock's too big.
It's not an outlandish sentiment so I don't think it needs all this "disgusting" and "virtue signaling" and "right thing" stuff. It's just "I believe we need group action to have outcomes. I am willing to contribute in such a group".
There are loads of such examples:
- Indiegogo
- Aforementioned Rock
- Kickstarter
There's some minimum activation energy necessary for rock to get off leg and if we cannot accumulate that, it is possible for energy to be spent elsewhere more productively.
Because as I alluded to, that person would fall behind in terms of purchasing power. Allowing your money to erode away is not going to affect the greater good. The incentives (taxes) need to be changed.
Suggesting a change that you think is positive but not acting on it in the meantime is not virtue signaling.
Virtue signaling requires that you say these things only for attention or praise. Your definition is equating a suggestion of change with virtue signaling.
I don't see it as virtue signaling. The opposite almost: doing what you suggest would help one person out (and unfair - how is that person selected?).
As far as helping the bigger problem, it's a drop in the bucket and thus 99% for the feeling of righteousness. Besides, he didn't say his houses were empty or borderline slums. He's using his intelligence, capital, and capacity to take on risk and housing people.
The buyer's realtor is supposed to be working in the buyer's best interest and getting the lowest price possible. In reality it doesn't often work that way, especially when the buyer and seller realtors know each other.
I just bought a house and both realtors ended up being from the same office, and are good friends. Do I honestly think I got the best price? Not likely.
Maybe it’s different in Canada, but in the US (or at least in Massachusetts and New Hampshire) the agent merely must disclose to whom they owe allegiance. In both of my purchase transactions, the agent I worked most consistently with was legally working for the seller. (I was comfortable with that and acted accordingly, having “my” agent submit bids that I was comfortable with, but not treating/trusting them as if they were my lawyer).
You can have an agent working on behalf of the buyer, but my experience is that’s a minority rather than majority arrangement.
Your experience is not the norm, nor is it one I would recommend in most cases. You should find an agent you trust and can work with well to represent you, and they should be the only agent you ever have to speak to.
Dual representation can work out ok in some scenarios, but the hyper-inflated and super competitive market we're in right now isn't one of them.
Even in a situation where your agent is representing only you, they still have a massive incentive to get you to raise your bid so they get 1/4 of the total commission (and their brokerage house gets 1/4 of it). Their incentive is even stronger than that of the listing agent, because when it comes time to choosing a bid, the listing agent and brokerage is getting their commission one way or another and so a 1% difference in final contract price on a $1M house represents a difference of around $150 pre-tax to the listing agent. A difference of 1% that causes that specific buyer to get the house can represent a $15150 pre-tax difference to the buyer's agent.
If you tell "your" agent that you'd like to bid $1M but are able to and would pay up to $1.2M because you really love the house, you're giving away a lot of information that I decided I wasn't willing to give up and so kept all Realtors at arms-length.
Coming from country(Finland) where the buyer does not employ realtor the whole thing of buyer paying someone to get house feels weird. And seller's realtor really doesn't only care about price, but also about the speed they can sell the property, thus spending less time on it.
The buyer doesn't pay the representative. The seller pays for both agents. Having a buyer represented is generally a good thing even if there are problems. It improves access to the market and helps a person in deciding what houses they can realistically get. A big thing for my wife was that she didn't want to see a house we couldn't afford because of how it would alter her expectations and we couldn't figure out on our own which houses were listing enough below ask that we didn't have a chance at them. Our agent helped us filter houses so that we looked at houses we could end up in.
The humanoid robot will arrive right on time. Just as soon as Musk completes the new semi, the new roadster, the Cybertruck, the '25k' Tesla, Full Self Driving and his new battery plants.
