Anyone else shocked by this figure?

[Boges]

And it's an improvement!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/06/savings-rate-canadians-survey.html

The survey by the Canadian Payroll Association found 47 per cent saying they would be in dire financial straits if their pay was delayed as little as a week.

That is a worrying number, said the group, but significantly lower than the 57 per cent that reported such a thin margin of financial security last year.

Also, 66 per cent of the 3,500 employees from across Canada who participated in the survey said they are trying to save more, up from 40 per cent in last year's results.

CPA chairman Caroline Bernard said this year's results are encouraging, but Canadians still face considerable financial challenges.

I'm sure the usual suspects will come out and say that this is because of greedy corporations not paying people a living wage. Which may be a fair assessment but with global competition I don't think that will change any time soon.

Back in the "Good Ole Days" when one person could support a family and everyone had pensions people also didn't have smartphones, internet, HD Cable TV and a lot of luxuries people that people seem to think are human rights nowadays. It also was far more burdensome to get a mortgage, granted the price of real estate was far less.

Remember as the minimum wage goes up so does the cost of living. In Australia it's $14/hour but stuff costs up to twice as much as it does here. People bitch about Wal-Mart but it does allow people that make less to afford good quality food and clothing that they may not otherwise be able to afford.

I think part of this is that people just don't know how to budget properly. They take out mortgages they can't afford, buy cars they don't need, eat-out in restaurants multiple times a week, don't brown bag their lunches etc.

I'm personally shocked when I hear a person has multiple thousand dollars of credit card debt. Recently I just plain forgot to pay my Mastercard for two days. On a bill of like $400, they charged my almost $10. FOR TWO DAYS!!! It takes a special kind of incompetence to think making the minimum payment on your CC is OK.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Boges

[Black Dog]

And it's an improvement!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/06/savings-rate-canadians-survey.html

I'm sure the usual suspects will come out and say that this is because of greedy corporations not paying people a living wage. Which may be a fair assessment but with global competition I don't think that will change any time soon.

Back in the "Good Ole Days" when one person could support a family and everyone had pensions people also didn't have smartphones, internet, HD Cable TV and a lot of luxuries people that people seem to think are human rights nowadays. It also was far more burdensome to get a mortgage, granted the price of real estate was far less.

Remember as the minimum wage goes up so does the cost of living. In Australia it's $14/hour but stuff costs up to twice as much as it does here. People bitch about Wal-Mart but it does allow people that make less to afford good quality food and clothing that they may not otherwise be able to afford.

I think part of this is that people just don't know how to budget properly. They take out mortgages they can't afford, buy cars they don't need, eat-out in restaurants multiple times a week, don't brown bag their lunches etc.

I'm personally shocked when I hear a person has multiple thousand dollars of credit card debt. Recently I just plain forgot to pay my Mastercard for two days. On a bill of like $400, they charged my almost $10. FOR TWO DAYS!!! It takes a special kind of incompetence to think making the minimum payment on your CC is OK.

Question: why do you hate freedom? I mean, you're attacking the very foundation of our society here: the right-nay, obligation-to buy stuff. If people only bought stuff they "needed" or "could afford" where would we be? I'll tell you where: Soviet Russia.

[Boges]

Question: why do you hate freedom? I mean, you're attacking the very foundation of our society here: the right-nay, obligation-to buy stuff. If people only bought stuff they "needed" or "could afford" where would we be? I'll tell you where: Soviet Russia.

I never said it should be illegal for people to get hopelessly in debt. I'm just calling those people daft.

[jacee]

Question: why do you hate freedom? I mean, you're attacking the very foundation of our society here: the right-nay, obligation-to buy stuff. If people only bought stuff they "needed" or "could afford" where would we be? I'll tell you where: Soviet Russia.

So true. If low to middle income people stayed within their means, the entire banking sector would collapse, since it's all based on 'creating' money by loaning it to consumers.

If you're not in debt to the banks, you are not doing your patriotic duty of keeping the financial system afloat.

And of course that duty largely belongs to low to middle income earners, now again under attack by the wealthy.

And when people do wake up and boycott credit, the wealthy will whine the loudest as the system collapses. It appears they aren't so smart after all as they don't comprehend that when you attack the foundation, the building will fall. And those at the top have further to fall.

But of course their money is stashed offshore UNTAXED so they don't even have a stake in ensuring that our financial system remains viable. That is up to low and middle income people.

Personally, I think people who stash money offshore are treasonous parasites. I wouldn't send them to jail though because why should low and middle income taxpayers pay for food and shelter for such predatory low lifes!!

After the credit boycott and financial collapse and the revolution, we'll just confiscate their UNTAXED wealth, strip their citizenship and deport them to their offshore 'residence'.

If they survive the angry mobs ...

Edited September 6, 2012 by jacee

[Boges]

So true. If low to middle income people stayed within their means, the entire banking sector would collapse, since it's all based on 'creating' money by loaning it to consumers.

If you're not in debt to the banks, you are not doing your patriotic duty of keeping the financial system afloat.

And of course that duty largely belongs to low to middle income earners, now again under attack by the wealthy.

And when people do wake up and boycott credit, the wealthy will whine the loudest as the system collapses. It appears they aren't so smart after all as they don't comprehend that when you attack the foundation, the building will fall. And those at the top have further to fall.

But of course their money is stashed offshore UNTAXED so they don't even have a stake in ensuring that our financial system remains viable. That is up to low and middle income people.

Personally, I think people who stash money offshore are treasonous parasites. I wouldn't send them to jail though because why should low and middle income taxpayers pay for their food and shelter!

After the credit boycott and financial collapse and the revolution, we'll just confiscate their UNTAXED wealth, strip their citizenship and deport them to their offshore 'residence'.

Way to totally ignore to OP.

When you say boycotting credit you mean no one should take out a mortgage or a car loan? Then how will people who can't pay cash for cars and houses have cars and houses?

Everyone should rent and take the bus?

[eyeball]

Way to totally ignore to OP.

When you say boycotting credit you mean no one should take out a mortgage or a car loan? Then how will people who can't pay cash for cars and houses have cars and houses?

Everyone should rent and take the bus?

That's probably exactly what they'll do, likely in addition to simply washing their hands of their debts and walking away from them - a prospect that's even more awful than a lynching.

[Topaz]

In Canada, when the down turn came it was the maufacturing and the forestry that got the hit and most of those workers were middle-income and probably most had mortgages, car loans and credit cards. I can see were it would be hard for those workers to pay off the cards if they have a lower paying job, if they have another job. Workers over 50 will have problems finding work and I've heard some say they are told they are "over qualified" for the job, only to find out later it was their age. Those same people who lost their job, will find it tough on 10.25 part time job to pay those bills and that's why the foodbanks are up.

[jacee]

Way to totally ignore to OP.

When you say boycotting credit you mean no one should take out a mortgage or a car loan? Then how will people who can't pay cash for cars and houses have cars and houses?

Everyone should rent and take the bus?

Boycotting credit is a short term strategy to cause bank/financial collapse. Then during the revolution we will, of course, liberate the homes, cottages, chalets etc and cars of the wealthy, since they will mostly have all run away to escape the mobs. Edited September 6, 2012 by jacee

[Boges]

Boycotting credit is a short term strategy to cause bank/financial collapse. Then during the revolution we will, of course, liberate the homes, cottages, chalets etc and cars of the wealthy, since they will mostly have all run away to escape the mobs.

You've never seen the movie "To Big to Fail" have you?

Credit is what our society is built upon. Small businesses need credit more than big evil corporations.

You stop banks from borrowing to people then next food won't be shipped to the stores.

Causing the financial system to collapse won't hurt the 1%ers they have all the money already. But it sounds like your more interested in a French Revolution style up rising, with Guillotines and the like.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Boges

[BC_chick]

Back in the "Good Ole Days" when one person could support a family and everyone had pensions people also didn't have smartphones, internet, HD Cable TV and a lot of luxuries people that people seem to think are human rights nowadays. It also was far more burdensome to get a mortgage, granted the price of real estate was far less.

I totally agree with you about people getting themselves into needless debt, but you can't really compare apples and oranges by bringing up a different era.

How come back in the "Good Old Days" people were getting themselves into mortgages instead of building their own houses? Why were they buying luxury items like TV's, vaccuums and washings machines when they could entertain themselves with a book and do the chores manually as it's been done throughout the ages?

So the 'luxury' items of today are tomorrow's everyday gadgets. And the more we switch to a global economy, the less self-reliant we become and the more we will owe.

I'm not here to say if it's right or wrong but I just wanted to point out that the Good Old Days you're talking about never were. Societies have always evolved. You just happen to live in this one and this is the way things are at this point in time.

[Shady]

Boycotting credit is a short term strategy to cause bank/financial collapse. Then during the revolution we will, of course, liberate the homes, cottages, chalets etc and cars of the wealthy, since they will mostly have all run away to escape the mobs.

You are seriously one deranged person. I can't figure out if you're serious, or just playing the part of a caricature.

[jacee]

You've never seen the movie "To Big to Fail" have you?

Credit is what our society is built upon. Small businesses need credit more than big evil corporations.

You stop banks from borrowing to people then next food won't be shipped to the stores.

Causing the financial system to collapse won't hurt the 1%ers they have all the money already. But it sounds like your more interested in a French Revolution style up rising, with Guillotines and the like.

Intended to highlight the farcical nature of the business banking industries chewing off the arm that keeps this outofthinair money system afloat- the compliance of people dependent on credit.

Edited September 7, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

You are seriously one deranged person. I can't figure out if you're serious, or just playing the part of a caricature.

Caricature ... do you get it?

Half of Canadians (and their kids) live pay cheque to pay cheque. When any additional expenses pop up, they have to use credit. Those precarious lives on credit are ALL that keeps our financial system afloat, since it is dependent entirely ON PEOPLE SUCKED INTO LIVING ABOVE THEIR MEANS!

If those 17m Canadians boycotted credit, the system would collapse.

Attacks on working people are self defeating.

Driving down wages simply hastens the collapse.

"Earn less, borrow more" simply isn't sustainable.

In fact it's downright stupid.

But it's the 'foundation' of Canada's finances.

Pretty shaky.

And we are ALL just one boycott away from disaster.

The perpetual growth model of economics is unsustainable.

Driving down wages isn't a solution, but another nail in the coffin of Canada.

As for the 1%rs fleeing the country to join their offshore UNTAXED money ... good riddance. They don't pay taxes and help support the country anyway, they're just whining blood sucking parasites subsidized by taxpayers.

We can house 10 families or more in the 'assets' they'll have to abandon.

[Wilber]

I totally agree with you about people getting themselves into needless debt, but you can't really compare apples and oranges by bringing up a different era.

How come back in the "Good Old Days" people were getting themselves into mortgages instead of building their own houses? Why were they buying luxury items like TV's, vaccuums and washings machines when they could entertain themselves with a book and do the chores manually as it's been done throughout the ages?

So the 'luxury' items of today are tomorrow's everyday gadgets. And the more we switch to a global economy, the less self-reliant we become and the more we will owe.

I'm not here to say if it's right or wrong but I just wanted to point out that the Good Old Days you're talking about never were. Societies have always evolved. You just happen to live in this one and this is the way things are at this point in time.

I think you make some good points. The biggest difference I see is the ease of getting credit these days. Far too easy in many cases and I do believe a good part of the financial industry does try to get people addicted at an early age.

My generation was brought up by children of the Great Depression who had different attitudes toward borrowing and banks had very different attitudes about lending as well. I can well remember going from paycheck to paycheck and I think such a period is pretty normal in a person's life, but I don't think I had a credit card until I was in my late twenties and even then I rarely used it because I was just so used to saving before I bought. Now I use them as a financial tool, not for credit.

Maybe those were the good old days, I don't know but if they were it wasn't because of me, it wss just the way I was taught.

[jacee]

That's probably exactly what they'll do, likely in addition to simply washing their hands of their debts and walking away from them - a prospect that's even more awful than a lynching.

The boycott would, of course, involve withholding interest payments, enmasse. Can you see the powers that be ordering police to drag 17m people including g kids with blankies, out of their houses and throwing them in the street?

I don't think so. I say don't walk away from your homes, just the credit interest payments.

Even a one month interest boycott would crumble the system.

As I said, attacking working people is a fool's game.

One other major fact not getting enough attention is the impact on the economy of the baby boom bulge retiring. Many businesses rode the wave of that bulge buying, but they're not buying much anymore. Why do you think consumption is not bouncing back to pre- recession levels? It's a reality the business community has to face and deal with some better way than by demanding we buy more on credit with lower wages. Ya right!

The financial system is a sham and the powers that be have no new ideas either.

[Shady]

Caricature ... do you get it?

Half of Canadians (and their kids) live pay cheque to pay cheque. When any additional expenses pop up, they have to use credit. Those precarious lives on credit are ALL that keeps our financial system afloat, since it is dependent entirely ON PEOPLE SUCKED INTO LIVING ABOVE THEIR MEANS!

If those 17m Canadians boycotted credit, the system would collapse.

Attacks on working people are self defeating.

Driving down wages simply hastens the collapse.

"Earn less, borrow more" simply isn't sustainable.

In fact it's downright stupid.

But it's the 'foundation' of Canada's finances.

Pretty shaky.

And we are ALL just one boycott away from disaster.

The perpetual growth model of economics is unsustainable.

Driving down wages isn't a solution, but another nail in the coffin of Canada.

As for the 1%rs fleeing the country to join their offshore UNTAXED money ... good riddance. They don't pay taxes and help support the country anyway, they're just whining blood sucking parasites subsidized by taxpayers.

We can house 10 families or more in the 'assets' they'll have to abandon.

I don't think your medication is working.

[Bonam]

As for the 1%rs fleeing the country to join their offshore UNTAXED money ... good riddance. They don't pay taxes and help support the country anyway, they're just whining blood sucking parasites subsidized by taxpayers.

Prime example of the typical problem of the far left... completely ignoring reality. The top 1% pay 25-50% of all income taxes collected by governments in Western countries.

A few sources:

Britain - Top 1% pays 28%: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106951/High-earning-1-pay-income-tax.html

USA - Top 1% pays 40%: http://www.economist.com/node/21530093

Canada - Top 0.7% pays 20%: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/21/rich-tax-canada_n_1162416.html

Edited September 7, 2012 by Bonam

[dre]

I totally agree with you about people getting themselves into needless debt, but you can't really compare apples and oranges by bringing up a different era.

The thing is the government and banks have been literally begging people to go into "needless" debt. In fact, thats their entire economic plan. You dont peg interest rates at near historic lows because you want people to borrow responsibly. You do that because you want to super-charge the economy with debt financed consumption.

Thats just how this system works. You cant grow the economy without growing the money supply... and you cant grow the money supply without growing debt.

The thing you have to realize is that while people might appear calm on TV, politicians and central bankers are panicking. The fact that low interest rates have depleted consumers savings to such a degree will make it really hard for the central banks to further stimulate the economy, and theres a huge recession coming.

They are running out of guns to fire. Consumers are so mired in debt pretty soon they wont borrow money if the rate is 0%. Or even worse... they will try to rebuild their savings and consumption will slow to a crawl.

Edited September 7, 2012 by dre

[jacee]

Prime example of the typical problem of the far left... completely ignoring reality. The top 1% pay 25-50% of all income taxes collected by governments in Western countries.

A few sources:

Britain - Top 1% pays 28%: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106951/High-earning-1-pay-income-tax.html

USA - Top 1% pays 40%: http://www.economist.com/node/21530093

Canada - Top 0.7% pays 20%: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/21/rich-tax-canada_n_1162416.html

Talking only about earned income is misleading. It's the investment income of the rich that is under taxed and also profits from the credit interest payments

forced on low-middle income people.

Also, check your data as what they're supposed to pay according to the rules, and what they actually pay are different - eg once they've deducted their vacation homes, yachts, children's cars and other such fraudulent 'business' expenses.

From your link:

according to data, Canadian millionaires are paying taxrates equivalent to those in the 1920s.

Hmmm ... 1920's ... just before the financial system went belly-up!

Wait for it ... it's coming!

And will the rich be helping to correct it by bringing back their offshore UNTAXED illegal money? No, they'll be chasing their money and profiting from sweatshop labour elsewhere.

Edited September 7, 2012 by jacee

[Bonam]

blah blah blah

Your claim was the rich "don't pay taxes". Those were your words. I am pointing out their factual incorrectness. ~1/3 of all income taxes is far from "no taxes".

Perhaps in your opinion it's not enough taxes, or they need to be taxed in other ways too. That's fine. Doesn't mitigate the fact that you blatantly lied before (or were mistaken to the point of absurdity).

[jacee]

Your claim was the rich "don't pay taxes". Those were your words. I am pointing out their factual incorrectness. ~1/3 of all income taxes is far from "no taxes".

Perhaps in your opinion it's not enough taxes, or they need to be taxed in other ways too. That's fine. Doesn't mitigate the fact that you blatantly lied before (or were mistaken to the point of absurdity).

Don't pay enough and yes, in many cases none at all.

In the case of money hidden offshore UNTAXED, none at all.

And yet their businesses use and abuse Canadian infrastructure, subsidies, labour, etc intensely.

And the 'austerity fix' for the economy is for seniors to get less health care, lower quality day care and education for kids, postsecondary too expensive for all but the rich, the very poor to get lower benefits, the working poor to take a pay cut and use more credit?

It's not going to work, and financial collapse is an imminent reality. Revolution to follow.

[CPCFTW]

I'm personally shocked when I hear a person has multiple thousand dollars of credit card debt. Recently I just plain forgot to pay my Mastercard for two days. On a bill of like $400, they charged my almost $10. FOR TWO DAYS!!! It takes a special kind of incompetence to think making the minimum payment on your CC is OK.

Credit card companies can't charge interest for balances that are paid off before month end, so you must have carried this balance through month end. Also, $10 on $400 would be 2.5%. You would have to hold a balance of $400 for close to 2 months on a typical credit card to be charged $10 of interest. You may want to contact your credit card company or revise your numbers.

Edited September 8, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Smallc]

Maybe he took a cash advance? That's charged differently.

[CPCFTW]

Possible, but then his statement about multiple thousand dollars of credit card debt still doesn't make much sense. $2000 thousand dollars of credit card debt is only about $30/mo at 18%. And with most credit card companies you can just pay like $50/yr for a reduction to 12% ($20/mo interest + $4/mo annual fee).

Nothing close to the $10 for 2 days that cause him to be so shocked about people carrying balances.

Edited September 8, 2012 by CPCFTW

[BC_chick]

The thing is the government and banks have been literally begging people to go into "needless" debt. In fact, thats their entire economic plan. You dont peg interest rates at near historic lows because you want people to borrow responsibly. You do that because you want to super-charge the economy with debt financed consumption.

Thats just how this system works. You cant grow the economy without growing the money supply... and you cant grow the money supply without growing debt.

The thing you have to realize is that while people might appear calm on TV, politicians and central bankers are panicking. The fact that low interest rates have depleted consumers savings to such a degree will make it really hard for the central banks to further stimulate the economy, and theres a huge recession coming.

They are running out of guns to fire. Consumers are so mired in debt pretty soon they wont borrow money if the rate is 0%. Or even worse... they will try to rebuild their savings and consumption will slow to a crawl.

Well, I don't disagree, but I still find the OP's comparison of the Smartphone addicts to the Good Old Days seems a bit unreasonable. The 'Good Old Days' carried more debt than the previous generation and so on. Throughout the centuries people were quite self-reliant, but now (most) people don't have the resources to build their own house and grow their own food.

It's supply and demand. The banks are providing a commodity for a demand that's out there and it's not a want as the OP states, it's a need.

The end result of this need is a consumer-based society which will go up and down and back up again. It's not the banks' fault and it's not society's frivolous greed (as per OP).

But don't get me wrong, if you have a better solution I'm all ears.

Edited September 11, 2012 by BC_chick