On the other hand, console generations often provide a hard cut-off for compatibility. You can’t always use previous gen accessories with a new console, and those accessories are usually only comparable with that console. I can’t play my Wii games on my switch, nor use the controllers and other accessories. This is kind of inherent to consoles in that they’re meant to be a consistent platform that allows developers to maximize performance by knowing that each console is going to be pretty much the same. With iOS though the software evolved from the idea of desktop software that runs on a variety of devices. Developers develop with the idea that their software will be used on devices with differing hardware and performance. It’s a completely different paradigm. With computers, people expect that the one they buy this year will be better than the one available last year, but they also don’t feel the need to buy every revision(aside specific performance heavy use cases), they decide on their own replacement schedule. That’s the paradigm that the iPhone came from, regular iterations, occasional major revisions, and long term support/backwards compatibility with previous models and accessories.
Kelsenellenelvial
I feel like that’s a bad example as consoles tend to be household items rather than individual ones. Regular releases mean that people can choose their upgrade schedule and always have a recently released product available. Good example is cars, manufacturers release a new version of each model every year, but the differences are fairly minor. Then every 5-10 years they do a major revision to the model that’s a significant change. This way most people don’t feel put off when they buy a 2-3 year old model and a revision come out the following year, but a person can buy a new model after 5-10 years and feel like they got a significant upgrade from the previous one.
I’m not that knowledgeable about finance and economics, but I feel like the flight thing is overblown. If it’s a company based in Canada making profits outside of Canada, bringing those profits back and deciding to leave then that would be a loss. If it’s a company based in Canada and making profits in Canada and they decide to leave, either we can still tax a cut of their business before it leaves the country or some Canadian alternative can fill the gap. Of course this all assumes there’s somewhere else to go that’s more favourable, and I don’t see a 16% increase in the inclusion rate tipping that scale for a large portion of businesses.
Maybe we should reconsider the environment we provide that would both make that increase significant enough to have a business leave for somewhere else, and also that it’s cheap enough to modify operations that way. Are all the staff going to come too, or is this just some Hollywood accounting that offshores assets with no real change in operations.
Sask Apprenticeship and Trade Certification Commission has a similar policy of no electronic devices in the classroom. They can be outside the classroom during breaks(of which there are many). You’re allowed to have them on you, and leave class to take or make a call if you consider it important enough, just can’t have them out in the classroom. While it would have been nice sometimes to have access to network connected devices to supplement the classes, I can also understand the arguments around privacy, and distraction particularly among children/teens.
Couldn’t read the paywalled article, but most of the commentary on social media seems to be people that completely misunderstand how their taxes on capital gains are calculated, like thinking the inclusion rate is how much tax is paid, or think that paying capital gains on a secondary property is a new thing. Really it’s paying around 8% more in taxes on the gain over $250k. Some think they’re getting taxed on the whole sale price, not just the increased value, some seem upset that they’re taxed on the “investment” that was bought with after tax dollars(even though capital gains is taxed lower than things like a regular investment account). Some think it’s somehow unfair to pay the capital gains on what they consider their retirement plan, even though they have the same option to put those gains into an RRSP to shelter it from taxes, they’re paying a lower inclusion rate than regular income.
One thing that seemed to come out that didn’t change much and seems a big deal to some, is if you want to pass the property to next of kin, make sure your estate is sitting on 25% of the increased value of the property to cover capital gains, or use a trust and pay the gains up front(though this just puts it off so the kids pay more gains to pass it to their kids) before it hits the estate.
It is like that, and how it works for GST/PST. If I buy something outside Canada(either website/mail, or in person by leaving and coming back) and that seller doesn’t collect and submit sales taxes then I’m expected to submit those taxes myself.
Agreed. I’m all for accepting and learning from other cultures. I’m not for propping up low wage employers with immigration, particularly when it involves exploitation in ways that the locals refuse to put up with. We’re reaching a point where the boomers are retiring and there’s not as many gen A/Z to fill those vacated positions. Let those low wage jobs sit unfilled until they can find a way to do business while paying decent wages and providing good working conditions. Or go ahead and let the entry level jobs get automated while the actual well paying ones compete for workers.
Considering the median individual income in Canada is close to $45k, that’s a good point. Maybe there’s an argument that seniors have additional living expenses with healthcare or living in an assisted living or full-time care facility, but I feel like it should then be a lower OAS clawback with supports available for those with particularly high expenses.
Some good points, putting a cap on the primary residence excemption seems more in spirit with the idea of wealth redistribution than simply removing it all together. We could also consider something like letting people claim their capital gains over multiple years which would lower the tax paid on those of lower income while it wouldn’t change anything for those that are consistently earning in the highest tax bracket.
Green space is tough because there’s definite benefits to urban green space. Like moderating urban temperatures, minimizing run-off of precipitation and its effect on the storm sewer system, providing habitat for native species(even if the green space isn’t completely native). Though that green space is probably more efficient if it’s managed by the municipality around denser housing rather than each individual homeowner.
I’m not so sure about the difference between adding units within existing square footage vs adding square footage. I think part of the problem is availability of reasonable quality housing within the budget of minimum wage earners. Having, smaller units available seems more cost effective in this context than larger ones. I think it’s particularly good for more people to be able to afford a smaller unit on their own rather than a splitting of a larger unit between roommates.
It’s a start, and keep in mind their value is based on global operations, but it’s only reasonable for Canada to charge tax on the Canadian portion of the business. We account for about half a percent of the world population, so if everybody else has a similar rule and proportional spending it would work out close to $300 billion per year.
This is the most important part to me. Aside from a handful of fringe cases, this targets exactly the group that many have asked to be taxed higher. Majority of people complaining seem to completely misunderstand how the tax system works and what exemptions apply. In most cases it seems like the changes don’t actually affect the things that people are worried about, or the actual difference is much lower. For example, many are worried about paying tax on the sale of their homes(primary residence exemption), their parents homes(only capital gains on period between transfer of ownership and sale, not all the way back to the parents’ original purchase price), they think the tax rate is 50/66%(that’s the amount of the gain that is considered income and taxes at the marginal rate) or they don’t understand that capital gains tax was already a thing and the actual difference is an additional 16% claimed for amounts over $250k, which means the actual difference in tax paid under the old and new systems is just a few percentage points unless the gains are significantly over $250k.
Agreed that pricing is something that needs to be addressed, but subsidizing individual orders through Canada Post isn’t a good solution. Better to subsidize bulk shipping to the local stores to bring down the price at the shelf. That’d get residents a better return for the amount of subsidy spent.