CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7872
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:14 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
How about I just ignore you because you are a conservative source?

The numbers are the same...only the commentary is different. If you're going to ignore the numbers, then this conversation is pretty much over.


When did I ever post a conservative blog to back my arguments? Please, do show. If the numbers are the same on a non-biased source, show the non-biased source.

It's standard operating procedure to not link to biased blogs to support your arguments. If you want to ignore me for being a conservative, then I can't really stop you, but that says a hell of a lot about you, not me.

Quote:

Yep, we've got to stop those under the poverty line from buying all those Cadillacs and McMansions. :roll:

Sure, some people got caught up in the housing boom and were attracted by sub-prime mortgage rates, but that didn't account for the entire sector - about a fifth to a tenth of it. Most middle class families CAN afford a house and a car or two, as long as both parents are working in career-type jobs, not crappy McJobs at Wal-Mart, The Gap or McDonald's.


Did you not just witness the US housing bubble a few years back? The mortgage crisis was based on banks offering loans and mortgages to properties to people who couldn't reasonably afford such properties. Banks collapsed from the weight of the debt from such mortgages. The banks shouldn't have been making such loans, no doubt about it, but don't excuse those who knowingly took loans they couldn't have afford. Canada's approaching a similar issue as our consumer debt loads continue to increase.

This is a significant issue that you can't just ignore when it comes to wealth inequality. The bottom 40%, from what I've read, includes those who are over their heads in debt, even when they would reasonably be in a decent situation if they managed their finances better.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... redit.html

Quote:
No, the real problem is that many of the good paying jobs that most lower class (and increasingly the middle class) have been exported to third world countries so that the 1% can have higher stock prices and dividends. Further, the loss of those jobs creates a vicious cycle whereby people are forced to shop in the stores you mentioned for "low, low prices" simply because they can't afford to shop elsewhere.

Bring back jobs in textiles, manufacturing and other sectors where low-skilled/semi-skilled people can work and you'd see a big difference in people's lives. The problem is that would cut into the dividend earnings of the 1% and Lord knows we can't have that.


Those jobs were exported to third world countries because it's more efficient and profitable to operate such factories in third world countries. You can go on about the 1% all day long, but we as consumers, as a whole, purchase goods that are cheap, instead of trying to find more expensive, locally made alternatives. You might think you're an exception, but good odds you own a good share of consumer goods from non-Western countries. No company will bring back jobs to Western countries for low skilled, low education labor, when it's much cheaper, and generally more efficient to hire low skilled, low education labor in a country like China. Did you not see the collapse of the Big 3 back in 2008 as well? Those legacy benefits to take a toll on companies, especially when they're not doing so well.

Plus, again, such globalization allowed non-Western countries to form a middle class for the first time in their existence for a majority of them, bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty. Good odds, even if we somehow kept those factories in North America, those jobs would have disappeared as automation and robotization would have been cheaper than hiring low skilled, low education workers for $50 an hour in wages and benefits.

Also, last I checked, more people than the 1% invests in stocks, or does your retirement fund consist of money stuffed in a mattress?


Quote:
Evidence?!?

Just take a look at the annual listings of corruption around the world put out by any number of reputable organizations - outside of the West it is near endemic and Google can locate hundreds of instances (at least) of Western companies getting ripped off abroad in the past few years. Even when investors do find similar high growth plays in the third world, there is always the risk of nationalization (Venezuala comes to mind).

No, the safest investments are typically in the West (centered on technology in places like Silicon Valley or big oil like the Oil Sands in Alberta) and as such, this paranoia that the 1%ers are going to take all their wealth to Brazil or Thailand or Nigeria is largely unfounded IMHO.


There is a huge difference between a corporation moving overseas, and a wealthy individual moving overseas. Are we talking about 1%ers, or corporations as well? A bit of a difference here. The richest individuals can easily run off, losing a very nice chunk of tax income, something France is learning right now.

Quote:
I'm sure that someone can relocate to the Cayman Islands or Jamiaca or the Bahamas or whereever they want. But you don't invest your money there - you just live there. If investing in the Caymans (or any other place in the Caribbean) was so profitable, Apple, Google, GM, Coca-Cola and every other major multi-national would be headquartered there.

But it's not.

The big money is in the big markets - the US, Japan, Europe, etc. Apple got rich by selling millions of iPhones to consumers, not by selling one to each person on the Forbes 400. Same with Coca-Cola, GM, and basically every other multi-national on this planet.

You tax their investments in those locales and let the billionaires live whereever they want as far as I'm concerned. The amount of taxes the Forbes 400 pay individually is a drop in the bucket compared to taxes that could be earned off their companies and investments located in the States, Europe and Japan.


You're arguing for two very different things. Wealth inequality generally deals how the richest individuals control a huge portion of wealth, generally through stock ownership. The same reason why I think taxing the highest tax bracket to a marginal tax rate 70% is a terrible idea, is the same reason why I think high corporate taxes aren't a good idea either. For the most part, you'd be punishing individuals and businesses who hire people and create jobs for the economy.

If you really want to focus on the ultra-wealthy individual, the best way is to create a new tax bracket for the $5 million plus income owners, and tax them at a higher rate...say, 50%. Increasing taxes on those making $380,000+ a year is burdening small businesses owners and other entrepreneurs far more than you'd burden the ultra wealthy.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28142
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:19 pm
 


Our top fed tax bracket is 29% over 135K. You saying there's no room there to add a say 35% bracket over 250K? And say 40% over 500k?


Online
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25416
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:26 pm
 


andyt wrote:
Our top fed tax bracket is 29% over 135K. You saying there's no room there to add a say 35% bracket over 250K? And say 40% over 500k?


Which is misleading, the provincial additions will push that over 43%.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19059
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:50 pm
 


commanderkai wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
How about I just ignore you because you are a conservative source?

The numbers are the same...only the commentary is different. If you're going to ignore the numbers, then this conversation is pretty much over.


When did I ever post a conservative blog to back my arguments? Please, do show. If the numbers are the same on a non-biased source, show the non-biased source.

It's standard operating procedure to not link to biased blogs to support your arguments. If you want to ignore me for being a conservative, then I can't really stop you, but that says a hell of a lot about you, not me.


Mine was obviously a joke - you know, given that I REPLIED to you!

Sometimes you seem like a really sharp guy - this isn't one of those times! :P

As for the blog content - blame Google - it was the top hit on my search term. I don't recall ever visiting that blog before.

https://www.google.com/search?q=middle+ ... =firefox-a

However, if that's not good enough for you, here's a link from CNN;

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/ec ... /index.htm

Or one from the US senate;

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Fil ... 3b584a088c

Both note that middle class incomes have stagnated (the difference being the time frames);

Still, feel free to find graphs from a supposedly non-partisan site to prove me wrong. Otherwise, I'll just assume you in denial because you can't refute the numbers on those graphs.



commanderkai wrote:
Quote:
Yep, we've got to stop those under the poverty line from buying all those Cadillacs and McMansions. :roll:

Sure, some people got caught up in the housing boom and were attracted by sub-prime mortgage rates, but that didn't account for the entire sector - about a fifth to a tenth of it. Most middle class families CAN afford a house and a car or two, as long as both parents are working in career-type jobs, not crappy McJobs at Wal-Mart, The Gap or McDonald's.


Did you not just witness the US housing bubble a few years back? The mortgage crisis was based on banks offering loans and mortgages to properties to people who couldn't reasonably afford such properties. Banks collapsed from the weight of the debt from such mortgages. The banks shouldn't have been making such loans, no doubt about it, but don't excuse those who knowingly took loans they couldn't have afford. Canada's approaching a similar issue as our consumer debt loads continue to increase.

This is a significant issue that you can't just ignore when it comes to wealth inequality. The bottom 40%, from what I've read, includes those who are over their heads in debt, even when they would reasonably be in a decent situation if they managed their finances better.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... redit.html


Note the bolded part...

The only thing I said about lower income people was obviously sarcastic - banks typically don't (and certainly didn't even before the sub-prime fiasco) extend loans for Caddies and McMansions to very many people below the poverty line.



commanderkai wrote:
Quote:
No, the real problem is that many of the good paying jobs that most lower class (and increasingly the middle class) have been exported to third world countries so that the 1% can have higher stock prices and dividends. Further, the loss of those jobs creates a vicious cycle whereby people are forced to shop in the stores you mentioned for "low, low prices" simply because they can't afford to shop elsewhere.

Bring back jobs in textiles, manufacturing and other sectors where low-skilled/semi-skilled people can work and you'd see a big difference in people's lives. The problem is that would cut into the dividend earnings of the 1% and Lord knows we can't have that.


Those jobs were exported to third world countries because it's more efficient and profitable to operate such factories in third world countries. You can go on about the 1% all day long, but we as consumers, as a whole, purchase goods that are cheap, instead of trying to find more expensive, locally made alternatives. You might think you're an exception, but good odds you own a good share of consumer goods from non-Western countries. No company will bring back jobs to Western countries for low skilled, low education labor, when it's much cheaper, and generally more efficient to hire low skilled, low education labor in a country like China. Did you not see the collapse of the Big 3 back in 2008 as well? Those legacy benefits to take a toll on companies, especially when they're not doing so well.

Plus, again, such globalization allowed non-Western countries to form a middle class for the first time in their existence for a majority of them, bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty. Good odds, even if we somehow kept those factories in North America, those jobs would have disappeared as automation and robotization would have been cheaper than hiring low skilled, low education workers for $50 an hour in wages and benefits.

Also, last I checked, more people than the 1% invests in stocks, or does your retirement fund consist of money stuffed in a mattress?


The reason we buy made in China goods is because everything is made in China. Try looking for a pair of jeans made in Canada sometime. Or a TV. Or a computer.

The jobs were not exported because things are more efficient in the third world - they were exported because it allowed companies to drop manufacturing costs by 50%-75%, increasing profitability and giving them a competitive advantage over other companies NOT manufacturing overseas.

I agree that robots have been a factor in job losses - however those are typically in high-skill factories that usually manufacture high tech goods. The last time I checked, jeans were not a high tech good. Neither were Nike running shoes.

FYI, my money is buried under a palm tree in a well-hidden location - I'll never tell anyone where it is!

Seriously, I have some mutual funds and I have played the stock market for a long time - pretty small amounts compared to the big guys (usually not more than $10k at a time because I don't want all my eggs in one basket), but I have benefited on occasion from stock swings and market fluctuations.

Having said that, I think our society should be judged on how we protect/assist those least capable of helping themselves, not the millionaires and billionaires who almost always land on their feet regardless of economic times.


commanderkai wrote:
Quote:
Evidence?!?

Just take a look at the annual listings of corruption around the world put out by any number of reputable organizations - outside of the West it is near endemic and Google can locate hundreds of instances (at least) of Western companies getting ripped off abroad in the past few years. Even when investors do find similar high growth plays in the third world, there is always the risk of nationalization (Venezuala comes to mind).

No, the safest investments are typically in the West (centered on technology in places like Silicon Valley or big oil like the Oil Sands in Alberta) and as such, this paranoia that the 1%ers are going to take all their wealth to Brazil or Thailand or Nigeria is largely unfounded IMHO.


There is a huge difference between a corporation moving overseas, and a wealthy individual moving overseas. Are we talking about 1%ers, or corporations as well? A bit of a difference here. The richest individuals can easily run off, losing a very nice chunk of tax income, something France is learning right now.


I don't have a problem losing Warren Buffet's personal income tax if we can tax his investments at the same rate as income (most of which are in the West BTW). Either that or increase corporate taxes a smidge to offset his defection to the Bahamas should it come to it.

If a couple malcontents (AKA the Forbes 400) want to take off, let them. We'll tax their investments instead of their personal income.


commanderkai wrote:
Quote:
I'm sure that someone can relocate to the Cayman Islands or Jamiaca or the Bahamas or whereever they want. But you don't invest your money there - you just live there. If investing in the Caymans (or any other place in the Caribbean) was so profitable, Apple, Google, GM, Coca-Cola and every other major multi-national would be headquartered there.

But it's not.

The big money is in the big markets - the US, Japan, Europe, etc. Apple got rich by selling millions of iPhones to consumers, not by selling one to each person on the Forbes 400. Same with Coca-Cola, GM, and basically every other multi-national on this planet.

You tax their investments in those locales and let the billionaires live whereever they want as far as I'm concerned. The amount of taxes the Forbes 400 pay individually is a drop in the bucket compared to taxes that could be earned off their companies and investments located in the States, Europe and Japan.


You're arguing for two very different things. Wealth inequality generally deals how the richest individuals control a huge portion of wealth, generally through stock ownership. The same reason why I think taxing the highest tax bracket to a marginal tax rate 70% is a terrible idea, is the same reason why I think high corporate taxes aren't a good idea either. For the most part, you'd be punishing individuals and businesses who hire people and create jobs for the economy.

If you really want to focus on the ultra-wealthy individual, the best way is to create a new tax bracket for the $5 million plus income owners, and tax them at a higher rate...say, 50%. Increasing taxes on those making $380,000+ a year is burdening small businesses owners and other entrepreneurs far more than you'd burden the ultra wealthy.


I never said anything about focussing on the ultra-wealthy - I simply said if we dialled things back a bit, everyone would still benefit - the difference is that the wealthy might make 15% of annual income instead of 24%, allowing the lower half of the curve to make more than they are under the current set-up.

A movie quote comes to mind here; "The Devil's biggest trick was convincing makind he didn't exist."

I would twist it a bit and say that "the wealthiest's biggest trick was convincing the masses that they needed even more than they already had."


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7872
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:58 pm
 


andyt wrote:
Our top fed tax bracket is 29% over 135K. You saying there's no room there to add a say 35% bracket over 250K? And say 40% over 500k?


I was using US tax bracket numbers for my example. Again, for small business owners and entrepreneurs, taxing them too heavily is a significant burden, especially, as Martin pointed out, doesn't even include provincial and municipal taxes.

If you want to squeeze the ultrarich, focusing on those making just 250k a year, or even 500k a year won't really do much. The ultrarich in Canada will just laugh and laugh, while the entrepreneurs, small business owners, and other individuals who create businesses and hires employees will suffer from the extra burden.

The US tax bracket goes to $380,000+ in their highest bracket, which is reasonable, but if you want to get the 1%, go higher. Create a new bracket for those who are completely secure in their financial position, $5 million+ and tax them at 50%, which would leave a majority of entrepreneurs out of a crippling tax rate, especially as they are risking their wealth and livelihoods to expand their business.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7872
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:05 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
Both note that middle class incomes have stagnated (the difference being the time frames);

Still, feel free to find graphs from a supposedly non-partisan site to prove me wrong. Otherwise, I'll just assume you in denial because you can't refute the numbers on those graphs.


Except, boot, I never disagreed that the middle class stagnated, now did I? I attribute such stagnation to the rise of globalization in the last 30 years, and the gradual (or sharp) decline of the industrial sector in Western countries. I wholly agree that a significant portion of the decline in the middle class is the fact that companies shifted their industrial operations offshore, or made their operations more efficient through the introduction of robotics and automation. Wholly agree.

My disagreement is that I don't think, in the grand scheme of things of a globalized world, that this was a bad thing. The introduction of such manufacturing in third world countries has allowed them to create a proper middle class, and brought hundreds of million out of poverty. On top of this, a great many individuals in Western countries enjoy the benefits of cheaper consumer goods produced in third world countries. As much as you might dislike Walmart and other retailers, you are not a majority of the consuming public. In the end, consumers benefited just as much from outsourcing as did the companies, and the companies that didn't outsource (Why hello, General Motors) is suffering from the legacy costs of paying low skilled, low education workers a wage and benefits far beyond their skills and education should warrant.



Quote:
Note the bolded part...

The only thing I said about lower income people was obviously sarcastic - banks typically don't (and certainly didn't even before the sub-prime fiasco) extend loans for Caddies and McMansions to very many people below the poverty line.


Below the poverty line? Maybe not, but lower and middle class families certainly did borrow a lot more money than they could properly afford, and hedged their benefits on forever increasing property values, which collapsed in 2008.

My point about the 2008 crisis, and Canada's upcoming consumer debt crisis is that, from what I've read, the bottom "20%" you see in those income charts also include individuals who would be generally seen as middle class, but are in such extreme debt, their financial situation is actually lumped into the bottom 20%. In the long run, you can't exactly accumulate wealth if you're spending beyond your means. People with proper careers, no matter what they might be in (a factory worker at the Oshawa GM plant, a plumber, a doctor, a teacher, whatever) can afford a comfortable home and a car if they spend wisely, and not spend beyond their means.

Look at the CBC article I linked. Canadians, on average, owe $26,000 without even including their mortgage. The average Canadian owes $3500 on their credit cards. This, to me is Canada's bubble, ready to burst, and it's not the fault of the ultrarich.

Quote:
The reason we buy made in China goods is because everything is made in China. Try looking for a pair of jeans made in Canada sometime. Or a TV. Or a computer.

The jobs were not exported because things are more efficient in the third world - they were exported because it allowed companies to drop manufacturing costs by 50%-75%, increasing profitability and giving them a competitive advantage over other companies NOT manufacturing overseas.

I agree that robots have been a factor in job losses - however those are typically in high-skill factories that usually manufacture high tech goods. The last time I checked, jeans were not a high tech good. Neither were Nike running shoes.


If it lowers costs by 50%-75% by outsourcing and offshoring, then yes, it is highly efficient to do so. How can you say otherwise? Companies are able to produce products more cheaply, giving them a competitive advantage, and getting more out of their money.

Now yes, a majority of consumer products are made in Vietnam/China/Taiwan/etc etc, but at the same time, there are always alternatives around. They are just priced so highly, that they are out of reach to most individuals' willingness to pay. You mentioned a GWC Jeans, (Sorry, don't remember the exact name)correct? Now, I never personally encountered said company, but no matter. Up until they closed, you paid X amount for those jeans, most likely at a price much higher than you might buying jeans at a major retailer.

In the end, as much as it might be laudable to "Buy Canadian" or "Buy American", most people aren't willing to make such an expense, and being protectionist by attempting to tariff such goods to the point where Canadian companies would stay competitive would hurt Canada far more than it would help.

Robotics in Western manufacturing has allowed factories producing, say cars, to be extremely productive, and allows them to stay competitive with third world counterparts. Some jobs were lost, no doubt, but they would have been guaranteed once companies realized it was cheaper buying a $50,000 robot, than paying somebody $50,000 a year, plus their pension once they retire.

I honestly don't think low skilled, low education manufacturing will ever return. Without implementing protectionism, which, in my view, would severely harm Canada's competitiveness, there is no real incentive for companies to make jeans in Canada beyond a "Buy Canada!" sticker.
Quote:

FYI, my money is buried under a palm tree in a well-hidden location - I'll never tell anyone where it is!

Seriously, I have some mutual funds and I have played the stock market for a long time - pretty small amounts compared to the big guys (usually not more than $10k at a time because I don't want all my eggs in one basket), but I have benefited on occasion from stock swings and market fluctuations.


Exactly. As much as it might seem...heartless for companies to focus on dividends and getting the most out of their money, it also allows you, pensions, and all individuals, 1% or not, to benefit. Their profits allow you to profit. The 1% generally have huge amounts of their wealth in mutual funds and stocks, but punishing companies through, say, higher corporate tax rates, or protectionist policies will harm everyone, be it the Ontario elementary teacher who has his or her pension invested in the stock market, you, being an individual investor, or the ultra wealthy.

Quote:
Having said that, I think our society should be judged on how we protect/assist those least capable of helping themselves, not the millionaires and billionaires who almost always land on their feet regardless of economic times.


I agree. I just don't agree that anybody making $239,000 a year in Canada, or $380,000 a year is somehow the ultra rich. Thus my proposal to create a new tax bracket for the actual millionaires (And I'm giving a bit of space for those individuals who have extremely successful businesses, and would be certainly tempted to invest by expanding their business through a new store, or new employees), say, again, $5 million+ and taxing them at a rate of 40%-45%, instead of just hiking those making $239,000+ a year and hiking their taxes to 45%.

Really, creating a new tax bracket allows the millionaires and billionaires to actually pay a relatively decent amount of their income, while allowing entrepreneurs, small business owners, and professionals a nice leeway from just being rich, to being the 1%. I would argue that would be an extremely fair compromise. It would not discourage individuals from risking their wealth to form a business, allows most successful individuals to benefit from their risk, while allowing the Irving and Thomson families (among the many other wealthy families in Canada) to be taxed at a rate that would get the government a decent bit of income, while not being so high it would convince them to use their wealth to relocate to a more rich friendly nation.


Quote:
I don't have a problem losing Warren Buffet's personal income tax if we can tax his investments at the same rate as income (most of which are in the West BTW). Either that or increase corporate taxes a smidge to offset his defection to the Bahamas should it come to it.

If a couple malcontents (AKA the Forbes 400) want to take off, let them. We'll tax their investments instead of their personal income.


I can see that as a possibility, but it would be more reasonable if there was a sort of progressive system of taxing such investments, and even then, keeping such taxation reasonable to not discourage investment, and thus, discouraging growth. I mean, if you were, hypothetically, taxed on your investments at the same rate at Warren Buffet (say...20%), you would be burdened as a typical, middle class Canadian, while Warren Buffet would find it reasonable. Base it on income 2% tax on those making...65,000 or less a year, 5% making 65,000-250,000 a year, 10% on those making 250,000-2.5 million, and 15% making 2.5 million plus.

Of course, ask Lemmy if this is even plausible, because I have no idea if this is doable.


Quote:
I never said anything about focussing on the ultra-wealthy - I simply said if we dialled things back a bit, everyone would still benefit - the difference is that the wealthy might make 15% of annual income instead of 24%, allowing the lower half of the curve to make more than they are under the current set-up.

A movie quote comes to mind here; "The Devil's biggest trick was convincing makind he didn't exist."

I would twist it a bit and say that "the wealthiest's biggest trick was convincing the masses that they needed even more than they already had."


I think I took focusing on the ultra wealthy was based on this quote:
Quote:
I'm not saying we need to go to socialism and re-distribute everything, but would a return to 1976 levels really be that awful?


Which, in the US, the top marginal tax rate in 1976 was 70%, and with the highest tax bracket currently in the US, ($380,000+ a year), I was arguing that would be a huge burden for a majority of entrepreneurs, professionals, and small business owners who can have high personal income, while at the same time dealing with the costs of running a business, and generally would desire to expand.

If you want a higher rate so the 1% are contributing more greatly to government coffers, it'd be better to create a new tax bracket, in my view, and focus on the ultra wealthy that way with a higher marginal tax rate. Putting a marginal tax rate similar to the 1970s, in my view, would be devastating to most people who, although they might have wealth, are also nowhere near the level of Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 45735
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:16 pm
 


commanderkai wrote:
Also, last I checked, more people than the 1% invests in stocks, or does your retirement fund consist of money stuffed in a mattress?


While this is not directed at Bootlegga, I have observed that for a disproportionate number of the people who bemoan the wealth of others that this constitutes a retirement plan:

Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14212
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:44 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
commanderkai wrote:
Also, last I checked, more people than the 1% invests in stocks, or does your retirement fund consist of money stuffed in a mattress?


While this is not directed at Bootlegga, I have observed that for a disproportionate number of the people who bemoan the wealth of others that this constitutes a retirement plan:

Image


It's the last dream left for too many people who've most of their other hopes pillaged by those who already had more than their own fair share but still decided they just absolutely had to take what was left of everyone else's.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2297
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:07 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
commanderkai wrote:
Also, last I checked, more people than the 1% invests in stocks, or does your retirement fund consist of money stuffed in a mattress?


While this is not directed at Bootlegga, I have observed that for a disproportionate number of the people who bemoan the wealth of others that this constitutes a retirement plan:

Image


When all you can save after bills and food on the table is pocket change what else could they possibly do for retirement?

People need to make enough to have the option of putting away enough to retire at 67. There are more then enough jobs on the market where that is nearly impossible because the wages are far far too low. Frankly we need people working the crappier jobs or society won't run but that doesn't mean we have to spit on them at the same time.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 739
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:29 pm
 


Lotteries are just a tax on people who can't do math. The crazy thing is that the people who play them the most are the people who can least afford to.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2297
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:48 am
 


I think for a lot of them it's a cheap way to buy hope. It's not about the reality but about the dream.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 9337
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:44 am
 


Thanos wrote:
It's the last dream left for too many people who've most of their other hopes pillaged by those who already had more than their own fair share but still decided they just absolutely had to take what was left of everyone else's.


What a load of BS.....

People need to take responsibility for their own choices in their lives and people not in a good financial situation aren't always there because of some mythical corporate goon looking to get more profit.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23997
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:38 am
 


OnTheIce wrote:
Thanos wrote:
It's the last dream left for too many people who've most of their other hopes pillaged by those who already had more than their own fair share but still decided they just absolutely had to take what was left of everyone else's.


What a load of BS.....

People need to take responsibility for their own choices in their lives and people not in a good financial situation aren't always there because of some mythical corporate goon looking to get more profit.


True, but equally, the corporate goon exists and is there to feather its own nest, not those of others.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19059
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:14 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
commanderkai wrote:
Also, last I checked, more people than the 1% invests in stocks, or does your retirement fund consist of money stuffed in a mattress?


While this is not directed at Bootlegga, I have observed that for a disproportionate number of the people who bemoan the wealth of others that this constitutes a retirement plan:

Image


Please, everyone knows those are for suckers!

My retirement investments are strictly in these;

Image

:lol:

Seriously...RRSPs, GICs, a variety of collectables, a couple pieces of real estate and some stocks.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 45735
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:25 am
 


Gunnair wrote:
True, but equally, the corporate goon exists and is there to feather its own nest, not those of others.


So's the guy who runs the fry vat at McDonald's. :idea:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.