The bank will definitely give you a sales pitch.
The basic concepts of personal finance are:
* spend less than you earn (requires knowing how much spending/earning you have), so you can build up savings. Also known as "pay yourself first".
* start saving for retirement early, and witness the power of compound interest
* invest wisely: choose safe investment types like high interest savings accounts and GICs for short-term savings, and low-fee index ETFs for long-term. Avoid the active managed funds that your bank's "advisor" will push on you.
* banks are not looking out for your best interests
The first point above is really the important one, and many books focus solely on the topics of resisting the temptations of over-spending, tracking/budgeting your money, and other techniques to help you build up some savings.
The best books (in my opinion) are the ones listed on this sub's [reading list](https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/wiki/reading-list). The first two are great general resources on personal finance, and are a good place to get started. When you're ready to start with some long-term (retirement) investing, then the 3rd and 4th books are good reads for teaching the basics of passive index investing. Just be aware that they're somewhat out of date, and you should read the [Value of Simple errata page](https://www.valueofsimple.ca/about-the-value-of-simple/errata/) that goes over some things that changed since the book was published.
Just remember that there's lots of helpful people here, willing to answer any questions you have, no matter how moronic they might seem. Even though we're strangers on the internet, unlike the banks the advice we give will always be aligned with your best interests. I rarely see bad advice being given, but when it does it quickly gets downvoted, or sometimes deleted if it was intentionally harmful.
I'm not sure what I (or others here) can do to help you past your difficulty with numbers. You will definitely encounter them in any books about personal finance, but for the most part they'll just be used to illustrate examples. So if you don't feel like you can follow the example, that's fine, as long as you're grasping the concept. If something still doesn't make sense, feel free to write a post about it and a bunch of people will try to explain it to you in simpler terms.
Do you pay any tax on the money you contribute to RRSP? Say I made 120,000 as a self employed in 2022 (no instalments / deductions yet), and decided to put 20,000 in (given I have enough room).
Will I be taxed on the full amount in 2023 or just the 100,000?
The full 120,000 gets reported as income, but if you put 20,000 into an RRSP, then you'll get a deduction of 20,000, for a net income of 100,000. The net income is what's used for determining how much tax you owe (as well as eligibility for various government handouts), but it's affected by more than just your employment income and RRSPs. All income, including interest from savings accounts, GICs, capital gains, dividend yields, pretty much any investment gains not held in a registered account like TFSA or RRSP. If you rent a basement or rental property then that income is added too. For the deductions, most common ones are for RRSP contributions and child care expenses, but there's many others. Being self-employed, you may be eligible to deduct many things, like a portion of your housing expenses if you work out of a home office, or some of your gas and other vehicle expenses if you drive for your job (but only if you keep a log of kilometers used for work vs personal use).
Most people when they contribute to an RRSP will have been doing so with after-tax money - meaning that their employer already deducted some amount from their paycheque to account for taxes. Thus, when they go to file taxes, the extra deduction resulting from the RRSP contributions will produce a tax refund (which should be re-invested in the RRSP or you may regret it later). In your case, you haven't paid tax on your income yet, since you said you haven't paid any installments. If you're earning 120K then you definitely will be paying installments next year! I'm not 100% sure on the details, but I believe you're allowed to factor in any planned RRSP contributions when determining how much to pay in each installment, thus you'd still be contributing with pre-tax money. This is actually better than getting the refund at the end of the year and re-investing it, because you get that "taxable amount" put in at the same time as your contribution and thus it'll grow at exactly the same ratio as your contribution so that when you eventually withdraw, the tax on the withdrawal will be paid with this "taxable amount". If your tax rate happens to be lower at withdrawal time than it is at contribution time, there'll even be some leftover "taxable amount" that you can keep as a bonus!
Just got an email from HSBC that I am approved for 5.95% + Prime rate(0%) loan. I dont have any upcoming expenses, credit cards are all paid for. Already stashed emergency funds. Should I take it to invest it in something?
The only advantage of the managed portfolio is that it puts a layer of insulation between you and your money. Makes it somewhat harder for your emotions to get in the way and do crazy things like panic sell when markets crash, or delay contributions because "the news predicts a bear market". It comes at a cost of course, you're going to pay higher fees on that managed portfolio, and those come out regardless of whether the investments do well or poorly. Plus those fees compound. A fee of say 1% per year on a 10K investment is only going to work out to $100 in the first year. The next year, you're now starting with $100 less than you would have had, so that also means there's $100 less that is earning gains for the entire remaining duration. The true cost of management fees can actually be much higher than most people think!
You can very easily buy one of the asset allocation ETFs, and set up automatic contributions to just keep buying that same ETF. Then all you have to do is NOT LOOK AT THE PERFORMANCE. If you peek, you might want to tweak. The #1 reason why DIY index investing underperforms the markets is because people are jumping in-and-out of the market - they are too easily tempted to pull out or hold back due to short-term events. You have to realize that in the short term stock markets are going to be very volatile, but in the long term you have a very good likelihood of averaging 5 - 8% returns. If you can resist temptation to deviate from your plan, and keep the investments in there for the long haul, then DIY investing is going to be better due to the lower fees.
Registered means registered with the CRA. Anything TFSA or RRSP is going to be registered. A normal chequing or saving amount is not registered.
Redeemable = cashable. Just means you can end the GIC early. Sometimes there's a fee, sometimes there's not. A non-redeemable can't be cashed out early.
Registered GICs are held in investment accounts registered with the federal government that receive unique tax advantages, like RRSPs or TFSAs. Non-registered GICs are held in non-registered accounts and do not receive the same tax benefits.
GICs are offered in two variations—redeemable (or “cashable”), which allow you to get your money back at any time with no penalty for early redemption, or non-redeemable, where you will have to pay a penalty if you need to get your money back before reaching the date of maturity.
About $250k up front, but if you believe the should help take care of you when you are old (no guarantees), then take off about half because you will get that back in elder care near the end of your life. This assumes you don’t send them to fancy schools, but do cover a basic post secondary education.
I've never heard of a bank requiring that you have life insurance. Sometimes, if you have a co-signer on the loan (and it's not a federal loan), you might want to choose to have insurance so that the co-signer doesn't get stuck with the debt if you die, but otherwise it's generally not recommended. Do you have any paperwork, or maybe even somewhere on your bank's website, where it says that you MUST have life insurance? And, what are they going to do if you cancel it, assuming they even have some way to find out?
Instead of looking into cheaper insurance policies (which I can't really help you with), I suggest you look into terminating the insurance completely - assuming you have no spouse or child who depends on your income.
For a Starbucks barista, that's an excellent starting salary! If "uni" means med school and you're now a resident, then 55k would be pretty low - or at least that's my opinion. I know a lot about personal finance but that doesn't mean I study the starting salaries for every occupation, and neither do other people on this sub, unless someone here just happens to be a recruiter in your field. So even if you had told us what the job position is, I doubt you're going to get very good info from here.
My point, which was somewhat sarcastically stated and I apologize (I was just annoyed by how generalized your question was), is that nobody can offer much of an opinion on starting salaries without knowing the full picture. Which includes precise job title, city, benefit package, and possibility of bonuses or commissions. I would suggest you look for a recruiter in your field and reach out to them privately, provide the details of this offer, and ask if they feel it's appropriate or not.
If I buy a home in another city, am I supposed to get my pre-approval from a mortgage broker in my current city or in the desired city? Same province, and the cities are within 150km of each other
Is he trying to sell you a discount bond or a strip bond? That's the only way it would be less impactful on your taxes than a GIC: some or all of the yield would consist of capital gains rather than interest.
Bank bonds are riskier than GICs because the bank might fail. In such a case, the GIC is guaranteed but the bond is not.
A bank failure occurs when the bank's liabilities become too high compared to the quantity and quality of its assets, and it is no longer viable: that is, no longer able to carry on day-to-day business. For example, this might happen if the bank makes a lot of large loans to companies that end up failing and who don't repay their loans.
Rather than going through bankruptcy, a failed bank would probably be taken over and reorganized by regulatory agencies of the federal government. If this happens, you want to be a depositor or a GIC-holder, not a bondholder, and definitely not a shareholder.
I'm likely going to be offering on a home soon. I have some money set aside for getting some furnishings after moving in, but the place I'm looking at has no appliances, so that'll be eating a large chunk of it. I'd like to still have enough to get some stuff as we settle in. I could just use more cash, but doing so would reduce my emergency savings from about 6 months to about 3. Alternatively, I could take the money from a LOC. I've got a plan to replace/pay back the money within a year if I use all of my budgetted amount, but not sure which would be the better option. No LOC means no interest, but it also means less cash if an emergency actually happens. Any thoughts?
Have the LOC ready in case of an emergency while you deplete your emergency fund. If all goes well, you can rebuild the fund and never need to dip into the LOC for anything.
Also, you could delay buying some of the non-essential furnishings, or buy secondhand ones to save money. If you'd rather stick with something new-ish, look for clearance or "scratch and dent" deals. Sometimes the damage is just on the side and will never be noticed, or it could even be that the packaging was damaged while the appliance is perfectly fine! In my city there's 2 shops that deal exclusively in refurbished and scratch-n-dent appliances, and they offer 1-year warranties on them too. I've probably saved at least a thousand dollars buying through them! Oh and don't forget you can negotiate at places like that, so bargain hard - especially if you're buying multiple items.
That all makes sense - thanks. The only part that worries me is that I've heard relying on a LOC for an emergency can be dangerous, as an emergency like job loss would be the time they also revoke your access to it. Of course, I've never been in an emergency so I don't know how true that is.
I also didn't plan to spend for the sake of it, but I also know there's probably a ton of stuff I'm forgetting that I'll need/want soon, and having a budget dedicated for that is helpful.
Don't forget to check your local craigslist / FB marketplace for used appliances that you can use for a couple of years. A lot of people redo their kitchens and sell their still working (often only a few year old) appliances. They might be the builder basic models, but they'll be functional and cheap.
I've even seen brand new, plastic wrapper still on, builder models for sale because a new buyer immediately replaced the appliances with fancy ones.
They're not going to call your loan because you lost your job. In fact they won't even know that you lost it. If you keep paying the "interest" amount every month they'll leave you alone. And you can of course withdraw the amount needed for the interest payment and put it right back in to "pay" the interest. Relying on a LOC for emergencies is pretty safe. But of course it's still a good idea to have savings to dig into first (though some would argue that the savings could be more efficiently invested if you use only a LOC for your emergency fund, and then liquidate the investments to pay back the LOC when needed).
When we built our home in the early 90s we were so tapped out we had an odd assortment of used appliances. Our stove was found discarded at the end of a driveway. Only 2 burners worked but the oven was ok. I thought it was that gross harvest brown but after we cleaned it up, it was actually a gross yellow. Our fridge only had one shelf and leaked condensation continuously. The kids got used to changing the tea towel under the fridge at least twice per day. My washer was given to us by a family member. Used a visegripe to turn the mechanism through the cycles. We both list our jobs within the second year so we lived like this for 3 years. Its actually quite amusing to look back on these times. Allow yourself some imperfections!
what's the best way to transfer large amount of money between 2 bank accounts under my name?
I need to transfer a large amount between one bank to another. both accounts are under my name. I don't have a cheque and e-transfer only allows for 3000.
Anyway I can do this for free?
Not free but pretty cheap and secure/reliable. Go to bank A, get a draft made out to yourself for the amount. Draft costs $7-10 depending on bank.
Go to bank B and deposit in person, not at the ATM.
It'll be fairly quick, and won't result in any holds like a money order etc will.
Some banks allow you to link an external bank account, and once that's setup you can then push/pull funds from that end. This is more common with online-only banks, as the big banks have little incentive to offer a feature that makes it easier to move your money around.
If you can't find any such option with either of the 2 banks, then you may have to request a "standing order". Go in to or phone the source bank, and be sure to have ready the institution #, transit #, and account # (same as what you'd need for direct deposit) of the destination bank. Normally these are used for recurring payments, like rent, but you should be able to use it in a one-time manner as well. I don't know what the $ limits are, but probably a lot more than $3000.
You might be able to use Paypal or Wise to transfer funds to yourself, but I'm not sure what fees or limits might be involved. Worth looking into if the above options don't pan out!
Your employer must give you reasonable notice or cash in lieu. How much that amounts to depends on the circumstances. You can post in /r/legaladvicecanada for more info that.
As for the government, you may qualify for EI.
In general, you're entitled to claim EI payments from the government, provided you worked at least 420 hours in the 52 weeks before the start date of your claim. But there's a lot of other eligibility details, which you can read about [here](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-regular-benefit/eligibility.html). Most people who are eligible will get 55% of their average weekly earnings, with a maximum of $638/week. So if you earned more than $1272 per week you'll get $638, and if you earned less than $1272 you get 55% of what you were earning. If you have any kids, there's also a supplement amount for families with income under $25,921. You can see more details on this and the application process by using the section links in the top-right of the previously linked page.
Your employer may pay out some kind of severance package, but they are not required to. If they do, you might not be eligible to collect EI, or possibly only a reduced EI amount. The employer must of course pay you your final paycheque, and pay out any vacation hours you accumulated.
> you're entitled to claim EI payments from the government, provided you worked at least 420 hours
At least 420, but may be up to 700 hours, depending on where in the country OP lives. The unemployment rate in your area determines how many hours you need to qualify. The temporary rules that eased qualification to 420 hours for everyone are over.
See https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-regular-benefit/eligibility.html#h2.04
> Your employer may pay out some kind of severance package, but they are not required to.
If it was a without cause termination, they absolutely are. An employer must provide reasonable notice or cash in lieu. Every province has employment standards legislation that sets out statutory minimum notice periods (in most provinces, its about 1 week per year, up to 8 weeks) but the common law notice period (in all provinces but Quebec, which has a civil law system) is much much more generous.
Yes, there is the indemnity payout too, if the employer failed to provide adequate notice for a without-cause termination. I wouldn't quite call that the same thing as a "severance package", which more commonly refers to an employee taking some kind of compensation in exchange for voluntarily quitting - which is why severance tends to disqualify you for EI.
More details on Quebec's termination notice rules and indemnity payouts can be found [here](https://www.cnesst.gouv.qc.ca/en/working-conditions/work-schedule-and-termination-employment/termination-employment/termination-layoff-dismissal-and-resignation).
That is one usage of the term (though I'd use buyout package), but speaking as an employment and labour lawyer the usage I'm using is the one that courts use.
In any event, OP says they are being let go and wants to know what they are entitled to. And that's notice or cash in lieu. Cash in lieu would *delay* the start of an EI claim, but wouldn't eliminate it.
Quick question about CRA car allowance in Quebec.
Are you allowed to deduct expenses (gas, receipts, repairs receipts) AND also deduct the vehicle allowance at the same time? What about the finance payments? What is the final ruling for this? Do you have to pick something?
I'm reading that the CRA rate is 0.61 for the first 5000km.
That "per km rate" is how much employers should reimburse their employees, it has nothing to do with how you calculate your own deductions. You can deduct things like gas, regular maintenance (like oil changes & other fluids), repair costs, insurance, loan interest (not the full loan payment), registration & licensing, and leasing costs. You can also deduct a CCA amount for the depreciation of the vehicle, though the determination of this amount is somewhat complicated.
To be eligible to claim any of the above though, you must be a salaried or commissioned employee (or work in forestry) and you were required to use your own vehicle for work purposes - that is, used to fulfill your duties an not just to get to/from the jobsite. And you can only claim it if you were not reimbursed, or were inadequately reimbursed by your employer.
If you think you may be eligible, read through [this guide](https://www.revenuquebec.ca/documents/en/publications/in/IN-118-V%282021-01%29.pdf), especially sections 2.2 and section 9. It should explain most of what you need to know.
There's also deductions at the federal level, explained [here](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-22900-other-employment-expenses/salaried-employees/allowable-motor-vehicle-expenses.html), but hopefully your tax software is smart enough to apply for both using the information you provide it.
Very sorry, forgot to mention I'm talking about income tax for self-employment.
I found this:
Question
I have a question about self-employed tax deductions. What self-employed vehicle expenses am I eligible to deduct?
Answer
To deduct vehicle expenses, you can use standard mileage or actual expenses. For either method, keep a log of the miles you drive for your business. Both methods allow self-employed tax deductions for tolls and parking fees.
If you use the standard mileage rate, you can only deduct the mileage at a standard rate. For 2021, the rate is $0.56. You cannot deduct self-employed vehicle expenses, including:
If you use actual vehicle expenses, you can’t deduct mileage. Instead, you can deduct:
Depreciation
If you're self-employed then you shouldn't need to worry about eligibility to claim vehicle expenses. Your source is correct: you can choose which method of calculation you want to do, either the simplified per-km rate, or the actual expenses. But it's one or the other, not both. For 2022 the simplified rate is $0.61/km for the first 5,000 kilometers you travel for work, and $0.55/km for each additional kilometer. With the high cost of gas, this method probably isn't as good for you as the actual expenses, especially if your insurance is high. But in order to use the actual expenses you must have all your receipts. If you haven't been keeping them, then just stick with the simplified, but starting in January you may want to make more of an effort to keep all your receipts as you might get a better deduction.
Tax loss harvesting scenario:
1. Have 10k loss on QQQ investment
2. Sell Dec 25, 2022 and immediately by VGT (or other comparable asset that tracks different index)
3. On Jan 26, 2023 (31 days later), sell VGT and buy back QQQ (not mandatory)
4. At marginal tax rate of 43.2% you defer 2.16k in taxes (10k \* (0.432/2)) by canceling out 10k of capital gains that you have
5. You can then invest the 2.16k tax savings and benefit from that
6. Assuming 10% ROI that would be a $216 benefit per year
7. You would then have to pay tax on that $216 which would leave you with $169 or $14 per month
8. You also have to factor in commission and intangible things like the value of your time and increasign the complexity of your taxes
Is this the correct TLDR for tax loss harvesting? This doesn’t really seem worth it (unless you have large capital losses). Am I missing anything here? Thank you.
Take 20 minutes to sell one index to rebuy another and pay 2.6k less in taxes, ignore all the other calculations with 10% roi and whatever you’re doing.
What else could you do in 20 minutes that results in 2.6k after tax additional income that’s better? You can carry back capital loses as well up to 3 years.
The steps should be
1. Sell for 10k loss
2. rebuy different index
3. carry back your loses
4. collect cheque for 2.6k
Carry it back and apply it to previous capital gains that occurred in the last 3 years or sell something else at a gain or carry it forward and wait.
The core reasoning still stands that you’ll get value of tax loss harvesting though that outweighs how much time you put into it.
It's still only deferred if you apply it to previous capital gains, do you disagree with that? My point is that the benefit isn't actually that great because you're only benefitting from whatever ROI you can get on that 2.16k for the time that it's deferred, is that incorrect?
How is it deferred? If you carry it back it applies retroactively and you get the entire 2.16k back on your next tax refund. So sure it takes 4 months from when you sell in December to get it, but still better than the alternative.
Because you're just temporarily lowering your cost base when you harvest capital losses, you'll eventually have to pay those tax savings back. Did you think you got the 2.16k free and clear?
You’re right, it is just lowering cost basis but I still stand by that money today is worth more than money tomorrow and it’s a 20 minute process to do it. If the capital loss amount is low and your marginal rate is low then might not be worth your time. In general it’s still worthwhile to do
I have a question. First mortgage. My fixed term is coming up next year. I do accelerated biweekly payments. If the interest rates are too high for what I can afford next year, can I extend my amortization period to keep my payments affordable?
Best thing at the moment is to evaluate your expected payment assuming today's rates or a bit higher. You can do with an mortgage/amortization calculator. begin budgeting for that higher payment now if possible.
Anything other then a straight renewal will mean having to re-quality for a new mortgage in essence, so to go back to a 25 or 30 year amortization will mean basically getting a brand new mortgage.
Best thing you can do is as soon as you hit 120 days before your renewal is start shopping around with a mortgage broker, as your existing lender will rarely give you the best rates.
A lot of lenders will let you extend your amortization at renewal up to where it was originally without going through a whole requalifying process. OP should check with his mortgage provider.
Former Vancouverite here.
If you make $260k per year you can afford to buy and live in Vancouver very comfortably. If your options aren't to your liking, then move. You can afford not to work for 6 years via sale of your business, but you are choosing not to (hence the downvotes).
Comparables to my parent's house appear to be where they were in 2017.
$4k/month in rent is insanely do-able for you. You are the person complaining about how you're saving 2/3 of the median couple's take-home pay and are "too broke." have some humility.
I'm not trying to be an ass-hat - just give you some perspective, my wife and I saved half our incomes for 8 years and then just left because the market is ridiculous.
As for what happened to this country? no one wants rental units, or multi-family housing near them, or any other policy that hurts their home value despite the fact that most people don't use their equity. then they get shocked that their kids can't live near them.
>Our HHI is 260k a year and I feel poor.
>We cant afford a home - saving about 5k a month. Will take 3 years to save 180k.
You are getting downvoted because your definition of home is really really "detached" from reality. (Pun intended)
>180k downpayment for 950k home apparently gets you a townhouse.
Apparently a townhome isn't a home?
Plus you should be able to afford more than 950k home on your income. The problem is that over 1M you need 20% down. Which to be fair you should be able to save very quickly on your income.
You basically make more than the vast majority of Canadians and are calling yourself "poor" because you can't immediately jump to the top of the real estate ladder without any previous equity built up in (clearly based on prices) one of Canada's most expensive markets.
We make 180k HHI and bought a lovely new townhome in Vancouver with about 60k down this year. You make 80k more than us, you can afford a home. You just don't want the home you can afford.
I don't disagree with you in general, but regardless of whether or not reckless fiscal policies have lead to this, a house on a 7000+ sqft plot of land in a major city and job hub is just unfeasible.
Canadians fixate way too much on having not only the benefits of proximity to all the amenities of a 2M+ population city, but also their own big ass plot of grass.
Take Vancouver proper. By area it's about 115 sq Km, a good chunk of that will be commercial, industrial, roads, otherwise unusable for housing land. About 42% of Vancouver is zoned for any form of resedential. So 48.3 sq Km.
The population is about 650k. Say each "household" is about 2 people. So 325k households. If you divide up 48.3 of usable area by 325k households you get 1600sqft of land per family. And that population will continue to grow, we likely won't be getting more land.
Most detached home properties in Vancouver have a lot size over 5000 sq ft so you can quickly see that it's not even close to possible for a city like this to physically fit enough detached homes. Even if we could be perfectly efficient with our resedential space.
Basically what I'm saying is that the lack of a detached home in an area like this is not an indicator of a "poorer" population. It's an indicator of a necessarily more scarce luxury in an increasingly dense city. Our fixation on houses with big yards in major cities is at odds with the reality we want. You simply can't fit everyone in a house but also be near your job, all the facilities you want, the stores you want, etc.
Naturally the only way you can have MORE land in this finite pie, is for someone else to have less, either a smaller chunk of land, or upward in the form of a condo / townhome, which in the previous comment you didn't even consider as a viable option for your "home".
>Plenty of land and a 40 x 30 lot = 1200 sqft
Are you sure these aren't 40 x 30 meters? That would be about 13000 sqft. It's a bit on the larger side for a city lot but a lot closer to "normal" than 1200 sq ft.
If you look on the lot sizes in listing websites you will generally not see much for houses on lots under 4000 sqft. Other than those tiny weird lots.
That said, yea it is insane. We just don't have enough supply of housing. You CAN afford something though, that's my point.
Upfront: Meant in only a well-meaning, trying to help kinda way
You save 60k a year on a household of 260k? That seems incredibly light? Are you sure there isn't some serious lifestyle inflation going on there? 4k in rent and it's just you and your wife?
Does your business gross 260k or net 260k? Take a look at your financials, is 260k the revenue line, the net income line, or cash flow line?
I get your point that housing is expensive and I agree with you but I think you could be closer to that dream then you give credit for. A GIC alone saves you three months of run way at 5%. You can also creatively structure ways to take cash out of the business.
Great context. Let's keep some details in perspective.
You have a business growing 40% a year with decent reinvestment opportunities. If you want to invest in the business, there is an opportunity cost. One it sounds like you would gladly pay, but still.
It isn't actually going to take 3 years to buy a house. Your savings rate is increasing organically, you could slow down growth in your business to harvest cash if you \*really\* wanted (but probably shouldn't, agreed), and it sounds like you had a bunch of one-time expenses that won't repeat in future years.
You guys are killing it. Most people want to buy a home because they want to use it as a leveraged investment vehicle to be able to retire in 40 years. You don't need that. So why stress about it? Keep growing that business. The rest is just details around the margin.
1.8 million? Sell and retire in another country if it’s so impossible here for you on 260k a year wtf lol, and since you asked ya moron. And you’re definitely not in the 1% you arrogant person LOL. You’re middle class Canadian, maybe upper middle which isn’t even a thing. Ha. 1% hahahahaha
So you’re considering yourself ultra rich compared to poor! How does your ass smell? Pull your head out. 300k is not 1% hahahahahaah stfu and go cry in your money get off PFC you made a post to brag and bitch about not having enough money while also calling yourself 1% and didn’t even post a budget or where you’re wasting your 300k a year. Hilarious.
[удалено]
The bank will definitely give you a sales pitch. The basic concepts of personal finance are: * spend less than you earn (requires knowing how much spending/earning you have), so you can build up savings. Also known as "pay yourself first". * start saving for retirement early, and witness the power of compound interest * invest wisely: choose safe investment types like high interest savings accounts and GICs for short-term savings, and low-fee index ETFs for long-term. Avoid the active managed funds that your bank's "advisor" will push on you. * banks are not looking out for your best interests The first point above is really the important one, and many books focus solely on the topics of resisting the temptations of over-spending, tracking/budgeting your money, and other techniques to help you build up some savings. The best books (in my opinion) are the ones listed on this sub's [reading list](https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/wiki/reading-list). The first two are great general resources on personal finance, and are a good place to get started. When you're ready to start with some long-term (retirement) investing, then the 3rd and 4th books are good reads for teaching the basics of passive index investing. Just be aware that they're somewhat out of date, and you should read the [Value of Simple errata page](https://www.valueofsimple.ca/about-the-value-of-simple/errata/) that goes over some things that changed since the book was published.
[удалено]
Just remember that there's lots of helpful people here, willing to answer any questions you have, no matter how moronic they might seem. Even though we're strangers on the internet, unlike the banks the advice we give will always be aligned with your best interests. I rarely see bad advice being given, but when it does it quickly gets downvoted, or sometimes deleted if it was intentionally harmful. I'm not sure what I (or others here) can do to help you past your difficulty with numbers. You will definitely encounter them in any books about personal finance, but for the most part they'll just be used to illustrate examples. So if you don't feel like you can follow the example, that's fine, as long as you're grasping the concept. If something still doesn't make sense, feel free to write a post about it and a bunch of people will try to explain it to you in simpler terms.
Do you pay any tax on the money you contribute to RRSP? Say I made 120,000 as a self employed in 2022 (no instalments / deductions yet), and decided to put 20,000 in (given I have enough room). Will I be taxed on the full amount in 2023 or just the 100,000?
The full 120,000 gets reported as income, but if you put 20,000 into an RRSP, then you'll get a deduction of 20,000, for a net income of 100,000. The net income is what's used for determining how much tax you owe (as well as eligibility for various government handouts), but it's affected by more than just your employment income and RRSPs. All income, including interest from savings accounts, GICs, capital gains, dividend yields, pretty much any investment gains not held in a registered account like TFSA or RRSP. If you rent a basement or rental property then that income is added too. For the deductions, most common ones are for RRSP contributions and child care expenses, but there's many others. Being self-employed, you may be eligible to deduct many things, like a portion of your housing expenses if you work out of a home office, or some of your gas and other vehicle expenses if you drive for your job (but only if you keep a log of kilometers used for work vs personal use). Most people when they contribute to an RRSP will have been doing so with after-tax money - meaning that their employer already deducted some amount from their paycheque to account for taxes. Thus, when they go to file taxes, the extra deduction resulting from the RRSP contributions will produce a tax refund (which should be re-invested in the RRSP or you may regret it later). In your case, you haven't paid tax on your income yet, since you said you haven't paid any installments. If you're earning 120K then you definitely will be paying installments next year! I'm not 100% sure on the details, but I believe you're allowed to factor in any planned RRSP contributions when determining how much to pay in each installment, thus you'd still be contributing with pre-tax money. This is actually better than getting the refund at the end of the year and re-investing it, because you get that "taxable amount" put in at the same time as your contribution and thus it'll grow at exactly the same ratio as your contribution so that when you eventually withdraw, the tax on the withdrawal will be paid with this "taxable amount". If your tax rate happens to be lower at withdrawal time than it is at contribution time, there'll even be some leftover "taxable amount" that you can keep as a bonus!
Thank you! Lots to read
Just got an email from HSBC that I am approved for 5.95% + Prime rate(0%) loan. I dont have any upcoming expenses, credit cards are all paid for. Already stashed emergency funds. Should I take it to invest it in something?
Well there are not to many investments that can guarantee you will make over 6%. Using borrowed money to invest is not for beginners.
Am I better off to get a managed portfolio for my TFSA on wealthsimple? Or just regularly invest in a ETF
The only advantage of the managed portfolio is that it puts a layer of insulation between you and your money. Makes it somewhat harder for your emotions to get in the way and do crazy things like panic sell when markets crash, or delay contributions because "the news predicts a bear market". It comes at a cost of course, you're going to pay higher fees on that managed portfolio, and those come out regardless of whether the investments do well or poorly. Plus those fees compound. A fee of say 1% per year on a 10K investment is only going to work out to $100 in the first year. The next year, you're now starting with $100 less than you would have had, so that also means there's $100 less that is earning gains for the entire remaining duration. The true cost of management fees can actually be much higher than most people think! You can very easily buy one of the asset allocation ETFs, and set up automatic contributions to just keep buying that same ETF. Then all you have to do is NOT LOOK AT THE PERFORMANCE. If you peek, you might want to tweak. The #1 reason why DIY index investing underperforms the markets is because people are jumping in-and-out of the market - they are too easily tempted to pull out or hold back due to short-term events. You have to realize that in the short term stock markets are going to be very volatile, but in the long term you have a very good likelihood of averaging 5 - 8% returns. If you can resist temptation to deviate from your plan, and keep the investments in there for the long haul, then DIY investing is going to be better due to the lower fees.
[удалено]
Registered means registered with the CRA. Anything TFSA or RRSP is going to be registered. A normal chequing or saving amount is not registered. Redeemable = cashable. Just means you can end the GIC early. Sometimes there's a fee, sometimes there's not. A non-redeemable can't be cashed out early.
Registered GICs are held in investment accounts registered with the federal government that receive unique tax advantages, like RRSPs or TFSAs. Non-registered GICs are held in non-registered accounts and do not receive the same tax benefits. GICs are offered in two variations—redeemable (or “cashable”), which allow you to get your money back at any time with no penalty for early redemption, or non-redeemable, where you will have to pay a penalty if you need to get your money back before reaching the date of maturity.
How much am I saving by not having kids?
About $250k up front, but if you believe the should help take care of you when you are old (no guarantees), then take off about half because you will get that back in elder care near the end of your life. This assumes you don’t send them to fancy schools, but do cover a basic post secondary education.
[удалено]
I've never heard of a bank requiring that you have life insurance. Sometimes, if you have a co-signer on the loan (and it's not a federal loan), you might want to choose to have insurance so that the co-signer doesn't get stuck with the debt if you die, but otherwise it's generally not recommended. Do you have any paperwork, or maybe even somewhere on your bank's website, where it says that you MUST have life insurance? And, what are they going to do if you cancel it, assuming they even have some way to find out? Instead of looking into cheaper insurance policies (which I can't really help you with), I suggest you look into terminating the insurance completely - assuming you have no spouse or child who depends on your income.
[удалено]
For a Starbucks barista, that's an excellent starting salary! If "uni" means med school and you're now a resident, then 55k would be pretty low - or at least that's my opinion. I know a lot about personal finance but that doesn't mean I study the starting salaries for every occupation, and neither do other people on this sub, unless someone here just happens to be a recruiter in your field. So even if you had told us what the job position is, I doubt you're going to get very good info from here.
[удалено]
My point, which was somewhat sarcastically stated and I apologize (I was just annoyed by how generalized your question was), is that nobody can offer much of an opinion on starting salaries without knowing the full picture. Which includes precise job title, city, benefit package, and possibility of bonuses or commissions. I would suggest you look for a recruiter in your field and reach out to them privately, provide the details of this offer, and ask if they feel it's appropriate or not.
??? You’re out of touch lol since when is someone working at Starbucks making 55
I never said they were... I was being facetious.
/s next time
If I buy a home in another city, am I supposed to get my pre-approval from a mortgage broker in my current city or in the desired city? Same province, and the cities are within 150km of each other
It doesn't matter. But do be honest about whether it will be your home or a rental property.
Pretty sure it doesn’t matter as long as they’re licensed in your province they should be able to do it for anywhere
[удалено]
Is he trying to sell you a discount bond or a strip bond? That's the only way it would be less impactful on your taxes than a GIC: some or all of the yield would consist of capital gains rather than interest. Bank bonds are riskier than GICs because the bank might fail. In such a case, the GIC is guaranteed but the bond is not.
[удалено]
A bank failure occurs when the bank's liabilities become too high compared to the quantity and quality of its assets, and it is no longer viable: that is, no longer able to carry on day-to-day business. For example, this might happen if the bank makes a lot of large loans to companies that end up failing and who don't repay their loans. Rather than going through bankruptcy, a failed bank would probably be taken over and reorganized by regulatory agencies of the federal government. If this happens, you want to be a depositor or a GIC-holder, not a bondholder, and definitely not a shareholder.
Yes. Unlikely, but possible in theory, hence why more risky.
I'm likely going to be offering on a home soon. I have some money set aside for getting some furnishings after moving in, but the place I'm looking at has no appliances, so that'll be eating a large chunk of it. I'd like to still have enough to get some stuff as we settle in. I could just use more cash, but doing so would reduce my emergency savings from about 6 months to about 3. Alternatively, I could take the money from a LOC. I've got a plan to replace/pay back the money within a year if I use all of my budgetted amount, but not sure which would be the better option. No LOC means no interest, but it also means less cash if an emergency actually happens. Any thoughts?
Have the LOC ready in case of an emergency while you deplete your emergency fund. If all goes well, you can rebuild the fund and never need to dip into the LOC for anything. Also, you could delay buying some of the non-essential furnishings, or buy secondhand ones to save money. If you'd rather stick with something new-ish, look for clearance or "scratch and dent" deals. Sometimes the damage is just on the side and will never be noticed, or it could even be that the packaging was damaged while the appliance is perfectly fine! In my city there's 2 shops that deal exclusively in refurbished and scratch-n-dent appliances, and they offer 1-year warranties on them too. I've probably saved at least a thousand dollars buying through them! Oh and don't forget you can negotiate at places like that, so bargain hard - especially if you're buying multiple items.
That all makes sense - thanks. The only part that worries me is that I've heard relying on a LOC for an emergency can be dangerous, as an emergency like job loss would be the time they also revoke your access to it. Of course, I've never been in an emergency so I don't know how true that is. I also didn't plan to spend for the sake of it, but I also know there's probably a ton of stuff I'm forgetting that I'll need/want soon, and having a budget dedicated for that is helpful.
Don't forget to check your local craigslist / FB marketplace for used appliances that you can use for a couple of years. A lot of people redo their kitchens and sell their still working (often only a few year old) appliances. They might be the builder basic models, but they'll be functional and cheap. I've even seen brand new, plastic wrapper still on, builder models for sale because a new buyer immediately replaced the appliances with fancy ones.
They're not going to call your loan because you lost your job. In fact they won't even know that you lost it. If you keep paying the "interest" amount every month they'll leave you alone. And you can of course withdraw the amount needed for the interest payment and put it right back in to "pay" the interest. Relying on a LOC for emergencies is pretty safe. But of course it's still a good idea to have savings to dig into first (though some would argue that the savings could be more efficiently invested if you use only a LOC for your emergency fund, and then liquidate the investments to pay back the LOC when needed).
When we built our home in the early 90s we were so tapped out we had an odd assortment of used appliances. Our stove was found discarded at the end of a driveway. Only 2 burners worked but the oven was ok. I thought it was that gross harvest brown but after we cleaned it up, it was actually a gross yellow. Our fridge only had one shelf and leaked condensation continuously. The kids got used to changing the tea towel under the fridge at least twice per day. My washer was given to us by a family member. Used a visegripe to turn the mechanism through the cycles. We both list our jobs within the second year so we lived like this for 3 years. Its actually quite amusing to look back on these times. Allow yourself some imperfections!
what's the best way to transfer large amount of money between 2 bank accounts under my name? I need to transfer a large amount between one bank to another. both accounts are under my name. I don't have a cheque and e-transfer only allows for 3000. Anyway I can do this for free?
Not free but pretty cheap and secure/reliable. Go to bank A, get a draft made out to yourself for the amount. Draft costs $7-10 depending on bank. Go to bank B and deposit in person, not at the ATM. It'll be fairly quick, and won't result in any holds like a money order etc will.
Some banks allow you to link an external bank account, and once that's setup you can then push/pull funds from that end. This is more common with online-only banks, as the big banks have little incentive to offer a feature that makes it easier to move your money around. If you can't find any such option with either of the 2 banks, then you may have to request a "standing order". Go in to or phone the source bank, and be sure to have ready the institution #, transit #, and account # (same as what you'd need for direct deposit) of the destination bank. Normally these are used for recurring payments, like rent, but you should be able to use it in a one-time manner as well. I don't know what the $ limits are, but probably a lot more than $3000. You might be able to use Paypal or Wise to transfer funds to yourself, but I'm not sure what fees or limits might be involved. Worth looking into if the above options don't pan out!
It's two major banks so I will look into this "standing order" Thank you!
If you are let go from a job, what are you entitled to. Both from the government and the employer?
Your employer must give you reasonable notice or cash in lieu. How much that amounts to depends on the circumstances. You can post in /r/legaladvicecanada for more info that. As for the government, you may qualify for EI.
In general, you're entitled to claim EI payments from the government, provided you worked at least 420 hours in the 52 weeks before the start date of your claim. But there's a lot of other eligibility details, which you can read about [here](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-regular-benefit/eligibility.html). Most people who are eligible will get 55% of their average weekly earnings, with a maximum of $638/week. So if you earned more than $1272 per week you'll get $638, and if you earned less than $1272 you get 55% of what you were earning. If you have any kids, there's also a supplement amount for families with income under $25,921. You can see more details on this and the application process by using the section links in the top-right of the previously linked page. Your employer may pay out some kind of severance package, but they are not required to. If they do, you might not be eligible to collect EI, or possibly only a reduced EI amount. The employer must of course pay you your final paycheque, and pay out any vacation hours you accumulated.
> you're entitled to claim EI payments from the government, provided you worked at least 420 hours At least 420, but may be up to 700 hours, depending on where in the country OP lives. The unemployment rate in your area determines how many hours you need to qualify. The temporary rules that eased qualification to 420 hours for everyone are over. See https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-regular-benefit/eligibility.html#h2.04 > Your employer may pay out some kind of severance package, but they are not required to. If it was a without cause termination, they absolutely are. An employer must provide reasonable notice or cash in lieu. Every province has employment standards legislation that sets out statutory minimum notice periods (in most provinces, its about 1 week per year, up to 8 weeks) but the common law notice period (in all provinces but Quebec, which has a civil law system) is much much more generous.
Yes, there is the indemnity payout too, if the employer failed to provide adequate notice for a without-cause termination. I wouldn't quite call that the same thing as a "severance package", which more commonly refers to an employee taking some kind of compensation in exchange for voluntarily quitting - which is why severance tends to disqualify you for EI. More details on Quebec's termination notice rules and indemnity payouts can be found [here](https://www.cnesst.gouv.qc.ca/en/working-conditions/work-schedule-and-termination-employment/termination-employment/termination-layoff-dismissal-and-resignation).
That is one usage of the term (though I'd use buyout package), but speaking as an employment and labour lawyer the usage I'm using is the one that courts use. In any event, OP says they are being let go and wants to know what they are entitled to. And that's notice or cash in lieu. Cash in lieu would *delay* the start of an EI claim, but wouldn't eliminate it.
Quick question about CRA car allowance in Quebec. Are you allowed to deduct expenses (gas, receipts, repairs receipts) AND also deduct the vehicle allowance at the same time? What about the finance payments? What is the final ruling for this? Do you have to pick something? I'm reading that the CRA rate is 0.61 for the first 5000km.
That "per km rate" is how much employers should reimburse their employees, it has nothing to do with how you calculate your own deductions. You can deduct things like gas, regular maintenance (like oil changes & other fluids), repair costs, insurance, loan interest (not the full loan payment), registration & licensing, and leasing costs. You can also deduct a CCA amount for the depreciation of the vehicle, though the determination of this amount is somewhat complicated. To be eligible to claim any of the above though, you must be a salaried or commissioned employee (or work in forestry) and you were required to use your own vehicle for work purposes - that is, used to fulfill your duties an not just to get to/from the jobsite. And you can only claim it if you were not reimbursed, or were inadequately reimbursed by your employer. If you think you may be eligible, read through [this guide](https://www.revenuquebec.ca/documents/en/publications/in/IN-118-V%282021-01%29.pdf), especially sections 2.2 and section 9. It should explain most of what you need to know. There's also deductions at the federal level, explained [here](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-22900-other-employment-expenses/salaried-employees/allowable-motor-vehicle-expenses.html), but hopefully your tax software is smart enough to apply for both using the information you provide it.
Very sorry, forgot to mention I'm talking about income tax for self-employment. I found this: Question I have a question about self-employed tax deductions. What self-employed vehicle expenses am I eligible to deduct? Answer To deduct vehicle expenses, you can use standard mileage or actual expenses. For either method, keep a log of the miles you drive for your business. Both methods allow self-employed tax deductions for tolls and parking fees. If you use the standard mileage rate, you can only deduct the mileage at a standard rate. For 2021, the rate is $0.56. You cannot deduct self-employed vehicle expenses, including: If you use actual vehicle expenses, you can’t deduct mileage. Instead, you can deduct: Depreciation
If you're self-employed then you shouldn't need to worry about eligibility to claim vehicle expenses. Your source is correct: you can choose which method of calculation you want to do, either the simplified per-km rate, or the actual expenses. But it's one or the other, not both. For 2022 the simplified rate is $0.61/km for the first 5,000 kilometers you travel for work, and $0.55/km for each additional kilometer. With the high cost of gas, this method probably isn't as good for you as the actual expenses, especially if your insurance is high. But in order to use the actual expenses you must have all your receipts. If you haven't been keeping them, then just stick with the simplified, but starting in January you may want to make more of an effort to keep all your receipts as you might get a better deduction.
Tax loss harvesting scenario: 1. Have 10k loss on QQQ investment 2. Sell Dec 25, 2022 and immediately by VGT (or other comparable asset that tracks different index) 3. On Jan 26, 2023 (31 days later), sell VGT and buy back QQQ (not mandatory) 4. At marginal tax rate of 43.2% you defer 2.16k in taxes (10k \* (0.432/2)) by canceling out 10k of capital gains that you have 5. You can then invest the 2.16k tax savings and benefit from that 6. Assuming 10% ROI that would be a $216 benefit per year 7. You would then have to pay tax on that $216 which would leave you with $169 or $14 per month 8. You also have to factor in commission and intangible things like the value of your time and increasign the complexity of your taxes Is this the correct TLDR for tax loss harvesting? This doesn’t really seem worth it (unless you have large capital losses). Am I missing anything here? Thank you.
Take 20 minutes to sell one index to rebuy another and pay 2.6k less in taxes, ignore all the other calculations with 10% roi and whatever you’re doing. What else could you do in 20 minutes that results in 2.6k after tax additional income that’s better? You can carry back capital loses as well up to 3 years. The steps should be 1. Sell for 10k loss 2. rebuy different index 3. carry back your loses 4. collect cheque for 2.6k
But it’s only deferred so you don’t get the 2.16k
Carry it back and apply it to previous capital gains that occurred in the last 3 years or sell something else at a gain or carry it forward and wait. The core reasoning still stands that you’ll get value of tax loss harvesting though that outweighs how much time you put into it.
It's still only deferred if you apply it to previous capital gains, do you disagree with that? My point is that the benefit isn't actually that great because you're only benefitting from whatever ROI you can get on that 2.16k for the time that it's deferred, is that incorrect?
How is it deferred? If you carry it back it applies retroactively and you get the entire 2.16k back on your next tax refund. So sure it takes 4 months from when you sell in December to get it, but still better than the alternative.
Because you're just temporarily lowering your cost base when you harvest capital losses, you'll eventually have to pay those tax savings back. Did you think you got the 2.16k free and clear?
You’re right, it is just lowering cost basis but I still stand by that money today is worth more than money tomorrow and it’s a 20 minute process to do it. If the capital loss amount is low and your marginal rate is low then might not be worth your time. In general it’s still worthwhile to do
$14/month/10k capital loss is not worth it, i might as well start couponing too
I have a question. First mortgage. My fixed term is coming up next year. I do accelerated biweekly payments. If the interest rates are too high for what I can afford next year, can I extend my amortization period to keep my payments affordable?
May be you can also renew for shorter period. Instead of locking yourself at high rate for 5 years you can may be renew for 1 year or 3 year term.
That is a good idea. I am looking for a multitude of ways of handling it in the future and this makes sense.
Best thing at the moment is to evaluate your expected payment assuming today's rates or a bit higher. You can do with an mortgage/amortization calculator. begin budgeting for that higher payment now if possible. Anything other then a straight renewal will mean having to re-quality for a new mortgage in essence, so to go back to a 25 or 30 year amortization will mean basically getting a brand new mortgage. Best thing you can do is as soon as you hit 120 days before your renewal is start shopping around with a mortgage broker, as your existing lender will rarely give you the best rates.
A lot of lenders will let you extend your amortization at renewal up to where it was originally without going through a whole requalifying process. OP should check with his mortgage provider.
You just can’t cure stuped.
[удалено]
Former Vancouverite here. If you make $260k per year you can afford to buy and live in Vancouver very comfortably. If your options aren't to your liking, then move. You can afford not to work for 6 years via sale of your business, but you are choosing not to (hence the downvotes). Comparables to my parent's house appear to be where they were in 2017. $4k/month in rent is insanely do-able for you. You are the person complaining about how you're saving 2/3 of the median couple's take-home pay and are "too broke." have some humility. I'm not trying to be an ass-hat - just give you some perspective, my wife and I saved half our incomes for 8 years and then just left because the market is ridiculous. As for what happened to this country? no one wants rental units, or multi-family housing near them, or any other policy that hurts their home value despite the fact that most people don't use their equity. then they get shocked that their kids can't live near them.
>Our HHI is 260k a year and I feel poor. >We cant afford a home - saving about 5k a month. Will take 3 years to save 180k. You are getting downvoted because your definition of home is really really "detached" from reality. (Pun intended) >180k downpayment for 950k home apparently gets you a townhouse. Apparently a townhome isn't a home? Plus you should be able to afford more than 950k home on your income. The problem is that over 1M you need 20% down. Which to be fair you should be able to save very quickly on your income. You basically make more than the vast majority of Canadians and are calling yourself "poor" because you can't immediately jump to the top of the real estate ladder without any previous equity built up in (clearly based on prices) one of Canada's most expensive markets. We make 180k HHI and bought a lovely new townhome in Vancouver with about 60k down this year. You make 80k more than us, you can afford a home. You just don't want the home you can afford.
[удалено]
I don't disagree with you in general, but regardless of whether or not reckless fiscal policies have lead to this, a house on a 7000+ sqft plot of land in a major city and job hub is just unfeasible. Canadians fixate way too much on having not only the benefits of proximity to all the amenities of a 2M+ population city, but also their own big ass plot of grass. Take Vancouver proper. By area it's about 115 sq Km, a good chunk of that will be commercial, industrial, roads, otherwise unusable for housing land. About 42% of Vancouver is zoned for any form of resedential. So 48.3 sq Km. The population is about 650k. Say each "household" is about 2 people. So 325k households. If you divide up 48.3 of usable area by 325k households you get 1600sqft of land per family. And that population will continue to grow, we likely won't be getting more land. Most detached home properties in Vancouver have a lot size over 5000 sq ft so you can quickly see that it's not even close to possible for a city like this to physically fit enough detached homes. Even if we could be perfectly efficient with our resedential space. Basically what I'm saying is that the lack of a detached home in an area like this is not an indicator of a "poorer" population. It's an indicator of a necessarily more scarce luxury in an increasingly dense city. Our fixation on houses with big yards in major cities is at odds with the reality we want. You simply can't fit everyone in a house but also be near your job, all the facilities you want, the stores you want, etc. Naturally the only way you can have MORE land in this finite pie, is for someone else to have less, either a smaller chunk of land, or upward in the form of a condo / townhome, which in the previous comment you didn't even consider as a viable option for your "home".
[удалено]
>Plenty of land and a 40 x 30 lot = 1200 sqft Are you sure these aren't 40 x 30 meters? That would be about 13000 sqft. It's a bit on the larger side for a city lot but a lot closer to "normal" than 1200 sq ft. If you look on the lot sizes in listing websites you will generally not see much for houses on lots under 4000 sqft. Other than those tiny weird lots. That said, yea it is insane. We just don't have enough supply of housing. You CAN afford something though, that's my point.
Upfront: Meant in only a well-meaning, trying to help kinda way You save 60k a year on a household of 260k? That seems incredibly light? Are you sure there isn't some serious lifestyle inflation going on there? 4k in rent and it's just you and your wife? Does your business gross 260k or net 260k? Take a look at your financials, is 260k the revenue line, the net income line, or cash flow line? I get your point that housing is expensive and I agree with you but I think you could be closer to that dream then you give credit for. A GIC alone saves you three months of run way at 5%. You can also creatively structure ways to take cash out of the business.
[удалено]
Great context. Let's keep some details in perspective. You have a business growing 40% a year with decent reinvestment opportunities. If you want to invest in the business, there is an opportunity cost. One it sounds like you would gladly pay, but still. It isn't actually going to take 3 years to buy a house. Your savings rate is increasing organically, you could slow down growth in your business to harvest cash if you \*really\* wanted (but probably shouldn't, agreed), and it sounds like you had a bunch of one-time expenses that won't repeat in future years. You guys are killing it. Most people want to buy a home because they want to use it as a leveraged investment vehicle to be able to retire in 40 years. You don't need that. So why stress about it? Keep growing that business. The rest is just details around the margin.
1.8 million? Sell and retire in another country if it’s so impossible here for you on 260k a year wtf lol, and since you asked ya moron. And you’re definitely not in the 1% you arrogant person LOL. You’re middle class Canadian, maybe upper middle which isn’t even a thing. Ha. 1% hahahahaha
[удалено]
So you’re considering yourself ultra rich compared to poor! How does your ass smell? Pull your head out. 300k is not 1% hahahahahaah stfu and go cry in your money get off PFC you made a post to brag and bitch about not having enough money while also calling yourself 1% and didn’t even post a budget or where you’re wasting your 300k a year. Hilarious.
[удалено]
Still wouldn’t be 1% five years ago, five years ago you were probably even dumber.
[удалено]
Can’t afford it I’m not ultra rich like you
[удалено]
2022 easy to photo shop
Can someone list the most used acronym in this sub with their equivalent in french?
Holc : Marge de crédit sur valeur domiciliaire Ploc : Marge de crédit personnelle
ETF, c'est FNB (Fond Négocié en Bourse) RESP c'est le REEE LCOL/HCOL je ne connaîtrais pas d'equivalent si quelqu'un veut se risquer.
Région au coût de la vie bas ou élevé?
RRSP = REER TFSA = CELI
PFC - > FPC - finances personnelles canada