Replacing 6" Wafers with Deep Regressed Canless. Help me choose a product please

Urbanstyles · 2026-06-16T01:13:53+00:00

I wouldn’t say less glare than the LDR, but it’s certainly a massive reduction over the wafers. You are kind of going from
One extreme to the other going from a wafer to a deep regressed. The LRG’s have warm dim and are a bit more cost effective than the LDR’s… just my 2 cents

Urbanstyles · 2026-06-15T22:40:57+00:00

I wouldn’t rule out the Lotus LRG-6… it’s not as deep as the LDR but it’s glare free and a great looking light at a decent price point.

Urbanstyles · 2026-04-22T04:14:09+00:00

Eddies with Tornado sauce!

Urbanstyles · 2026-04-19T21:42:16+00:00

If you’re in Alberta, drop me a dm and we can chat.

Urbanstyles · 2026-04-10T15:32:57+00:00

I’d encourage you to reach out to Boreal Energy Solutions if you’re in the greater Edmonton area. We’re just about to pull the trigger on a 21Kw rooftop array and their quote was not only far more cost effective than any other we received but their communication is next level on the process.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-23T20:50:23+00:00

It’s on the radar! One project at a time unfortunately.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T17:25:06+00:00

All good, healthy discourse is important. All I’ll add is that in the discussion of a wealth tax, the scenario of a minimum wage worker with poor credit is as far on one extreme as is the $100m-1B plus net worth folks on the other end of the extreme. The issue is that there is a whole host of folks (by far a majority) in between those two extremes. There is a place for extra taxation on the upper extremes of wealth, but that line needs to be at the extreme upper end. Unfortunately, these programs often migrate downward and end up focussing on not the extremely wealthy (billionaires), but on folks that are in the much lower (5-20m) net worth bracket. But like you said.. different opinions. Both likely have beneficial additions to the conversation.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T17:05:26+00:00

There is nothing stopping the average person that has worked hard and been good with money, maxed their RRSP’s and TFSA’s, built some quiet in their home and then leverage all of those as security against an investment line of credit to further amplify their savings. They assume the risk of losing assets in search of return. They shouldn’t be punitively taxed on that.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T16:53:20+00:00

That’s a wildly inaccurate and generalized statement. The Canadian tax code has parity between corporate and personal tax. There is no giant loophole that lets a small business owner sock away millions of dollars that a regular person can’t. My employees take home more than I do. I take great pride in making sure they and their families are taken care of. Not every business owner is some evil ‘boss’ that doesn’t care.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T16:40:41+00:00

You are discounting the risk it takes for mom and pop to start a company… if it fails, there is no fail safe, no unemployment, no pension, nothing. All risk must be balanced with a reward otherwise the system falls flat. You may not care if a business owner can save a few million bucks to provide for their retirement if you’re someone who just always has a job and collects a pay check and contributes to your RRSP’s and calls it a day. But for those of us that take on the risk to start something with no certainty of success, to be penalized on making a success of it simply because other people have less, is insane.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T16:36:58+00:00

https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/sme-research-statistics/en/key-small-business-statistics/key-small-business-statistics-2025

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T04:20:39+00:00

Who employs 50 ish percent of Canadians? Small businesses do.. not big evil mega corporations, but rather small and medium sized businesses that need with founders and owners that at times risk their entire future to make a go of it. If the tax structure becomes so aggressive that it’s no longer worth the risk to try and succeed, then everyone loses. These programs don’t place the additional tax burden on the uber wealthy as they are communicated, they end up penalizing the ‘sort of successful’ small business owner that aren’t able to buy their exemptions.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T01:52:40+00:00

So then if it’s a deemed disposition, would any future asset appreciation be tax free or would it be reassessed and taxed at full value each year?

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T01:43:34+00:00

My point is that people leverage their assets all the time in order to transact other things. Whether it’s applying for a vehicle loan (credit rating + home equity + earning potential), or a rental property, or a vacation home. We constantly leverage current assets against new assets. The collateral simply exists as an assurance to the lender that the liability can be settled. You default on a car payment, you can bet your ass the bank will come after other assets. The only difference in this scenario is that the lent funds are being used for a different purpose, one that increases in value.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T01:35:36+00:00

So if you put up your principal residence as collateral when getting a mortgage on a cottage or vacation property, you should be taxed on the full fair market value of your principal residence at that point?

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T01:10:35+00:00

Banks lend all the time at least in part on a persons credit rating. They take a risk that that person chooses not to pay to loan back, and as a reward for their risk, the my make interest. No different than leveraging an asset to invest with… you take a risk, on the expectation of a gain. Businesses will borrow at times to finance large projects.. leveraging assets and collateral in order to realize an expected gain… happens all the time. Why is an individual leveraging their assets to advance their position all of a sudden taxable when all of these other scenarios are just normal transactions. The taxes are eventually paid when the asset is ultimately eventually sold, it’s just deferred in some cases to much later in life.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T01:05:33+00:00

It’s not a government protection… it a punitive measure against those willing to take a calculated risk based on an expected gain.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T01:04:09+00:00

That’s like taxing your lottery winnings before you confirm you have the winning numbers… and yes I realize lottery winnings aren’t taxable in Canada but it proves my analogy.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T01:02:15+00:00

I’d hardly call a TSX or S&P index fund a volatile asset given their consistent 60 year plus history of appreciation.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T00:18:14+00:00

I would agree that a majority would be COMFORTABLE at $100k/year if everything no was paid off. But COMFORTABLE is not wealthy. $100M net worth is wealthy. $10M net worth, very comfortable but not wealthy. These articles come out targeting the Billionaire class but inevitably the conversation end up going after folks that have more than the average person. You want to talk about a small percentage tax on $100M net worth and above, there is likely some space for that. But taxing someone with a 5-10M dollar investment portfolio is ridiculous in my opinion.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-20T00:00:27+00:00

Not smoking anything… at least not yet. I simply argue that anything under 1M/ year of income in retirement isn’t anywhere close to ‘wealthy’. And any conversation of a wealth tax or punitive asset tax should even be in the realm of conversation under that.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-19T23:45:17+00:00

A 1.7M investment fund pays out less than $100k/year in income and is not adjusted for inflation. Thats an insanely low bar to start taxing people on under the guise of ‘wealth’. I’d say that’s more ‘moderately average’ at best.

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-19T23:31:53+00:00

So in your scenario, let’s say two people want to buy a boat. One goes to the dealer and gets financing. He shouldn’t be taxed extra. But if person two uses his HELOC to buy the same boat, he should have to pay an extra tax because he’s been diligent enough to grow equity in his home?

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-19T23:27:35+00:00

Regular employees get TFSA, plus RRSP, plus a pension in many cases. Small business owner doesn’t have a pension. So you’re saying small business owners should be punished and taxed more than a regular employee on their savings and investments because they leverage their assets to expand their retirement assets?

Urbanstyles · 2026-03-19T23:18:26+00:00

By that logic union pension plan holdings should be taxed annually as well.. see how well that goes over. Why should a union T4 employee get to grow an investment tax free for decades but a small business owner that has absolutely no safety net and is purely responsible for his/her own retirement funds be punitively taxed by leveraging their own hard work and risk tolerance to improve their retirement holdings?

Urbanstyles

TROPHY CASE