[Robair]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I couldn't tell you, but I'd be interested in finding out what the tax burden is now versus then.

Have you read Squeezed yet?

[andyt]

From squeezed:

$1:

If the plight of the middle class isn’t the result of runaway spending, or of a refusal to go out and work, what is behind it? More than anything else, it’s the result of a shift in how society apportions rewards.

Think back to that measly $53-a-year raise that the average Canadian worker has gotten since 1980. It amounts to considerably less than a 1 per cent hike in purchasing power over 25 years. In contrast, labour productivity over the same period has shot up 44 per cent. So while Canadians are producing nearly half as much again as our parents did, we are enjoying practically none of the gains. The fruits of our labour have, by and large, gone to bulk up corporate profits which have shot up 153 per cent, in real terms, since 1980.

You don’t have to be a socialist to wonder about the fairness of that arrangement. Mathieu Dufour, an economics professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, is among those who are troubled by the disparity between measly wage gains and galloping increases in corporate profits. He calculates that if our wages had simply kept up with the gains in labour productivity, the average Canadian would be earning an extra $10,000 a year.

Dufour thinks it’s time to find ways to put more of that missing $10,000 into middle-class wallets. A good first step would be to cut individual income taxes, perhaps by raising corporate rates. Such a shift in tax policy would help to redress the massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to the government that has taken place over the past two decades.

Yet most people just howl about taxes on the rich - who have seen vast increases in their proportionate income.

The thing is, everybody wants to cut taxes, but not the particular programs that they enjoy. The middle class is also the recipient of most of the government spending, but people love to wail about those welfare bums.

[Robair]

Everybody in North America should read that article.

[andyt]

Now this is a stupid statement tho:

$1:

In the 1980s, Ottawa was awash in debt, but average citizens were not — in fact, in 1982 the average savings rate in Canada hit 20 per cent, its highest point ever. Two and a half decades later, the government is in the black, but Canadians are saving next to nothing. The turnaround is not a coincidence. Governments have downloaded extra costs on us in the form of higher taxes and fees. We may never again be able to save 22 per cent of our incomes, but even a modest decrease in our taxes would help us boost our anaemic savings from their current level of around 3 per cent of earnings.

We are the government. People carried less individual debt because they were transferring it to their kids. Guess the bill has come due.

And I think people are buying way too much schlork - electronic pacifiers and such that people didn't used to have. It may be cheap, but it also doesn't last, so people are always "upgrading." Same with clothes, household goods etc. At one time you bought something, you expected it to last for years, and it was cheap and easy to fix when it did break.

[Zipperfish]

Robair Robair:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I couldn't tell you, but I'd be interested in finding out what the tax burden is now versus then.

Have you read Squeezed yet?

great read--thanks. Nothing too surprising there. The corporations squeezing us at one end, the government on the other. And they're in cahoots!

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Robair Robair:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I couldn't tell you, but I'd be interested in finding out what the tax burden is now versus then.

Have you read Squeezed yet?

great read--thanks. Nothing too surprising there. The corporations squeezing us at one end, the government on the other. And they're in cahoots!

They may be in cahoots, but since we are the govt, we have met the enemy and it is us. We still do have a vote in this country, so we get the govt we deserve. And most people seem quite content to serve their corporate overlords, as long as a few crumbs fall down their way.

But how to change it? I posted a good little read by Ralph Mair about the need for the Garth Mullin's types in this world. But look at the reaction the Olympic protests got on this forum. I don't condone the violence either (Althoug the Sun carried an article by a UBC prof doing just that), but we need more protest in this country, not less. I don't see things changing without it.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

Now this is a stupid statement tho:

Not to anyone with a basic understanding of economics.

andyt andyt:

$1:

In the 1980s, Ottawa was awash in debt, but average citizens were not — in fact, in 1982 the average savings rate in Canada hit 20 per cent, its highest point ever. Two and a half decades later, the government is in the black, but Canadians are saving next to nothing. The turnaround is not a coincidence. Governments have downloaded extra costs on us in the form of higher taxes and fees. We may never again be able to save 22 per cent of our incomes, but even a modest decrease in our taxes would help us boost our anaemic savings from their current level of around 3 per cent of earnings.

We are the government. People carried less individual debt because they were transferring it to their kids. Guess the bill has come due.

And I think people are buying way too much schlork - electronic pacifiers and such that people didn't used to have. It may be cheap, but it also doesn't last, so people are always "upgrading." Same with clothes, household goods etc. At one time you bought something, you expected it to last for years, and it was cheap and easy to fix when it did break.

Saving is a factor of interest rates. When interest rates were highest, around 20% (1982), savings rates were highest. There was incentinve to do so. Today, there is no return on saved money, so no one saves anything, and that is a logical financial decision.

[Robair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Saving is a factor of interest rates. When interest rates were highest, around 20% (1982), savings rates were highest. There was incentinve to do so. Today, there is no return on saved money, so no one saves anything, and that is a logical financial decision.

So I'm not broke, I'm logical.

Whew! That's a load off my mind!

[Robair]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

great read--thanks. Nothing too surprising there. The corporations squeezing us at one end, the government on the other. And they're in cahoots!

Cahoots? Is that in Ontario?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Totally correct Lemmy. I remember buying CSB's in 1981 with a 20% compounded return.
What's the incentive these days when a "high interest" savings account pays out a MAX of 3% interest. For many ppl, all that 3% would do is pay the bank fees.
For those that pay rent, they see it go up 2.9% per year, or more if the landlord makes significant upgrades or renovations. How many of us get a 2.9% pay raise every year?
I remember when my sister got her first job in 1974. She made killer coin of $8/hr.
With her 1st paycheque, she put 1st AND last month's rent on a place, furnished her new apartment, bought groceries and party materials and STILL had enough paycheque left to last until her next one.
Now, unless you live in Butt-Fuck Nowhere, paying 1st and last month's rent alone, never mind food and fun, is a near impossibility from one paycheque for most people, even making today's equivalent of $8/hr..

I also believe part of the problem population wise in general stems from today's technology. Even 30 years ago, we didn't have all the toys we have now. I think it's not just high taxes and inflation that have caused a declining birth rate, recently I believe it could be getting worse because we HAVE all these toys to keep us occupied. We stay up late watching TV cuz we can. We stay up all night playing video games or cruising the net, even in our 30's and 40's. These among other things cause us to spend less time interacting with our wives, husbands, g/f's or b/f's and even kids. "We" being the collective term for our western culture, not necessarily anyone on here.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

Now this is a stupid statement tho:

Not to anyone with a basic understanding of economics.

andyt andyt:

$1:

In the 1980s, Ottawa was awash in debt, but average citizens were not — in fact, in 1982 the average savings rate in Canada hit 20 per cent, its highest point ever. Two and a half decades later, the government is in the black, but Canadians are saving next to nothing. The turnaround is not a coincidence. Governments have downloaded extra costs on us in the form of higher taxes and fees. We may never again be able to save 22 per cent of our incomes, but even a modest decrease in our taxes would help us boost our anaemic savings from their current level of around 3 per cent of earnings.

We are the government. People carried less individual debt because they were transferring it to their kids. Guess the bill has come due.

And I think people are buying way too much schlork - electronic pacifiers and such that people didn't used to have. It may be cheap, but it also doesn't last, so people are always "upgrading." Same with clothes, household goods etc. At one time you bought something, you expected it to last for years, and it was cheap and easy to fix when it did break.

Saving is a factor of interest rates. When interest rates were highest, around 20% (1982), savings rates were highest. There was incentinve to do so. Today, there is no return on saved money, so no one saves anything, and that is a logical financial decision.

You are a fickle one, aren't you? One minute you say you're going to put me on ignore, then you can't help jumping right back in.

So you disagree with the writer's thesis that it is higher taxes that are causing the saving's rate to plummet? And you disagree with me that government debt is our debt? That was the thrust of my statement, in case you missed it.

[BeaverFever]

I'm not sure I buy the tax claim: Taxes peaked 10-15 years ago but have been in significant decline for over a decade...I've read alot of studies that show the average "all in" tax rate for provincial, federal, property tax etc is just about 30-35% across Canada. Considering that the 45% figure came from the Frazer Insitute, I think its safe to assume its inflated.

I think very soon we will see an end to retirement as we know it and seniors will be expeted to work right to the grave, at least part time in 'semi-retirement'. Seniors who expect to fully retire as they do today will be accused of having a "culture of entitlement," and expecting "gold-plated" benefits - the same accusations that are being levelled against middle class workers whose wages are no longer sufficient to cover the costs of a decent, respectable living.

Meanwhile, the companies who pay us all are seeing greater profit margins than they ever have at any point in history. The difference is that the money is not being circulated through workers anymore, its disbursed to international investors from around the world, often in ways that are not taxed by governments and therefore depleting public coffers.

The bottom line on taxes, to borrow a phrase somebody used on this site, is that people expect caviar service at hot dog prices. They want their taxes continually cut, the wages of public employees cut, and at the same time the want their government services and entitlements to pay for everything, especially to "them" (using a very narrow definition of who among us is like "them" of course).

All the while, the only ones benefiting from our problems are CEOs, hedge funds and the likes of Goldman Sachs.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The bottom line on taxes, to borrow a phrase somebody used on this site, is that people expect caviar service at hot dog prices. They want their taxes continually cut, the wages of public employees cut, and at the same time the want their government services and entitlements to pay for everything, especially to "them" (using a very narrow definition of who among us is like "them" of course).

The wages of public service employees is an oft mistaken belief. The senior public service ie; our politicians certainly need to have their pay cut. But the actual swivel servants in the trenches don't do as well as people think. In the late 80's I worked for Revenue Canada for a short time(hated every second of it). I actually could have made more doing essentially the same job in the private sector. I'm also one of those that wouldn't mind seeing my taxes cut, but quite frankly, I'd happily settle for them being managed properly.
Ya know, stuff like Ontario paying $800 million to wind up NOT having medical records computerized and linked. Absolutely ZERO oversight on what has become known as ADSCAM and the millions that are still unaccounted for. Spending more to cancel contracts than the damn things would'a cost in the first place. The PM calling an extended prorogue and then deciding to eliminate the two upcoming vacation breaks like it's gonna make up for the 3 months Parliament will do nothing, while we pay for it. Bet we don't see any adjustments on our year end taxes though. And I bet we're still paying the ones that are either doing nothing during this period or are simply "phoning it in" or putting in an appearance.
Then of course, we have at least one former PM from Cambridge that "fudged" on his taxes..twice. Yep, that's right, when he got pinched, he then proceeded to fudge the SAME return a second time. I won't even bother mentioning what party he belonged to cuz at this point, it really doesn't matter.

And btw BF, I'm not disagreeing with what you said, just adding my 2 cents.

[KorbenDeck]

Lemmy Lemmy:

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

Tariffs. Put Tariffs on all this crap we import from China etc. Turn Canada back into a manufacturing nation.

Whats the point of having environmental and labour laws if we simply stop employing Canadians and import the stuff from countries that have no such laws?

Figure out a way to increase the fertility rate in Canada.

Tariffs create a deadweight loss on Canadians. We've spent the past 20 years trying to build a service-technology economy. Why would we ever want to go back to a 20th century manufacturing economy? I agree, we should demand better quality products, as an importer, but tariffs aren't the way to achieve that.

I'm not saying go back to a 20th century manufacturing economy, I am saying we should be manufacturing more of our products instead of importing them from China and still paying the same price as if it was made in Canada. I worded it wrong my bad. It’s not only about quality but about responsibility, as I stated what’s the point of having environmental or labour laws in Canada if we just outsource jobs to countries that do not?

The tariffs are also another way bring in some extra money. Personally I think all products imported (with some exceptions) should have a tariff on them, and all that money should go straight to our National debt

We cant offord to get ourselves into a situation like the USA is in where we import far more than we export.

[andyt]

We do import far more than we export, unless you're thinking raw materials. That's certainly not a "service-technology economy." That idea seems to be a wank fest to keep people quiet.

Manufacturing is what would keep us a strong nation - there's a reason that China is surging ahead as much as it is. It's what keeps the average joe employed, instead of at shitty service jobs while we import people for the higher tech stuff 'cause we won't train em here.

Good point about environmental and labor laws, tho I doubt Harpo and his ilk care about those.

I doubt tariffs would work tho, 'cause then other countries would retaliate and we wouldn't be able to sell our raw materials, (or those with very little value added such as lumber) which is what we've always relied on for our wealth.

I guess as long as consumer demand is strong for cheap crap we can ride the wave of selling our resources cheap and think we're rich. But if we get another dip, as many people are predicting, that's not going to work out very well.

Personally I hope that Jeff Rubin is right about his peak oil ideas - making it too expensive to ship stuff long distances and making economies more local again. Probably good for the planet as well. But not for those who associate standard of living with how much crap they can consume.