|
|
|
Occupy Bay street
- Thread starter thebigwoof
- Start date
Not quite, or i could go out and buy a $15,000 car on a couple credit cards or a line of credit and i get to keep it. I'm always being sent mail about being pre approved for several thousand dollars in credit and the bank keeps trying to raise my limits on my cards (i refuse to allow the limits to go up). I could easily go out and get 50+ thousand dollars in credit, rack it up buying toys and then say oh i can't pay. while they don't make you liquidate everything you don't get to keep everything.
Effective July 7, 2008 exemptions are in effect for all registered retirement savings plans (RRSP's, RRIF's and DPSP's (Deferred Profit Sharing Plans).
- Contributions made in the 12 months prior to the date of bankruptcy will be recovered (clawed back) for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate for RRSPs in provinces without RRSP exemption laws (BC, Alberta, Ontario, NB, and NS);
- There will be no upper cap on the amount of RRSPs that can be protected;
- There will be no need to set up the RRSPs in a locked in plan to make them eligible for exemption;
- The court will have no jurisdiction to extend the one year claw back period period in an appropriate case.
[h=2]Ontario Bankruptcy Exemptions are:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][/h].
Clothing | $5,600.00 |
Household Goods | $11,300.00 |
Tools of the Trade | $11,300.00 |
Farmers | $28,300.00 |
Motor Vehicle | $ 5,650.00 |
so in certain provinces you don't get to keep your rrsp payments for the last year, any vehicles worth more than listed above have to be sold (i think you only get to keep one). equity in your house is also affected (if you have any). It's not a get out of dept free card because your credit is ruined for 7 years (though some places will give you credit with loan shark intrest rates).
used to be that a family of 4+ could get by on 1 wage earners income, now families are having a hard time getting by on two incomes, cars cost a lot more than they used to, they have gone from under 1/2 a years take home pay to multiple years take home pay...
costs have significantly risen but the average wage earner doesn't make more to compensate for that, every year people are taking home less and less as taxes and costs of basic goods keep rising. eventually there will reach a breaking point, we're getting closer to it with these demonstrations... I end up talking to people that have been out of work for multiple years not because they don't want to work but there just are no jobs available for them. Last time I was laid off I couldn't get a job in retail or food services because i was over qualified and I couldn't get a job in my field because it had just crashed and there were no jobs (or they had just been outsourced to india). I ended up having to take a severe pay cut (nearly 50%) because the jobs that paid that were gone.
Last edited:
Ask for your suggested solution, I get sent back to look for your previous posts.
When I cant find one I get greeted with the gem of a post.
In my line of work I get looked down upon by those with university degrees, those who don't work with their hands or need to get dirty at work. Yet I am easily able to support a family with my income..........they on the other hand have to take a job at $14 an hour after racking up $50k in debt at U of T.
CanadianBiker
Well-known member
While I agree that the cost of living has far surpassed average incomes, at least part of the blame lies with people themselves and how they spend money. Lots of little things add up over the year: TVs, cell phones, iPods, take out coffee, fast food, etc. These were things previous generations rarely indulged in but are now "must haves" for most people.
As for unemployment, yes, it can be tough, I've been there. But anyone who is out of work "for multiple years" is either unrealistic in their expectations, not looking outside the very narrow parameters they set for themselves, or are completely unemployable.
Agreed
Right.thanks for the detail , I just said it simply that you don't have to liquidate everything because if you are bankrupt there's no liquidity! You cant keep things like cars that are financed but you dont have to sell off any last thing you own just to declare bankruptcy
Last edited:
And it's not relative as was pointed out earlier by someone else saying the way we live has changed with bigger everything and more unneeded stuff consumed. And YOU also pointed out it's not 1940 so which argument do you like? My day is now by the way, I will be saying " in my day hipster doofus' whined on the net and in emo protests while wearing abercrombie shirts" but I won't be saying it for another 30 to 40 years.
Housing costs in some places (the GTA) are insane but ulimately prices are set by what people are willing to pay. A family of 4 is going to pay $300K for a nice house in Burlington or they could drive across the Skyway and buy a similar house in East Hamilton (which does actually have some nice areas) for half the price. A family makes the choice to live in a house that requires two incomes to pay for. You reap what you sow.
Cars that cost multiple years take home pay? I think you're crazy. Two friends of mine recently bought brand new Hyundais, one bought a 2011 Accent and financed it over 72 months at 0%. Her payments are $199/mo. The other bought a 2011 Elantra and also financed it over 72 months at 0%. His payments are under $300/mo. Compare the features that a base model car comes with now to that of a a 15 year old car, even a new base model car is pretty freakin nice. A brand new car with lots of goodies and full warranty for under $200/mo. If you have a minimum wage job should you be looking at brand new cars? What's wrong with a 1998 Civic hatchback? Even if you did really really really want a new car (lets face it, its pretty nice to have a warranty and some new features) you can get a new compact car for very little money.
That family of 4 that lives in Burlington could get by just fine with a Focus wagon and an Accent. Their choice to drive a 4x4 F150 and a Traverse is just that.. their choice. You reap what you sow.
Last edited:
This is what I hate about arguing on the internet. A lot of good points are being made, but they don't get responded to. People just ignore what they don't like to hear.
Someone posts: There's no sign of things getting any better!
So someone posts: That's not true - here are 4 signs of things getting better.
Response: People with university degrees are working at Hertz! (As if that somehow invalidates the signs of things getting better).
Several people have made good points about how we spend a lot of money on larger houses, more cars, vacations, and toys than we used to, so the standard of living measurement is quite different today, but all of that just gets ignored.
Arguing on the internet really is pointless.
Someone posts: There's no sign of things getting any better!
So someone posts: That's not true - here are 4 signs of things getting better.
Response: People with university degrees are working at Hertz! (As if that somehow invalidates the signs of things getting better).
Several people have made good points about how we spend a lot of money on larger houses, more cars, vacations, and toys than we used to, so the standard of living measurement is quite different today, but all of that just gets ignored.
Arguing on the internet really is pointless.
Agreed
Actually the post I'm talking about agrees with you in some respects. It's a few pages back.....I'm a technodumbass when it comes to forums so I'll have to post seperately with the link to that post if you can't find it.
Quick summary: All kids are encouraged to go to university these days....my point was that not all of them should be there....not because they are dumb, but because some kids have a better aptitude for practical work rather than study and exams.
Right, so in contrast to what the big banks were allowed to hold onto (everything) for the priviledge of pressing the 'reset' button on their bad credit, the little guy gets screwed.
I also agree in general that we should stop focusing so much on university education.. That was one BIG turnoff for me in the NDP platform. We don't need more univeristy-educated burger-flippers in an economy where they can't really use their education. We need more people in skilled trades. I also wish we had more manufacturing jobs, but our ruling class decided that they should be sent over to Asia so they can make more money and convinced the lowest common denominator that it's actually a good idea.
Re: Skilled Trades. This is a good read.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/08/25/why-your-teenager-cant-use-a-hammer/
That's that globalization factor right there. It's the whole "modern" model of doing business. When top execs at companies do cost-benefit analysis' of these types of situations, there's no real way to factor in how F'd up the local economy will become when they move their plant from Oshawa to over seas. That's how engineers are trained coming out of school, too.
The real scary thing is that I'm not sure anybody's even looking into whether or not this global business model is even sustainable.
This is terrifying.
|
|
|
|
|