It’s the end of another week and that means its time for our regular weekend news round up and open topic thread.
-news links to be added here soon
So what are you seeing out there? Post your news links, thoughts and anecdotes here and have an excellent weekend!
@patriotz:
Yup – folks in Texas pay over $1000 per month in property taxes. That and conservative HELOC rules has helped to curb RE speculation.
Add that to a strong business climate and you end up with a place that promotes sustainable wealth creation.
@patriotz: "Funny you didn’t mention consumption taxes. I support both the carbon tax and the HST, but I don’t pretend consumers are getting a free lunch."
Those taxes are relatively new. Corporate and income taxes were reduced and revenues were up prior to bringing them in.
Did anyone else catch that shmoozing Linda Nazareth on BNN this morning agreeing with the new CMHC report of a "balanced" and "steady market" with "…no correction"?
Not only is that woman challenged when it comes to "small talk" with her BNN colleagues,(she comes across as having the personality of a hangnail) she doesn't even get the "big talk".
It's a bubble, Linda.
Would that be this Laffer?
Flashback 2004: Art Laffer denies the housing bubble
A closer investigation of these alarming reports reveals that many are unsubstantiated or based on logic that is faulty. Bubbles very well may “carry the seeds of their own destruction,” but from our standpoint there is no bubble. When viewed properly, the data do not show housing to be overpriced.
Laffer is and has always been nothing but a rent-a-shill.
It will work in reverse no matter who gets in, because the "golden decade" was simply one of the biggest consumer debt and RE bubbles on the planet.
The exodus of real economic activity has been well documented on this board and elsewhere.
"Income and business taxes are lower but revenues are up."
Funny you didn't mention consumption taxes. I support both the carbon tax and the HST, but I don't pretend consumers are getting a free lunch.
"You know, the economist who was WRONG when he advised lowering taxes would raise revenue"
It worked in BC since the Liberal government came to power. Income and business taxes are lower but revenues are up. Funny how that works. We will get to see it work in reverse in a few years no doubt if the NDP get in.
Laffer curve Laffer. You know, the economist who was WRONG when he advised lowering taxes would raise revenue. Yes. THAT Laffer. *eyeroll*
@chip: "According to a study by Art Laffer, Steve Moore and Jonathon Williams, between 1998 and 2008 economic growth in the 9 US states without income taxes was 50% higher than in those states with the highest income taxes."
According to Wikipedia ALEC (the organisation the above work for) is: "a politically conservative[1] 501(c) (3) non-profit Policy Organization, consisting of both state legislators and members of the private sector. ALEC's mission statement describes the organization's purpose as the advancement of free-market principles, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty."
In other words, they're partisan hacks. Not scientists. They're not looking to find the way things really are, they're trying to find those facts which might support their worldview while ignoring all else. (much like Dave)
@Best place on meth: " Buyers ask me all the time if I foresee a large influx of future court ordered sales coming to the Kelowna real estate market? Having watched the foreclosure inventory rise from 10-12 average listings per month in 2006 versus the over 170 listings already in early 2012 obviously I would have to say yes I do! "
Wow…
"5% of Kelowna listings are foreclosures."
Impossible. With no sub prime lending and recourse mortgages foreclosures can't happen in BC. Certainly not in Vancouver anyway.
5% of Kelowna listings are foreclosures.
http://www.century21.ca/jason.neumann/Blog/Kelown…
This is what a real estate market looks like on the way down.
@chip:
"Texas created half of all new US jobs last year while every year since 2005, California has seen more US citizens leave the state than arrive.
Just what do think explains these changes if not taxes?"
Well, California had a massive housing bubble/bust and Texas didn't, which I'm sure has had a lot to do with their post-2005 performance.
You might note that Nevada, which has among the lowest taxes in the US, has the highest unemployment and has had terrible job growth post-2005. Three guesses why.
And one of the reasons why Texas didn't have a housing bubble is that it has among the highest property tax rates in the US.
"Before you bring it up, the whole notion that higher taxes=fewer jobs or a slowing of economic growth is simply a lie. It does not bear out in reality."
According to a study by Art Laffer, Steve Moore and Jonathon Williams, between 1998 and 2008 economic growth in the 9 US states without income taxes was 50% higher than in those states with the highest income taxes.
Texas created half of all new US jobs last year while every year since 2005, California has seen more US citizens leave the state than arrive.
Just what do think explains these changes if not taxes?
@Drachen: HST was supposed to be revenue neutral. So that just doesn’t fly (unless you’re prepared to admit that the BC Libs openly lied to us). Of course they lied. Get over it. The HST is not revenue neutral. That is a fact. If you are concerned about businesses not paying enough taxes without the PST that was going to be changed as part of keeping the HST. The PST is a poor way of collecting business taxes. Taxing input costs and investment into business makes no sense. Taxing profits does. Before you bring it up, the whole notion that higher taxes=fewer jobs or a slowing of economic growth is simply a lie. It does not bear out in reality. Taxation has to be competitive to attract business (jobs), not necessarily low. With the PST BC is not competitive with… Read more »
@DEFAULT NAME: "The same people who are complaining about things like the potential cut back of OAS were the ones voting against the HST but they fail to understand the link between taxes and social programs." 1) HST was supposed to be revenue neutral. So that just doesn't fly (unless you're prepared to admit that the BC Libs openly lied to us). 2) The HST was a restructuring of taxes to pass more on to individuals while taking the burden away from corporations at a time of runaway corporate profits and a squeezing of middle and lower income households. I have no problem with higher taxes, but those MOST able to shoulder the burden should be the first to be tapped. Before you bring it up, the whole notion that higher taxes=fewer jobs or a slowing of economic growth is… Read more »
"The same people who are complaining about things like the potential cut back of OAS were the ones voting against the HST "
Which potential cutback? Raising the age or giving OAS only to those who need it? Those are entirely different things.
And I've always supported the HST.
@oneangryslav2: "you were expected to live to experience the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and die sometime during 1963 at the ripe old age of 78.3. As of 2005, (the last year in that aforemetioned table), life expectancy at age 65 was 17.8, meaning that we expect our seniors to live until the age of 82." 1. The difference between 82 and 78.3 is 3.7 years. They are cutting back the OAS by 2 years. 2. It makes little difference if you die at age 10, 40 or age 64 there are still less people around to collect OAS at age 65. 3. Demographic projections show there will be a far higher ratio of people over 65 compared to people at working ages in the coming years. The choice is cut back things like OAS or raise taxes. Myself I… Read more »
In 30 or 40 or 50 years, we have little idea what life is going to be like for us when we hit 65. And even less about how to prepare for it. I think its quite likely divide between the rich and the rest us will continue to grow. There may not be much difference between someone with a modest RRSP, and someone with no savings who immediately places themselves in the care of the state once too feeble to work. The best investment for some comfort in our senior years might be our health, so we can work a little longer and in not so much discomfort. Last time I ate at Subway (which is now rare as they are going downhill and their food increasing unhealthy), my sandwich artist must have been over 70 (white "old" Canadian… Read more »
@Bilbo Bloggins: You may want to brush up on your demography. I'm not sure what the numbers were in 1952, but if you take a look at Table 1 of the link below (p. 11), you'll note that the life expectancy at birth for males in 1950 was 66.2, while the life expectancy of those who survived to their 65th birthday (males only, once more) was 13.3. So, if yu didn't die in childbirth, or from a childhood disease, and were male and made it to the ripe old age of 65 in 1950, you were expected to live to experience the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and die sometime during 1963 at the ripe old age of 78.3. As of 2005, (the last year in that aforemetioned table), life expectancy at age 65 was 17.8, meaning that we expect… Read more »
And you thought they would try to sell anything in Vancouver:
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?proper…
Thanks to Marko at House Hunt Victoria.
@Anonymous: You will get a pension, but there is fine print. It's not a contract, and it's possible to claw back the pension without breaking any promises.
"I did not imply; you inferred."
"Solution to OAS: Rename it Senior’s Welfare"
That's what Paul Martin tried to do, only he used the less negative name "Senior's Benefit". How did that work out?
But yes that is the real solution to OAS costs, simply pay it only to seniors who really need it and starting at 65 would be no problem. Right now you are entitled to full OAS if you make up to $69,562 as year (that's individual, not household income).
And as I said before I think people who simply want to raise the age for OAS aren't really looking to save money but want seniors to stay in the work force to compete with younger workers.
"The program came into place in 1952 when the life expectancy for a male was 67 years. Meaning a man will collect on average 2 years of OAS."
That was life expectancy at birth. A lot more people died young back than (post natal, polio, wars, etc.). But back in 1952 a 65 year old male had a life expectancy of a lot more than 2 more years.
@DEFAULT NAME: …by eliminating all but those in need will allow for payments to double and still save a pile.
Solution to OAS: Rename it Senior’s Welfare (creating a negative stigma will increase incentive not to collect it). You must apply for it. You only get it when you can prove you’re completely broke and you’re children are unable to support you.