OCCUPY

[WWWTT]

That is not the point. Even they don't use "free" public wash rooms in that Park, they use other "free" public wash rooms in other parks. And the "free" water is too small amount of money compare with the banks take free interest from everyone who use mortgage, why "free"? because the The reserve requirement (or cash reserve ratio) is zero in Canada. But only private banks can do that, the laws do not allow others to do that, so it is the laws that make only private banks can rob money based on nothing. That is why people work hard and they can not afford their own house without bank, no matter how many wealth you create, the law makes banks to rob it all, sometimes, I think most people are just same as the small rat on a wheel, keep running and running. And let the money they created be robbed away.

There is logic in your comment.

WWWTT

[Handsome Rob]

The wealth didn't go anywhere. The lowest earners are doing about the same as they were however the improvements in the economy have gone only to the top, since they own the technology that eliminates well-paying jobs, they invest in emerging markets and so on.

I'm wondering, though, if anybody has good information on where the 1% is receiving their disproportional increases in wealth from.

They're not strikingly disproportionate in Canada.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070924/dq070924a-eng.htm

An annual income of $89,000 was enough to put an individual among the 1.2 million Canadians who made up the top 5% of the country's taxfiler population in 2004, according to a new study.

Similarly, an income of $181,000 was sufficient to put someone among the 237,000 people in the top 1% of the taxfiler population.

But to be part of the richest one-hundredth of a percent (0.01%) of taxfilers, Canadians had to have income of more than $2.8 million, the study found.

The study, released today in the September issue of Perspectives on Labour and Income, uses tax returns and survey data to explore trends in the number and characteristics of high-income Canadians, as well as their wealth and the effective income tax rates they face.

Between 1992 and 2004, constant-dollar income for people in the top 20% of the taxfiler population rose substantially, and the gains got bigger the higher up the income distribution. However, individuals in the rest of the population generally saw little improvement in constant-dollar income.

In 1992, Canadians in the top 5% of the taxfiler population accounted for about 21% of total income. By 2004, they accounted for 25% of total income.

High-income Canadians: Who they are

Of the 1.2 million Canadians who comprised the top 5% of income recipients in 2004, three-quarters were men, even though men were a minority (48%) of individual income recipients in general.

In 1982, women accounted for one in seven of the top 5% of income earners; by 2004, they accounted for one in four. However, their share of the top 0.01% declined from 12% to 11%.

The study found that the prevalence of high income peaked in the pre-retirement years. In 2004, individuals aged 45 to 64 represented 33% of all income recipients, but they were the majority in the top 5% (54%).

In the top 0.01%, taxfilers aged 45 to 64 accounted for three out of every five individuals.

Taxfilers aged 25 to 44 were the second largest group in the top 5% of high-income recipients. However, seniors were in second place in the top 0.01%, accounting for 23%.

Over three-quarters (78%) of all high-income individuals were married, as were 83% of the top 0.01%.

......

High-income Canadians as a group pay higher tax rates

The study also examined effective income tax rates, an important indicator of the fairness of a tax system. The effective tax rate is the ratio of taxes paid to total income.

The study found that in line with their increasing share of total income, high-income Canadian taxfilers have been paying an increasing share of total personal income taxes. As well, effective income tax rates are clearly higher in the higher-income groups, reflecting the progressive nature of the income tax system. However, effective rates vary widely across the income distribution as well as among individuals within the highest income group.

In 2004, the top 5% of the taxfiler population received 25% of income and paid 36% of taxes. In contrast, the bottom 95% of the taxfiler population received 75% of income and paid 64% of taxes.

For high-income Canadian taxfilers, effective tax rates were about 30%, compared with roughly 12% for non-high-income filers.

Nearly one-third of those in the top 0.01% had an effective tax rate of over 40%, although some paid as little as 10%. Among the top 5% of the taxfiler population, only 2.7% had an effective tax rate of over 40%.

The study found that between 1992 and 2004, the proportion of taxfilers who paid zero taxes declined at almost all income levels. In the top 0.01%, about 100 taxfilers paid no taxes in 2004. Tax deductions, such as business losses and gifts to the Crown, are responsible for a number of these situations.

Canada vs. the US: Disparity most striking at the extreme high end

The study found that differences between Canada and the United States were most striking at the extreme high end of the taxfiler population.

In Canada, the top 5% of taxfiling families in 2004 had an income of at least $154,000. The 5% threshold for the United States was only slightly larger at $165,000. Further up the income distribution, the thresholds diverged considerably.

The threshold for the top 0.01% of taxfiling families in Canada was just over $4.3 million; in the United States, it was more than twice that at $9.4 million.

However, these differences paled when comparing average income. In 2004, in Canada, the average income for the top 5% of families was $296,000; in the United States, it was 40% higher at $416,000.

The differences grew much larger higher up the income distribution. For the top 0.01% of the taxfiler population, the average American family income was $25.8 million, over three times the Canadian figure of $8.4 million.

[Wilber]

When times are good, few complain but times aren't good and the disparity between the street and upper management continues to grow. In 1970 major corporation CEO's made around 75 times as much as their average employee. Now it is over 300 times.

New York Times ariticle on executive compensation.

[blueblood]

The wealth didn't go anywhere. The lowest earners are doing about the same as they were however the improvements in the economy have gone only to the top, since they own the technology that eliminates well-paying jobs, they invest in emerging markets and so on.

I'm wondering, though, if anybody has good information on where the 1% is receiving their disproportional increases in wealth from.

CEOs of publicly traded companies have their salary determined by a board of directors which is then picked by shareholders. The qualities and skills of a good CEO are rare and competition results in the compensation they get.

The entrepreneurs who hit the jackpot are benefitting from a richer world and an increased money supply. Then there is the benefits of return on investments. The lowest earners are in competition from all over the world more so than upper management because of qualities and skills competition.

Perhaps more people should be learning in school to be CEOs rather than medieval literature and other useless nonsense.

[Michael Hardner]

Perhaps more people should be learning in school to be CEOs rather than medieval literature and other useless nonsense.

Right - so everybody could be a CEO and we'd all be in the 1% ?

Anyway, my question stands - where do the 1% make their money. I'll add to it: where do they make their money compared to 20, 40 years ago. Anyone ?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Anyway, my question stands - where do the 1% make their money. I'll add to it: where do they make their money compared to 20, 40 years ago. Anyone ?

More and more the 1% can sustain their income and wealth status through wages and fees alone instead of owning resources, land, and the means of production. Services based industry makes this possible, from financials to brain surgery. Handsome compensation packages are aligned with this new economy. There is even a large service industry devoted to wealth management once it is attained....even retirement planning for the middle class is a relatively new product.

Getting the income is no guarantee of staying in the club, and that's where debt can come in to take it all away. That is the difference between income and sustained wealth.

[Shady]

Anyway, my question stands - where do the 1% make their money. I'll add to it: where do they make their money compared to 20, 40 years ago. Anyone ?

Globally. China, India, South America, etc. It's not just a North America/Europe/Japan economy anymore.

[Wilber]

CEOs of publicly traded companies have their salary determined by a board of directors which is then picked by shareholders. The qualities and skills of a good CEO are rare and competition results in the compensation they get.

The entrepreneurs who hit the jackpot are benefitting from a richer world and an increased money supply. Then there is the benefits of return on investments. The lowest earners are in competition from all over the world more so than upper management because of qualities and skills competition.

Perhaps more people should be learning in school to be CEOs rather than medieval literature and other useless nonsense.

Ah, the all chiefs and no indians school. I don't think that many people would argue that CEO's shouldn't be very well compensated. I also don't think many would argue that people with little or no skills should be well compensated. The problem is the ever widening spread between CEO's and even their skilled employees. Most entrepreneurs deserve every penny they get because they are actually creating something. The same cannot be said for many extremely well paid CEO's. Shareholder value is a mantra that often has little to do with the health of a company.

[jacee]

Mayor says Occupy Vancouver may be forcibly removed

Love this gem.........real good way to win the public over

A couple of phone calls are all that’s required: Mayor of Vancouver--> British Columbia’s Solicitor General---> Premier’s office of British Columbia---> Federal Minister of Public Safety--> Minister of Department of National Defence--->Prime Minister's office all to achieve this:

Emergencies Act

They want to put on their “big boy & girl pants” and talk tough and act as if they are a sovereign occupation on Canadian public land?……….Send in the Army and give them something real to bitch about!

A few young protesters really have you in knots.

What's your problem?

Why is it such an issue?

If they're so unimportant, ignore them!

Either way ... get an f'ng grip!

Force will lead to a major uprising like this country has never seen.

It will solve nothing and explode everything.

Can't you see that?

Oppression of free speech WILL lead to the revolution you so fear.

Patience is the only solution, and not your forte I see, but your 'solutions' are designed to ignite revolution.

You're moving into looneytoon territory.

Btw, your mayor will do nothing but make a bit of noise until after the election.

Edited November 5, 2011 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

Force will lead to a major uprising like this country has never seen.

It will solve nothing and explode everything.

So what...why is Canada so afraid of the real deal? So many differences to settle! Revolution is good.

Ohio is in the US...as is Neil Young (big ranch in California)

[cybercoma]

CEOs of publicly traded companies have their salary determined by a board of directors which is then picked by shareholders.

You have to look at who owns the vast majority of financial wealth (stocks). It's the top income earners in society that are the shareholders. They're not out to intentionally screw the labouring class, but the disparity between the income of CEOs/Directors and the people that make the money for them is not even a consideration. The data indicates that the share these CEOs take is greater in proportion to the income of their staff. In this way, it's not really the fact that they're making more. They should be making more. Companies make more now. However, they're making disproportionately more than the people that make money for them. So their wages are a concern. It's a concern because every dollar more that they take, proportional to what their employees make, is a dollar less to hard working people. They should make more, but when the disparity between them and their workers continues to grow, the amount of unrest will grow. This destabilizes the economy and is actually bad for them in the long run.

[CPCFTW]

You're moving into looneytoon territory.

Will you be there to greet him?

[Guest Derek L]

A few young protesters really have you in knots.

What's your problem?

Why is it such an issue?

If they're so unimportant, ignore them!

Either way ... get an f'ng grip!

Force will lead to a major uprising like this country has never seen.

It will solve nothing and explode everything.

Can't you see that?

Oppression of free speech WILL lead to the revolution you so fear.

Patience is the only solution, and not your forte I see, but your 'solutions' are designed to ignite revolution.

You're moving into looneytoon territory.

Btw, your mayor will do nothing but make a bit of noise until after the election.

When the “99%ers” are pronouncing that they don’t recognise our legal law enforcement agencies, Fire & Paramedics, and democratically elected governments (of any strip), it is they that are drawing the proverbial “line in the sand” with that rhetoric. When their illegal occupation of public land starts to put fire safety and public health into jeopardy (as is the case), and they are asked to comply with civic ordinances (not even being required to stop their illegal occupation) and they refuse, who is being unreasonable?

As for a “major uprising”, I doubt it……..When ~75% want them gone anyways, and they refuse a reasonable request to make their encampments safe, I doubt they will garner much sympathy from the public……..As for the “revolution” you (they?) speak of……..doubt it……A few reg force Battalions from the army, the RCMP “goon squad” & ERT, teamed with local police services, could evict the “occupiers” across Canada in likely a few hours…….I’d wager after the first salvos of tear gas, rubber bullets and riot batons, the majority of the “99%ers” resolve would weaken and they’d go home and “blog about it” and post their camera phone pics onto Youtube……..As for the small minority of anarchists, they could be cleaned up in a few days…..

Hey, Nixon did it at Kent State and he got re-elected two years later

[Guest Derek L]

So what...why is Canada so afraid of the real deal? So many differences to settle! Revolution is good.

Ohio is in the US...as is Neil Young (big ranch in California)

Well us Canadians like “good Government”, not the true revolutionary spirit like you folk……(It‘s surprising, most that support the occupy movement, are also in favour restrictions placed on private firearms ownership, I suppose they don‘t see the correlation Man)….Mayor Robertson was chastised during/after the Stanley Cup riots for not releasing the Goons earlier………

[bush_cheney2004]

Well us Canadians like “good Government”, not the true revolutionary spirit like you folk……

Right..."peace, order, and good government", so why would the threat of a violent uprising be credible now in Canada for the OWS flash mob(s)? Are supporters just channeling Oakland without realizing they wouldn't last 5 minutes down there, even on a good night!. At the core, they are admitting that "real change" cannot come within Canada unless you know who is onboard with the program, and it ain't so far.

[Guest Derek L]

Right..."peace, order, and good government", so why would the threat of a violent uprising be credible now in Canada for the OWS flash mob(s)? Are supporters just channeling Oakland without realizing they wouldn't last 5 minutes down there, even on a good night!. At the core, they are admitting that "real change" cannot come within Canada unless you know who is onboard with the program, and it ain't so far.

Shoot, I’ve been to the Bay area a handful of times in the 80s & 90s……closest I ever ventured towards Oak-town was Treasure Island………Let the occupiers keep Oakland

[bush_cheney2004]

Shoot, I’ve been to the Bay area a handful of times in the 80s & 90s……closest I ever ventured towards Oak-town was Treasure Island………Let the occupiers keep Oakland

You've got that right....Oakland doesn't need no steenkin' occupy wannabes (or hockey finals) to be pissed off and burn a few cars. They have been doing it just for fun since the 1960's.

[WWWTT]

You have to look at who owns the vast majority of financial wealth (stocks). It's the top income earners in society that are the shareholders. They're not out to intentionally screw the labouring class, but the disparity between the income of CEOs/Directors and the people that make the money for them is not even a consideration. The data indicates that the share these CEOs take is greater in proportion to the income of their staff. In this way, it's not really the fact that they're making more. They should be making more. Companies make more now. However, they're making disproportionately more than the people that make money for them. So their wages are a concern. It's a concern because every dollar more that they take, proportional to what their employees make, is a dollar less to hard working people. They should make more, but when the disparity between them and their workers continues to grow, the amount of unrest will grow. This destabilizes the economy and is actually bad for them in the long run.

I humbly agree with this comment.

However I disagree with the intent you are implying from shareholders.

Actually its in my opinion that the intent from shareholders is the opposite that you may be assuming and in fact has contributed/accelerated/catylist to the despair!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

The entrepreneurs who hit the jackpot are benefitting from a richer world and an increased money supply.

This has to be one of the most controversial comments in this thread!

I am glad you make it!

In my opinion this comment is at the core of the OCCUPY movement!

And essentially the entire debate will/should soley revolve around this one comment.

You make it sound like these 1% have won a lottery/dumb luck/sarendipity happy go lucky aren't we all enjoying a better world!

Thats a freekin load your trying to shuvle down our throats and nobody's buying it!

The 1% are cut throat and ruthless and feel everyone in the world owes them something.

They attained their wealth through extrapulating wealth from overvalued services rendered and creating an environment to entrap consumers and investors!

They use borderline/unethical practises,continuosly lie and misleed and at times down right break the law!

And you claim they are "benefiting from a richer world"?!?!

WWWTT

[Handsome Rob]

2nd OD at Occupy Vancouver, this one's not coming back. Sad day for all.

[Guest Derek L]

2nd OD at Occupy Vancouver, this one's not coming back. Sad day for all.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/05/bc-occupy-vancouver-death.html

Indeed…….Always sad to hear about a drug related death, especially with someone so young……..This will be an end to Occupy Vancouver or Mayor Robertson……

[Tilter]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/05/bc-occupy-vancouver-death.html

Indeed…….Always sad to hear about a drug related death, especially with someone so young……..This will be an end to Occupy Vancouver or Mayor Robertson……

And it certainly gives us insight into the calibre of person who can afford the time to contribute to this bullshit

Edited November 6, 2011 by Tilter

[Guest Derek L]

And it certainly gives us insight into the calibre of person who can afford the time to contribute to this bullshit

I wonder if this has anything to do with the “occupiers” refusal to comply with the cities safety concerns…….St. Paul’s Hospital is only about ~2 minutes from the “campground”……A mater of minutes could have saved this young ladies life…….But of course, the General Assembly knows better than the VPD/VFD/BC Ambulance……..I also wonder if they now recognise their authority on the campsite (That has a portion taped off)? And what happened to the “occupiers” medics that “saved the day for the last junkie”?

[blueblood]

You have to look at who owns the vast majority of financial wealth (stocks). It's the top income earners in society that are the shareholders. They're not out to intentionally screw the labouring class, but the disparity between the income of CEOs/Directors and the people that make the money for them is not even a consideration. The data indicates that the share these CEOs take is greater in proportion to the income of their staff. In this way, it's not really the fact that they're making more. They should be making more. Companies make more now. However, they're making disproportionately more than the people that make money for them. So their wages are a concern. It's a concern because every dollar more that they take, proportional to what their employees make, is a dollar less to hard working people. They should make more, but when the disparity between them and their workers continues to grow, the amount of unrest will grow. This destabilizes the economy and is actually bad for them in the long run.

The CEO earns an obscene amount of money because what his job entails is the decision making that can make/lose his firm millions or billions of dollars. Whereas a programmer for example doesmt have that kind of scrutiny. Also a CEO doesn't have much for job security, if a CEO screws up, chances are he's toast. Let's look at hp's CEO kerfuffle within the last couple years. Guy cheats on his wife and got canned (in the wake of tiger woods situation). This CEO earned hp profits of billions of dollars, and was compensated 34 million. Yes that sounds like a lot, but his compensation is a fraction of the wealth his decision making created. After he got canned hp went down the tubes.

Mark hurd

My link

Hp performance under hurd

Performance after hurd

In q1 2011 hp had 4 billion dollars fewer of cash than q1 2010. Wow! For 33 million bucks To pay for a CEO that will get you an extra 4 billion in cash that's a pretty good deal. That's why they are worth what they are.

[Guest Derek L]

Occupy Vancouver death dooms protest camp

The death of a woman taking part in the Occupy Vancouver protest at the city's art gallery has led the city's mayor to announce the protest movement's tent city will be cleared.

"I have directed the city manager to expedite the appropriate steps to end the encampment as soon as possible with a safe resolution being absolutely critical to that," Mayor Gregor Robertson said Saturday night.

Now the question isn’t if they’ll leave, but when and will it be without all the teargas ...

Oh, and is this the start of a trend:

Shutdown of Occupy Victoria protest imminent

Victoria’s mayor said Saturday the city is planning an imminent shutdown of the Occupy encampment in Centennial Square, saying it’s reached an unsafe level that is no longer serving its intended goal.

“I think we’re coming to a place where more and more, much like Vancouver, we’re getting concerned about the safety issues,” Dean Fortin said.

“There’s an increasing level of drug activity and a criminal element moving in. The disorder is extremely concerning.”

Fortin said the city is thinking of an “exit strategy” and Victoria police will soon begin handing out flyers that tell campers when they should move. Fortin did not say when that will happen, but Victoria police indicated it could be as early as Sunday.