[Brenda]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Brenda Brenda:

Also, your home office is deductible. I am sure he has one. Why keep your mortgage low when you can deduct half your house?

You can only deduct your home office as an expense if your home is where your business is located. I complete all the forms annually for my wife who runs a business from our home.

Or if your business is where your home is located. Do you know what his wife does for a living?

[Brenda]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Brenda Brenda:

I doubt they are alone. It is a 32 year period we are talking about.

Then how many others do you know? How many times have you even heard of people mortgaging their house that many times?

It's rare, regardless of how you'd like to spin it.

So what?
Rare=stupid/illegal/howeveryou'dliketospinit?

Maybe it is a VERY smart move. We don't know anything about the rest of his financial situation. Dig that up and maybe you have a case. For now, it is just a load of assumptions.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Maybe it is a VERY smart move. We don't know anything about the rest of his financial situation. Dig that up and maybe you have a case. For now, it is just a load of assumptions.

As the article I posted said:

$1:

But Mulcair’s 11 mortgages may just be a sign of someone who “gets it.” Maybe he used the cash to finance his political career — the quintessential “borrowing to invest.” Considering he now makes $157,731 as a Member of Parliament and another $75,516 as leader of the opposition, that would be a pretty effective use of debt.

[CanadianJeff]

Wow this must have been a slow news day.

Common the man's policys have a ton of terrible holes to poke at do we really need to be so petty as to try and establish something as flimsy as this as an issue?

Wake up conservative party.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

Maybe it is a VERY smart move. We don't know anything about the rest of his financial situation. Dig that up and maybe you have a case. For now, it is just a load of assumptions.

As the article I posted said:

$1:

But Mulcair’s 11 mortgages may just be a sign of someone who “gets it.” Maybe he used the cash to finance his political career — the quintessential “borrowing to invest.” Considering he now makes $157,731 as a Member of Parliament and another $75,516 as leader of the opposition, that would be a pretty effective use of debt.

That too, is an assumption and, like I said before, as good as my, or OTI's guess. I wonder why we care. We only KNOW a little tidbit and anything else thrown into this is assumption. I so do not understand why I should care. Come with facts.

[OnTheIce]

Brenda Brenda:

Or if your business is where your home is located. Do you know what his wife does for a living?

Yes I do, perhaps you should too.

$1:

Maybe it is a VERY smart move. We don't know anything about the rest of his financial situation. Dig that up and maybe you have a case. For now, it is just a load of assumptions.

If it was, it would be a more commonly used tactic.

You guys think we might have stumbled on the fact that Tommy is a financial genius while most of us know better.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Maybe it is a VERY smart move. We don't know anything about the rest of his financial situation. Dig that up and maybe you have a case. For now, it is just a load of assumptions.

His wife is a psychologist practicing in Montreal.

From the same article:

$1:

Considering he now makes $157,731 as a Member of Parliament and another $75,516 as leader of the opposition, that would be a pretty effective use of debt.

His mortgage of $300,000, which started as a mortgage of $58,000 is certainly manageable on that salary. Especially since in Ottawa, he lives for free at Stornoway. And now he has a gold plated government pension to see him through his elder years.

Doesn’t look like he is a candidate for credit counselling.

Is there any evidence that he spent that money on coke and hookers, or extravagant living? He did have a 95,000 judgement against him he had to pay.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Brenda Brenda:

Or if your business is where your home is located. Do you know what his wife does for a living?

Yes I do, perhaps you should too.

$1:

Maybe it is a VERY smart move. We don't know anything about the rest of his financial situation. Dig that up and maybe you have a case. For now, it is just a load of assumptions.

If it was, it would be a more commonly used tactic.

You guys think we might have stumbled on the fact that Tommy is a financial genius while most of us know better.

Maybe he just got some good advice from a qualified mortgage advisor. You don't need to be a financial genius to be smart enough to talk to a mortgage advisor.

And let's not forget that over 30 years, mortgage rates have dropped significantly. Some of those remortgagings are obviously a simple case of getting a better rate or a better deal.
Essentially, there are 5 solid reasons for remortgaging your home; To ‘fix’ a lower interest rate, to find a better deal, to consolidate debt, to change your mortgage type, and to release equity.

[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You don't think this has any significance?

Would you trust a financial advisor that mortgaged his house 11 times in 32 years; despite making a handsome salary during that time (as a lawyer, professor and politician)?

Would you trust the same man to then run the Country?

Asking a man who appears to have some sort of financial issues to run a Country with a money problem is like asking a fat man to run a weight loss clinic.

No, it doesn't make a difference.

1) Personal finance and macroeconomics are not the same thing. In fact, there's not a whole lot you can tell about how good a leader someone will be from their personal life. Otherwise I guess you'd have to agree that because Rob Ford's a big fat man, he'll treat the city as recklessly as he treats his own body? I mean, how can he be expected to manage public health when he doesn't even look after his own health? And since Vic Toews cheated on his wife and then tried to nickle-and-dime her in the courts, we should conlcude that he will betray Canadians and cheat us of money too. Right? Right?


2) I am sure that you will be absolutlely shocked and amazed to learn that most of the free world's leaders throughout history have not been experts from the field of finance, not even the ones who have gone down in history as having managed sound economies. How did they do it? It's not their job to be financial experts, there all sorts of advisors and managers of every stripe under them in the Department of Finance, Treasury Board, Bank of Canada, etc who do that. All the PM does is referee the debates between these groups and sign off on the final decision. What, do you think a PM just walks in like a King and says "Hey, I just remortgaged my house and it's working for me, I hereby declare the entire country remorgatged" and it becomes law????

3) While that does sound like alot of remortgages, it's not necessarily the sign of a financial disaster. As the right-wing beacon National Post writes:

$1:

There are many legitimate reasons for why a person would refinance their home so often. A homeowner might want to draw on the accumulated equity to remodel, send a child to school, invest in the stock market, buy another home or cottage, or just get a better interest rate.

[andyt]

Or he put that money into his running for office. As the article I posted said, that would be a smart investment since it got him a high paying job with a bomber pension plan.

[bootlegga]

At first I thought it was an issue, but on closer examination, I don't think it is.

Sure he may have pissed a few hundred grand away. In that case, he's no different than thousands of Canadians who have re-financed mortgages to access their equity.

Or he may have invested it in his son's education, he may have used it to buy rental properties (in which case 100% of mortgage interest is tax-deductible), or he may have invested it elsewhere. Either way, it's personal and not relevant.

Sure people here can say he's wasting money, but the fact is it's his money to waste. Are we going to start looking at Harper's VISA bill each month and determine if all the charges are relevant or not? What, you're still a member of the Columbia Record Club, Mr. Harper?!? Oh the humanity!

Sorry, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think personal finances should be untouchable - just like personal lives. It's too bad that Canadian politics has stooped to this level.

[Brenda]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure people here can say he's wasting money, but the fact is it's his money to waste.

EXACTLY!!

$1:

Are we going to start looking at Harper's VISA bill each month and determine if all the charges are relevant or not? What, you're still a member of the Columbia Record Club, Mr. Harper?!? Oh the humanity!

$1:

Sorry, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think personal finances should be untouchable - just like personal lives. It's too bad that Canadian politics has stooped to this level.

Definitely. I totally agree.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

At first I thought it was an issue, but on closer examination, I don't think it is.

Sure he may have pissed a few hundred grand away. In that case, he's no different than thousands of Canadians who have re-financed mortgages to access their equity.

Or he may have invested it in his son's education, he may have used it to buy rental properties (in which case 100% of mortgage interest is tax-deductible), or he may have invested it elsewhere. Either way, it's personal and not relevant.

Sure people here can say he's wasting money, but the fact is it's his money to waste. Are we going to start looking at Harper's VISA bill each month and determine if all the charges are relevant or not? What, you're still a member of the Columbia Record Club, Mr. Harper?!? Oh the humanity!

Sorry, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think personal finances should be untouchable - just like personal lives. It's too bad that Canadian politics has stooped to this level.

Sorry boots, but as much as I don't like the state of politics in Canada, a politician's personal life and decisions he/she makes should be relevant.

In the same way you wouldn't take weight loss advice from a fat man, or financial advice from a guy who just claimed bankruptcy, individual choices and decisions speak to your character and competence.

If you go out on the week-end and get drunk and charged with a DUI, your employer will no doubt look down upon you, despite the fact that your work may be stellar. You made a poor decision in life, does that mean you may do so at work? It's a question they'll be asking.

People are judged all the time based on their decisions. That's what defines us...and politicians, especially those running to represent 30+ million people are under even more scrutiny.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

At first I thought it was an issue, but on closer examination, I don't think it is.

Sure he may have pissed a few hundred grand away. In that case, he's no different than thousands of Canadians who have re-financed mortgages to access their equity.

Or he may have invested it in his son's education, he may have used it to buy rental properties (in which case 100% of mortgage interest is tax-deductible), or he may have invested it elsewhere. Either way, it's personal and not relevant.

Sure people here can say he's wasting money, but the fact is it's his money to waste. Are we going to start looking at Harper's VISA bill each month and determine if all the charges are relevant or not? What, you're still a member of the Columbia Record Club, Mr. Harper?!? Oh the humanity!

Sorry, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think personal finances should be untouchable - just like personal lives. It's too bad that Canadian politics has stooped to this level.

Sorry boots, but as much as I don't like the state of politics in Canada, a politician's personal life and decisions he/she makes should be relevant.

In the same way you wouldn't take weight loss advice from a fat man, or financial advice from a guy who just claimed bankruptcy, individual choices and decisions speak to your character and competence.

If you go out on the week-end and get drunk and charged with a DUI, your employer will no doubt look down upon you, despite the fact that your work may be stellar. You made a poor decision in life, does that mean you may do so at work? It's a question they'll be asking.

People are judged all the time based on their decisions. That's what defines us...and politicians, especially those running to represent 30+ million people are under even more scrutiny.

I might see your point if Mulcair had declared bankruptcy 11 times - but re-mortgaging a house is not anywhere near the same. Even then, I'm not sure it's all that important because I doubt that the PM goes over every line item in the budget and decides which to cut, which to boost and which to keep static. Even Harper doesn't have the time to be that much of a micro-manager!

The PM probably makes a few general decisions - cut the military the least/most, cut/add to transfer payments, etc. then tells the Finance Minister to get rid of the deficit and then the Finance Minister goes to the department and a small army of bureaucrats make recommendations on what cuts/increases can be made.

As I said, without knowing why he withdrew the equity, no one can fairly make a rational decision on why he did it. As someone (Caelon?) said, knowing this one financial thing is like deciding whether or not someone is bankrupt by looking only at their chequing account.

Even if he did piss it away - which I doubt - it's his choice to make - just like it's Stephen Harper's choice to start a family or not to start a family (or marry a man instead of a woman) or whatever.

In reality, this makes Mulcair more likeable for some IMO - because he is just like many other Canadians, and unlike other politicians who might seem out of touch with the rest of us (like Paul Martin and his lack of knowledge on a loaf of bread).

The decisions that matter to me are the ones made in office - Harper's $30 billion or so deficit last year (with a majority no less) is far more worrying to me than a MP who cashed in some equity on his house.

I'm not saying I like or even trust Mulcair - frankly his divisive comments about the oilsands paint him as just another eastern politician looking to score points with his base at the West's expense. Despite that, I don't feel this is relevant to the conversation about his ability to be Prime Minister.

[Thanos]

Don't like Mulcair. Don't trust him or that insane party he belongs to. But this is a non-issue. Mitt Romney could quite well be a financial genius when it comes to making profits but I still consider him to be one of the worst candidates for the Presidency of the United States I've ever seen in my entire life.