[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Your tightie rightie Canadian friends on this forum keep informing us that 100k is just a middle class salary, and a pretty poor one at that. Shep (a teacher) bragged/whinged that he doesn't qualify because the cutoff is $170,000. Yet you think earning over 100k is outrageous? 85% of those people make less than 150k.

Don't know what it has to do with PD and me, since we don't live in Ontario.

Provide one link to one post where any right-winger from CKA has referred to a 100k salary as middle class.

I await your reply.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Everyone knows the Sunshine list is useless and irrelevant. I can't believe we have to have the same discussion every year.

1)$100k is not an inordinate amount of money in 2016. This limit was set 20 years ago. Adjusted for inflation, it would be $150,000 today and more than 80% of the names wouldn't even make the list.

2). Most of the people on the list earn significantlly less than $100k, and are teachers, bus drivers, firefighters, etc., but are on the list for things like overtime pay, or payout of unused vacation. If anything, this is a sign of chronic understaffing and underfunding

3) I told you earlier about my teacher friend who wasn't on the list because she, like many public employees can take 75% pay for 4 years then take a full year offf. The timing of the payout put her on the list. You are screaming about these people when you have no fucking idea what's going on. You're angry when she made more than 100k,and ended up on the list but were you equally happy all those years when she was only making 75%? No because you have no fucking clue what this list really is.

The list is dumb and useless

See you next year when your amnesia sets in and we have to go through this all over again.

liberal math.

How dare they include overtime and vacation pay like its some type of compensation.

Overtime, benefits, vacation time, etc etc are all part of the compensation package.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Your tightie rightie Canadian friends on this forum keep informing us that 100k is just a middle class salary, and a pretty poor one at that. Shep (a teacher) bragged/whinged that he doesn't qualify because the cutoff is $170,000. Yet you think earning over 100k is outrageous? 85% of those people make less than 150k.

Don't know what it has to do with PD and me, since we don't live in Ontario.

Provide one link to one post where any right-winger from CKA has referred to a 100k salary as middle class.

I await your reply.

Well, it's been a while since we've had those discussions, so I doubt I can find it now. But if it comes up again, I'll be sure to let the righties know that you disagree with them.

[rickc]

Hell I'll say it: $100,000 a year is definitely middle class. It sure as hell is not rich. I would say that it is not even upper middle class if someone was the sole bread winner with dependents, and school loans to repay. After federal and provincial income taxes, 13% HST, some of the highest rates for electricity in the country, and overall high cost of living in Ontario,........yeah middle class is what I would call it. They would probably be driving a normal car or SUV. I seriously doubt that they could even afford to be driving a new Audi or a used Porsche. I know for a fact that any high end Italian sports cars would be out of the question. No beachfront homes in the U.S. or Caribbean. They could fly first class somewhere if they wished, but probably wouldn't. Flashy fur coats and bling are not practical at this income level. No live in or visiting servants. If they are into golf they probabaly play at a municipal course. I know plenty of people at these income levels who play golf. None of them belong to a country club. They all have solid practical transportation, nothing flashy. They live ok but had to stockpile the money to put children through college. They worry about the timing belt in the car breaking, or the compressor in the fridge going out as much as the next guy.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Your tightie rightie Canadian friends on this forum keep informing us that 100k is just a middle class salary, and a pretty poor one at that. Shep (a teacher) bragged/whinged that he doesn't qualify because the cutoff is $170,000. Yet you think earning over 100k is outrageous? 85% of those people make less than 150k.

Don't know what it has to do with PD and me, since we don't live in Ontario.

Provide one link to one post where any right-winger from CKA has referred to a 100k salary as middle class.

I await your reply.

Well, it's been a while since we've had those discussions, so I doubt I can find it now. But if it comes up again, I'll be sure to let the righties know that you disagree with them.

It's never come up so it will be hard to fine. Your making things up to help prove your point.

You could have got by just fine without the BS.

[andyt]

Yeah, it came up several times. But that's fine, I'll point it out to you next time it does.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Police Officer Salary in Detroit, MI

I told you already Detroit is a bankrupt, poverty stricken US shithole. They pay poorly because they can't afford to pay more.

As for the rest of your post, when you grow up and have to get a real job, you'll understand how ridiculous you sound.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

liberal math.

How dare they include overtime and vacation pay like its some type of compensation.
Overtime, benefits, vacation time, etc etc are all part of the compensation package.

You're smarter than that. You know this list was meant for people whose BASE pay was over the threshold, not for people who worked overtime when asked, or who took a reduced salary for several years in exchange for receiving sabbatical lump sum payment that happened to put them over the threshold when it was paid to them.

Like what do you think this list is useful for then?

If someone has a reasonable base salary below $100k but is named on the list because they always volunteer for overtime, and because they never take vacation so their vacation pay has to be paid out on top of salary instead of in lieu of salary, then what purpose does that serve? What useful fact is revealed by publishing their name? What reason is there to publish the name of a teacher the year takes her banked salary from past years - you didn't publish it the 4 years that she was only drawing 75% pay, and there's no note added so the readers can see it's not an over-paid teacher, just someone drawing bank pay.

There's no reason and it doesn't inform you of anything. It's just fodder for you guys to draw false conclusions and hate-jack to. And now SC is going to have to learn to hate-jack with this his left arm.

And why do you need to know their exact name? Why is not sufficient to just say there are x number of constables at Toronto police, x number of teachers in Peel school board, etc.? Is it so that you can bully and embarrass them over circumstances you know nothing about?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Police Officer Salary in Detroit, MI

I told you already Detroit is a bankrupt, poverty stricken US shithole. They pay poorly because they can't afford to pay more.

Dude, they've been paying their cops shit for decades. And if they wanted "luxuries" like bullet proof vests, well they had to pay for it out of pocket.
Example, in the mid to late '80s, a rookie constable in Windsor started at just under $60,000. At the same time, a Detroit cop after his first year was only making around $20,000-$25,000/yr.

[shockedcanadian]

http://www.debtclock.ca/provincial-debt ... io-s-debt/

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You're smarter than that. You know this list was meant for people whose BASE pay was over the threshold, not for people who worked overtime when asked, or who took a reduced salary for several years in exchange for receiving sabbatical lump sum payment that happened to put them over the threshold when it was paid to them.

Incorrect.

The purpose of the list, from the beginning, was to highlight names, salaries and taxable benefits to public sector employees. It was never intended just to include base salaries.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Like what do you think this list is useful for then?

I think it's a tiny measure of accountability for the government. Not a lot of questions about the average joe working hard and making 120k, but lots of questions today about the PanAm games people making 800k+.

I think those conversations need to be had. Otherwise, massive compensation packages fly under the radar.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

If someone has a reasonable base salary below $100k but is named on the list because they always volunteer for overtime, and because they never take vacation so their vacation pay has to be paid out on top of salary instead of in lieu of salary, then what purpose does that serve? What useful fact is revealed by publishing their name?

These people work for us. As I said above, it's a tiny measure of accountability.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It's just fodder for you guys to draw false conclusions and hate-jack to. And now SC is going to have to learn to hate-jack with this his left arm.

And why do you need to know their exact name? Why is not sufficient to just say there are x number of constables at Toronto police, x number of teachers in Peel school board, etc.? Is it so that you can bully and embarrass them over circumstances you know nothing about?

Perhaps you should ask Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne why they haven't changed the legislation and done away with the list by now?

If it doesn't serve any purpose, maybe you should be speaking to them about changing the legislation.

[BeaverFever]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

http://www.debtclock.ca/provincial-debtclocks/ontario/ontario-s-debt/

http://nytimes.com/2015/08/21/opinion/p ... l?referer=

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... ublic-debt

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The purpose of the list, from the beginning, was to highlight names, salaries and taxable benefits to public sector employees. It was never intended just to include base salaries.

Yes. And when it was created there may have been a valid reason for publishing those names and salaries. But no longer. At the time of its inception, the income level to appear on the list was $100,000. Adjusting for inflation, the minimum income level to make the list in 2016 ought to be $149,000 or so.

So unless the publishers of this list are going to use $149K as the income level to be put on the list, its purpose, today, is different from its purpose then.

So what's the purpose of it today then?

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The purpose of the list, from the beginning, was to highlight names, salaries and taxable benefits to public sector employees. It was never intended just to include base salaries.

Yes. And when it was created there may have been a valid reason for publishing those names and salaries. But no longer. At the time of its inception, the income level to appear on the list was $100,000. Adjusting for inflation, the minimum income level to make the list in 2016 ought to be $149,000 or so.

So unless the publishers of this list are going to use $149K as the income level to be put on the list, its purpose, today, is different from its purpose then.

So what's the purpose of it today then?

Public servants work for us, the taxpayers. I assume that was the reasoning. I don't know why we only post some of the salaries and not all.

Clearly, the government must find some value in this particular legislation.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Public servants work for us, the taxpayers.

Do they? Who pays your salary? Is it some different group of people than those who pay public servants' salaries?

OTI OTI:

I assume that was the reasoning. I don't know why we only post some of the salaries and not all.

No, the reasoning was to demonstrate that public sector employees earn more than the provincial average, thereby creating "us" and "them" for the average Toronto Sun reader. That was its purpose...propaganda.

OTI OTI:

Clearly, the government must find some value in this particular legislation.

They must.