[bootlegga]

Good, maybe we can afford three JSS after all!

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

sandorski sandorski:

Conservatives had their chance to do the same, but knuckled under at the first sign of opposition.

Um...no.

They used their surplus from 05-06, 06-07 and 07-08 to pay down the debt from 549 billion to 513 billion.

Their opposition came in year 1 when the Liberals cried because Harper opted to pay down debt and not give all the money away.

The 1993 Liberals came into office with a debt of 527 billion and left with the debt at 549 billion.

You sure about those numbers? That's $36 billion and IIRC, they only ran surpluses of 5 or 6 billion per year after they cut the GST. But if they actually did cut it by that much, how much have they racked up since then?

I thought the federal debt is now about $600 billion, which is far worse than the Liberals adding $22 billion after 13 years in government.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Good, maybe we can afford three JSS after all!

We always could. The coin is there. What's lacking is the will to spend it.

[Winnipegger]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The 1993 Liberals came into office with a debt of 527 billion and left with the debt at 549 billion.

Is that adjusted for inflation, or something? According to Statistics Canada, the debt on election day 1984 was $150 billion. On election day 1993 it was $450 billion. Mulroney tripled the debt! The deficit was $38 billion on election day 1984, the worst in Canadian history up to that point. On election day 1993 it was $42 billion. In both cases the deficit changed after the election. This is not adjusted for inflation or anything else.

Canadian Debt Clock April 2014

$1:

The Current Outstanding Public Debt of Canada is approximately:
$693,942,697,445.25 CDN
Last Updated: March 15th, 2014

So, Harper's Conservatives are different than Mulroney's?

[Jabberwalker]

Oh, well. We owe it to each other for the most part. There are far higher numbers in the World. We will run out of zeros before the end. As it is all a giant pyramid scheme, someone not yet born will have to pay it off.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

smorgdonkey smorgdonkey:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Well, there goes another lefty talking point down the sewer.

It's been a bad week for them. First the pollywog prog lost his "Middle Class is in trouble" talking point, and now this.

Losing the 'talking point' doesn't mean it is defeated...they consider people making $100 000.00 per year 'middle class'.

Wow, $100,000 per year makes you middle class in Canada, but $200,000 per year suddenly vaults one to Canadian 1%er status. Who's "figuring" this stuff out?

[Winnipegger]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Wow... Who's "figuring" this stuff out?

CBC: Who are Canada's top 1%? Sep 13, 2013

$1:

Minimum income to be in the top ...
10% of income earners $80,400*
1% of income earners $191,100*
0.1% of income earners $685,000**
0.01% of income earners $2.57 million**
*National Household Survey (2011), **Statistics Canada T1FF (2010)

Statistics Canada: Income of Canadians, 2011 Released June 27, 2013

$1:

According to the after-tax low income cut-offs, 3 million Canadians, or 8.8% of the population, lived in low income
in 2011, unchanged from 2010.

Statistics Canada: Low income cut-offs before and after tax by community and family size, 2011 constant dollars

$1:

Community size: Population 500,000 and over - Low income cut-offs before tax: $23,298

That last quote is pulled from a table.

This makes middle class, for cities with population over half a million, to be: $23,298 to $80,400. That is total family income, so for married couples that's the total of both incomes.

[saturn_656]

If middle class stops at 80,000k what is beyond that? Certainly not "upper class".

[Winnipegger]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

If middle class stops at 80,000k what is beyond that? Certainly not "upper class".

Yea, that's the catch. The top 10% don't think of themselves as "upper class". Well, the top 1% look down their noses at those who are "only" top 10%. So $80,400 to $191,100 is considered "upper middle class". Although Statistics Canada doesn't use that term at all.

[Jabberwalker]

Sorry. Is that individual or household income?

[andyt]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Sorry. Is that individual or household income?

Aye, there's the rub. Median family income is around 70k, so 80k family income would certainly be middle class. There's quite a bit of variability tho, from 64k in New Brunswick to 105k in NWT.

Seems to me to use the term middle, you'd divide earners into 3 groups, low, middle, high. Take the median absolute deviation of the median, and bob's your uncle.

[Winnipegger]

Interesting. I linked the CBC article that I copied the table from. However, when I look for these figures on Statistics Canada website, I get different results. The $191,100 figure is for BC in 2007. To get into the top 1% nationally for 2011, you require $209,600 per year. All dollar figures are in current dollars, not adjusted for inflation. And before tax income.

Source: High income trends of tax filers in Canada, provinces and census metropolitan areas (CMA), specific geographic area thresholds

The top 10% nationally for 2011: $84,100
High-income trends among Canadian taxfilers, 2011

$1:

To be part of the top 1%, top 5%, top 10% and top 50% of taxfilers in 2011, one needed to make a total income of at least $209,600, $108,300, $84,100 and $29,700 respectively. If one made less than $29,700, one would be counted as in the bottom half of taxfilers.

All dollar figures in this release are expressed in 2011 constant dollars unless otherwise noted.

Total (or before-tax) income consists of income from earnings, investments, pensions, spousal support payments and other taxable income plus government transfers and refundable tax credits.

[andyt]

Stats can gives the median income for individuals as 30,180 in 2011. If even they can't keep their figures straight, what hope is there?

[ShepherdsDog]

This really doesn't take into consideration that someone making $60 000 a year in Port Butt Munch, Newfoundland or Chase a Buffalo, Saskatchewan is a hell of a lot further ahead than someone earning $60 000 in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Edmonton.

I made substantially less living overseas, but my PPP was similar if not higher to what it is back here in Canada. Our combined family income was less than what either my wife or I earn individually now, yet we were earning incomes that were considered upper middle class by local standards.

I admit that were you to look at the wages earned here, our salaries put us in the 1 %, but most people here live at or below the poverty level.....well except for the Chief and band councilors. However, were we to move into some of the urban centers I've already named, we'd drop substantially on the economic ladder.

[Winnipegger]

andyt andyt:

Stats can gives the median income for individuals as 30,180 in 2011. If even they can't keep their figures straight, what hope is there?

The figures I'm quoting has nothing to do with "median". I'm quoting cut-off for low income, and the top 10%. I'm using that as a definition of "middle class".