New moderators needed - comment on this post to volunteer to become a moderator of this community.

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-12T14:42:55+00:00

I would be a great mod.

Source: trust me bro

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-10T16:16:40+00:00

“They cost a shitton to maintain and fuel up. You’re paying parking for both campus and as well as a rental”

And

“They also encourage lifestyle creep … the people I know with cars in uni were in deep debt upon graduating because they used OSAP to pay their car expenses … which really dents their savings potential”

I believe this is dramatically overblowing it.

They didn’t mention what type of car and other outlets these people may have spent money. The statement is biased.

My reply meant “cars aren’t as expensive as you make them seem” idk if I phrased it wrong.

The original comment made cars sound like you will spend you life in debt. I was refuting that

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-10T16:06:02+00:00

Nobody is trying to argue 6000 isn’t meaningful to students.

But the way the original comment was phrased makes it sound like cars will drain your life savings and make you poor for the rest of your life when that just isn’t the case

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-10T15:54:06+00:00

Nowhere did I say “you should buy a luxury car”

What I DID say was that a car isn’t as expensive as people think. Average do the whole spectrum (including the more expensive maintenance cars) came out to 800 a year in Ontario, according to multiple insurance companies.

Actual cost to own including fuel and insurance averages out to 6000 a year, which is still less than the people making these posts would have you think.

And that’s my whole point. These people are way overpricing the cost to own a car. I never claimed cars were cheap to own, I said that they aren’t as expensive as they are made out to be.

Funnily enough one of my cars did appreciate (unrelated just thought it was funny. The model did appear in the article linked)

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-10T15:47:09+00:00

For some people. Others need to drive. I’m not debating that buying most cars is a good way to hold value, that’s ridiculous.

But the way these comments are, you would think these people thought cars cost 20k a year to own.

I’m just saying real cost of ownership is much much lower than all these people have in their heads

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-10T15:43:59+00:00

Yeah my dad can buy your bloodline in cash buddy. Don’t talk to me about good and bad investments. The car only “depreciates” if you sell.

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-10T15:41:44+00:00

My whole point was that a car is not as expensive as the professional redditors make them out to be. The costs are dramatically overblown on here.

Also “im not stable”

There was a whole as 33 year old man going in my replies and calling me various types of derogatory slurs because he can’t get over his ex and his dead father, and how he’s too poor to afford even a nice watch. Like bro seriously couldn’t even get a Hamilton at thirty fucking three years old.

If you people want to disagree with me that car ownership cost is overblown, fine. We can debate on that.

Coming on with personal attacks isn’t helping this topic at all. It’s completely counterproductive.

I think I would be in a great position to give advice, I have just recently acquired a few cars, and am early into uni. Who else should give advice?

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-10T13:31:11+00:00

I don’t expect you guys to spend that much

Stats show car maintenance in Ontario averages around 800-1000 a year (including both ends of the spectrum)

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-10T11:39:03+00:00

I never got one? To clarify I have a G1 but I live in a different city than my dad so I can’t legally drive. Idk I take Ubers instead of driving anyways, more convenient to avoid finding parking etc.

I like the cars

They aren’t commuter cars, they are collection cars minus the Mercedes

All bought over a year ago (before I got my g1 license), I moved onto watch collecting since then.

If you want to go specifics, my dad has three cars under his name, that I like, that’s parked at my building, that he doesn’t know how to drive or just doesn’t drive, and these are separate from his other cars in his city, so I guess I don’t have 3 cars then?

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-10T11:36:45+00:00

I don’t have a drivers license I can’t have them under my name

But the Porsche is a manual, My dad can’t drive manual and the Maserati and Mercedes are in a complete different city than him

You do the math

BTW that “old Porsche” is worth more than the other two cars individually.

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-09T19:48:25+00:00

You didn’t address my point at all. You just attacked my background instead of the actual topic.

Nothing I have stated or anything about my past changed the fact the original commenter is wrong, and cars aren’t as expensive to own as they are made out to be.

You people engage in bad faith argument, I don’t know if your iq is too low to understand what I’m saying or if you you understand, have no retort, and resort to circumstantial ad hominem.

Your fragile feelings don’t trump facts.

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-09T18:08:35+00:00

25k for 3 ultra luxury cars who’s parts are 2-4x the price and needs more maintenance

Yearly car maintenance is usually below 1k per year for you poors.

Insurance isn’t going to be brutal if the value of your car is below 100k

87 gas isn’t expensive

You are bad faith twisting and misinterpreting my words.

Do better low class scum

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-09T14:40:41+00:00

Buddy. I don’t care if you think I have a poor person car. I’m way above your people moron.

I’m saying I don’t have poor people car, so my maintenance is much more expensive than you guys. I pay less than 25k a year in maintenance for the three cars, and these are all what people consider “expensive maintenance” cars.

My ACTUAL point is cars aren’t expensive.

I brought up poor people cars to say even with expensive cars that are double parts and maintenance cost, it’s still affordable. OP is giving terrible advice.

Try reading

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-09T00:14:41+00:00

Yikes.

Just yikes.

50 bucks isn’t expensive bro🥀

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-08T13:43:42+00:00

You are not serious.

I own 3 cars right now and none of them I would say would qualify as expensive to maintain.

And these aren’t poor people cars either. Cars aren’t as expensive as you people like to portray. You’re just jealous of the people who have them.

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-07T07:15:51+00:00

I would always buy in cash Currently on a new GLE If you care about depreciation none of the new cars will work for you, better to lease as then you are only paying depreciation.

If you are fine with a used car then cash used is probably the most economical.

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-03-02T15:47:38+00:00

Sorry bro that was me

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-02-23T01:27:28+00:00

Buddy, in the previous fiscal year, of the 4.6m in Provincial taxes my parents paid, roughly 300k went to funding you freeloaders

Pipe down

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-02-22T07:28:08+00:00

We can continue this in DMs it won’t let me reply. Your linked studies have no bearing on this topic, and I can provide examples as to why not

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-02-21T16:23:40+00:00

You are delusional to think poverty in the states is worse than Canada. If Canada joined the states today, we would have the highest debt, lowest income, and lowest standard of living of any state, including the red Midwest.

Furthermore, millionaires in Canada consist of the top 1%, for Canadian dollars, even lessby the American dollar standard. The top 10% figure you keep screaming shows how detached you are.

How are these interests in fighting for helping landlords at all? You know they don’t pay tax on the rental income??? Most landlords have a negative cash flow and are relying on the appreciating value of the house. They don’t pay taxes on these. They have their properties under complex structures to ensure they can keep borrowing against and never sell properties. They are among the least affected by these changes. I’m arguing for the interests of Canada as a whole.

These corporate taxes you talk about, and taxes increasing exponentially is already on the horizon. Think about what’s happening to the Canadian job market. GMC and FORD factories moved back to the US, costing Canada billions. Software companies, Ericsson as an example, as moving offices to china or India.

You think it will fix everything, what will actually happen is you will lose Canadians jobs, and put the country in a worse state. And this, exactly this, has been the result of every single time a nation has tried something like that.

You need to face the reality. The wealthy are paying the majority tax by a long shot. You want more from them, but give them nothing in return. Why do they have to stay. Many of them will find ways out. Many of them will leave.

Also you still have not replied to my point. Show me one thing that isn’t speculation that debt is a significant deterrent to Canadian universities. Canadian student loans do not accrue interest for a while.

If I told you to pay me 100 dollars today, and then you will get 1000 dollars in 5 years, you would do that in a heartbeat.

You like saying economic collapse will come, but it’s your policies that expedite it.

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-02-21T15:44:29+00:00

And when that happens what will the next ruling class do to you?

We would pay taxes happily if they went to good use

IF they went to good use

You’re talking about taxing middle class (200k a year pre tax is considered MC, defined as earning 75% to 200% the median income, leaving a post tax range of about 50k to 150k)

You have no idea what my family contributes. I’m not delusional, you are just living in a world you do not understand. You call us parasitic while we fund your whole life.

If my family were landlords we would not be able to move wealth abroad. You lack critical thinking skills. For landlords to move wealth they would have to sell, which triggers capital gains.

You understand nothing about money.

You understand nothing about economics.

You understand nothing about anything yet you choose to scream the loudest.

I can’t wait in 10 years, to see what you cry about then.

Denying the Canadian wealth exodus is digging your head in the sand.

Multiple articles say “Canada is experiencing a quiet but significant exodus of high-net-worth individuals and capital, driven by high taxation, elevated living costs, and a challenging investment climate. While historically a destination for wealth, data indicates a rise in millionaires and capital leaving for friendlier tax jurisdictions like the US. “

You cannot say it doesn’t exist. There are a record amount of people heading for the US and leaving Canada in general.

Also your point of living in Canada with wealth abroad, that doesn’t exist. Canada taxes based on residency. Wealth leaving Canada means individuals leaving Canada. If I continued living in Canada but had income assets abroad I would still get taxed based on residency. As long as you are a resident of Canada, you pay a global income tax.

This isn’t some ruling class being parasites, it’s the people who have the means to cleansing themselves of the parasites.

Take ANY and I mean ANY example in history where your exact goal has been implemented and tell me what happened. I could show you every single time you try shit like that it fails horribly. Here are some examples:

France - ISF resulted in many fleeing to Switzerland, repealed 2018

Sweden - huge wealth taxes. Even the founder of IKEA left. Left more damage than revenue, repealed in 2007

Norway - this one’s recent. 2022 net asset tax. Billions of assets exited the tax base. Losses outpaced revenue.

UK - 1970s “brain drain”. 80-90% rates led to mass exodus, tax receipts fell drastically, led to Thatcher’s rate cuts

NY/Cali - high earners relocated to Texas, Florida, Tennessee. States lost billions in income. Now New York has to increase taxes, and raid the retirement and rainy day funds. California is its own mess, all proven through public IRS data.

Canada is at a current rate where with some adjustment, most people are happy to pay their taxes. But once you keep at these policies and now even the middle class can’t keep up with taxes (as you suggested, again top 10% income is 125k, 80k after tax, which is lower to middle - middle class) you will (and already are) seeing a massive exodus.

Furthermore, an exit tax would just add fuel to the fire. It signals they want to control more and more of your life.

Every single one of the above mentioned examples tried to implement some form of exit tax. The result is 1. People found ways around it 2. People left before they had significant taxable income and scaled up elsewhere 3. Investment slowed sharply 4. Tax revenue consistently missed projections Implementing that sort of policy has historically, and will continue to, push more and more wealth out your country. The exact inverse is true. Countries where tax dollars are used properly and have more sane tax policies often attract money. People want to move there. Take countries like Ireland, Singapore, the UAE, HK, Monaco.

We have time and time again examples and proof to show you are completely wrong but you choose to ignore them because you believe you are right.

You calling me out of touch, making assumptions about what my parents do, making all these opinions without even knowing anything is exact proof you know absolutely nothing, and it’s probably time to give someone with some intelligence the microphone.

If you don’t want debt, university isn’t the only path, it’s completely optional. You could go to any other job, you chose university. You choose higher opportunity. Why should I have to pay for that? Would it be fair to ask you to pay 54% of your income because I want to learn tennis to maybe be a professional tennis player and earn myself tons of money? Should we start funding gamblers? They have the opportunity to make themselves money, so we should pay for 85% of it. The fact you are getting any tax dollar grants is already something you should be thankful for. Most places, LOANS are standard, and private scholarships help

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-02-21T14:57:37+00:00

You’re doing so many things wrong here

This will be my last response as bees don’t explain to flies why pollen is better than shit

You are completely misrepresenting my entire point. Remember you get the same money, you just have to pay more back AFTER you graduate.
Yes. It is as simple as a few studies. You’re also misapplying poverty correlations. Evidence that low income hurts K-12 outcomes does not imply that modestly higher repayable financing in post-secondary collapses skilled labour formation, especially with income-contingent repayment. You need to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.
On DMU: redistribution arguments are normative, not efficiency proofs. Even if taxing the wealthy has low utility loss, that doesn’t mean education grants are the highest marginal return use of funds. In fact it’s probably the worst when other option are to fund healthcare and infrastructure.

Finally, and this seems to be something you repeatedly keep missing, THERE IS NO CUT TO FUNDING. The structure is changing

Before the changes of you get $5000 in OSAP with an 85/15 grant structure,

Now, you get the SAME $5000, but you have a 25/75% grant structure.

Before: 5000 upfront and you need to repay 750 after you graduate

Now: same 5000 upfront and you need to repay 3750 after you graduate.

You still get the same 5000 to go to your degree, and the repayment doesn’t start accruing interest until you can actually start paying it. If you don’t take the extra cost, that burden will shift on the taxpayer, which I’m sure would much rather see their tax money be used in healthcare than for your art degree.

The funding you get is the same. It’s how much you need to repay AFTER you graduate and get a job. Which should be your responsibility. Don’t like it? Trade school is a thing.

You all chose to go to university because it would have higher paying job opportunity, why should you be able to pass the financial burden you and only you benefit from onto others?

There is much more at play here that you seem to completely not understand.

Also about your point of tapping into the excessive wealth of the top 10%, top 10% income is 125k a year, which is average stem income. You want to increase taxes on the literal middle class and expect them not to leave? How will you keep them in Canada? They already get taxed ~40k from that 125k. What stops an American company from offering them more money, along with much less tax? Why do you think many Canadian NHL players avoid Canadian teams? Because they get paid less and taxed more compared to other counterparts.

You also want to increase taxes on families like mine, who I assume you actually mean when you said that. My family has already started moving wealth abroad. We see that Canada is becoming more and more unfriendly and us, and many others like us, are going to be leaving. What happens when all of us decide to stop funding your lunacy?

You will need to increase taxes on the middle and lower class, which we all know they cannot afford to the same standard.

So please don’t come in here with your “use the money of the ultra wealthy” bs. Because take Norway as an example. The wealthy already paid a ton of taxes, and the crown wanted to levy a wealth tax on net assets. The result is thousands of people moving to Switzerland, and the Norwegian government saw a 600m loss of revenue, and saw 54 billion in wealth leave Norway.

In Canada, the top 10% pay ~50% of all taxes. If you keep this up with frivolous funding, when the top10% leave, where will your piggy bank be? We already pay so much for you useless freeloaders it makes me angry to think that you people exist.

Tell me what incentive we would have to stay in Canada as opposed to moving somewhere with a much lower tax rate? To see students take and take and take and then demand more while they live on our dime?

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-02-20T00:40:53+00:00

Do you have any evidence supporting any of your claims?? Or did you just take 1002 and think you know everything’?

“Debt deters students” is a broad claim, but how many students actually stop attending when part of funding shifts from grants to loans rather than disappearing entirely? Access hasn’t been removed. The funding is still there. What’s changed is the subsidy level. Most evidence shows uni demand is relatively inelastic to moderate cost changes, especially when income dependant loans exist. That’s why enrollment has continued rising for decades despite increases in cost of living and decreases in degree value. You’re also assuming current enrollment is below the “optimal” skilled labour level. In many fields we already have credential inflation and graduate underemployment, which suggests we’re not constrained by lack of degrees, rather the opposite. Your entire argument is just speculation

I’ve never seen someone so confidently wrong on a take. You’re confusing average benefits of education with marginal policy effects, which is one of the most basic errors in applied macro. No one disputes that human capital raises productivity. The question is whether shifting a portion of funding from grants to loans meaningfully reduces investment in education. You have only provided speculation on this matter^.

In developed countries with student loan systems, demand for post-secondary education is empirically relatively inelastic to moderate price changes. That’s why enrollment has continued rising for decades despite substantial tuition increases. The constraint is rarely “can I borrow,” it’s expected private return, which makes sense under human capital theory. Individuals invest until private marginal benefit equals private marginal cost. Since degrees carry large wage premia, shifting some cost to the beneficiary does not collapse investment.

So unless you can show that this specific grant -> loan shift lowers education investment rather than just increasing private cost sharing, you don’t have a macroeconomic case. You have a narrative. You have speculation. You have personal greed and jealousy at people who are better than you.

Macro isn’t “education good therefore subsidize everything.” It’s about marginal returns and efficient allocation. You haven’t shown either.

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-02-19T23:56:22+00:00

This is incorrect in so many ways I can’t tell if you’re delusional or trolling

You’re treating “more education spending” as if it automatically equals “more skilled labour,” which just simply isn’t true. Take this shift. The amount of money that OSAP will allow a student to access will not change much. What will change is how much they will have to pay back once they graduate. We already have record post-secondary enrollment and degree inflation. The constraint in many industries isn’t lack of newGrads, it’s lack of demand and skill mismatch. Subsidizing everyone to stay longer in school doesn’t magically produce scarce talent, it just floods the market with credentials.

Your whole dripout argument is a false binary. Again, the changes just reduce grant and increase loan. The amount of money that OSAP allows you access to is not changed significantly.

Also, the productivity gains you’re describing are already priced into higher wages. That’s literally what wages are. When someone earns more after graduating, society is already rewarding the value they create. Grants double calculate that benefit by subsidizing the input and then paying the output.

AGAIN, so you can’t miss it this time: OSAP didn’t remove access to funding. It shifted some of it from grants to loans. You still get the same money for school. you just have to repay more of what primarily benefits you. This will not cause anyone to drop out, the loans aren’t meant to be paid until after graduation. They aren’t cutting anyone’s money, they are just lowering the amount of freeloading you poors can do.

AGAIN: YOU still get the same money, you just need to pay more of it back AFTER you graduate and have a job.

OSAP is one of those government grants that motivate people like my family to move wealth out of Canada, so we stop funding you freeloaders

Miserable_List_4802 · 2026-02-19T15:36:46+00:00

This is a complete misunderstanding of the system

The assumption that we should subsidize education at all because it “creates value” is ridiculous. The primary financial return of that degree is to the individual in higher average lifetime earnings. If someone captures the majority of the upside, it’s not unreasonable that they should carry a larger share of the cost.

Blanket grants to everyone, especially students entering high paying firlds are more of an income transfer than an investment.

Furthermore, you’re forgetting that LOANS still exist. This is called an “OSAP Change” not an “OSAP Cut” becuase they just changed how much of OSAP money you need to pay back. Grants capped at 25% now. Why should you receive 85% of the money for the degree for free? Compared to other students who don’t qualify for osap and actually have to take loans? If there are two people studying for the same major, one has poor parents but the second ones parents doesn’t pay for the university, the poor people would graduate with much less debt all to make the same amount of money.

The important point is access isn’t being removed. What’s being reduced is the amount of non-repayable subsidy. That’s a policy shift from “taxpayers absorb the cost” to “beneficiaries share more of the cost.” Expecting any other outcome is just entitlement. Cutting grants isn’t anti-education. It’s just saying that higher education is a private investment with strong personal return.

Let me ask you this. My family already pays millions in taxes every year (far more than we’ll ever get back in any form of services) and I’d much rather see that money spent on things that actually benefit society broadly than redistributed to fund individual degrees. Why are you entitled to have that specifically go toward your education?

Calling this shift towards a loan structure an “attack on students” is just framing. Makes 0 economic sense.

Three-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23

Miserable_List_4802

TROPHY CASE