|
Shifty Pony posted:I do have a question about a practice that I'm seeing more and more of in the US: do you see landlords trying to pull off zero-day turnarounds by either requiring the tenants to vacate X-days before the end of the lease or trying to do repairs that legally should have been done before move in? For example I've been seeing a ton of leases here in Austin, Texas (which has a bit of a rental crunch of its own) saying that the tenants have to move out 5-7 days before the lease is done to allow for cleaning and make-ready. It seems very dubious that you can require somebody to leave yet still charge them rent for that period but since when has "every iota of legal precedent and tenant law says you can't do that" stopped people from slipping bullshit into lease contracts? They literally are charging you not to live there... You'd have to check state laws. A few years ago I'd have said it was illegal with no hesitation, but then I moved to Indiana and discovered a state supreme court case in which it was ruled that landlords can legally void warrant of habitability in a lease and not be liable when the apartment condition maims/kills the tenant. Check your state laws, especially since you live in a known lovely state. The bigger thing I see is landlords / management companies preying on people's lack of knowledge by including huge waivers of every law under the sun in the lease and then trying to convince them that they have no right to pursue claims when things go wrong. They try to get around this with that stupid 'any part of the lease found invalid will be invalid separate from the rest of the lease which will still be binding' clause, and then they fill it to the brim with illegal clauses, leaving it to you to fight each one as it comes up. The biggest winner I've seen yet was the lease in Indiana that tried to ban children from laughing within 800 meters of property. Enforcement of an activity off-property aside, why the gently caress did they even care?
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
God, watching history repeat itself is so loving depressing. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Well it's physically impossible to have a kid without a large suburban house with a huge yard and pretty much child-abuse, so clearly subsidizing the financing of single family homes is the best way to increase birth rates. You guys should take that and combine it with our US system which actively punishes the parents for the rest of their lives for having a child. Works great, I tell you. Edit: VVVVV Jesus loving christ... Sundae fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
quote:new paradigms Burn it down.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
quote:It's justifying a 1200 stroller when you could get a good used one for 800, and so on. Not to go back to stroller chat (I'm asking this more as a general question), but is paying obscene prices for ordinary products the Canadian national pastime or something? I see a lot of things in this thread (apart from housing) that apparently cost 5-10X as much as equivalent, good-quality items in the states even after conversion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
quote:He estimates he'll borrow about $50,000 to buy more furniture for his new Richmond Hill, Ont., home. How in the flying gently caress do you spend $50K on furniture? I could throw away every single non-keepsake item (including throwing away clothing and electronics) in my 3BR apartment and still couldn't spend $50K to refurnish.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Wow... that's horrifying. I can walk down the street to a handmade, high-quality wooden furniture shop here (a benefit of living in Amish country) and stock out an entire house with stuff that will never, ever break and (probably) not go too much further out of style since it's already antique-looking, and $15K could do every single piece of furniture in the entire place, custom-built. Even that is over the top and ridiculous to me. Instead, there's the St. Vincent's furniture thrift store where the exact same stuff is $100 a pop used if I don't care about it being a perfect fit in every possible way (which I don't).quote:There's whole chains of furniture stores that sell to this sort of tasteless consumer. This is the first time I've ever felt compelled to become an arsonist.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
eXXon posted:You would figure that if the ranking were about quality of life if money is no object, then American cities should rank much higher. They take infrastructure, health care and education into account. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Rime posted:How is their sudden lack of cash on hand anyones fault but their own? Nobody forced these people to live the lifestyle they did. quote:We're not talking about teenagers with a limited capacity to reason about the distant future; we're talking about grown-rear end adults that should be able to see that a bump in the road, even a large one, is no reason to end it all. Beep boop, human psychology is always reasonable and rational. All suicide attempts are carried out after considering all the options in a reasonable manner while in a sound state of mind. Boop beep.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Also, 35-40 states (depending on how you view the severity / limitations of the laws) are recourse states, too. We got most of the recourse judgment shenanigans on top of the instant bundling and selling of the loans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Confederate Flag hood and door wraps? ... please tell me this isn't happening in Canada. It's bad enough down here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
heeheex2 posted:Hey, what kind of beer do you guys drink? Not sure yet. I put down a 50% payment for a batch they're going to brew in 2019.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Vehementi posted:But with an American dad you are automatically a US citizen. What was the problem? My guess is that his brother was born before the law's effect period. Only children born after 14NOV1986 automatically gain citizenship from having a single American parent. If he was born before that, he has to thread a bunch of different needles to get citizenship unless both parents were American citizens.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:If complaining about taxes, property taxes should be the most attractive to FYGM people. They take all the money and pool it on services that nearly exclusively benefit landowners, and outsizedly benefit those in suburbs. It's the federal and provincial taxes that are used on dirty poors. Why support FYGM taxes when you can instead be a short-sighted little poo poo who thinks he's saving money by not paying taxes and instead paying even more for private schools, third-party garbage service, septic tanks, etc? 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
These are pretty universally awful, so it sounds like par for the course for SV! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Powershift posted:That outlook seems extremely short-sighted considering the rate of advancement in automation. Within 50 years there should barely be any work to do. Hope you like eating cat food, then, because the gains of automation sure as gently caress aren't going to be shared with millennial 'victory lappers.'  quote:As someone who used to work as a bank teller in Vanier, Ottawa, I 100% believe that fact that 30% of seniors have under $1000 in retirement savings. The number of people living on OAS in Ontario and CPP alone was absolutely astounding. We're seeing this down south in the states too. A large minority of our boomers have jack loving squat put away for retirement. Nocturtle posted:I still don't understand how health insurance is supposed to work in the US after retirement, and from casual conversation I don't think most American's know either. Okay - here's how it works (roughly): If you worked for a big legacy company and were one of the lucky ones, you have retiree health insurance available to you. This would be roughly the equivalent of your regular working insurance, at roughly the cost you paid as an employee (a little more expensive). This is exceedingly rare now and is the first thing to get cut because it's less understood than pensions (and so people don't throw as much of a fuss). Your next option is the ACA (Obamacare) market. It is now illegal to deny elderly people coverage, and there is a multiplier cap on how much more you can charge them than the healthy, young population. It's gonna cost you a shitload, though. I have no idea how many people do this. It's still pretty new. Your coverage is roughly as good as what you'd have if you were an ordinary, younger person, though. Your next option once you hit 65 is Medicare. This is the national elderly health insurance, basically. It is divided into four parts (A, B, C and D). A is for inpatient stays in hospitals / hospice, B covers typical outpatient medical service, C is a weird public/private hybrid thing passed in 1997 in an attempt to kill Medicare that instead just made things more complicated while siphoning public money into private insurer pockets (it also has a positive benefit in that Medigap insurance falls into Part C -- it's not all bad!), and Part D is prescription drug coverage. You pay a premium for each portion separately. C and D are optional. B always has a premium, but A's premium varies from $0.00 to $451.00 a month depending on how many quarters you worked in an eligible job. D is also a pretty bad scam, but the target is the US government and not the patient. From the patient's perspective, D is fairly decent. On the whole, Medicare is pretty good compared to what most people in the states have to deal with. It has two problems, however: #1 - Like Medicaid (more on that in a second), doctors aren't required to accept it. You can have trouble finding doctors or specialists in some cases where doctors would rather not deal with reimbursement rates, hassle, etc, especially if they have more than enough private-party insured patients to pick from. #2 - There is no out of pocket maximum on Part A, B Medicare (traditional medicare). For #2, that's where some of the stuff from the "Part C" format comes in. Medigap insurance covers the gap between what Medicare pays and what the actual bill is. Let's say your insurance covers 80% of the bill and leaves you with 20% of the bill (80/20 is pretty standard down here for our crappy insurance). If you're on an employer plan or ACA plan, you have an "out of pocket maximum" which is the max you can pay in a year after your deductible. If you had a $100,000 medical bill, the insurer would cover $80,000 of it, send you a bill for $20,000, and you'd pay only whatever your OOP maximum is ($5,500, $10,000, etc). The insurer would either cover the rest or the hospital would eat it. That OOP max doesn't exist for Medicare. If you get a $100,000 bill, you owe $20,000. $100K isn't that large a bill for some surgeries and emergencies, though. $500K? You owe $100,000 now instead. So on, so forth. Medigap insurance would be another premium you'd pay to another private insurer (11 plans offered in the USA currently) who would agree to cover all of the difference (minus another deductible, blah blah). Premiums and coverage varies widely by state and plan. The last public thing available is "Medicaid" -- this is the one for poor and disabled people run as a joint state/federal program but administered by the states pretty much exclusively. If you are on Medicaid and don't live in Minnesota, odds are that every doctor and lawmaker in your state hates you and thinks of you as the bottom of the barrel of everything. You will get the worst of all worlds and they will try their hardest to never let you see a doctor if they can get away with it. Oh, and the qualification income requirements and asset limits are so strict in most states that you straight up can't get on it without a disability (and good luck convincing them that you can't work even a job capable of earning the ridiculously low disqualification income in most states). If you do not qualify for an ACA plan for some reason (not sure what that'd be), cannot get Medicare and make too much for Medicaid, your final option is non-ACA private insurance plans. These are the traditional "gently caress you in the rear end even harder than our other plans" plans. As a 65+ retiree, you probably cannot afford one of these unless you live with your children and also have a pension. You also probably don't want it, because they're actuarially designed to not help you and to bleed you dry as quickly as possible before you accidentally cost them money. I have no idea why anyone would ever use one of these plans anymore, given you can (always?) take an ACA plan without subsidy and at least get the multiplier cost restriction to help you out. Sundae fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Intergenerational households died out in America/Canada for some reason even though there's several good reasons for it. It breaks (broke?) down in three broad ways down here (and I'm curious if the same applies up in Canada): #1 - It's really hard to live in a multi-generational home when you have no idea where your career is going to take you (assuming you're lucky enough to have one). My grandparents and mother live in a multi-gen house, and my brother and I were the third generation right up until we graduated from college and realized that our chosen industries/careers literally did not exist in the region. We had to move out because there was no way we could live at home and have an income. Taking this further, it's hard to buy a multi-generational house as the kid and bring your parents / grandparents with you when you don't know how long you'll be living in any particular place. Among people for whom this is even a potential option, who knows how long your career will last at any given location? The only way to get a good promotion or raise down here is to job hop, so you have to remain mobile to advance in your career. Good luck uprooting your grandparents to make them move with you. #2 - Boomers. loving boomers. For some reason, a bunch of Boomers decided that, because THEY moved out when they were younger (and then bought up all the cheap property, cut their own taxes to nothing, shredded safety nets, spent all their money and then sat on the good jobs forever), by jove, their children should too because AMERICAN WAY, with no understanding of the fact that they fundamentally ruined that way, which never existed until their generation and then fell apart right after them. You turn 18 (22? 26?) and get kicked to the curb unless you're lucky and your family lets you fall into the nightmare of #3. #3 - General view toward independence and children, from one family generation to the next. I don't know how Canada is about this, but most families down here have this view where, even in a multi-generational house where most of the money supporting the family may be coming from the adult children, the children are still children. My mother has a loving curfew in her late 50s. No alcohol is allowed in the house. It's an unspoken rule, but I know 100% certain that when I lived in the same house, sex was absolutely out of the question. Thou shalt NOT bring a girl home, or even have sex with your wife in your own bedroom once you're married, because you don't do that unless you have your own place. Dinner is at 5:30PM sharp, do not be late getting back from work because that's when dinner is, so spoketh Grandpa. This sort of mentality is crazy common down here, even if you're technically paying all the bills. The home may have been purchased 45 years ago by Grandpa for less than what you're paying for covering his property taxes today, but it's still his house and his rules, whether you're 13 or 31. Kids move out just because there's no way they can stay and still be an adult in any capacity other than bill-paying.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
quote:So what is Instant getting out of cash advances? They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. The article is basically a worthless piece of poo poo. What they're doing is setting up a new payroll system with your employer where your employer makes your pay available through the system whenever you want it, up to whatever you've accrued. AKA, nothing any sane employer would ever use since it's more valuable to them have that money for other purposes for 2, 3, 5, etc weeks than it is to give you the convenience. Like most disruptive techs, there isn't actually anything innovative here. In fact, it's less useful than existing tech! THC posted:If there's no fees, how do they make money? I'm betting there's fees. Pulled up their site. The employer pays for the overall service, and then there are a set of standard fees charged to the user. Inactivity charges, ATM fees, foreign charges, etc. What I think is interesting is that the terms of service state that you cannot use any money on the account for any auto-debit purposes. No electronic debits of rent, bills, etc, making it less useful than existing bank structures and credit cards by a lot. Also, one big piece of fun for you canucks: Terms of Service posted:Funds loaded onto the Card are not insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC). I see nothing wrong with that at all. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Can you even fit a dinner plate in that sink? It looks like it's less than a foot per side. Perfect starter investment for light cookers!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:The whining I've heard from people over how this will affect their taxes has been hilarious. Sounds like you folks need to complete the dark ritual by giving your politicians a copy of California Prop 13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)#Purpose Detach your property tax from its market assessment in a way that creates an incentive to never sell your house for anything less than a pile of unicorns. Only then can your housing market truly reach its full potential.  I wish I could peer into an alternate reality where you had a law like that just so I could see what happens to Vancouver.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
See but this is different from the USA bubble because farts in his own mouth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
I love that we've transitioned from "people" to "workers" to "employees" to "resources" to "capital." You're not a person. You're a human capital resource. Barely. Now go buy a loving condo. This bubble ain't gonna grow itself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
James Baud posted:I'm making assumptions here, but aren't Bitcoin ATMs a one-way $$$ -> BTC thing? Everything Bitcoin tends to be "you can put money in, good luck getting it back out". The trick is to make sure that your bitcoins are gold-standard bitcoins. 
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:creative marketing for the dying cottage industry: https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/03/13/muskoka-cottage-comes-with-30-day-zombie-free-guarantee.html Oh what goddamned planet is a 5BR with two kitchens a loving cottage?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Fidelitious posted:Why do Canada and Ontario keep coming to me for income taxes? Very unfair. New immigrants should have to pay the equivalent of what I've paid over the last 30 years to be let in the country. Keep that idea north of the border please. We'd probably adopt that down here.  I love that Hurley could literally be a quoted talking point out of a Strong Towns video or Not Just Bikes, for how badly growth-funded infrastructure planning works in the long run. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
Lain Iwakura posted:More braindead ideas from ABC: :taps forehead: If we set affordable rates to market rates, we have 100% affordable housing!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Fornax Disaster posted:Where does the 60 year figure come from? The old industrial cities of Ontario are full of houses that are over a century old. There's a bit of a survivorship bias in this. The old industrial cities are full of century-old houses because the ones that didn't make it to a century are already gone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:who’s going to pay for buses to fill the bus lanes? not the TTC, that’s for sure I misread this as "who's going to pay for buses to fill the bike lanes" and it still worked perfectly well. :X
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How do you see the racial demographics factoring in? I can't speak for OP, but butting into the thread as expected from someone living south of you, our zoning and permits are built to enforce racial disparities and prevent minorities from living in heavily-white neighborhoods. Because wealth/class/race are all so heavily intertwined down here, even something as simple as "just make it cost more and be harder to do" acts as a(n often legal) tool of segregation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Health Services posted:So how does that factor into the Canadian context? Do I need to spell this out? It factors in because Canadians are a bunch of racist shits just like us down here. On top of that, you have drastically higher ethnic diversity than Japan (69.8% white / 30.2% other, per wikipedia) and therefore more opportunity to show your true colors than the JP counterpoint. You're just slightly more polite and quiet about it than the USA tends to be, and plus we're so awful down here that we suck all the oxygen out of the room when it comes to bad behavior. https://www.homelesshub.ca/blog/living-colour-racialized-housing-discrimination-canada https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Housing/SubmissionsCFIhousingdiscrimin/CERA-NRHN-SRAC.pdf The very fact that you don't have nice, easy zoning rules and flexible land use in otherwise residential-zoned areas is because the classism/racism is already baked into your system. It "doesn't work" because your society already decided to do that, whether in a mustache-twirling moment of villainry or just as an inevitable outcome of the comingling of wealth and race. Even aside from people liking more money and therefore not wanting to weaken the value of their house assets, they're going to be doubly disinclined to increase housing availability / flexibility because houses as an asset are part of the racist structure in the first place. It's like a Detroit resident saying "Gee, if we just let black people live on the other side of 8 Mile Road, segregation would be gone! It's easy!" (For reference, since this is not a USA thread: Here's 8 Mile Road, Detroit MI:)  It's entirely the point that it's that bad. "Working as intended." Sundae fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Mar 27, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 00:47
|
|