Federal Budget 2015

Argus · April 30, 2015

I dont even know if we need "more of it", we maybe just need to rethink what we do. Seems like our education system produces

too many dropouts that dont end up with good skills.

Learning is a lifelong thing now. It doesn't stop at high school. We need to recognize this.

I was reading about the system in Finland and they have vocational

school and apprenticeships as part of the normal school program. So a 15 or 16 year old that cant handle the academic

workload load can branch and get trained as a skilled tradesmen (electrician, plumber, welder, carpenter, etc). They also

have a private sector component in both funding these programs and designing the cirriculum so that the schools are making

the workers that the private sector really needs. In Canada those guys drop out and sell weed.

Germany has something similar. Meanwhile, in Canada, companies don't want to take the bother or time to engage with training, let alone hire the trainees. They want people with multiple years of proven experience willing to work for minimum wages. Can't find them? No problem! Just bring in a temporary foreign worker, or an immigrant desperate to get into Canada!

In any case I agree with you. I also agree that in many cases it does come down to personal responsible and a lot of people have ***** lives simply because theyre ***** useless people. But theres still a lot of luck involved, and some people have a lot more opportunities than others.

There's no way of making life fair. Some people are great looking, some are ugly. Some are glib and personable, and some have the personality of a wet fish. Some have active minds, and some are dullards. And, of course, some have family connections able to help them out with initial jobs, and some don't. And yes, luck is involved. But we as a society need to do what we can to improve the skillset of people who are perpetually on welfare or unemployment or whose jobs are paying minimum wages so they have a genuine hope of real advancement. This would help us on multiple levels.

Black Dog · April 30, 2015

It's not even that. You can be "earning" a lot of money on paper, but still not be accumulating anything.

The cries of todays upper class.

"We're not wealthy. I have to pay for my home, my cars, my children's tutoring, my vacations, my investments, my unemployed spouse. I Have nothing left! I'm not rich!"

It's an insipid and shallow argument.

Yup. "I can't be rich, once I spend all my money on things other people can only dream of I have next to nothing left!"

overthere · April 30, 2015

I was reading about the system in Finland and they have vocational
school and apprenticeships as part of the normal school program. So a 15 or 16 year old that cant handle the academic

workload load can branch and get trained as a skilled tradesmen (electrician, plumber, welder, carpenter, etc). They also

have a private sector component in both funding these programs and designing the cirriculum so that the schools are making

the workers that the private sector really needs. In Canada those guys drop out and sell weed.

It is insulting and patronizing baloney to suggest that trades workers 'can't handle the academic workload'. Many trades have academic components that would crush the average university generalist graduate. For just a few examples.... do you have the geometry skills to build a roof or even a simple set of stairs? How about fabricating from metal as welders and macnisists do? Ever see what instrument techs do? It would crush the intellect of the average uni grad. Let us compare the consequences of error for an electrician or journeyman aircraft maintenance tech with a business grad.....

Employers in Canada are already involved in curriculum development for the trades.

Dummies drop out and sell weed. Lots of intelligent young people opt for the trades and those numbers will increase it is apparent that having an undergrad degree with no applied skills may generate a fine career as a barista, but won't allow for a rewarding career.

CPCFTW · April 30, 2015

Yup. "I can't be rich, once I spend all my money on things other people can only dream of I have next to nothing left!"

I live in a rented basement and walk to work. I'm not wealthy but I make 90k. Not sure why that's so hard for you guys to comprehend.

Maybe when you move out of your parents homes you'll realize employment income is transient and irrelevant when defining the wealthy.

Black Dog · April 30, 2015

I live in a rented basement and walk to work. I'm not wealthy but I make 90k. Not sure why that's so hard for you guys to comprehend.

The point here is your actual income puts you in a position to build up your net worth: in fact, that's your explicit goal. So you are in a position a great many people are not, which means you might not be wealthy, but you can see it from where you are.

Maybe when you move out of your parents homes you'll realize employment income is transient and irrelevant when defining the wealthy.

Big talk from a guy living in a basement suite. :rolleyes:

Anyway, by your own definition income is not irrelevant.

Income is just your rate of accumulation of wealth.

I'd expect there's a fairly high correlation between net income and net worth, especially the further up the income ladder you go.

Finally, no one is arguing it's the best or only measure. But a guy who makes a million a year and spends every last dime has as much as the guy whose net worth is million dollars, he's just not being very smart about managing his wealth.

CPCFTW · April 30, 2015

The point here is your actual income puts you in a position to build up your net worth: in fact, that's your explicit goal. So you are in a position a great many people are not, which means you might not be wealthy, but you can see it from where you are.

Big talk from a guy living in a basement suite.

Anyway, by your own definition income is not irrelevant.

I'd expect there's a fairly high correlation between net income and net worth, especially the further up the income ladder you go.

Finally, no one is arguing it's the best or only measure. But a guy who makes a million a year and spends every last dime has as much as the guy whose net worth is million dollars, he's just not being very smart about managing his wealth.

Big talk? I'm specifically stating that I'm not wealthy. What a childish comment.

And we're not taking about million dollar incomes, which is an irrelevant outlier, we are talking about young professionals making 80-120k being labeled wealthy even though many have small or negative networths.

IMO employment taxes should be based on lifetime earnings.

eyeball · April 30, 2015

I'm specifically stating that I'm not wealthy.

Okay, have it your way - you're only three times less poor than over half the population.

IMO employment taxes should be based on lifetime earnings.

IMO, based on how tough you have it, workers who poorer than you need to have their wages raised, closer to what you're making, at least.

Black Dog · April 30, 2015

Big talk? I'm specifically stating that I'm not wealthy. What a childish comment.

:rolleyes: The lack of self awareness in this one is great.

And we're not taking about million dollar incomes, which is an irrelevant outlier, we are talking about young professionals making 80-120k being labeled wealthy even though many have small or negative networths.

Point is "wealthy" is a relative and relatively meaningless term. The guy who has to fly first class probably doesn't see himself as wealthy compared to the guy who owns his own plane, but he's still ahead of the sucker back in coach. Income and networth are both indicators of wealth. Bemoaning the "wealthy" label while having a six figure income to play with is a nice problem to have.

Topaz · April 30, 2015

Yeah, but look at it this way, IF for some reason the Canada and US $ became worthless, who do you think would survive better, the rich or the already poor. In the Depression of 1929, the rich were jumping out of windows because they lost everything!.

eyeball · April 30, 2015

We can dare to hope Topaz.

overthere · April 30, 2015

property is theft.

dre · April 30, 2015

It is insulting and patronizing baloney to suggest that trades workers 'can't handle the academic workload'. Many trades have academic components that would crush the average university generalist graduate. For just a few examples.... do you have the geometry skills to build a roof or even a simple set of stairs? How about fabricating from metal as welders and macnisists do? Ever see what instrument techs do? It would crush the intellect of the average uni grad. Let us compare the consequences of error for an electrician or journeyman aircraft maintenance tech with a business grad.....

Employers in Canada are already involved in curriculum development for the trades.

Dummies drop out and sell weed. Lots of intelligent young people opt for the trades and those numbers will increase it is apparent that having an undergrad degree with no applied skills may generate a fine career as a barista, but won't allow for a rewarding career.

You might find it insulting, and there are exceptions... But for the most part its true. In general the people that end up in trades were not not the top economic performers in their classes.

As for carpentry yes it can be tricky to build a roof or stairs... I know - that was my first career. But its grade 6 or 7 geometry. Same with basic fabrication. Iv done lots of that too... and ANY idiot can weld.

But my point wasnt that trades people are stupid it was that we should integrate that stuff into our school system, so that kids that cant handle, or choose not to follow the academic path can branch at a fairly young age and become skilled professionals.

CPCFTW · April 30, 2015

The lack of self awareness in this one is great.

Point is "wealthy" is a relative and relatively meaningless term. The guy who has to fly first class probably doesn't see himself as wealthy compared to the guy who owns his own plane, but he's still ahead of the sucker back in coach. Income and networth are both indicators of wealth. Bemoaning the "wealthy" label while having a six figure income to play with is a nice problem to have.

Someone that has a low or negative net worth and a high income is not wealthy. This isn't rocket science guys.

Black Dog · April 30, 2015

Someone that has a low or negative net worth and a high income is not wealthy. This isn't rocket science guys.

Does this apply across the board or just to certain income brackets? Because my hypothetical profligate millionaire would probably be considered wealthy no matter his net worth.

Black Dog · April 30, 2015

Poverty is not always the fault of the poor - but it usually actually is. The capitalist system is set up to reward those who strive to improve their lives. It gives them that opportunity. Those who work hard, who aren't satisfied, who take chances, who will quit a job to try a better one who will try to learn new skills, try different things always striving to move upward. Those are the people who succeed.

It's cute that people still believe this stuff.

And that's why people who are middle class and heavily taxed often resent it. We don't resent our heavy contributions to public education and public health care and roads, highways and bridges. We resent subsidizing a great mass of mentally lazy people who can't be bothered to scramble upward like we did.

You're a product of a generation that received one of the greatest transfers of wealth in human history. Go easy on the bootstraps B.S. mmmkay?

CPCFTW · April 30, 2015

Does this apply across the board or just to certain income brackets? Because my hypothetical profligate millionaire would probably be considered wealthy no matter his net worth.

No he wouldn't be considered wealthy.. He'd just become wealthy in a few months rather than the decades it normally takes people to become wealthy.

Would you consider a career AHL player that is 200k in debt to be wealthy because they get called up to the NHL for 2 games and are paid at a 820k/yr rate (10k/game) for those 2 games? Of course not because income is not a measure of wealth.

cybercoma · April 30, 2015

The difference you don't understand is that if I lose my job I'm homeless within 2yrs, if you're wealthy then you don't ever become homeless.

And the difference you don't understand is that nearly half of Canadians don't have 2 years.

CPCFTW · April 30, 2015

And the difference you don't understand is that nearly half of Canadians don't have 2 years.

So better off than nearly half of Canadians is wealthy these days? Wow the standard keeps getting lower!

cybercoma · April 30, 2015

No he wouldn't be considered wealthy.. He'd just become wealthy in a few months rather than the decades it normally takes people to become wealthy.

Would you consider a career AHL player that is 200k in debt to be wealthy because they get called up to the NHL for 2 games and are paid at a 820k/yr rate (10k/game) for those 2 games? Of course not because income is not a measure of wealth.

The metric that is generally used to determine a person's class is their socioeconomic status. This is a combination of income, occupation, and education. It shows a person or a family's relative position to others in society. If you're making $90k a year, have a good education, and an administrative class job, congratulations. You're in the upper class.

cybercoma · April 30, 2015

So better off than nearly half of Canadians is wealthy these days? Wow the standard keeps getting lower!

Go back and read the posts. Better off than half of Canadians these days would be $31,000 per year. You claim to make $90,000. You're better off than over 90% of Canadians.

Argus · May 1, 2015

It's cute that people still believe this stuff.

Why would I not believe it? I've seen it often enough, including in my own family. Let me tell you about my nephew sometimes, bright, handsome, smart, and lost every job he ever had because he can't be bothered going to work when there are more fun things to be doing. He's currently on pogey - again.

You're a product of a generation that received one of the greatest transfers of wealth in human history. Go easy on the bootstraps B.S. mmmkay?

I don't really consider myself to be a boomer. The boomers were the kids born right after the war. Not sure why they decided to extend that fifteen or more years. In any case, my transfer of wealth had me working as a cleaner, a bus boy, a security guard and data entry operator, among other high status positions.

Black Dog · May 1, 2015

Why would I not believe it? I've seen it often enough, including in my own family. Let me tell you about my nephew sometimes, bright, handsome, smart, and lost every job he ever had because he can't be bothered going to work when there are more fun things to be doing. He's currently on pogey - again.

Anecdote /= data

I don't really consider myself to be a boomer. The boomers were the kids born right after the war. Not sure why they decided to extend that fifteen or more years. In any case, my transfer of wealth had me working as a cleaner, a bus boy, a security guard and data entry operator, among other high status positions.

Having worked shitty jobs and being born with certain unearned advantages aren't mutually exclusive things you know. Capitalism or the good ol' Protestant work ethic don't add up to equality of opportunity. Unless you really think the people who emptied your office trash at night were simply lazier than the people who signed your paycheques.

poochy · May 1, 2015

property is theft.

Indeed it is comrade, if only there was some system by which we could ensure that we were all equally wealthy. The problem isn't really tax breaks for the rich, the problem is that those people already get to keep too much of their own money, none of them really earn it, the system just favors them, their alleged personal advantages like intelligence and work ethic are just an illusion, propaganda of the upper class. Everyone is equal, in time they will learn that just like flowers, that out of some aberration of circumstance dare grow taller than their neighbors, it is a simple matter to cut off their heads.

Black Dog · May 1, 2015

No he wouldn't be considered wealthy.. He'd just become wealthy in a few months rather than the decades it normally takes people to become wealthy.

I doubt anyone who is not a financial adviser would agree with you here.

Would you consider a career AHL player that is 200k in debt to be wealthy because they get called up to the NHL for 2 games and are paid at a 820k/yr rate (10k/game) for those 2 games? Of course not because income is not a measure of wealth.

Income is not a measure of wealth, which is why the government doesn't tax it. :rolleyes:

CPCFTW · May 1, 2015

I doubt anyone who is not a financial adviser would agree with you here.

Income is not a measure of wealth, which is why the government doesn't tax it.

What? Governments typically tax income, not wealth.. They are two different concepts. Are you really this dense?

Do yourself a favor and look up wealth tax.

And ROFL at that comment about financial advisors. I have 10x the financial education as most financial advisors.