eyeball Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 In addition to inflation I use twice as much electricity heating up our magic bags to sooth the pains of working the longer hours I need to cover the pay cut I took so I could keep working. And now I see the government just hiked the price of the certificates I need that allow me to work. I guess I should be thankful I'm still allowed. Take that away and it's probably ice floe city for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Most inflation calculations use the Core CPI which excludes food and energy since the mid 90's. In any case inflation is a personal phenomenon, and the problem with using inflation adjusted incomes as a measure of purchasing power is that everyone buys different stuff, and people in different income brackets buy different stuff. If you spend most of your money on say... a home, college tuition, fuel, fresh meat and produce, and electricity as many families do... Then you are experiencing a hell of a lot more inflation than 2%. Probably in neighborhood of 7 or 8%. If you have a lot of disposable income, and you spend it on non durables, cars, consumer electronics, etc... Then youre inflation is quite low. This is why the middle and lower middle class dont believe it when they are told they make more money than ever before. They feel stretched and squeezed. Electricty has double in price for me in the last ten years... tuition has almost doubled.... the price of gas and diesel has doubled, and the price of fresh meat and produce has almost doubled too. If you took the middle class and lower classes.... and looked at the things they REALLY buy, and cant live without... and put those goods and services in a basket and calculated a CPI from that... you would see that these peoples wages are dropping rather dramatically. Good theory and I'm sure it's true for some families but not most. The fact that families are spending a lower percentage of their income on necessities disproves your idea that purchasing power is dropping. Look at all the discretionary spending it is certainly not all rich people eating at the new sushi restaurant at every corner, getting their nails done, grooming their pets, filling their way larger houses with massive ammounts of useless stuff, club memberships, concert/sporting events, tavel, maid service, lawn service, etc... My theory is that most people think that they are worse off because they are not spending wisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 The more of your income that is spent on things like food or energy, the higher your real rate of personal inflation is. And Im telling you... for your average middle class family it sure as hell isnt 2.2%. I could have bought WAY more fuel with my paycheck 10 years ago than I could today. Way more electricity. Yes, but less car, less food, and less clothing, problably less natural gas, less appliances (and less efficient too).. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 It's hard to make a straight apples-to-apples comparison. Gas is more expensive, but cars are more fuel efficient, but you probably have to drive a lot longer to get to work. Disposable income isn't growing as fast as the CPI. Debt is growing faster than either. Household debt is at record levels. If more people have homes or degrees today, it's not because those things are more affordable, it's because it's easier than ever for people to borrow themselves into oblivion. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Purchasing power for Canadians is also impacted by taxes and other revenue schemes, particulary in Ontario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 It's hard to make a straight apples-to-apples comparison. Gas is more expensive, but cars are more fuel efficient, but you probably have to drive a lot longer to get to work. Disposable income isn't growing as fast as the CPI. Debt is growing faster than either. Household debt is at record levels. If more people have homes or degrees today, it's not because those things are more affordable, it's because it's easier than ever for people to borrow themselves into oblivion. -k While not perfect, Stats Canada provides many ways to conduct good apples-apples comparisons. The CPI does include energy, food and shelter: http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/document/2301_D45_T9_V2-eng.htm Therefore real incomes are a good way to compare standards of living over time. Here is a good indication on Canadian spending in 2009, for the poor, middle-class and rich: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-202-x/2008000/t070-eng.htm Notice that education eats up a very small percentage of the average Canadian spending. Home ownership is up: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-014-x/2011002/c-g/c-g01-eng.cfm Total debt is at record highs, however: -with today's interest rates I am sure that debt servicing is far from its peaks -What matters more is the ratio of debt/income or debt/assets. Net worth is clearly way up for the middle class: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140225/t140225b003-eng.htm; debt to assets is up but it does not seem alarming: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140225/t140225b004-eng.htm Another indicator of the quality of life for the middle class are life satisfaction surveys, everything I've read on these sheds a very positive light and improving level of satisfaction for Canadians. And finally we can compare the data for middle-class Canadians, including life-satisfaction surveys, with other countries and see how we are consistently in the top 5 countries in the world. For all of these reasons I think that we should stop whining about how hard life is for the middle-class in Canada and demand that our leaders attack real problems. Two issues that come to my mind are aboriginal poverty and mental health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Nope - do the math. There are not enough rich people to make a difference to the total government budget.Even if there were, it wouldn't make any difference for a simple reason. When countries impose punitive taxes, the rich simply go somewhere else where taxes are lower, and they take their money and jobs with them. Nothing to it really. Bring a few million, and you can have a passport too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Even if there were, it wouldn't make any difference for a simple reason. When countries impose punitive taxes, the rich simply go somewhere else where taxes are lower, and they take their money and jobs with them. Nothing to it really. Bring a few million, and you can have a passport too. There is certainly a balancing act needed. However, I agree with Buffett, taxes for the rich in the USA are too low. I also think that taxes on the rich in Canada should be increased a bit. Perhaps there should "progressive taxtation" on Capital Gains, 50% exemption for the first $X then at a certain level capital gains are taxed as normal income? Stock options received by an employer should also be taxed as normal income. Edited March 13, 2014 by carepov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 There is certainly a balancing act needed. However, I agree with Buffett, taxes for the rich in the USA are too low. Great...as taxes for the middle class and poor are too low as well given mounting U.S. debt. Everybody should be paying, not just the rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Even if there were, it wouldn't make any difference for a simple reason. When countries impose punitive taxes, the rich simply go somewhere else where taxes are lower, and they take their money and jobs with them. Sounds like a good excuse for only having one country - the rich would have nowhere to hide but outer space. Nothing to it really. You wouldn't think so on the face of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 Sounds like a good excuse for only having one country - the rich would have nowhere to hide but outer space. You wouldn't think so on the face of it. It's pretty weird- many people invest a lot of effort to get rich, while hating those who are rich. If you're going to trim it down to One World Government, comrade, why have any countries?. We could call it The Hive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 I think most people are happy to get by, keep up with the Jones's, and rarely begrudge anyone getting the odd lucky break. Hate only enters the picture when getting by becomes a bitter hardscrabble struggle during which corrupt governments facilitate the stinking rich becoming putrescently wealthy. Why have countries if you're going to live in a One World Economy that is essentially borderless for them? We could also just call it Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 I agree, eyeball. "Hate the rich" is simply a code term for "reversing the usual top-down class warfare"-- which some people think is the Natural Order. Classist elitists have screamed it into their faces for so long that they've come to believe it's the way it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 Why have countries if you're going to live in a One World Economy that is essentially borderless for them? Because it works amazingly well for those who understand and prosper from it. Most of those who complain about the rich have no idea what actually being poor looks/feels like...on the Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Because it works amazingly well for those who understand and prosper from it. Most of those who complain about the rich have no idea what actually being poor looks/feels like...on the Earth. I see a HUGE credibility gap in that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-mind-boggling-statistic-about-wall-street-bonuses/ Here's a data point that puts America's income inequality into a new perspective: the total pot of Wall Street bonuses last year -- $26.7 billion -- was almost twice what all full-time minimum-wage workers combined earned in the same period. That's staggering really. While some might argue that bankers and other Wall Street employees are receiving justified pay for their hard work, the uneven balance of rewards.. Rewards for frauds? -- a society where the rich are getting richer, while the lowest-paid workers are struggling to make ends meet -- has a destructive impact on the economy, Anderson said. That's because the rich can afford to sock away their money, which means only 39 cents of every dollar earned by a wealthy American adds to GDP. The poor, however, generally spend more of their earnings, providing a greater impact to the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Even if there were, it wouldn't make any difference for a simple reason. When countries impose punitive taxes, the rich simply go somewhere else where taxes are lower, and they take their money and jobs with them. Nothing to it really. Bring a few million, and you can have a passport too. This sort of thing gets said often enough that people take it at face value, but I think it deserves some discussion. Where are "they" going to go, and what "money" and "jobs" are they going to take with them? For example: are "they" going to shut down their Wal-Mart stores? No, they're not, because those stores make a lot of money. Rest assured, "they" don't create jobs here out of the goodness of their hearts. They create jobs here to make money. Any jobs that they could take away, they've already taken away. Whether it's moving manufacturing locations to countries with cheap labor, or automation, or offshoring IT services, or eliminating product lines, or centralizing operations, or whatever. Reducing cost of inputs, including labor, is an inevitable part of running a profitable business. If the job exists, it's because they haven't figured out how to eliminate it yet. Nobody hires employees they don't need. "They" will leave? Does it make any difference to you or me where Jim Pattison or Daryl Katz or Galen Weston's ass is physically located at any given moment? Does it make a difference if they are physically in Canada or in the Caymans? "They" will take their money away? Their money is their money. It only dies "us" any good when it is being spent here or when it is being taxed. So it becomes kind of a circular argument. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) "They" will leave? Does it make any difference to you or me where Jim Pattison or Daryl Katz or Galen Weston's ass is physically located at any given moment? Does it make a difference if they are physically in Canada or in the Caymans? "They" will take their money away? Their money is their money. It only dies "us" any good when it is being spent here or when it is being taxed. So it becomes kind of a circular argument. -k It matters a lot to me and thousands of others like me about where someone like Jimmy Pattison's ass is when he's discussing the source of much of his wealth with the federal government. BC Salmon Catch Increasingly Controlled by Few Corporations But try and learn how they 'stack' quotas to cut jobs and up profit, and DFO says it's secret. "...There are very strict confidentiality rules that DFO must adhere to, and therefore we cannot release the names of vessels and their associated quota." This was the reply that I got from Beth Pechter of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans after six months of requesting the number of quotas transferred amongst the 130 or so vessels that were eligible to take part in the spectacular 2010 return of sockeye salmon through Johnstone Straits. One of Jimmy's boats caught 85000 salmon in one set in the above mentioned fishery. That number of fish could have kept 20 - 30 smaller vessels happily fishing for weeks. One vessel vs 30... One putrescently wealthy individual vs 30 families just trying to get by...It's been estimated that Jimmy owns some 60% of seiner quotas and catches about 40% of the salmon landed in BC. Worrying about where Jimmy takes his wealth seems a little after the fact given how he got it in the first place. Edited March 19, 2014 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 This sort of thing gets said often enough that people take it at face value, but I think it deserves some discussion. Where are "they" going to go, and what "money" and "jobs" are they going to take with them? For example: are "they" going to shut down their Wal-Mart stores? No, they're not, because those stores make a lot of money. Rest assured, "they" don't create jobs here out of the goodness of their hearts. They create jobs here to make money. Any jobs that they could take away, they've already taken away. Whether it's moving manufacturing locations to countries with cheap labor, or automation, or offshoring IT services, or eliminating product lines, or centralizing operations, or whatever. Reducing cost of inputs, including labor, is an inevitable part of running a profitable business. If the job exists, it's because they haven't figured out how to eliminate it yet. Nobody hires employees they don't need. "They" will leave? Does it make any difference to you or me where Jim Pattison or Daryl Katz or Galen Weston's ass is physically located at any given moment? Does it make a difference if they are physically in Canada or in the Caymans? "They" will take their money away? Their money is their money. It only dies "us" any good when it is being spent here or when it is being taxed. So it becomes kind of a circular argument. -k Rich individuals and profitable companies move their wealth/residences/operations to more tax-friendly or business-friendly jurisdictions all the time. They won't shut down their walmart stores, but the guy who owns $100 million in walmart stock might move somewhere else where he can pay 10% tax on his dividends instead of 30%, for example. The factory jobs might not be eliminated, but they might be moved from a pro-union state to a right-to-work state. In regards to "their" money only doing any good when it is spent or taxed... that's not really true. It also does good when it is invested, providing capital to companies that need it to expand operations, providing liquidity to the market, etc. The flight of productive individuals from jurisdictions that redistribute or steal too much of the products of their labor is a historical phenomenon that has been observed in so many situations throughout history that I find it unlikely that it now suddenly wouldn't happen any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Right on cue, New Jersey reports on "tax migration" : Born to Run Away From High Taxes Report: New Jersey residents fleeing high tax burdens in the state The study shows the state has been steadily losing high-net-worth residents since 2004, when Democratic Gov. Jim McGreevey signed the millionaire’s tax into law. The law raised the state income tax 41 percent on those earning $500,000 or more a year. “The inception of this tax, coupled with New Jersey’s already high property and estate taxes, leaves no mystery about why the term ‘tax migration’ has become a buzzword among state residents and financial, legal, and political professionals,” the study, conducted by Regent states. http://freebeacon.com/born-to-run-away-from-high-taxes/ Edited March 19, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) You have to feel for the plight of big corporations and their terrible tax burdens... http://www.theonion.com/articles/corporation-surprised-to-see-its-tax-money-circle,38011/ Edited February 14, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.