karlhungus @ karlhungus @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

136

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't understand how it's naive at best? What you've stated, sounds almost the same as what i stated except with optimism.

This is a pretty insulting, and not bound to help people listen and understand you.

a) drag the whole country leftward, economically

I'm a big supporter of PR (I don't really understand people who aren't -- it gives your vote more weight). I also support more social spending and higher taxes for extreme wealth.

My understanding is that countries that have implemented it have a more fractured government where people complain that it can't get anything done. Given the support that cpc apparently has, and all the "fuck trudeau" people, i'm suspicious that we wouldn't also have a healthy representation the right; people with whom i disagree.

Man i look at that picture and think: douche bag.

Based on the summary it sound like they didn't lie, just didn't point out their own inability to deal with it in their own ridings

The police illegally surveilled her? This doesn't seem good at all. She was voted in multiple times. This is almost opposite of what you are saying.

This is bad.

Point of a corporation is to make money. Point of a "limited liability company" is to prevent losses on the company side from financially damaging the owners. LLC's do not (and should not) protect owners from criminal acts.

This shit happens all the time. Look at car settlements, it starts at the top. I'm not against a whistle blower framework at all, but it seems like executives get all the pay and none of the culpability (see headline).

Executives, focus on executives.

Sometimes home owners will sell their house after retirement for something smaller, live off the difference, then sell that house and use the money from that for long term care, or inheritance.

There's also the obvious: they worked for something, possibly quite hard, why do they have to pay the price for others? Presumably they've been paying taxes all along, and have already been contributing to the greater good.

I guess my feeling is, it's not so simple to just wreck housing prices. I absolutely feel like corporations, and probably some ultra wealthy don't work that hard and get most of the rewards (or aren't even people), like if the money has to come from somewhere there is a clear set of people who could afford to lose some wealth, and not materially effect their life; and that's not necessarily single dwelling home owners.

I think what's being said is: if housing prices lower, you are going to ruin some people's retirement plan -- at least some of those people will have worked hard their entire life to purchase and pay off that house. There's been some incentive to save in this way as well (first time home buyer plan, tax deductions for more ecologically sound houses, that kind of thing).

I suspect he's probably right, that letting house prices drop would over all make things worse in Canada. My goto solution would be to subsidize housing by increasing taxes on corporations and people/corporations that own more than one house. but i'm not any kind of expert

In most cases yes. However in the cases of fines poor people are more penalized than wealthy, so there should be some proportional consideration there.

I'm very lazy so I'd probably start by looking at filters on those sites, if i really wanted to tackle this with programming, i'd:

see if there's an api, or rss feed for these sites, if so i'd pull that down with a cron job and do filtering locally with probably regex.

if not i'd scrape the html and pull out the relevant links with whatever the latest html parser is for the language i use (i.e. it used to be beautiful soup for python, but there's i think a new better one).

but as i said i'm rather lazy, and haven't been on the prowl for jobs for some time.

I was thinking of amazon.com and kind of happy about it... now i'm sad

In my experience only kinda, and by convention (up is on), and three-way switches break this (indicator becomes the light itself).

I've heard 4% rule, but for myself I use an investment firm that does monte carlo projections, with ages, spending rates, and current assets to give you a rough idea of likelihood of assets lasting till death.

Ive also played with a few of the retirement calculators made by the FIRE crowd i.e. https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/beyond-4-rule-how-much-can-you-spend-retirement

oh yeah, not saying it's a good thing at all...

To my limited knowledge (reading https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1551870) this seems to be the Canadian norm: you don't own the land under your land

20 years, 15%. That is a very low amount. Title is terrible.

I haven't read the article...yet (after a skim I agree with the article). I really don't know how to feel about the gay/trans issue as I'm fine with my kids being gay or trans, but I don't want anyone dictating to me what religion or philosophy I raise my kids with, so I feel like I shouldn't get to say what the nut jobs believe it what they tell their children (to a point)... This is tough

You aren't a parent are you? Cause children will actually hurt themselves badly, and really do need active care at an early age.

For older children setting boundaries for your children so they aren't assholes is "determining best interests".

I don't want people telling me what religion or philosophy to raise my kids in, I kind of think of this as parents rights. Of course as kids get to be adults those go away.

As a parent, this is a parenting/personal issue, fuck off and please spend my money doing useful things (like supporting health care, or housing) not attempting to protect my children.