Flaherty influcencing financial lenders/markets.

[shortlived]

The reason people demand 'social housing' is because they do not want to pay the rents required in order to allow a private landlord to make a profit. So it is absurd to suggest the government could make money.

The main issue with social housing is the demand is unbounded because everyone wants cheap housing. This means the government cannot possibly provide it to everyone who thinks they deserve it. This means we will always be in a state where activists whine about the lack of social housing and the government does nothing of substance.

Not at all, it is often because they can get relatively low cost stable housing, that they do not have a means to obtain otherwise.

There are lots of low rental places, but they are full.

In many cases those peoples incomes are government social assistance or very low wages anyway.

So the government can give the money away or it can create affordable housing. One thing is certain social housing costs less than keeping people in hospital beds due to homelessness and the chaos of street life or equally expensive criminalization and jailing of the poor, and over medication to destroy their sanity.

Homeless shelters and hostels arn't well suited for families and kids who go to school or babies who make noise. They are generally for single people not families.

hostels actually cost more than renting an appartment in Canada, homeless shelters arn't far off.

shelters arn't designed to be long term housing solutions, they are for emergencies.

Social assistance rates such as welfare are too low to provide enough to get private housing in urban centers in some cases. renting a room isn't a healthy environment for an entire family, renting two rooms costs as much as an apartment Why should families be split up into multiple boarding locations?

Social Housing Co-Operatives built under the habitat model using welfare workers is a viable low cost medium to create low cost housing.

Houses arn't expensive to build using permaculture low cost affordable safe housing is available to be made. That will remove long term homelessness and the damages to wage slavery caused by high rental premiums.

People who earn less pay up to half or all of their income on housing alone, while people who earn twice as much at the poverty line pay 25% or more. Yet people from middle income can pay drastically lower rates. The system is not designed for the poor, that is why the government should mobilize the unemployed to create housing in which the government negates housing payouts into construction of housing the government owns.

The maxim, the more you work the more you earn isn't true of people getting sh1tty wages. It is often people who come from priveleged backgrounds that seem to purport, the more time in the more earnings out. For the time commitment OW for instance pays nearly half the legal minimum wage rate for time commitements to the program, this can include equivolent labour that is menial or involves exposure to toxic substances.

Meanwhile the government fills its offices (with security systems and offices and technologies that cost thousands) which could be housing for all the people needing, and paying middle income salaries to people who push paper. Its just the new form of serfdom that Mike Haris created. Broken unfunctional and a tax cow, that fails to provide advancement, or lower costs to the public.

What type of housing do you expect for someone earning $400 a month or less?

There are tons of campers / mobile homes that could be bought to house people for a couple thousand each. With little effort to fit out for winter at low cost. These things can hold 4 or more people.

Look at http://toronto.kijiji.ca/f-cars-vehicles-RVs-campers-trailers-RVs-motorhomes-W0QQAdTypeZ2QQCatIdZ333QQSortZ3 for instance.. just sort through those campers under $10,000, these things are reusuable. Old sure but they are housing. Only thing needed is a place to put them. Which the government should have tons of public space for campers. Oh but I bet green lawns are more important than removing homelessness right. Or that one street that would have to be closed to house everyone is too important to stop homelessness. Or there is no where outside of town to make a camper ghetto.. etc.. excuses that is all it is. I heard Ontario made this huge greenbelt, whats the story with that, oh right no campers there not enough space right... can't make a new TTC busline for the poor, etc.. it is just poor management. You could save thousands over a year in buying up used campers and housing people in them.

In some cases all you need is cement and other costs, example building nuclear shelters with uses mobile homes. take a look at what ark2 accomplished with used school buses.

http://www.ki4u.com/webpal/d_resources/arktwo/index.htm

There is lots of unused land underground.

Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived

[WWWTT]

Lowering credit card interest will just encourage people to pile on even more debt. Anybody that carries credit card interest is an idiot. I don't agree with Flaherty discouraging low mortgage rates, just do what he's already done - tighten up requirements to get that mortgage. If the bank thinks it can make money on a low rate, no harm done as long as the borrowers are solid. I'm sure to get this rate you would have had to make a substantial downpayment.

GST pre Harper=7%

GST after Harper=5%

WWWTT

[shortlived]

GST pre Harper=7%

GST after Harper=5%

WWWTT

HST before harper 0%

HST after Caper =8%

total hst/gst before harper =7%

total hst/gst after harper = 13%

Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived

[WWWTT]

Ah I see you failed to disclose that HST is a provincial matter.

Whereas all in Canada pay GST!

Keep em coming!

WWWTT

[shortlived]

Ah I see you failed to disclose that HST is a provincial matter.

Whereas all in Canada pay GST!

Keep em coming!

WWWTT

No no it isn't. It was requested and instituted by the federal government. Are you forgetting all the one time payouts to get provinces to opt into HST?

Harper bought the HST in.

You are heavily forgetting all the billions of penalties the federal government lobbed at BC when public opinion turned against HST, which ultimately caused Gordon Campbell's resignation, and him getting a patronage appoitment to be High Commisioner in the UK for screwing over the people of BC, for some change.

You might want to learn a little about the tax before you make such broadly false statements.

Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

total hst/gst before harper =7%

total hst/gst after harper = 13%

I am at the point where I feel I have to ignore your posts because it is too time consuming to deal with the complete ignorance of economics that underpins them. This post is an excellent illustration of the problem because everyone who understands the issues knows that:

1) It was the provincial government that brought in the HST. It has nothing to with Harper.

2) The HST replaced a provincial sales tax of an equal percentage.

3) The HST does not bring in additional revenues because net taxes on goods go down by the amount the net taxes on services went up.

[WWWTT]

HST is applied provincially.

In Ontario,PST previously only applied to goods.(provincial sales tax)

But now,HST(gst+pst) applies to services.

Previously,on goods in Ontario,there was a total(GST+HST) at 15%.It is now at 13%.Therefore encouraging spending and more debt!

At the time the conservatives did this they were harshly critisized by many economists that this move would only further burden the debt load carried by the middle class.

Flarehty = hypocrite

WWWTT

[TimG]

At the time the conservatives did this they were harshly critisized by many economists that this move would only further burden the debt load carried by the middle class.

Economists criticized the move but not for the reasons you state. Economists do not like income taxes and think a stable tax system needs to derive a large chunk of revenue from value add consumption taxes. If there was room to reduce taxes it should have come off income tax instead of the GST. Edited March 22, 2013 by TimG

[RNG]

HST is applied provincially.

In Ontario,PST previously only applied to goods.(provincial sales tax)

But now,HST(gst+pst) applies to services.

Previously,on goods in Ontario,there was a total(GST+HST) at 15%.It is now at 13%.Therefore encouraging spending and more debt!

At the time the conservatives did this they were harshly critisized by many economists that this move would only further burden the debt load carried by the middle class.

Flarehty = hypocrite

WWWTT

Not often you hear someone blatantly saying lowering taxes is bad. Very silly IMO.

[RNG]

Economists criticized the move but not for the reasons you state. Economists do not like income taxes and think a stable tax system needs to derive a large chunk of revenue from value add consumption taxes. If there was room to reduce taxes it should have come off income tax instead of the GST.

Amen, brother. I would suggest all of you read up on FairTax at this link

[hitops]

Economists criticized the move but not for the reasons you state. Economists do not like income taxes and think a stable tax system needs to derive a large chunk of revenue from value add consumption taxes. If there was room to reduce taxes it should have come off income tax instead of the GST.

Yep. Actually payroll taxes are the absolute most senseless tax according to the general consensus of economists. They generally prefer consumption and energy taxes (or taxes on anything you pull from the ground).

[shortlived]

I am at the point where I feel I have to ignore your posts because it is too time consuming to deal with the complete ignorance of economics that underpins them. This post is an excellent illustration of the problem because everyone who understands the issues knows that:

1) It was the provincial government that brought in the HST. It has nothing to with Harper.

2) The HST replaced a provincial sales tax of an equal percentage.

3) The HST does not bring in additional revenues because net taxes on goods go down by the amount the net taxes on services went up.

1. LIE - Harper asked provincial governments and paid them to institute HST

2. LIE IT DOES NOT REPLACE EQUALLY IT ADDS TAXES ON GOODS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY TAXED

3. LIE IT DOES BRING IN ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES

AS WE CAN SEE YOU ARE A LIAR.

Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

1. LIE - Harper asked provincial governments and paid them to institute HST

It entirely the decision of provincial governments. Harper may have wanted it but it was not his decision.

.

.

2. LIE IT DOES NOT REPLACE EQUALLY IT ADDS TAXES ON GOODS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY TAXED

Your ignorance of all things economic is showing again. Look at the the budget numbers for revenue from HST vs. PST. You will find that they are virtually identical once you factor in the money given to low income people as a tax rebate.

.

.

3. LIE IT DOES BRING IN ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES

No it does not. I suggest you learn what a value added tax is. You clearly cannot grasp the concept. Edited March 22, 2013 by TimG

[shortlived]

It entirely the decision of provincial governments.Your ignorance of all things economic is showing again. Look at the the budget numbers for revenue from HST vs. PST. You will find that they are virtually identical.No it does not. I suggest you learn what a value added tax is. You clearly cannot grasp the concept.

MORE LIES.

You are just flat out lying. The provincial governments were bought, you denying this ruins any credibility you may have had in this discussion.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fate-of-bcs-hst-funding-depends-on-referendum-federal-leaders-say/article613248/

DUDE HST is a a federal tax, you denying this further shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

do you say anything other than misinformation?

Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

MORE LIES.

You are just flat out lying. The provincial governments were bought, you denying this ruins any credibility you may have had in this discussion.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fate-of-bcs-hst-funding-depends-on-referendum-federal-leaders-say/article613248/

DUDE HST is a a federal tax, you denying this further shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

do you say anything other than misinformation?

No his points are factually accurate, you didn't really think about them.

[TimG]

You are just flat out lying. The provincial governments were bought, you denying this ruins any credibility you may have had in this discussion.

Numbers don't lie:

.

.

According to BC government's projection,[10] gross BC HST revenue for 2011/12 would be $6.92 billion. After various rebates, the net BC HST revenue would be $5.38 billion, which is $410 million more than the would-be BC PST revenue ($4.97 billion) if there were no reform. The BC government argued that the $410 million difference, however, would be returned to residents through HST-related personal income tax reductions in the forms of BC HST credit and increased basic personal amount. The overall fiscal impact of harmonization on BC households was therefore neutral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_British_Columbia

[shortlived]

Yes the past doesn't lie either go find a retard to educate they might actually believe the junk you are putting out there.

[hitops]

Yes the past doesn't lie either go find a retard to educate.....

Trust me we are doing our best.

[guyser]

Trust me we are doing our best.

You found one! Now get educating him.

[GostHacked]

And how does the situation change if one is doing this by paying rent rather than a mortgage? At least with the mortgage you are building up home equity over time.

If a person cannot accumulate any savings while renting, either they need to make some changes in their spending, or supplement their income somehow.

The cost wont be the same either. For example, I rent, but all my utilities are included. Anything goes wrong with the apartment, then the landlord pays for the repairs in most cases aside from outright neglect and deliberate damage.

In a house, one has to look at the extra expenses of electricity, water heating/cooling, property taxes, ect ect. I guess a good thing would be to compare rent/utilities and house/utilities/ect.

[TimG]

The cost wont be the same either. For example, I rent, but all my utilities are included. Anything goes wrong with the apartment, then the landlord pays for the repairs in most cases aside from outright neglect and deliberate damage.

It depends on the rental situation. Some places utilities are extra. When I rented I had to pay property taxes too! Obviously all of these costs need to be taken into account but even if one does there are situations where renting is the same cost as owning. Edited March 22, 2013 by TimG

[hitops]

You found one! Now get educating him.

That hasn't been working great so far maybe we could take it in shifts?

Edited March 22, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

You found one! Now get educating him.

looks like you found each other.

[scribblet]

It entirely the decision of provincial governments. Harper may have wanted it but it was not his decision.

.

.Your ignorance of all things economic is showing again. Look at the the budget numbers for revenue from HST vs. PST. You will find that they are virtually identical once you factor in the money given to low income people as a tax rebate.

.

.No it does not. I suggest you learn what a value added tax is. You clearly cannot grasp the concept.

Exactly. The provinces had a choice, they could easily have said no, but in Ontario McGuinty chose to accept it. McGuinty also had the option to ensure that we did not pay more on essentials services, e.g. electricity and residential heating -but he made another choice not to give consumers a break in that area.

Edited March 23, 2013 by scribblet

[Argus]

Because only a certifiable idiot keeps a balance on their Credit Card.

Or those without other options.