Point of a corporation is to make money. Point of a "limited liability company" is to prevent losses on the company side from financially damaging the owners. LLC's do not (and should not) protect owners from criminal acts.

This shit happens all the time. Look at car settlements, it starts at the top. I'm not against a whistle blower framework at all, but it seems like executives get all the pay and none of the culpability (see headline).

Executives, focus on executives.

Sometimes home owners will sell their house after retirement for something smaller, live off the difference, then sell that house and use the money from that for long term care, or inheritance.

There's also the obvious: they worked for something, possibly quite hard, why do they have to pay the price for others? Presumably they've been paying taxes all along, and have already been contributing to the greater good.

I guess my feeling is, it's not so simple to just wreck housing prices. I absolutely feel like corporations, and probably some ultra wealthy don't work that hard and get most of the rewards (or aren't even people), like if the money has to come from somewhere there is a clear set of people who could afford to lose some wealth, and not materially effect their life; and that's not necessarily single dwelling home owners.

I think what's being said is: if housing prices lower, you are going to ruin some people's retirement plan -- at least some of those people will have worked hard their entire life to purchase and pay off that house. There's been some incentive to save in this way as well (first time home buyer plan, tax deductions for more ecologically sound houses, that kind of thing).

I suspect he's probably right, that letting house prices drop would over all make things worse in Canada. My goto solution would be to subsidize housing by increasing taxes on corporations and people/corporations that own more than one house. but i'm not any kind of expert

In most cases yes. However in the cases of fines poor people are more penalized than wealthy, so there should be some proportional consideration there.

this is normal enshittification, we just move on to the next shit.

I'm very lazy so I'd probably start by looking at filters on those sites, if i really wanted to tackle this with programming, i'd:

see if there's an api, or rss feed for these sites, if so i'd pull that down with a cron job and do filtering locally with probably regex.

if not i'd scrape the html and pull out the relevant links with whatever the latest html parser is for the language i use (i.e. it used to be beautiful soup for python, but there's i think a new better one).

but as i said i'm rather lazy, and haven't been on the prowl for jobs for some time.

I was thinking of amazon.com and kind of happy about it... now i'm sad

In my experience only kinda, and by convention (up is on), and three-way switches break this (indicator becomes the light itself).

besides the example i gave actually harming people, and them not being in prison, to go from "people who don't help society" to murder is kind of a stretch isn't it?

you realize it's possible to neither help nor harm society.

i am canadian, are we limited to examples only of canadian's who harm societies, C suite of loblaws isn't in jail are they?

I know halifax has some shit history that i didn't learn in school -- i think i mostly learned about black history from american sources, and my own reading.

untrue, many examples first one that comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackler_family

Finally some good news! Although I'm sort of surprised this didn't exist already

I've heard 4% rule, but for myself I use an investment firm that does monte carlo projections, with ages, spending rates, and current assets to give you a rough idea of likelihood of assets lasting till death.

Ive also played with a few of the retirement calculators made by the FIRE crowd i.e. https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/beyond-4-rule-how-much-can-you-spend-retirement

1. You are free to not spend money there
2. If you took this logic and turned it around, i could see an argument saying the moment you stop helping society why should we let you exist

I agree that in the best interests of having a pleasant place to live, or elected officials should force them to sell at not so great a profit. I feel like "they shouldn't be allowed to exist" is a poor way to put it.

We might live better if this were true (maybe not), but it is not at all their job. Neither is it our job to serve them.

oh yeah, not saying it's a good thing at all...

To my limited knowledge (reading https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1551870) this seems to be the Canadian norm: you don't own the land under your land

You don't have to, and here we are with what IMO is the worst choice, because you didn't vote.