Renegade

The economic switching cost is a different argument than physical intimidation. There are many instances where there are high economic switching costs and it doesn't result in physical intimidation. When I switch mortgages, there are high cost to switch (apprasial, legal). Even when I set up cable, Rogers charged $75.

Neither landlord nor tenant has the right to take law into their hands. This is true for the landlord-tenant relationship but is also true for and vendor-consumer relationship. Since the tenant already has recourse to call the police and use the courts for illegal acts by the landlord such as physical intimidation, it is unnecessary to layer additional recourse through a Landlord Tenant Board.

Yes I have. It doesn't balance the rights equally. Please save the condescension. Besides the issue you raised, how about the fact that: At the eviction hearing a tennant can raise any issue the tenant wants and the Board must hear the evidence. The landlord is not notified prior of the issue the tennant will raise and therefore cannot prepare for it and may not be able to respond to it at the hearing. The landlord will likely need a deferrment in order to respond to the issue leading to additional costs for him and loss of rent. At the next hearing there is nothing preventing the tenant from bringing up a different issue. The cycle can go on endlessly. this is nothing but "trial by ambush" and is unheard of in any other legal process. The landlord can be forced to rent to someone they don't have a contract with. A person claming "spouse" status of the contracted tenant is now included in the definition of tenant. For example, lets say a landlord carefully screens a tenant for a good tenant history. At the end of the term, a "spouse" with bad credit show up and claims to be a tennant under the lease. A tenant can unilaterally leave a premisis at the end of the lease for any reason at all. No such symetrically arrangment is accorded the landlord. He can only termiate the arrangement for a small number of specific reasons. There are more. So when you say the legislation balances the rights of landlords and tenants, it does not seem justified by the actual legislation. You may have a point if the legislation gave the landlords the same rights as any other vendor of a service, but it does not. You may point if it was nothing but a streamlined dispute-resolution mechanism but it is much more. It severely restricts what a landlord can do with his property, the term of a contract he can sign, and who he can sign it with. Exactly. More than that the tenant can destroy the property within that time. There are many business who would not survive the loss of revenue for several months as well as the destruction of their assets, yet you expect that landlords shoud. Of course. This legislation will only encourage landlords to be more risk adverse in picking tenants. If it is easy to evict or terminate a lease, a landlord is more willing to lease to a tenant with marginal credit. If there is a higher cost or is harder to evict the landlord will raise the bar on qualifications. Besides the landlord, the ones who will be hurt are the low-income tenants with marginal credit. I believe it, as I believe landlords need protection from unethical tenants. Again in a free society any vendor should have the ability to sell his good at any price he wishes. A consumer is free to refuse. It is only "illegal rent" because the government says it is. Who says they are not complaining? Did you see the presentaion I linked to? It was created when the legislation was proposed to show that the legislation was not needed and should not be passed.

Your basic argument boils down to that somehow housing is "special". The actions you describe the landlord as being capable of, are illegal, with or without a Landlord-tenant act. Anyone can intimidate another if they are willing to resort to illegal acts. There is recourse through courts and police. I don't see any case in your arguments to support the need for such biased legislation.

My grocer does not have a key. But what does the key have to do with the ability to weild phyiscal threats? The landlord is powerless to use the key without breaking the law. Your car dealer also has the key to your car. Your banker also has the key to your account. Do they also have the ability to physically intimidate you? Sure. No problem.

Since kids seem willing to pay mom to stay home, but no one else is, maybe the solution is to loan kids the money to pay mom and have them repay the loan (with interest) once they are working. Only problems are: 1. Kids are too young to understand or accept a loan. 2. It is a risky proposition to loan to any individual who does not have a financal history, so the interest rate would need to be substantial in order to make it viable.

They do. (Assuming a stay-at-home dad) Check out the wizard: What is Dad's Work Worth?

Why is it that your landlord has the power to physically intimidate you whereas your grocer does not?

I think you missed the part where I said: "If the act was not in place"

The landlord has two months rent only at the start of the month, by the end of the month it is only one month's buffer. Let's say the landlord does start proceeding 14 days after a missed payment, assuming the tenant has put up a months deposit, that gives the landlord only 16 days before the tenant's money runs out. It is highly unlikely under the new legislation that he will get the tenant evicted in 16days. The tenant has the power to drag this out for much longer. At least the farmer can stop delivery of further goods, a power denied to the landlord.

You could live wiothout a phone in a second, but to be put on the street in January could kill. So you have the luxury of time with Bell.... Actually I was referring to you example of the blocked pipe. While urgent it wasn't life-threatening. Replace "Bell" with "Enbridge" or whomever is your favourite supplier of an "essential" service. --------------------- IMO, if you to protect an essential service, fine, but both sides need to be protected, not just the consumer. For example a tenant is required to put up last month's rent up front. IMV, that one month should be the entire buffer the tenant has. If he is more than a month late in the rent, the landlord shoudl have the power to reoccupy the premisis without notice.

Reducting the interest rate from 6% was one of the few things which made sense in this legislation. Well the legislation goes far beyond the quality of the product offered. Even farmers aren't compelled to deliver their goods when their supplier doesn't pay them.

If the act was not in place, what woudl a tennat do? He could move. He could have the furnace fixed and sue the lanlord for the amount. He could withold rent until it was fixed. More likely he would fix it and withold that amount in rent and force the landlord to sue him. How is it you think a tennat doesn't have that power anyway? But is this any different than if Bell sent you a $800 phone bill for calls you didnt make. What woudl be your recourse if they did and threatned to cancel your service if you didn't pay?

One of the jobs the mom's reported was "day care center teacher" Since they only reported that role for 15.7 hours, who the heck was caring for the kids the rest of the time?

The system works for everything else, why not housing? It really doesn't take much sophstication to decide that if I don't like what my landlord offers, I move or renegotiate. Mobsters have leverage in that they have the power to use physical violence. No landlord I know has that power. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by operating like mobsters. Brace yourself. It just got harder to evict someone.

Effective Jan 31, 2007 Ontario has introduced new legislation the Residential Tenancies Act which replaced the Tenant Protection Act. This legislation was unnecessary and more over unfairly penalizes and restricts the ability of landlords. This legislation was brought to pander for votes and evidence that it was not necessary is presented here: Comparing TPA to Previous Regimes April 2006 v2 As a supplier of a commodity in a competitive market, why is it even necessary to legisate landlords? How many other suppliers are compelled to continue to supply the customer even when the customer doesn't pay the bill? Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.pdf

I'm sure you are right. It may even pay the best of the professions listed when comparing the hourly rate. Of course this all depends upon the frequency and nature of the special serivices provided and of course whether the other spouse claims exclusive access to those services. Ahem. this thread is going where no thread shoudl go.

You aren't kidding. Among the ridiculious conclusions you can draw from this article is that if a working mother is earning less than 50,000 (US) she is actually being less productive in "earning" than a stay at home mom.

I'm very familiar with it. But I don't understand your objection. If you truly believe incomes should be taxed as aggregated family income, why should two families, one with two spouses, and the oher with a single-custodial parent and one child, be taxed any differently if they have the same aggregate income?

Not sure, but I believe that it is based upon what the mom self-assesses here role to be. Apparently moms think they provide the same level of service as a psychologist and CEO.

Anyone see this? WHAT IS A MOM WORTH? It seems to me a huge stretch to assign the equivlent work of a stay-at-home mom to that of psychologist among other positions. In addition, is not the value of one's work worth exactly what someone would be willing to pay? Would anyone pay $134,121 to a stay-at-home mom?

Something else occured to me. Prior to 1997, when a couple divorced, court-ordered support payments were deductable from the contributor, and taxable to the reciepient, effectively splitting income between the couple. Since 1997 the payments have not been deductable but have been awarded at a level which assumes they will be taxable by the contibutor. According to your theory, liability still exist between the higher-earning spouse and the lower, so they should be allowed to split income for tax purposes. Does that mean as per the proposal all of the support arrangements awarded since 1997 should be reviewed and revised to assume income-splitting?

True, but does being head of the household have anything to do with ownership of pooled wealth? Yes it does, just as once whites had special status in society and men had special status in society. Giving it special status seems to be a code word for finding a way to discrimminate against those who don't agree or adopt that particular societal structure. This is precisely why I object to the income-splitting proposal as proposed by Garth. OK I get it. It is just your theory but it is not mine. My theory says that you cannot assume income pooling exist in a social structure, but that you have to look at each structure to determine if a pooling arrangement is in place. Take a commune social structure. I think your theory falls apart here. In this case there is pooling of income, but according to your definintion, no financial liability.

I dispute that liability is the basis or justification for pooled income. The most common scenario for persons pooling income is when they have shared costs. Two spouses is the most common example, but it is not the only one. You have cited the example of when spouses separate, that the higher-income spouse has a financial obligation to share income and wealth with the other spouse. You have also said that parents have a finiancial obligations to support kids. How is it then when kids move away from home, that they should not expect to take their share of accumulated family wealth with them?? Again, please show me some evidience that the Finance Dept/CRA uses liability as the basis for determining whether income is considered pooled or not.

I accept that is the current definition. Any definiton is subject to change. It has been changed before as the Finance Dept has come to accept societal norms (eg same-sex spouses). Typically the government definitions have been behind society's ever-changing structure Yes I recognize that they define it that way. OK, but is your point really for me to agree how some government organization defines "family"? You have yourself stated that the govenment pick and chooses to suit its own benefit. I see its definition of "family" as simply another example of a policy designed to pick and choose who will benefit and who will not. Again, yes I agree that the government defines family in a narrow and restrictive way. I never disputed that. Potental changes are just that - "potential". The one proposing them is Garth. I am free to advocate a more inclusive set of tax-changes in which the beneifts will flow to more than just the traditional family structure. Unless you are the Prime Minister or Minister of Finance or have inside information on future bugets, I'm not sure how you can definatively say that future changes "will only involve spouses". -------------------------------- If I understand this proposal, it is not even really a proposal to tax family income. It is a backdoor way of having one income being offset by TWO-deductions (ie one for each spouse). IMV, if you want to tax family income as a single income, fine, but it should be offset with a single (abliet larger) family deduction in order to be fair to all families. Moreover all family types shoudl be entitled to the same level of deduction and tax tiers.