To add to the other comments, if politics can’t be avoided don’t just deflect personal responsibility. We assume you like us and are “one of the good ones” otherwise you wouldn’t be here. Saying “don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for him” has kind of the same vibe as an American sewing a Canadian flag on their backpack while travelling.
When I think about it, I’m pretty sure I haven’t acquired any coins since they started minting Charles’ face on them.
If that’s what the articles are implying, then it’s safe to say you’re implying you don’t care because they’re Mexican.
That’s not a can-con issue though, it’s a rights licensing issue.
The territories look really bad because they have less than 50,000 population each. So Yukon had about 3 total per year, NWT about 4, and Nunavut 3 as well.
What kind of country taxes prizes? Seems a bit ridiculous if you ask me.
I see where you’re coming from, but I can’t really see how that outcome would be any more or less common than it would be currently. I suppose I should’ve said effectively no tax, as it would simply be the new combined income being higher than the total property tax.
Some quick hypothetical math:
For illustrative purposes we can pretend every house is worth the same amount so we can deal simply with averages. At the same time we’ll round the average household to 2.5 people. Let’s say every house currently pays $5000/yr in property tax and that gets doubled, then we distribute the total evenly between every person in the country. We should end up with every individual person getting $2000/yr. If your household is 2 people, you’d effectively pay $6000, if your household is 5, you’d pay $0.
In the real world values obviously differ, but it would theoretically lower taxes on full houses and raise taxes on underutilized houses, with the impacts felt much less on small single occupancy houses and much more on huge mansions occupied by a small family.
I’m no expert, I’m simply a normal guy taking someone else’s commented idea and running with it, so I’m sure there would be issues. In fact I see one already. This sort of sounds like how the carbon tax was supposed to work, where the average consumer breaks even, but in reality people in more rural areas felt like they were being punished because they didn’t have realistic options to cut down on their fuel usage. This housing idea would have a similar issue where people in the least affordable cities would feel punished, because their shoebox sized studio might cost as much as a house fit for a multi generational family in a different province.
If I’m understanding this correctly, you wouldn’t need to adjust any taxes based on occupancy. The property tax would be fixed based on the value, as it is now but higher. If a single person lived in a big house the new guaranteed income might be less than the tax increase, if you added a second person you’d double the income and potentially cancel out the increase. If you had a family of four in that same house, you’d potentially pay no taxes at all or even get some back.
I always see this stereotype but it must be a regional/American thing. In my part of Canada at least that stereotype would apply to Dodge, more specifically Dodge Journeys.
I had to look it up because we’re already able to get a mortgage with 5% down, this plan is to not require mortgage insurance on a 5% down payment loan.
How can I say this without offending anyone…?
Don’t worry about it, anyone offended by what you said deserves worse.
They only switched the signs to GameStop in 2021, and if your area was anything like mine the only ones left by then were in the deep recesses of a few malls. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a GameStop exposed to natural sunlight.
Clearly it was different elsewhere, but in BC (or at the very least on the Island) the GameStop name didn’t show up until very recently. As in, you could walk into an EB Games and walk out with a PS5.
Edit: I forgot you couldn’t really find them in store around launch but my point stands.
It is what it is, I’m not complaining, but your MPs represent less people than average. NS isn’t even that disproportionate, PEI and the territories are way worse.
MPs/100,000 people
BC 0.86
AB 0.87
SK 1.24
MB 1.04
ON 0.86
QC 0.92
NB 1.29
NS 1.13
PE 2.59
NL 1.37
YT 2.49
NT 2.43
NU 2.71
Canadian average 0.93
If you want to argue whether or not population is actually a good measure of over/under representation that’s fine, but you can’t argue some people’s votes count more or less than others.
Average population per riding federally is about 108000 (2021 numbers). For Nova Scotia it’s about 88000. AB, BC, and ON are all around 115000 and Quebec is pretty much the only one right on the average.
Edit: I just did some quick spreadsheet math to see how even it could possibly get with the current total number of seats and making sure the territories each kept their seats: SK -3, NB NL NS PE -2 each, MB -1, NT NU QC YT no change, AB +2, BC +3, ON +7
And that guy won too, off to a great start.
Nova Scotia is kinda over represented though.
No one actually “runs for Prime Minister”. The Prime Minister is simply the leader of the governing party. That is determined by the number of seats each party wins. The PM is almost always an elected MP, but as demonstrated for the past few weeks they don’t have to be.
The American government has already shown they’re happy to round up people who look like "foreign enemies"whether they are or not. If your enemy has almost the exact same demographics, all of a sudden there’s probable cause to detain anyone (I know, it’s not like they care about any due process but everything else feels like we’re in make believe land anyways).
I don’t know how it was in the rest of Canada, but in BC it won’t make a huge difference either way. People in Vancouver and Victoria probably are slightly worse off, people everywhere else are probably saving money now. Last year my family netted maybe $3-400 from the rebate, but only because it was based on income data from the previous year when we both didn’t work as much as usual (parental leave). If it wasn’t removed this year, it would’ve cost us at least $200 (more if the rate went up as it was scheduled to).
That was all based on just gas for commuting to work for ease of math. I also didn’t factor in natural gas heating as being a renter in a shared house I’m not sure exactly how much the tax contributed there.