Victor Villas @ villasv @lemmy.ca

mostly inactive, lemmy.ca is now too tainted with trolls from big instances

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

502

Joined

2 yr. ago

Absolutely start with seniors, young kids, and the disabled.

And is this not what's happening? Are they saying that "taxpayers between 18 and 65" will never be included?

Indeed, they are a direct instrument to manipulate green premiums.

Why is starting out with seniors a "fuck you" to taxpayers? Would you rather seniors wait longer just so we can all get covered at once?

A reasonable guesstimate. I don't see how that answers my question, though.

That's a misdiagnosis of the problem. Hedge funds and REITs are not the primary drivers of demand. People keep saying this, but even though we should build non-market housing, banning institutional investors from buying real estate is not nearly enough.

But which part of that document gives the impression that the idea is to bring people in "to make numbers go up" without much planning? The fact that it doesn't talk about housing? I think it's kind of expected to carve out given the scope of the report.

There just doesn’t seem to be much planning going into it besides bring people in to make numbers go up.

Why does it seem to be that way? Aren't most immigration programs based on labor market assessments?

Yeah, I don’t have the data, only anecdotes. Do you have the data? That was the intent of the “how much is a lot?”.

I know very well three office buildings in downtown, and if I think of them, they fit the bill as suitable.

If they can’t sustain themselves through a normal business model, I don’t see why we have to keep their business going.

The "why" is because it's probably a net positive for society. That's how it goes for public services, stuff that might not be viable via a normal business model but still should be done, so we all share the bill.

Maybe. Maybe not. The fact is, the CBC doesn’t do only news, so we are funding their large entertainment wing, too.

That's true. Out of curiosity, do you know how each branch fares in terms of income generation? Because it may very well be that their entertainment wing is helping subsidize the news part. - not saying this is the case, I don't know, just considering the possibility that cutting the entertainment part might make it harder to do the news part

Also, some of the entertainment also serves a social good purpose... not saying all of it, but definitely some of it. It's hard to really call the whole thing wasteful just because it's categorized as entertainment. Providing access to culture is one of the things that a broadcast corporation should be doing.

At the current rate of inflation, that’s like one meal for a family of four at McDonalds.

And that's if you divide it homogeneously across all tax brackets, which you shouldn't, but it's good napkin math.

Unlikely because the cigarettes can still enter the market and be commercialized legally, so the economics of contraband doesn't change. It's like the currently existing age restrictions already in place.

We might observe some just not caring to check birthdates, like currently not every cashier asks for IDs selling alcohol as they should. But the benefit is still there if a decent percentage of the next generation will just trade cigarettes for vapes for the sake of convenience.

Bill C-18 is remarkably bad legislation. Figuring out this was the inevitable outcome of the legislation wasn’t 4D chess.

I don't follow. The bill worked in a sense, that it motivated a payout deal.

people were saying this right from the beginning: social media won’t pay for links it doesn’t need

Here we are, Google is paying $100MM for them, no? The difference is that they're doing lump sum instead?

This is a ban on cigarettes, not on nicotine

Which "all of history" are you using as a base? Because this is a slow phase-out of cigarettes, nothing like anything we've had before.

This is not a ban on nicotine, like we had bans on alcohol. People would still be able to vape nicotine.

:-) the middle class is the subset of the working class that has no food insecurity but has a lot of social & image insecurity

But like the rest of the working class, the middle class is one or two tragedies away from becoming homeless and marginalized, despite the lack of awareness regarding so

1/5th of owners have an investment property, they could sell it and still live in the current place and have a ton of cash

That's fair, and the article goes through a few key points that I agree with. The article title is just clickbait, but annoying because it's alienating. I don't think it makes sense to write a headline based on 1/5th of that group being land speculators.

We're using different definitions of the word "rich". In my definition, the one I personally see as more useful because it aligns with class struggle and shared policy interests, having a bunch of wealth parked in a passive asset is not enough to tip you over to the group of people who benefit from inequality.

Re: the title... Yeah no, owners of an expensive property are not only not in the "rich" class, they're likely working class as much as gig drivers and cashiers. Unless they liquidate this asset and actually go live somewhere LCOL where they can live off of the labour of others, they're still working class.

We do not need to, but if the cost of doing so is a few grumpy fellas getting aneurysms out there, we're in for a treat. Let's add more!