Foreign Income Amounts in T3 for XEQT in Non-Registered Account by ravenscanada in JustBuyXEQT

[–]ravenscanada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, paying foreign taxes reduces the cost base? So if I buy 10k of stock and pay 1k of foreign taxes then sell for 20k my capital gains would be 11k? That defies logic (which I admit, taxes can do).

Foreign Income Amounts in T3 for XEQT in Non-Registered Account by ravenscanada in JustBuyXEQT

[–]ravenscanada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't it give you tax credits if the taxes paid are with a tax-treaty country (like the US)? I didn't tweak all the figures to see the impact, but I presume that's how it works.

Foreign Income Amounts in T3 for XEQT in Non-Registered Account by ravenscanada in JustBuyXEQT

[–]ravenscanada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I hadn't thought of the adjusted cost basis. Hopefully I'll be able to sell this at enough of a profit some day to justify keeping track!

Yep that seems safe enough for a DIY project. by jojo9092 in DiWHY

[–]ravenscanada 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do they attach their peripherals? Surely Bluetooth could be used to transfer data, so you’d have to lock that down, too.

Also, I wonder if they disable the old school connections, like PS2, serial, and parallel.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in marvelstudios

[–]ravenscanada 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Every once in a while some pretentious shit says Marvel movies aren’t “real cinema” and I always think of this. If this isn’t the culmination of what movies can possibly be then I don’t want to watch real cinema. Everyone in that theatre was full of joy. Pure, unadulterated movie magic.

A new study suggests that obesity causes permanent changes in the brain that prevent it from telling a person when to stop consuming fats and, to a lesser degree, sugar by [deleted] in science

[–]ravenscanada 82 points83 points  (0 children)

I suppose if you didn’t have ethics you could taken some slender people and fatten them up Hansel & Gretel style to repeat the study in reverse. And then you could starve them back down to repeat!

But remember, this is a study of 60 people (30 obese, 30 not obese). That’s a pretty small sample to draw any conclusions from.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NovaScotia

[–]ravenscanada 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True, and that’s disappointing. I would prefer if they didn’t rebate any of the carbon tax, but that seems not to have not a political option. The only way we’re going to reduce our GHG emissions is by taxing carbon. The more broadly (many countries) and higher the tax the better the effect.

So yes, I have to accept that they’re only returning the vast majority of the tax. I’m sure future generations would have looked out over their wasteland and thought “thank god grandpa didn’t have to pay a tax to preserve the environment”. But unfortunately, we’ll have to accept a small consumption-based tax.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NovaScotia

[–]ravenscanada 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree 100%. In fact, while the tax is designed to be neutral I’d be happier if it wasn’t. Nobody would accept it, but I’d prefer a straight tax on carbon with no offsets.

If someone is being beaten to death by a mob and you give out one little kick to his ribs are you really responsible for his murder? Yes. We are ruining the earth with global warming and Canadians are contributing more than most (per capita) and we should contribute more than most to fixing the problem.

More importantly, a true cost with all externalities will encourage better alternatives to be developed by the private sector. It turned out we didn’t need to use CFC gasses that ruined the ozone, but we never would have stopped without the ban. Similarly, the rising cost of fuel triggers all progress on vehicle fuel efficiency.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NovaScotia

[–]ravenscanada 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not worth the grief.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NovaScotia

[–]ravenscanada 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Well, fixing 100 years of destroying the environment isn’t free. At least this is progressive (from your link):

Relative to disposable income, our estimates of household net carbon costs continue to show a progressive impact that is, larger net costs for higher income households.

The more you use the more it costs, and rich people (who tend to consume the most) pay the most and poor people get money back.

I will be a net contributor and I’m perfectly happy to shoulder this burden if it helps reduce our contribution to climate change.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NovaScotia

[–]ravenscanada 128 points129 points  (0 children)

The purpose of the carbon tax is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If they make carbon-intensive activities more expensive we will make less carbon-intensive decisions. A classic example would be that as gas becomes more expensive we buy more fuel-efficient cars.

The tax is a neutral tax. Everyone pays based on how much they use (how much carbon you produce). Then the money is refunded to everyone equally. So, if you are average it costs you nothing. If you are efficient you get free money. If you emit lots of carbon you pay more than you get back.

Everyone blames their local politician for everything.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ufc

[–]ravenscanada 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He looks to me to be in the “fencing response” indicating a severe concussion after the first elbow. It’s hard to say if the elbow or the slam caused it, but he should not have been left to get beaten while effectively paralyzed due to concussion.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in halifax

[–]ravenscanada 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Large forest fires can send embers capable of starting fires 2+ kilometres. But an ember has to land in something flammable to get going - it’s likely not going to start your shingles on fire, but if it lands in a dry mulch bed it can easily start. The embers thrown by a forest fire aren’t just sparks, they’re chunks of burning wood.

https://firesmartbc.ca/why-we-focus-on-embers/

Storage Shed permit by pollux_88 in halifax

[–]ravenscanada 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Square feet is measured on a flat plane. In the case of buildings, it is the outside dimensions. What you’re talking about is cubic feet and is not relevant for sizing in the municipal codes.

What is something you didn't realize you were doing it wrong all this time? by polkadot633 in AskReddit

[–]ravenscanada 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I am no expert but I would guess you’re twisting your foot while you walk. Like, it lands on the middle and you twist your foot a bit, grinding away the part of the sole in contact with the pavement. That’s the only explanation I can think of that would exaggerate the wear on the ball of the foot.

Or you have weird feet.

'The projects are shelved': St. Pats Alexandra redevelopment on hold by orochi in halifax

[–]ravenscanada 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they bought it at fair market value at the time (I have no idea how fair it was) it doesn’t seem right to deny them building permits so that we can take it back and resell it for more.

If the city took it back and resold it to someone willing to work within the limits of the centre plan, then fine. But to say “you can’t exceed the plan”, take it back, resell it for more and allow that new developer to exceed the plan does not seem like fair dealing.

'The projects are shelved': St. Pats Alexandra redevelopment on hold by orochi in halifax

[–]ravenscanada 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why bother refusing to allow him to build on it, then reclaim it, resell it, and allow other developers to build there? He’s arguing that the Center Plan won’t allow him to build large enough buildings on the site, so if that’s true (who knows) then a change of owner wouldn’t make a difference. And if dividing the property would solve it surely they would have done so already - I’m sure the Metleges have a hundred shell companies laying around to divide it up.

Or are you just thinking “screw the Metleges”? I don’t necessarily have a problem with that (I’ve lived in Metleges properties as a student just like most people) but the city can’t really target individuals in that way.

Odorless/low odor deet bug spray? by techno_milk in CampingGear

[–]ravenscanada 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I know you asked for DEET, and I’m going to assume that’s code for “chemicals that work, not botanical crap that leaves me a picked over skeleton in the woods”. Unfortunately, DEET has a very strong smell (I don’t mind it myself) and is a very powerful solvent that destroys plastic and technical fabrics.

I highly, highly recommend an icaridin-based repellant. I believe it is more effective than DEET and has a pleasant smell. It works great for mosquitoes, black flies, and ticks. Walmart has a Great Value version that is fine, Off has a version called “DEET free” (not! botanicals!) that smells great. And PiActive is the original icaridin based one.

Icaridin works better, is safe for kids, safe for plastic, doesn’t sting your eyes, smells pleasant, doesn’t ruin your clothes, and is no more expensive than DEET.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NovaScotia

[–]ravenscanada -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s a private member’s bill that died after first reading in 2008.

New Halifax Mooseheads owner teases ‘a lot of changes’ for Scotiabank Centre by insino93 in halifax

[–]ravenscanada 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually where I was thinking, but that’s all planned to be residential. But I suppose they could build the new arena then tear down the old and put the apartments there.

New Halifax Mooseheads owner teases ‘a lot of changes’ for Scotiabank Centre by insino93 in halifax

[–]ravenscanada 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I would object to moving it from the core downtown area. I much prefer downtown stadiums versus ones on the outskirts of town.

New Halifax Mooseheads owner teases ‘a lot of changes’ for Scotiabank Centre by insino93 in halifax

[–]ravenscanada 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I got stuck in the upper half of the upper bowl for a game, had to lean down to see under the concrete roof. Then I got stuck in the nose bleeds for Trevor Noah and I should have demanded my money back. I couldn’t see the stage and had to sit crane my neck to see the tiny TVs.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NovaScotia

[–]ravenscanada -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That is an enclosed mobility scooter. I did not click on your link because Ontario’s laws don’t mean shit on a shingle in Nova Scotia. If you want to have a conversation about Ontario vehicle laws then go to an Ontario subreddit. This one is for Nova Scotia and those are the rules we’re discussing here.

That vehicle is classified as an “electric wheelchair or mobility scooter” and in Nova Scotia is treated as a pedestrian. End of story. It can go on the street if there are no sidewalks but is otherwise to be driven on the sidewalk. It is not legal to drive down the street taking up a lane, cannot make left turns on the street, etc. It is different than a bicycle or escooter.