Bright Spark
Posts: 265 
October 8th, 2006, 09:35 AM
I am 23, and I am toying with the idea of retiring now. I have worked piddly little jobs since 16 and saved almost every penny I made and invested it right away (thanks to my mom for giving me a home, and her love, during those important years). Now, I'm on my own, I'm still saving, and doing some university. If I want to, even though I am hardly what you would call rich, I could retire right now. Hell, I could afford to keep up with the Joneses to an extent just by working about ten hours a week and living off my interest!
For most people, life in Canada and the US is hardly as bad as it can be made out to seem. Wish more people would come to terms with this fact. It just takes a bit of responsibility. I know that sounds rough, and there really are some genuine cases counter to that (especially with people who are disabled - who especially deserve our help). But hey! I'd have more time to help these people out if I retire. More leisure time, for time for the arts, sciences, volunteer work, et cetera.
Quoting jimmoyer
Absolutely. When I was just a few years younger, it took me quite a while to come to terms with this... Now, I feel so much better.
2. Great disparity in wealth distribution.
Yet this disguises the fact that more and more people are materially richer than before.
That's the irony.
The more who enter the ranks of the richer (draw your line) the more dissatisfaction
occurs. The children of the Great Depression never felt poor. Everyone was poor.
Yet this disguises the fact that more and more people are materially richer than before.
That's the irony.
The more who enter the ranks of the richer (draw your line) the more dissatisfaction
occurs. The children of the Great Depression never felt poor. Everyone was poor.
I am 23, and I am toying with the idea of retiring now. I have worked piddly little jobs since 16 and saved almost every penny I made and invested it right away (thanks to my mom for giving me a home, and her love, during those important years). Now, I'm on my own, I'm still saving, and doing some university. If I want to, even though I am hardly what you would call rich, I could retire right now. Hell, I could afford to keep up with the Joneses to an extent just by working about ten hours a week and living off my interest!
For most people, life in Canada and the US is hardly as bad as it can be made out to seem. Wish more people would come to terms with this fact. It just takes a bit of responsibility. I know that sounds rough, and there really are some genuine cases counter to that (especially with people who are disabled - who especially deserve our help). But hey! I'd have more time to help these people out if I retire. More leisure time, for time for the arts, sciences, volunteer work, et cetera.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,458
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
October 8th, 2006, 07:31 PM
Are we overtaxed? I don't know, but I do think that the tax system and the way we spend should be overhauled. I'm tired of my money being pissed away on little pet projects, pissed away for political advantage. Such a huge portion of spending is not directed at long-term priority issues, it is directed at whatever the governing party will win it votes next election.
On top of that, I think we tax the wrong things. We should change the tax system to encourage positive behaviours (like saving, earning) and discouraging negative behaviours (like polluting and creating waste). Interesting article along those lines in the Star today:
Are we overtaxed? I don't know, but I do think that the tax system and the way we spend should be overhauled. I'm tired of my money being pissed away on little pet projects, pissed away for political advantage. Such a huge portion of spending is not directed at long-term priority issues, it is directed at whatever the governing party will win it votes next election.
On top of that, I think we tax the wrong things. We should change the tax system to encourage positive behaviours (like saving, earning) and discouraging negative behaviours (like polluting and creating waste). Interesting article along those lines in the Star today:
Quote:
Read the rest here.
Ontario's plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Places to Grow is a smart and visionary piece of legislation.
The plan should stimulate downtowns, encourage compact communities, curb urban sprawl, cut down on car dependency, spur transit investment, and contribute to better air quality among other things.
The type of development and behaviours this greener approach to planning promotes are the very things the tax system discourages, while the brown development it tries to curb is heavily subsidized.
Taxes are more powerful policy tools. It is one reason the public is denigrated to the role of "taxpayers" and rarely referred to as citizens anymore.
The biggest challenge to the Places to Grow plan is simply that brown taxation trumps green planning every time.
What we tax and how we tax it is not a valueless collection of revenue. In fact, our taxation system sends a message to the GTA citizens that we should promote low-density development, spur large parking lot and big-box retail development, encourage automobile usage, reduce rapid transit development, reduce air quality, reduce jobs and investment in downtowns and encourage higher energy consumption.
While Ontario delivers a regional plan for a sustainable future, finance ministers and taxation bureaucrats in the three orders of government are busy pricing us into a future of freeways and free flowing garbage. The greatest contradiction is in how we use property tax.
Taxing land is a good thing when it promotes conservative use of land, which is a limited resource. Heavily taxing home and business improvements is a dumb thing, which discourages community development.
For example, I live in a high-rise building in Toronto 10 blocks from my office. I walk to work. My shoes and a sidewalk serve as my transportation infrastructure. Like most walkers and public transit users, a huge portion of my property taxes subsidizes the guy who drives past me in his car. Infrastructure and services to support cars probably consume about half of what I pay in property taxes.
Those of us who live in high-density developments pay at least a 150 per cent tax premium over single-family homeowners. We use less land, need fewer pipes and roads, use less energy and fewer city services. We cost governments less money — yet we are taxed more.
The plan should stimulate downtowns, encourage compact communities, curb urban sprawl, cut down on car dependency, spur transit investment, and contribute to better air quality among other things.
The type of development and behaviours this greener approach to planning promotes are the very things the tax system discourages, while the brown development it tries to curb is heavily subsidized.
Taxes are more powerful policy tools. It is one reason the public is denigrated to the role of "taxpayers" and rarely referred to as citizens anymore.
The biggest challenge to the Places to Grow plan is simply that brown taxation trumps green planning every time.
What we tax and how we tax it is not a valueless collection of revenue. In fact, our taxation system sends a message to the GTA citizens that we should promote low-density development, spur large parking lot and big-box retail development, encourage automobile usage, reduce rapid transit development, reduce air quality, reduce jobs and investment in downtowns and encourage higher energy consumption.
While Ontario delivers a regional plan for a sustainable future, finance ministers and taxation bureaucrats in the three orders of government are busy pricing us into a future of freeways and free flowing garbage. The greatest contradiction is in how we use property tax.
Taxing land is a good thing when it promotes conservative use of land, which is a limited resource. Heavily taxing home and business improvements is a dumb thing, which discourages community development.
For example, I live in a high-rise building in Toronto 10 blocks from my office. I walk to work. My shoes and a sidewalk serve as my transportation infrastructure. Like most walkers and public transit users, a huge portion of my property taxes subsidizes the guy who drives past me in his car. Infrastructure and services to support cars probably consume about half of what I pay in property taxes.
Those of us who live in high-density developments pay at least a 150 per cent tax premium over single-family homeowners. We use less land, need fewer pipes and roads, use less energy and fewer city services. We cost governments less money — yet we are taxed more.
House Member
Posts: 3,382 
October 8th, 2006, 11:40 PM
Saving, if most people do it is a negative action.
Hoarding is one of those greedy little things people do that harm society, hell cripple society if everyone else did them.
This is why government policies discourage savings, that is the nature of constant inflation and its purpose, to make constantly saving up money less of a no brainer.
Money is literally made to be spent and invested in new things. This doesn't mean you have to buy worthless crap, but you should constantly be buying. Perhaps a new parcel of land and then more things for it to build your dream home with. Doesn't matter.
But hoarding wealth is what kills the economy and makes everyone worse off than if they had just spent every dime they had in the first place.
Saving, if most people do it is a negative action.
Hoarding is one of those greedy little things people do that harm society, hell cripple society if everyone else did them.
This is why government policies discourage savings, that is the nature of constant inflation and its purpose, to make constantly saving up money less of a no brainer.
Money is literally made to be spent and invested in new things. This doesn't mean you have to buy worthless crap, but you should constantly be buying. Perhaps a new parcel of land and then more things for it to build your dream home with. Doesn't matter.
But hoarding wealth is what kills the economy and makes everyone worse off than if they had just spent every dime they had in the first place.
jimmoyer
Posts: 5,040
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
October 9th, 2006, 07:02 AM
Are you getting full value for the price you pay to Microsoft for your software, or to Esso for your gas and oil? Of course not. Same rule applies: 20% of the people those organizations pay aren't really doing anything useful. And what can you do about it? Nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------Dexter Sinister---------------------------------------------
Too lazy to research the validity of 20/80 rule. lol.
But that idea that only 20 percent of the people have sex is so wacky. Look at
teenagers. They don't work. What else do they do, when the hormones rage?
But ESSO ? I though Esso dissolved into EXXON back in the 60s.
And the issue of taxing wealth too much?? Some percentage will move to a better venue.
Are you getting full value for the price you pay to Microsoft for your software, or to Esso for your gas and oil? Of course not. Same rule applies: 20% of the people those organizations pay aren't really doing anything useful. And what can you do about it? Nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------Dexter Sinister---------------------------------------------
Too lazy to research the validity of 20/80 rule. lol.
But that idea that only 20 percent of the people have sex is so wacky. Look at
teenagers. They don't work. What else do they do, when the hormones rage?
But ESSO ? I though Esso dissolved into EXXON back in the 60s.
And the issue of taxing wealth too much?? Some percentage will move to a better venue.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
October 9th, 2006, 11:13 AM
I will have to check this, but off the top of my head, I believe that according to the OECD, taxes are 41% of the Canadian economy and 33% of the US economy. Government spending, however, is 36% of the US economy and 39% of the Canadian economy. That includes federal, state, provincial, municipal, etc.
I will have to check this, but off the top of my head, I believe that according to the OECD, taxes are 41% of the Canadian economy and 33% of the US economy. Government spending, however, is 36% of the US economy and 39% of the Canadian economy. That includes federal, state, provincial, municipal, etc.
Bright Spark
Posts: 265
October 9th, 2006, 11:50 AM
Personally, I don't hoard my money like Scrooge does, with his vault of gold coins, I too invest it into other things, like businesses - bit of a difference there. If my investments help lead to a cure for cancer or a new source of money that eliminates the need for fossil fuels, did they make everyone worse off? If my investments help lead to more goods on the market that people might like, did they make everyone worse off? Well, they don't cripple society, that much I know.
To me, saving is actually a good thing. By supporting productive consumption, saving actually promotes economic growth.
See these two articles for more...
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1596
http://www.mises.org/story/1882
Quoting Zzarchov
I disagree with you completely. To me, it sounds like you are confusing money with savings. And the whole idea of just spending every dime in the first place seems nuts. How would anyone ever save up to do the big things in life, or even some of the small things? A new house, a car, an Xbox, a particle accelerator, a dam, a project to map the human genome? Forget it, none of that would happen without savings and investments. Saving, if most people do it is a negative action.
Hoarding is one of those greedy little things people do that harm society, hell cripple society if everyone else did them.
This is why government policies discourage savings, that is the nature of constant inflation and its purpose, to make constantly saving up money less of a no brainer.
Money is literally made to be spent and invested in new things. This doesn't mean you have to buy worthless crap, but you should constantly be buying. Perhaps a new parcel of land and then more things for it to build your dream home with. Doesn't matter.
But hoarding wealth is what kills the economy and makes everyone worse off than if they had just spent every dime they had in the first place.
Hoarding is one of those greedy little things people do that harm society, hell cripple society if everyone else did them.
This is why government policies discourage savings, that is the nature of constant inflation and its purpose, to make constantly saving up money less of a no brainer.
Money is literally made to be spent and invested in new things. This doesn't mean you have to buy worthless crap, but you should constantly be buying. Perhaps a new parcel of land and then more things for it to build your dream home with. Doesn't matter.
But hoarding wealth is what kills the economy and makes everyone worse off than if they had just spent every dime they had in the first place.
Personally, I don't hoard my money like Scrooge does, with his vault of gold coins, I too invest it into other things, like businesses - bit of a difference there. If my investments help lead to a cure for cancer or a new source of money that eliminates the need for fossil fuels, did they make everyone worse off? If my investments help lead to more goods on the market that people might like, did they make everyone worse off? Well, they don't cripple society, that much I know.
To me, saving is actually a good thing. By supporting productive consumption, saving actually promotes economic growth.
See these two articles for more...
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1596
http://www.mises.org/story/1882
House Member
Posts: 3,382
October 9th, 2006, 03:35 PM
If you are investing money, you are not saving it, you are spending it.
And Im well aware of the effect of "saving for a rainy day" on the economy, especially ours. Perhaps you should delve deeper into it, it'll also explain to you why no one would ever stop Christmas from being a national holiday.
If you are investing money, you are not saving it, you are spending it.
And Im well aware of the effect of "saving for a rainy day" on the economy, especially ours. Perhaps you should delve deeper into it, it'll also explain to you why no one would ever stop Christmas from being a national holiday.
House Member
Posts: 3,382
October 9th, 2006, 09:16 PM
Not at all, I have A few grande in cash stored. Thats saving. That money is there no matter what, its saved.
I have far more in Stocks like 3M, thats investment..tommorow something horrible could happen and its value is reduced to zero, Its something I bought and could sell, its money in the economy.
Quoting Toro
Sorry ZZ, this is incorrect.
Savings are investment.
Savings are investment.
Not at all, I have A few grande in cash stored. Thats saving. That money is there no matter what, its saved.
I have far more in Stocks like 3M, thats investment..tommorow something horrible could happen and its value is reduced to zero, Its something I bought and could sell, its money in the economy.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
October 9th, 2006, 09:54 PM
When you use your savings to buy stock in a company, that is an investment. Simply because your stocks could go to zero does not mean that is not an investment. Your stocks could also make you a millionaire. But that's how it works. There are no gaurantees.
Savings equals investment. Savings are channeled into the capital markets and are used to increase the capital stock. That is macroeconomics 101.
Quoting Zzarchov
The savings you have in the bank are used by the bank to make loans. That is an investment. But your bank could go under, and your savings would then be worth zero. So your savings will not always be there. Even if you are bailed out by the government, the government is destroying savings from somewhere else by transfering someone else's savings to you.
Not at all, I have A few grande in cash stored. Thats saving. That money is there no matter what, its saved.
I have far more in Stocks like 3M, thats investment..tommorow something horrible could happen and its value is reduced to zero, Its something I bought and could sell, its money in the economy.
I have far more in Stocks like 3M, thats investment..tommorow something horrible could happen and its value is reduced to zero, Its something I bought and could sell, its money in the economy.
When you use your savings to buy stock in a company, that is an investment. Simply because your stocks could go to zero does not mean that is not an investment. Your stocks could also make you a millionaire. But that's how it works. There are no gaurantees.
Savings equals investment. Savings are channeled into the capital markets and are used to increase the capital stock. That is macroeconomics 101.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
October 10th, 2006, 06:27 PM
Insurance on deposits is a great idea. However, CDIC isn't really "insurance" since insurance is based on risk. The premiums paid by banks to the CDIC are the same regardless of the risk profile of the bank. Thus a conservative bank pays the same rate as a risky bank.
Quoting Kreskin
It is and it isn't.
CDIC insurance is also a false sense of security, IMO.
Insurance on deposits is a great idea. However, CDIC isn't really "insurance" since insurance is based on risk. The premiums paid by banks to the CDIC are the same regardless of the risk profile of the bank. Thus a conservative bank pays the same rate as a risky bank.
jimmoyer
Posts: 5,040
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
October 26th, 2006, 01:54 PM
Great disparity in wealth distribution.
Yet this disguises the fact that more and more people are materially richer than before.
That's the irony.
The more who enter the ranks of the richer (draw your line) the more dissatisfaction
occurs. The children of the Great Depression never felt poor. Everyone was poor.
Is it a good thing that most western democracies have the bottom 50 percent earn so little
as to contribute only 3 to 4 percent of all income tax collected ?
Are our western societies distributing wealth more than less these days ???
Great disparity in wealth distribution.
Yet this disguises the fact that more and more people are materially richer than before.
That's the irony.
The more who enter the ranks of the richer (draw your line) the more dissatisfaction
occurs. The children of the Great Depression never felt poor. Everyone was poor.
Is it a good thing that most western democracies have the bottom 50 percent earn so little
as to contribute only 3 to 4 percent of all income tax collected ?
Are our western societies distributing wealth more than less these days ???
Newbie
Posts: 21
October 26th, 2006, 10:32 PM
Does anyone think having a progressive tax system makes it a disincentive to put more time in at work and advance your career? In a way you are getting punished for making an investment in your career. If you decided to sit back and coast along we'll tax you less, but we'll try to squash your ambition by pushing you into a higher tax bracket.
Does anyone think having a progressive tax system makes it a disincentive to put more time in at work and advance your career? In a way you are getting punished for making an investment in your career. If you decided to sit back and coast along we'll tax you less, but we'll try to squash your ambition by pushing you into a higher tax bracket.
