Glassnoser
13hr ago
Canada is a less litigious country than the US, and awards for successful lawsuits are much smaller and often capped by law. But there are still a lot of rules due to people being afraid of liability. But my high school's solution to that was that you were not allowed to hang around the school when you weren't in class. You were free to leave the property though and once you did, they were not responsible for anything that happened.
By the way, 7am? Wtf? Our school started at around 8:30 (in high school) or 9?
What do you mean when you say they screened people going in like an airport? Is there some kind of security or someone watching the door? We had nothing like that in high school. You could come and go freely and no one was tracking who was in the building. In elementary school, it was a little different, in that you'd line up once the bell rang and the teacher would escort you in, and then once inside, they'd take attendance.
Glassnoser
2d ago
OK, at every school I attended in Canada, it would have been unusual for a student not to walk to school. There must be some students that live nearby and walk though. Are they forced to eat at school?
Glassnoser
10d ago
The movie explains so little about the war that it isn't really about civil war. It's more about photography.
Glassnoser
16d ago
No, it's a Pixel 6 Pro.
Glassnoser
21d ago
I think you're imagining someone with a greater future housing need than what they have already paid for while my point is that Canadians, on average own more housing than what they need. This necessarily true because of the fact that homeowners and landlords are disprortionately Canadian while renters are disproportionately foreigners.
The boomers also have parents who own or owned property they inherited part of and they also own investment properties or REITs.
Glassnoser
21d ago
There is no reason why it has to be delayed. The parents can sell at any time.
We are talking about housing affordability? What do you mean I'm being too materialistic? If materialism doesn't matter, why complain about high housing prices or a reduced standard of living?
Glassnoser
21d ago
Yes, there is no reason why am increase in property values should mean an increase in property taxes. Cities don't need more money just because property values are higher. They should fall and as a percentage of property values when property values rise.
The Canadian government is increasing the capital gains tax for the relatively well off. They claim it only affects 0.13% of Canadians, but this is a lie, since capital gains are extremely lumpy, mostly affecting estates. A much larger share of the population will be in that 0.13% at some point in their lives. The tax will affect a lot of middle class people, distort the economy, and, as I'll explain at the end, redistribute wealth to foreigners.
Currently, 50% of capital gains count towards your taxable income and so you'd pay half the marginal rate, which tops out at between 44.5% and 54.8% depending on which province or territory you live in. The new rule would raise the portion of capital gains that is taxable from half to two thirds for capital gains over $250,000. Primary residences are exempt and it doesn't affect tax protected savings accounts like RRSP and the relatively new TFSA. Most people don't save enough to have savings outside of these accounts and their primary residences, but you certainly don't need to be rich to do so. You could be someone who chose never to own his primary residence and increased savings in the stock market instead. You could own a cottage, to which the capital gains tax applies when you either give it to your children or when you die. Lots of middle class people will be affected.
The capital gains tax is actually a very unfair and even absurd tax. You invest after-tax income from your salary and then when you realize a gain on those savings, even if it's just enough to keep up with inflation such that you have no real gain, you pay taxes again. Someone who is equally wealthy but doesn't save his income for as long would pay less tax. So it taxes savers more than spenders and discourages investment. There are further distortions due to the fact that primary residences are exempt, which incentivizes people to save by investing in their primary residences, inflating property values and making housing more expensive.
This brings me to my last point. The Liberals are far behind the Conservatives in the polls and an election is at most a year and a half away. The main issues tanking their popularity are housing and immigration, particularly for young people, who see a connection between those two issues. Older people don't care so much and are happy to see their property values rise (property values have risen far out of proportion to incomes in recent decades). However, this new tax rule is being promoted in the name of generational fairness.
This makes no sense. The Liberals have dramatically increased the immigration rate, which certainly has inflated property values. There are good arguments to defend this, among them that the higher property values are a net gain for Canada since the vast majority of property is owned by Canadians and most Canadians are homeowners. It really only hurts renters whose parents aren't homeonwers and therefore won't inherit that wealth. Most young Canadians, even if they rent, have parents who are benefiting from this and therefore shouldn't really complain (although they do). Now, the government is doing the one thing that messes this up: they're redistributing much of those gains to the younger generations who include, in very large and increasing numbers, immigrants and their children. What is the point of inflating asset prices with immigration if you're just going to redistirbute the gains to those immigrants? If your goal is to be maximally charitable to immigrants, fine, but this is not in the best interests of Canadians.
The tax increase does exempt primary residences, but not other assets like secondary residences, and the reason for this tax increase is to fund the enormous increase in spending on things like subsidies for new home buyers and affordable housing. The deficit has ballooned to $40 billion dollars under Trudeau and I think the government is actually starting to get desperate and trying to think of ways to raise revenue without spending political capital. Corporations and trusts will also pay this higher capital gains tax. This will reduce business investment. The tax seems calculated to actually raise a fair bit of money while minimizing the number of people who think they'll have to pay it.
Glassnoser
6d ago
I think the same instinct drove people to attack mask wearers in the early COVID days. It's also why people are intolerant of cultural practices which don't obviously affect them, like women wearing hijabs. It's harder for something to become mandatory if it remains rare.
Glassnoser
23d ago
A sales tax is a tax on consumption. A capital gains tax is a tax on capital. Taxing capital is taxing savings. It is not really taxing wealth, because an equally rich person who spends his money right away avoids it. It is actually easier to just tax consumption with a sales tax and then you can tax extreme wealth but in a way that is fair and doesn't discourage saving and investing.
The capital gains tax is especially absurd (compared to other taxes on capital) because it not only penalizes saving but also penalizes frequently selling assets, and the tax is on the nominal returns, not the real returns. If you invest in government bonds, your real tax after-tax return will be negative.
Scott Sumner is excellent on this subject and has written many blog posts on it. It's hard to pick the best one, but you should read a few. Here are some:
https://www.themoneyillusion.com/a-consumption-tax-is-a-wealth-tax/
https://www.econlib.org/capital-gains-nonsense/
https://www.themoneyillusion.com/income-a-meaningless-misleading-and-pernicious-concept/
Glassnoser
2d ago
That's not true. There was a debate in the US over even including the bill of rights because those rights were considered to already exist and it was worried that including it would imply rights not listed did not exist.
In Canada, our Charter of Rights explicitly lists "freedom of expression", but there was also a law passed earlier recognizing an already existing "freedom of speech" and there are court rulings stating that this already existed as a quasi-constitutional right emerging from English common law.
I have a lot of lawyers in my family, one of whom is close to me and the main part of his job is to write legal documents in clear, precise, unambiguous language, so I'm used to thinking about language and rules in a certain way (I also have a STEM background, where things have precise definitions). I've been blown away by how bad otherwise intelligent people are at writing and interpreting resolution criteria. They throw out basic principles which I would have thought were necessary for there to be any hope being able to decide these things in a consistent and predictable manner. I even explained one of the resolution disputes on Polymarket to these family members, one that was ambiguous due to a blatant self-contradiction in the resolution criteria, and they said it should definitely be resolved one way, which ended up being resolved the other way (essentially on the principle of most people wouldn't read that far into the description of the resolution criteria).
One possible solution is that you have people pay to have questions answered, and as part of that payment, they pay people to act as oracles who have good reputations. So the incentive is to decide things in a way that most closely matches what the question asker intended and also most closely matches what bettors think the question is about so that they are willing to bet on it, since this improves the market's accuracy.
Glassnoser
21d ago
One issue that I've heard from friends and relatives who have had to hire contractors lately for construction and renovation work is that they are extremely unreliable. They will just drop a job at the last minute even though they agreed to do it and the rest of the project depends on them doing it. This has caused people to have to scramble at the last minute and go around begging people to help them out or it has delayed projects by months.
He's not trying to smuggle a plan for the rich. Read the part where he advocates for a progressive consumption tax again.
At this point you might be thinking “Yes, but wouldn’t eliminating all income and consumption taxes be a giveaway to the rich?” No, it would be restoring fairness by taxing the thrifty and spendthrift at equal rates. If we think the rich should pay more tax, then let’s put a progressive consumption tax into effect. This is easy to do, just turn the regressive FICA into a progressive payroll tax, with much higher rates for those with high wages and salaries. This sort of tax can achieve any desired degree of progressivity. Unlike most libertarians, I think a progressive payroll tax is desirable for simple utilitarian reasons.
He is explaining that there is no reason to tax capital gains if your goal is to reduce inequality. From the second article:
What “principle” suggests that patient people should be taxed at higher rates than impatient people—even if they have the same lifetime wealth?
Your only answer that seems to be that they have different wealth, which he explains is not true, so what reason remains for taxing capital gains?
As for what is wrong with discouraging saving, he never says that saving is inherently good. He gives a very clear and specific reason for why it's bad to discourage saving.
The inheritance tax discourages saving, and thus reduces the capital stock. This lowers the real wage of workers who work with physical capital.
This one may clarify a few things.
Why is this more offensive than ranking people according to academic or athletic ability? Why is this considered offensive, but describing an individual woman's attractiveness is not? Why is putting multiple women onto a single list to compare them worse?
I find this somewhat baffling. There are numerous references to violence against women and sexual assault in the article as though the connection, which I cannot identify, were totally obvious. As fast as I can see, this list is totally innocent and their right to freedom of speech gives them the right to do this.
Glassnoser
2d ago
I'm Canadian and grew up in the central part of a mid-sized city. Only my high school had a cafeteria and I was far enough that I while I walked to school, I didn't have enough time to walk home, eat lunch, and walk back. So I would either eat a packed lunch or go somewhere else for lunch. Some people took the bus, but I think the vast majority walked, especially in elementary and junior high when people lived a closer on average. There were probably some cases, but I don't remember anyone being driven to school by their parents.
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of not being allowed to leave at lunchtime. Did this apply to the students who lived near the school? How do they even stop you or know what you're doing? What is even the point of this? Why do they care where you eat lunch?
I think the best freedom you have that I lack as a Canadian is the freedom to live in any climate. Our choices are between cold and extremely cold.
Glassnoser
3d ago
Are you saying it is typical in the US to restrict where students can eat lunch?
This is a big problem on Manifold Markets and on Polymarket. On Manifold, there are a lot of market creators who write ambiguous resolution criteria or they even change the resolution criteria after people have placed bets. The resolution criteria often describe something quite different than what the question is literally asking. For example, there was a question that straightforwardly asked whether Israel blew up a certain hospital in Gaza, and then when it turned out the hospital hadn't been blown up at all and that the bomb had exploded in the parking lot, the question was changed to whether Israel was responsible for the explosion.
It has become common to resolve in favour of some nebulous, undefined "spirit" of the question, rather than the actual meaning of the question that was asked. A lot of markets become mainly bets on how the creator will decide to resolve it rather than on what the question is purportedly about.
On Polymarket, the resolution mechanism for disputed questions relies on a Keynesian beauty contest that has settled on an equilibrium where everyone assumes the simplest and stupidest possible interpretation, and now people are even contesting uncontroversial resolutions in order to take advantage of this broken system. There will be a question that resolves and everyone agrees that it was resolved correctly, but then the resolution will be contested and everyone knows the vote will go in favour of some hypothetical interpretation that would only work if everyone was retarded, so they vote that way. No one agrees with the interpretation, but everyone is incentivized to vote how they think everyone else will vote. And everyone knows the winning vote is expected to be the one that doesn't involve reading the full resolution description and doesn't involve using any sort of complex thought.
Glassnoser
21d ago
The average person blames things like foreign buyers, investors, and AirBnb which have almost no effect on property values, instead of high labour costs and regulations that restrict housing supply.
Glassnoser
22d ago
Taxing capital gains is not a way of avoiding taxing labour. The capital gain is a return on an initial investment that was earned with labour. Taxing it is taxing labour, just in a way that creates a deadweight loss by taxing someone who saves more than someone who spends. You get all of the deadweight loss of taxing labour and then some.
In my third link, Scott Sumner directly addresses the point about inequality. Taxing capital gains doesn't reduce inequality. The two brothers in his example are equally wealthy. But one chooses to invest his wealth and the other chooses to spend it. The fact that the one who invests it earns a capital gain does not mean he is wealthier. His brother had the same opportunity and didn't take it because he valued earlier consumption over later consumption. Claiming there is a difference in equality is just like claiming there is a difference inequality between someone who bought watermelon and someone who bought blueberries.
The author is saying the current privileged mix of taxing investments less than labor income isn't good enough, that we should institute massive taxes on labor to reduce all taxes from investments to 0.
He's not saying that at all. You've completely misunderstood. You should read the articles more carefully because he directly addresses this kind of argument.
Glassnoser
22d ago
In Canada, your estate would have to pay a tax on 50% of the $999 capital gain before your heir inherited anything.
Glassnoser
22d ago
Your capital gains is a return on after-tax income. You don't pay almost nothing in taxes. You pay the same amount of taxes as anyone else who earned that same amount of money.
Or the billionaires who just take out margin loans forever, then pass it all on to their heirs, who then get a stepped up basis with no capital gains.
What do you mean? What are you talking about? Why wouldn't they have to pay capital gains?
Glassnoser
8d ago
I'm not sure if I believe they really have that preference. Imagine a woman running into a hear in the woods. She's probably going to freak out. Now imagine her running in to a random man. She's probably going to feel relieved and ask him for help. Just, intuitively it seems obvious that women are not nearly as scared of men as they are of bears. I think the framing of the question causes people to think about how men can be dangerous and to answer in a way that doesn't actually comport with their true beliefs.
Scott Sumner has a whole series of posts about this phenomenon. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/05/theres_no_such_2.html
Glassnoser
9d ago
I'm guessing the first post is all real people and the second one is bots copying it. All the comments in the second post were posted within a very short period of time on a new post by accounts with usernames typically used by bots.
Phone apps are getting really aggressive lately about constantly sending useless notifications. They make it extremely difficult to figure out how to turn them off if they even let you. Threads is especially bad about this. Is there a guide somewhere on how to disable notifications?
The more general problem I've been having lately is that settings menus are now totally unintuitive. I used to be able to find something by just looking through the menu, but now, no matter what aim looking for, I almost always have to Google it, and half the time the instructions will be wrong because the app developers seem to reorganize their menus at least once a year.
Why do they do this? I get far more utility out of the layout of an app staying the same than I do out of any design changes, usually.
More options
Context Copy link