Which tax would you eliminate?

[msj]

msj, who can exploit this loophole? As it is, I think you're pushing the envelope.

And as I pointed out in a different thread a long time ago (where I even pointed out the legal ruling supporting the use of employee profit sharing plans for self-employed employees) it is perfectly legal.

Even if that is too aggressive it is perfectly legal to be self-employed within your own company and to pay yourself dividends rather than wages (and, since dividends do not attract CPP, one does not pay into CPP and, of course, doesn't get much or any CPP when he turns 60/65).

These are pretty basic tax principles here.

Did I misrepresent your viewpoint? If so, I apologize.

Yeah, right.

That's an interesting idea.

Most social welfare schemes amount to helping people who make bad decisions in life. And without a doubt, some people are incapable of planning and preparing for the future. For them, the CPP/RRQ/OAP/GAINS is a Godsend. Without it, they would be impoverished and have to rely on, well, what? Some other social welfare scheme, no doubt.

And that's the question, msj. Would this "other social welfare scheme" be less costly to society than what we have now?

At present, we force people who make good decisions and can manage their affairs into a scheme designed to help people who cannot. I think society is better served when we let people, capable of deciding for themselves, decide what is best.

Given that you can't comprehend simple concepts about avoiding CPP if one wants to I seriously doubt you are capable of considering cost/benefits of other social welfare schemes.

Your post above (even your description of me as a "jerk") makes my point better than I can.

Still misrepresenting like the jerk that you are....

Edited February 15, 2010 by msj

[Jerry J. Fortin]

As usual, those who fail to understand make up nonsense.

Paying into CPP, for most people, is a good thing since for many people, this is their only form of savings for retirement for a far too large portion of their working lives.

CPP is such a good deal when one considers the alternatives (paying out dividends or the costs of running an employee profit sharing plan) that for most self-employed people, the choice to pay into CPP or not usually favours paying into the system for many years.

If people weren't "forced" into saving something for their retirement through CPP we would end up with many more poor seniors living off OAS, GIS and welfare and that would cost all of society to pay more in income taxes anyway.

I doubt the opponents of CPP factor that kind of reality into their considerations.

In fact, I think the reason why there are so few opponents of the CPP system is because most of us do recognize good policy when we see it and will prefer the practical application of policy to deal with reality rather than the theoretical application of policy for the sake of theory.

IOW, the average Joe is better off in practice with the CPP than the alternative where there are no CPP premiums, income tax rates are higher, and far too many Joe's can look forward to living off of welfare (which is funded from an ever shrinking base of taxpayers) rather than CPP which has been funded through prudent planning and investing.

Make up nonsense? Really, just what part about the quote did you fail to understand? The tax system favours those with sufficient disposable income to utilize the available deductions. I am not talking about the top 5% or the bottom 5% of all Canadians but instead the average Canadian. That is 90% of all of us and in fact represents as much as 70% of all taxes paid to the government. Tax deductions are stacked in favour of the more affluent in society and that is a fact. Prove me wrong on that please. I am not saying there are no available deductions for most of us or that very few benefit from those deductions but I am saying Canadians earning over 100K a year have a lot of opportunities with respect to the tax system.

[msj]

Make up nonsense? Really, just what part about the quote did you fail to understand? The tax system favours those with sufficient disposable income to utilize the available deductions. I am not talking about the top 5% or the bottom 5% of all Canadians but instead the average Canadian. That is 90% of all of us and in fact represents as much as 70% of all taxes paid to the government. Tax deductions are stacked in favour of the more affluent in society and that is a fact. Prove me wrong on that please. I am not saying there are no available deductions for most of us or that very few benefit from those deductions but I am saying Canadians earning over 100K a year have a lot of opportunities with respect to the tax system.

It's exactly nonsense like this.

What you don't understand is that Canada does have a progressive tax system.

It is a joke to talk how a person who makes, say, $100,000 and pays $25,030 in income tax is favoured by the system when the person making $40,000 is paying less than $5,5000 in income tax.

Even with a $20,000 RRSP contribution, that $100,000 earner is still paying $17,460 in taxes now and deferring the difference (i.e. will pay the tax later).

It is those people making $100,000+ per year who are paying the majority of taxes despite all those deductions.

You really think the person making $100,000+ per year is getting much, if any, of the tax free child tax benefit? Are they getting the gst/hst tax credit?

Nope.

They are better off because they make more money despite paying more taxes (income, property, consumption) than people who earn less.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's exactly nonsense like this.

What you don't understand is that Canada does have a progressive tax system.

It is a joke to talk how a person who makes, say, $100,000 and pays $25,030 in income tax is favoured by the system when the person making $40,000 is paying less than $5,5000 in income tax.

Even with a $20,000 RRSP contribution, that $100,000 earner is still paying $17,460 in taxes now and deferring the difference (i.e. will pay the tax later).

It is those people making $100,000+ per year who are paying the majority of taxes despite all those deductions.

You really think the person making $100,000+ per year is getting much, if any, of the tax free child tax benefit? Are they getting the gst/hst tax credit?

Nope.

They are better off because they make more money despite paying more taxes (income, property, consumption) than people who earn less.

Good solid points! However the reality is that if you are paying a lot of tax, you have have a lot of income. We are not talking about benefits but instead about deductions. RRSP's are the tip of the iceberg, there are RESP's and dozens of other programs. Those programs require available disposable income to be able to participate in them. That is the kind of stuff I am talking about. You are trying to mix apples and oranges to muddy the water. The point is that the tax system favours those with greater incomes. I didn't say they paid less tax, I did say they had the opportunity to realize greater benefit.

[msj]

Good solid points! However the reality is that if you are paying a lot of tax, you have have a lot of income. We are not talking about benefits but instead about deductions. RRSP's are the tip of the iceberg, there are RESP's and dozens of other programs. Those programs require available disposable income to be able to participate in them. That is the kind of stuff I am talking about. You are trying to mix apples and oranges to muddy the water. The point is that the tax system favours those with greater incomes. I didn't say they paid less tax, I did say they had the opportunity to realize greater benefit.

Don't tell me about mixing apples and oranges when you do the very same thing.

Progressive taxation hits those who make more.

What, you think that anyone making over $X per year should just forfeit the rest of their income to the government?

The fact is that those who earn more pay more (both relatively and absolutely) and get benefits clawed back (CTB, GST/HST tax credit).

The fact remains that the reason they have more opportunity is because they make more money in the first place. This gives them an opportunity to save and an opportunity to defer (or even save) some tax.

Why? Because they are already paying more taxes in the first place.

Stop with your grand illusion of the noble little guy paying taxes and getting no benefits compared to the higher income guy.

It is complete BS.

And anyone who is willing to look at our tax system in practice (apples and oranges and all) will quickly realize this.

[DrGreenthumb]

Make up nonsense? Really, just what part about the quote did you fail to understand? The tax system favours those with sufficient disposable income to utilize the available deductions. I am not talking about the top 5% or the bottom 5% of all Canadians but instead the average Canadian. That is 90% of all of us and in fact represents as much as 70% of all taxes paid to the government. Tax deductions are stacked in favour of the more affluent in society and that is a fact. Prove me wrong on that please. I am not saying there are no available deductions for most of us or that very few benefit from those deductions but I am saying Canadians earning over 100K a year have a lot of opportunities with respect to the tax system.

So now Jim Flaherty is going to make it harder for first time buyers to get a home. Gee Thanks Jim. I'm glad we didn't have a Con government when my wife and I applied for our first mortgage. Paying a mortgage payment instead of throwing away money on rent was probably the greatest factor for us in raising our net worth and becoming part of the middle class instead of living paycheque to paycheque. If anything the government should be making it easier for low-income earners to own their own home. Jim Flaherty is a goof and should be fired. I am hoping for a spring election.

[fellowtraveller]

One thing I have noticed is A LOT more for sale signs going up... and this is February...

???

Happens every year, real estae is cylic.

Busiest months are almost always March and April.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Don't tell me about mixing apples and oranges when you do the very same thing.

Progressive taxation hits those who make more.

What, you think that anyone making over $X per year should just forfeit the rest of their income to the government?

The fact is that those who earn more pay more (both relatively and absolutely) and get benefits clawed back (CTB, GST/HST tax credit).

The fact remains that the reason they have more opportunity is because they make more money in the first place. This gives them an opportunity to save and an opportunity to defer (or even save) some tax.

Why? Because they are already paying more taxes in the first place.

Stop with your grand illusion of the noble little guy paying taxes and getting no benefits compared to the higher income guy.

It is complete BS.

And anyone who is willing to look at our tax system in practice (apples and oranges and all) will quickly realize this.

You miss the point, not just misunderstand it. I do not dispute that progressive taxation results in a higher burden being placed on higher income earners. The fact does remain that those higher income earners have greater opportunity because they make more money. The fact is that they are not being treated EQUALLY by the taxation system. As citizens we should have a reasonable expectation of equal treatment under the law, unfortunately that is not the case.

The grand illusion of the noble little guy paying taxes and getting no benefits compared to the higher income guy is indeed BS, and once again I never said that. As a matter of fact I took some pains to differentiate between benefits and deductions, or if you will the difference between receiving government funds and the ability to claw back funds from the government. The real illusion is that tax paying citizens are treated equally. The vast majority of taxes are not paid by the rich folks because there just isn't that many of them. Most of the money comes from the average citizen.

I have been looking at the tax system since 1970, the year I had to file my first return to the CRA. From that time forward I have planned to take advantage of deductions to the best of my ability, just like everyone else. We ALL pay too much tax in my opinion. We pay too much tax in order to feed a fat bureaucracy and a government with an economically challenged fiscal/monetary policy. The entire system feeds off of the citizens to the detriment of their disposable income. It is that disposable income that the entire consumer society is dependent upon. Every dollar the government takes from the individual is a dollar not immediately cycled back into th local economy. Taxation is regressive and works against the enrichment of the individual.

The point is that income taxes are bad news, period.

[msj]

You miss the point, not just misunderstand it. I do not dispute that progressive taxation results in a higher burden being placed on higher income earners. The fact does remain that those higher income earners have greater opportunity because they make more money. The fact is that they are not being treated EQUALLY by the taxation system. As citizens we should have a reasonable expectation of equal treatment under the law, unfortunately that is not the case.

So, they have more opportunity to avoid taxes but, nevertheless, they still don't receive as much benefits due to clawbacks and they still pay higher taxes.

Nice argument there....

The grand illusion of the noble little guy paying taxes and getting no benefits compared to the higher income guy is indeed BS, and once again I never said that. As a matter of fact I took some pains to differentiate between benefits and deductions, or if you will the difference between receiving government funds and the ability to claw back funds from the government. The real illusion is that tax paying citizens are treated equally. The vast majority of taxes are not paid by the rich folks because there just isn't that many of them. Most of the money comes from the average citizen.

Sure, depends on how one defines "rich."

Once again, the "rich" still pay more taxes and receive less benefits than the "poor."

Of course the "rich" aren't being treated equally - the government is taking progressively more money from them as their earning go up. The government takes more money from them regressively since they have more money to spend and, therefore, pay more in PST, GST, property transfer taxes, alcohol and other consumption taxes.

Of course, one would have to come up with some kind of definition of what is fair - is it paying in as much as one consumes in government services?

If so, the tax system is clearly "unfair" and inequitable for the "rich" who, despite tax deductions still pay more tax (relatively and absolutely) as compared to the "poor" guy.

I have been looking at the tax system since 1970, the year I had to file my first return to the CRA.

Well, I've been doing hundreds of personal, trust and corporate tax returns for 12 years now so I know a thing or two about how the system works.

I think it's a joke to say that we all pay too much tax. There are people who effectively pay no income tax and no GST/PST because their earnings are so low that they don't pay income taxes and they get full GST/HST and PST tax credits.

Sure, these people are less well off than you and me - but its not because of the tax system that they are worse off.

[msj]

That is 90% of all of us and in fact represents as much as 70% of all taxes paid to the government. Tax deductions are stacked in favour of the more affluent in society and that is a fact. Prove me wrong on that please.

As a follow up - even assuming your numbers are correct (and they probably aren't), you don't find it odd that 90% of people are only paying 70% of all taxes?

I know I have seen studies showing that the top 10% of earners pay as much as 50% of all taxes.

Even after all those lucrative deductions.

[August1991]

And as I pointed out in a different thread a long time ago (where I even pointed out the legal ruling supporting the use of employee profit sharing plans for self-employed employees) it is perfectly legal.

Even if that is too aggressive it is perfectly legal to be self-employed within your own company and to pay yourself dividends rather than wages (and, since dividends do not attract CPP, one does not pay into CPP and, of course, doesn't get much or any CPP when he turns 60/65).

These are pretty basic tax principles here.

EPSP are only available in specific circumstances and if I were a tax accountant, I would use them carefully.

But that belies my broader point, msj. If such a scheme were available to all, what would happen to the CPP/RRQ? IOW, why do we have the CPP/RRQ?

It seems that you advise people to leave the State pension scheme and invest on their own. I share your viewpoint and would like this choice to be more readily available to all. IOW, I think the State should (somehow) provide care for people incapable of making decisions for themselves but leave others to decide their own affairs. If I understand you properly msj, you believe this also since you advise clients to become owner-operator and replace CPP contributions/benefits with an EPSP Trust.

It seems that we agree. I would just prefer that the government extend this option easily to everyone.

----

To return to the broader point of this thread, EI and CPP/RRQ deductions are job killers. They should be abolished. We could fold these contributions into general income tax. No one earning under $15,000 per year should have any deduction from their pay. Indeed, they should receive a subsidy according to hours worked.

In Canada, the working poor face the highest marginal tax rates. It's a sin.

[msj]

EPSP are only available in specific circumstances and if I were a tax accountant, I would use them carefully.

Well, you're not a tax accountant and your ignorance on such matters is noted. Again.

But that belies my broader point, msj. If such a scheme were available to all, what would happen to the CPP/RRQ? IOW, why do we have the CPP/RRQ?

It would have some impact I suppose. Given that I could take advantage of the EPSP to avoid CPP and I choose not to (and many other professionals I know - dentists, lawyers, accountants also choose not to use it) I doubt it would be a huge impact.

I have done the math for myself and others and I don't use EPSP scheme because my retirement plan is based on math rather than ideology.

The math for CPP, even though there is no doubt that I am paying both the employee and employer portion of CPP (i.e. ~$4,200/year) is worth the price of admission.

It seems that you advise people to leave the State pension scheme and invest on their own. I share your viewpoint and would like this choice to be more readily available to all. IOW, I think the State should (somehow) provide care for people incapable of making decisions for themselves but leave others to decide their own affairs. If I understand you properly msj, you believe this also since you advise clients to become owner-operator and replace CPP contributions/benefits with an EPSP Trust.

As usual, learn how to read.

I clearly know how people can avoid paying into the CPP if they are so ideologically bent (or so confident in their own investment skills).

For most people it would be disastrous for them to invest for themselves since a pension fund that is professionally run is almost always better at investing than the average person over a long period of time.

It seems that we agree. I would just prefer that the government extend this option easily to everyone.

We do not agree so stop misrepresenting my point of view you dishonest ....

----

To return to the broader point of this thread, EI and CPP/RRQ deductions are job killers. They should be abolished. We could fold these contributions into general income tax. No one earning under $15,000 per year should have any deduction from their pay. Indeed, they should receive a subsidy according to hours worked.

In Canada, the working poor face the highest marginal tax rates. It's a sin.

Yes, a person making $15,000 is paying $829 in EI/CPP.

Of course, that person, if he's in BC, gets a tax refund of $209. That is, this person pays $0 in income tax and gets an overall refund from the PST credit and the Working Income Tax Benefit that gives him $209 even if no income tax has been deducted on his T4 (if income tax was deducted on his employment income then this just increases the tax refund accordingly).

This person also gets $378 of the GST tax credit.

So, effectively, this $15,000 earner is paying a net of $242. Now, lets say he pays GST/PST on $4,000 worth of goods/services (unlikely, given that residential rent and basic groceries are tax exempt). That's a cost of $722.

That's a 4.8% effective tax rate for EI/CPP, Fed/BC income tax AND GST/PST.

Sure, if this person smokes or drinks a lot then that skews things higher. But that's a price people choose to pay.

Now, as for marginal tax rate - yes, it is rough. As this person's income goes up he loses part of or all of the WITB, GST tax credit, PST tax credit, and, if applicable, the Child tax benefit etc.

A person making $20,000, for example, is looking at a cost of about $1,340 or 6.7% effective tax rate or an equivalent of 12.4% marginal tax rate (and remember, this considers EI/CPP, income tax, GST, PST and GST/PST/WITB tax credits).

By comparison, I do note that a person going from $75,000 to $80,000 in taxable income has a marginal tax rate of 32.5% (in BC) and that does not consider any additional GST/PST paid should this person spend the after-tax increased income.

For those keeping score, the last time I checked, 32.5% > 12.4%, therefore, August does not know of what he speaks.

Now, if you want to know who does pay the highest marginal taxes then an intelligent person would answer: the poor senior (65+) receiving the GIS pension.

Why? Because for every $1 this person earns, they lose $0.50 of their GIS and that truly is high.

So even though this person may not pay a cent of income tax, they lose so much GIS that it hurts.

Edited February 17, 2010 by msj

[William Ashley]

???

Happens every year, real estae is cylic.

Busiest months are almost always March and April.

This year is special though.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/16/mortgage-flaherty.html

[Winnipegger]

So now Jim Flaherty is going to make it harder for first time buyers to get a home. Gee Thanks Jim. I'm glad we didn't have a Con government when my wife and I applied for our first mortgage. Paying a mortgage payment instead of throwing away money on rent was probably the greatest factor for us in raising our net worth and becoming part of the middle class instead of living paycheque to paycheque. If anything the government should be making it easier for low-income earners to own their own home. Jim Flaherty is a goof and should be fired. I am hoping for a spring election.

???

Actually, his actions were mild. Here in Winnipeg real estate prices have shot through the roof. My sister bought a house last year at $120,000 but when I look at it, it appears to be worth $36,000. It is old and in really rough shape. I bought my house in 1990, I paid $46,500 for a house that the real estate agent claimed has 800 square feet. The city property assessor said it is 684 square feet, but I can only confirm that if I measure from the outside of the stucco, measuring the inside of exterior walls is smaller. My house is two story while my sister's is a single story, and my sister's house is really rough. I checked MLS on-line, in our neighbourhood houses go for $49,900 to $199,000 for houses of the same size. That doesn't make sense, some real estate speculators are driving prices up based on cosmetic crap. It's time to rein-in speculators. I am not a member of the Conservative Party so don't like to compliment Jim Flaherty, in fact I would like to take down the Conservative Party, but I like the idea of increasing down payment for non-owner occupied properties to that required for a mortgage without mortgage insurance. However, when I bought my house in 1990, that was 25%, now it's 20%. I would like to see the minimum to get a mortgage without insurance back to 25%. And that would include increasing the minimum down payment for non-owner occupied properties.

You are right, we should make it easier for low income earners to own their own home. Actually, I am in that range. However, home builders charge whatever they can get away with, and real estate agents also sell used homes for whatever they can get away with. If the finance minister makes it easy to afford an over-priced home, then they will just increase the price further. The way to drive home prices down is to increase the down payment minimum. That may not sound obvious to you, but as long as home builders and real estate agents can easily find buyers, they will increase prices further until they can't find buyers. Since those selling homes insist on making it hard for buyers, the only thing we can do is make it hard for sellers.

Jim Flaherty increased the maximum amortization period from 30 years to 40 years, which really doesn't reduce payment, it just keeps you enslaved for a decade more. He also eliminated the minimum down payment, which raised the risk of overpriced homes sold to owners who can't afford it, and real estate price "correction" (drop/crash) causing foreclosures where the bank cannot recover its money. Since Canada does not allow home owners to walk away from a house without further liability, that is extremely dangerous.

As I said, when I purchased my house I paid a 10% down payment because that was minimum at that time. I assumed the mortgage resulting in an odd amortization period: 20 year and 9 months. The interest rate was 11.75%; today interest rates are lower, but interest rates are already rising. The Royal Bank of Canada website announced house mortgage rates will increase after February 28.

I would like to see the minimum down payment for a mortgage without insurance increase to 25%, and the minimum down payment for non-owner occupied houses increase to 25%, and the maximum amortization period decrease to 30 years.

Let me put it another way; using the inflation calculator on the Bank of Canada website, a house purchased for $46,500 in 1990 would be worth $66,811 in 2009. (They don't have inflation figures for 2010 yet.) So why would such a house cost $140,000 plus? This just doesn't make sense. Someone is scamming new home buyers. We have to do something to drive prices down. If you can think of another way to drive prices down, I would really like to hear it. Really. How do we do it?

Edited February 17, 2010 by Winnipegger

[William Ashley]

This year is special though.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/16/mortgage-flaherty.html

Also check this out..

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canadians+drowning+debt/2571438/story.html

1.5 Million Canadians at risk.. this might explain it too..

average of $96000 debt per household.. wowza!

[William Ashley]

???

Actually, his actions were mild. Here in Winnipeg real estate prices have shot through the roof. My sister bought a house last year at $120,000 but when I look at it, it appears to be worth $36,000. It is old and in really rough shape. I bought my house in 1990, I paid $46,500 for a house that the real estate agent claimed has 800 square feet. The city property assessor said it is 684 square feet, but I can only confirm that if I measure from the outside of the stucco, measuring the inside of exterior walls is smaller. My house is two story while my sister's is a single story, and my sister's house is really rough. I checked MLS on-line, in our neighbourhood houses go for $49,900 to $199,000 for houses of the same size. That doesn't make sense, some real estate speculators are driving prices up based on cosmetic crap. It's time to rein-in speculators. I am not a member of the Conservative Party so don't like to compliment Jim Flaherty, in fact I would like to take down the Conservative Party, but I like the idea of increasing down payment for non-owner occupied properties to that required for a mortgage without mortgage insurance. However, when I bought my house in 1990, that was 25%, now it's 20%. I would like to see the minimum to get a mortgage without insurance back to 25%. And that would include increasing the minimum down payment for non-owner occupied properties.

You are right, we should make it easier for low income earners to own their own home. Actually, I am in that range. However, home builders charge whatever they can get away with, and real estate agents also sell used homes for whatever they can get away with. If the finance minister makes it easy to afford an over-priced home, then they will just increase the price further. The way to drive home prices down is to increase the down payment minimum. That may not sound obvious to you, but as long as home builders and real estate agents can easily find buyers, they will increase prices further until they can't find buyers. Since those selling homes insist on making it hard for buyers, the only thing we can do is make it hard for sellers.

Jim Flaherty increased the maximum amortization period from 30 years to 40 years, which really doesn't reduce payment, it just keeps you enslaved for a decade more. He also eliminated the minimum down payment, which raised the risk of overpriced homes sold to owners who can't afford it, and real estate price "correction" (drop/crash) causing foreclosures where the bank cannot recover its money. Since Canada does not allow home owners to walk away from a house without further liability, that is extremely dangerous.

As I said, when I purchased my house I paid a 10% down payment because that was minimum at that time. I assumed the mortgage resulting in an odd amortization period: 20 year and 9 months. The interest rate was 11.75%; today interest rates are lower, but interest rates are already rising. The Royal Bank of Canada website announced house mortgage rates will increase after February 28.

I would like to see the minimum down payment for a mortgage without insurance increase to 25%, and the minimum down payment for non-owner occupied houses increase to 25%, and the maximum amortization period decrease to 30 years.

Let me put it another way; using the inflation calculator on the Bank of Canada website, a house purchased for $46,500 in 1990 would be worth $66,811 in 2009. (They don't have inflation figures for 2010 yet.) So why would such a house cost $140,000 plus? This just doesn't make sense. Someone is scamming new home buyers. We have to do something to drive prices down. If you can think of another way to drive prices down, I would really like to hear it. Really. How do we do it?

We'll the way you drive prices down in any market is to increase supply.

Fact is there are limits to housing prices that tie into the price of building a home and acquiring land.

Land in many urban centres is at a premium (contributing to sprawl) This is not true of the area outside of urban areas. FOr instance though Ontario passed greenbelt protection limiting expansion into some areas deemed protective.

The lifestyle aspect is another. There is a huge building area in cities that is largely untapped - "underground housing"

Sadly though people probably aren't keen on having a house under their house. The other option is to build houses ontop of each other or condos etc.. The other is to build on water. And finally in the air (yes that is like ontop of one another - yes it is possible to build a floating house.

The two thresholds are building cost and purchase cost..

You want cheaper homes lower land and material costs. (materials including building costs)

Eg. Habitat for humanity homes cost about $25,000 in india the price drops to less than $2000 (toronto is $100,000 to $125,000 COMPARATIVE - MLS SEARCH FOR TORONTO YIELDS 0 RESULTS FOR 125,000 OR LESS.

Building materials play a lot into this. Canada has huge supplies of natural stone, and even clay. These are accessable building supplies. There are plenty of other low cost alternatives. You want cheap homes build cheap.

Edited February 17, 2010 by William Ashley