# Are there ethical considerations to early retirement?



## Spidey

First of all, I'm not trying to criticize anyone's lifestyle, as I may have been thrown into an early retirement situation (my profession basically became obsolete) and I am reflecting on these questions. 

For example, I can't help but wonder if those who retire very early on a shoestring are contributing enough to society. Sure, they are not taking welfare payments, but they are contributing minimal taxes and unless they are perhaps volunteering are not contributing productively to the larger society. When you add services such as transportation, parks, education services and of course the biggy - healthcare, people who retire early are likely receiving more than they are paying for. As I mentioned, these questions have been a source of my own introspection. 

Is "getting by financially" the only consideration when one is well below a typical retirement age or should "pulling your weight" and contributing to society be a consideration?


----------



## MoneyGal

Good questions. Here's another one: is it ethical for people to attend university, but then not participate in the workforce?


----------



## matlock

MoneyGal said:


> Good questions. Here's another one: is it ethical for people to attend university, but then not participate in the workforce?


Here's one more: is it ethical to complain about university attendees not entering the workforce when delayed retirements mean that there are fewer jobs to go around, and (to actually answer the OP's worry) fewer opportunities for younger workers to contribute to society in retirees' stead?

Perhaps.

In fact, I often pat myself on the back for riding high on the hog with sticky pre-retirement wages.

And I leave all of the blame for persistent unemployment to the laziness of modern youth, who still refuse to get off my lawn.


----------



## Daniel A.

Well what do you consider typical retirement age, I left at 56 thirty nine years of contributing in a high tax bracket.
Never collected EI but paid the max every year.
Ethical for me means all the people that live off their families and government services because nothing suits them I know a few like this.

I planned early retirement in my twenties glad I made it.


----------



## Spidey

Daniel A. said:


> Well what do you consider typical retirement age, I left at 56 thirty nine years of contributing in a high tax bracket.
> Never collected EI but paid the max every year.
> Ethical for me means all the people that live off their families and government services because nothing suits them I know a few like this.
> 
> I planned early retirement in my twenties glad I made it.



It's hard to put an exact number - but I would say after 55, one has probably contributed enough work-wise and tax-wise. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Derek Foster approach where perhaps a couple retires in their early 40's with a minimum nest-egg and a couple of children. (I realize that Derek ended up with a publishing business, but the book was advocating this style of early-retirement.) Perhaps the family can get by financially, but if one adds up the school-costs, lifetime heath-care costs, future OAS costs, gst tax-rebates and just the costs that come from the services that the broader community provides (transportation, parks, etc.) they are net-receivers from society.

I've brought this up in a different form in the early-retirement section of the now defunct business forums, when I think I just asked something along the lines of how much obligation people feel to volunteer or contribute to society now that they are retired. I was rather surprised that the majority, apparently felt no void whatsoever regarding their non-contributory status. Am I unique regarding having these sorts of concerns?


----------



## MoneyGal

You are not unique. Derek Foster and others espousing his philosophies are free to be net recipients of the benefits of society's financial largesse. This is not a lifestyle I want for myself, espouse for others (assuming a capacity to contribute), or will tolerate in my children. I also don't think this is a situation worth envying or pursuing.


----------



## Nemo2

From a microcosmic perspective.....at one time, when I lived in the BC Gulf Islands, I started carrying a garbage bag with me when I walked my dog.....full bags, (since there was no pickup), had to be taken into town on a Saturday morning and paid for, (by me in this case).

The trash didn't diminish, I was out of pocket, out of enthusiasm and out of patience......so I stopped.

Thing is....is your "giving back" to "society" simply going to translate into subsidizing leeches, thus allowing them to do less of what they're not doing already?

Might make you feel noble...for a while..though. :wink:


----------



## Toronto.gal

Spidey said:


> I was rather surprised that the majority, apparently felt no void whatsoever regarding their non-contributory status. Am I unique regarding having these sorts of concerns?


Of course you're not unique thinking this way Spidey & thank goodness for that! I also agree with every word MoneyGal said [though I did learn a lot from Derek Foster]. 

The attitude/behaviour of some people however, no longer surprises me.


----------



## Daniel A.

Derek Foster I've only read a bit about him and his way of thinking, those that work to take as much out and contribute the minimum as a mission in life.
I don't agree with that concept, yes it takes work and planning but also shows how little they value the benefit of our rich society.

As an aside once I retired I went through all my T4's from the start of work life, I paid close to 600,000.00 in federal/ provincial taxes in 38 full work years.
The reason I did that was just out of curiosity and I had all the information.


----------



## Spidey

I should say that I do think there are ways to contribute other than taxes. For example, if an early retirement couple were foster parents, volunteer driver for cancer patients, or some other worthwhile contribution, then that would probably have as much or more value as the additional taxes that working incomes would have provided. 

P.S. That was "foster parents" not "Foster (Derek) parents". :chuncky: (Now you know why my kids walk out of the room when I attempt humour.)


----------



## MoneyGal

http://i.imgur.com/aX5mR.png


----------



## Spidey

Actually that cartoon is already taking place in our household MoneyGal. My oldest daughter used to leave the table early when I made my puns. Now she's starting and my youngest is groaning about her making "dad jokes".


----------



## Berubeland

Personally I'm more concerned about the loss of intellectual property and experience when people retire.

Being self employed and working from home a lot gives me a unique perspective. A lot of people are not ready for the boredom of having nothing to do and nowhere to go every day. In Toronto doing stuff quickly gets expensive. My dad "retired" for about a year then went right back to his business. He felt "useless" and "didn't want to sit around waiting to die" Not going to work is fun for a couple weeks but what do you do after that? You only have so much laundry and it isn't fun anyways. I'm already doing what I want to do. 

The greatest loss in my mind is the loss of balanced perspective that more experienced people add to society.


----------



## Daniel A.

Self-employed people tend to have much of their identity tied to their work, on the other hand they can set their own schedule and manage their time.

Retirement for me was an opportunity to explore my other interests/hobbies, I can say I don't miss work have never been bored being retired.
After 38 years working shifts & weekends my body was tired and having trouble with constant change.
As for cost other than spending more on gas things are good.
Today if the weather is nice I'm out enjoying it.


----------



## Jon_Snow

Am I understanding the point of this correctly? That when I retire early at 42 (best case) or 45 (worst case) I should have ethical qualms about doing so? The very idea is bloody hilarious. I feel for people who are defined by their jobs and become "lost" or "bored" without them. My current job, other than paying me well has no redeeming qualities to offer to greater society. My impact on the planet will be much more beneficial when I am no limited to something so trivial as my "job".


----------



## mrPPincer

Jon_Snow said:


> impact on the planet


+1


----------



## cldellow

Spidey said:


> people who retire early are likely receiving more than they are paying for.


If more people did this, government would shrink. Retiring early: it's the only ethical choice.

Less snarkily, no, I don't think there's an ethical consideration. People born in Canada have no choice but to play within the framework imposed by Canadian laws. They didn't agree explicitly to anything. To say they must continue to contribute to a system that they have minimal control over would be unethical.

Is someone working a minimum wage job being unethical? Is someone who values time with family over increased economic worth (and thus increased contribution to the tax base) unethical? I certainly hope not.


----------



## Islenska

Probably worse is the freeloaders that maintain their jobs in an unproductive manner. I'm sure we all know ones "shoulda retired a long time ago" You build up your CPP, RRSP, cash balance and go from there. If you can retire on schedule, even if that seems awfully early, well good for you. I do agree though that milking the system is not a productive goal and living your life with social responsibilty should be aimed for. It all comes out in the wash-right.


----------



## Dmoney

Definitely not unethical, but I'd love to see changes made so that it can't be done with taxpayer money. If you make enough money to retire by 25, 35, or 50, great, but you shouldn't be retiring on the backs of the working population. 

If you don't have the money to support yourself, and you *can* work, then yes I find it unethical not to. 

The reality is, the majority of people don't pay enough tax in their lifetime to pay for all the services they use. Think education, healthcare, police, OAS. The list goes on. If you've earned enough money to retire at 30, odds are you've paid way more tax than the average working stiff has in 40 years.


----------



## MoneyGal

Just to be clear - my comment was about Derek Foster. I don't object generically to people retiring early. I do object to the methods Derek Foster promotes, which involve maximizing payments from the state to your pocket.


----------



## Spidey

I should state that I'm asking this question for myself but I suppose it's hard to not imply that others who are retiring early are also getting more services than they've paid for. As I mentioned my job has become obsolete and my skills were very specialized (and my early 50ish age probably doesn't help). Fortunately, our financial situation is such that I don't have to ask "Do you need fries with that" but I can't help feeling that I'm not pulling my weight. Most of our investments are in registered accounts so we pay fairly minimal tax. I don't think the question would arise if we lived in a country where one had to pay for the bulk of services but we live in a fairly socialist country where medical services, education, police, OAS are largely carried by the working folk. Also was sent for some fairly expensive medical tests this year that all come out of the public purse. I suppose, I'm not burning fuel to get to work every day but I'm not sure that makes up for it.


----------



## Daniel A.

A friend of mine retired at 49 he has a very generous pension plan. He still does contract work as the extra money helps his family plus he found 49 left him with to much time.
Most people feel they pay too much for what they use given the deficit we know that is not the case.

You may decide down the road to do something else but in the meantime I don't think the question is relative just odd.
I don't see anyone rushing to pay more.


----------



## doctrine

I have no ethical considerations. Those golf courses won't play themselves.


----------



## Spidey

I guess the closest way to gauge the value of our healthcare would be health-insurance costs in the US. According to USA Today the average cost for a family healthcare package is $13,375 (2009). And that's just healthcare. That doesn't include education for the children ($9500 per child in Ontario), child tax credits ($234 per month for a 2 child family with an income of $30000), gst rebate ($164 quarterly for a family with 2 children and an income of $30000), contributions for future OAS, etc. 

Now all that being said, early retirement sometimes brings unexpected benefits and value to the broader community. Sometimes the creativity unleashed from having the free time creates an enterprise that would never have otherwise sprung up -eg. new methods for organic farming, books written on sustainable living, a unique business venture, etc. Sometimes people contribute through volunteer work either through an organization or perhaps just helping a neighbor. Some people are forced into early retirement by the lack of suitable employment. I'm not going to judge others - I believe that society often benefits in unexpected ways from free thinkers and people who don't always adopt the status quo. It's just a factor that I feel should be considered, that's all.


----------



## Daniel A.

I would say the US health care system is a for profit system to draw comparison one would look at the UK or EU system.

Child tax credits, GST rebates, I know nothing about those as none were ever open to me due too my income.
Our social system is what it is, I know between my wife and I we paid far more than we consumed but that is our system those who are more fortunate support a bigger share.

The only real example of what happens when things really go wrong is New Zealand 1984 if I remember right look that up.


----------



## Square Root

I retired at 56 and over the years I suspect have paid way more into the system than I will ever get out. I am not complaining as I am very happy to be a Canadian and have been very lucky to benefit from the general environment Canada provides.


----------



## Jon_Snow

Just sittíng here on my Gulf Island property... Its about 23 degrees, brilliant sunshine, eagles plucking fish out of the water in front of me. Just waiting for a pod of orcas to swim by. Catching a ferry back to Vancouver tonight for my 5am start of my effin' job tomorrow. Again, about having ethical issues about early retirement? Not a chance in hell.


----------



## Dmoney

Would be surprised if anyone had ethical issues with their own retirement... Other people's retirement on the other hand. Don't even get me started.


----------



## steve41

Jon_Snow said:


> Just sitting here on my Gulf Island property... Its about 23 degrees, brilliant sunshine, eagles plucking fish out of the water in front of me. Just waiting for a pod of orcas to swim by. Catching a ferry back to Vancouver tonight for my 5am start of my effin' job tomorrow. Again, about having ethical issues about early retirement? Not a chance in hell.


Ditto, except my Gulf Island home is in the fricking Straight of Georgia. (Salish Sea.... give me a break)
Luckily I can work without hopping on a Ferry (3 ferries actually) Vive le Cyberwork!


----------



## Spidey

In hind-site, "ethical" may have been a poor choice of words and the way I phrased my remarks may have blanketed too many people. Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of, "Should it be a consideration if early retirement creates a situation of over-dependence on other tax-payers?"


----------



## Jon_Snow

steve41 said:


> Ditto, except my Gulf Island home is in the fricking Straight of Georgia. (Salish Sea.... give me a break)
> Luckily I can work without hopping on a Ferry (3 ferries actually) Vive le Cyberwork!


Come on Steve, "Strait of Georgia" is soooooooo 1792... And "Salish Sea" has some nice alliteration going for it.


----------



## steve41

Pandering. ARRGGHH. Why don't we change Vancouver to BW^XTW*PPO'L? (That's coast salish for the Big Smoke, BTW.)


----------



## Toronto.gal

Dmoney said:


> Definitely not unethical, but I'd love to see changes made so that it can't be done with taxpayer money. If you make enough money to retire by 25, 35, or 50, great, but you shouldn't be retiring on the backs of the working population.
> 
> If you don't have the money to support yourself, and you *can* work, then yes I find it unethical not to.
> 
> The reality is, the majority of people don't pay enough tax in their lifetime to pay for all the services they use. Think education, healthcare, police, OAS. The list goes on. If you've earned enough money to retire at 30, odds are you've paid way more tax than the average working stiff has in 40 years.


Great answer!

*Spidey:* no need to rephrase your question as what you meant was very clear & you're right, there are many, many ways to contribute to society, like through charitable donations/volunteering, etc.


----------



## marina628

People who can afford to retire at 45 probably pay more taxes in a 20 year career than a person working 45 years.And even in retirement probably contribute more in income tax.Just an observation I know of in my own family and friends who have retired 50 and under.In most cases they went on to open their own small business within 2-3 years of retiring ,most people just want to be their own boss so if they want to take 2 months off in winter they can do so.
I know very few people who retire early to do absolutely nothing ,if you have great work ethics you do not stop just because you can.


----------



## Toronto.gal

marina628 said:


> 1. most people just want to be their own boss......
> 2. I know very few people who retire early to do absolutely nothing.....


1. This is true, but as it is much easier said than done, many don't succeed for x,y,z reasons and/or don't try.
2. Well, it depends on your definition of doing 'absolutely nothing'. Some people like to play golf/tennis all day for example & feel very productive.


----------



## brad

I've never really understood that expression, "be your own boss." Because even when you're self-employed, there are always clients and customers calling the shots. Although I do suppose if you have a restaurant or B&B or some other business that you can just shut down when you don't want to work, that would qualify. But there are actually very few professions where you can truly be your own boss and not be accountable to anyone.

The "ethics of retirement" question makes me think of my own situation as a quasi-immigrant: born in Canada and thus have Canadian citizenship, but we moved to the US when I was one year old and I lived there until my early 40s. Upon moving back I was immediately eligible for all benefits afforded to Canadian citizens even though I had contributed exactly zero in taxes etc. And even now all my work is for clients in the US, although I do pay taxes to Canada and my province. So this makes me wonder if one could argue that are ethical issues when people immigrate to Canada relatively late in their lives, or conversely when Canadians retire to other (cheaper) countries.


----------



## marina628

I have my own business and employees and my husband did for many years.The key to having freedom is having a good manager who can handle things when you are away.I am dealing with my brother having terminal cancer so I am off indefinitely now ,probably for the rest of the year and I am available for a call here and there but I have a good team who I have taught through delegation of tasks.
There are many skilled trades that are running out of people to fill the jobs ,last week I heard the Canadian Military are running out of Pilots to operate the Chinook Helicopter .We may find a few years down the road that people may want to retire but nobody with the skills are there to take over the jobs, that would be a true ethical dilemma.


----------



## Toronto.gal

brad said:


> Because even when you're self-employed, there are always clients and customers calling the shots.....


It's not so much about not being accountable to others, but more about the satisfaction of pursuing our entrepreneurial dream, hence happier/more passionate & successful at what we do!

With respect to the unethical issues you mentioned, I suppose the list is rather endless!


----------



## brad

Toronto.gal said:


> It's not so much about not being accountable to others, but more about the satisfaction of pursuing our entrepreneurial dream, hence happier/more passionate & successful at what we do!


I guess, so, although I personally found my five years of self-employment a lot more stressful and no more fulfilling than working for an employer, and never felt like I was working for myself or even really doing what I wanted to do, because my clients had such a large say in the final product and I found myself making a lot of compromises to accommodate them. But that's probably specific to my line of work (writing, editing, and journalism). And friends of mine who owned restaurants and fast-food franchises always complained about being slaves to their customers, getting up at 4am to prepare food, working 7-day weeks, etc. -- I guess it really depends on the scale of your business and if you can do what marina does: hiring a manager to take care of all the details so you can just be the "owner" and not have to run the business day to day.


----------



## Eclectic12

brad said:


> I've never really understood that expression, "be your own boss." Because even when you're self-employed, there are always clients and customers calling the shots. Although I do suppose if you have a restaurant or B&B or some other business that you can just shut down when you don't want to work, that would qualify. But there are actually very few professions where you can truly be your own boss and not be accountable to anyone.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> And even now all my work is for clients in the US, although I do pay taxes to Canada and my province. So this makes me wonder if one could argue that are ethical issues when people immigrate to Canada relatively late in their lives, or conversely when Canadians retire to other (cheaper) countries.


I understand your thinking on the "be your own boss" - particularly since I've met a few who thought they could have a viable business that closed when they wanted and discovered that the paying customer disagreed! :biggrin:

However, for a lot of people, there are so many levels between them and the decision makers that having it simplified down to boss, customer, suppliers is allows much more freedom as well as quick decisions/feedback. At one place I worked, some recommendations had six levels (five or six managers at one of the levels) to get through, with any level able to delay or kill recommendation.


As for the work for US clients, I'm not sure why US clients (or employers) would be an issue. Taxes are being paid where without the customer, one might not be working. Retiring to a tax haven country, especially where a token presence to qualify for Canadian health care is more of an issue, IMO.


Cheers


----------



## brad

Eclectic12 said:


> As for the work for US clients, I'm not sure why US clients (or employers) would be an issue.


I just meant that my work is benefitting clients in another country, not in Canada, but of course Canada and Québec benefit from my income tax payments.


----------



## Toronto.gal

brad said:


> I guess, so, although I personally found my five years of self-employment a lot more stressful and no more fulfilling than working for an employer, and never felt like I was working for myself or even really doing what I wanted to do, because my clients had such a large say in the final product and I found myself making a lot of compromises to accommodate them. But that's probably specific to my line of work (writing, editing, and journalism). And friends of mine who owned restaurants and fast-food franchises always complained about being slaves to their customers, getting up at 4am to prepare food, working 7-day weeks, etc. -- I guess it really depends on the scale of your business and if you can do what marina does: hiring a manager to take care of all the details so you can just be the "owner" and not have to run the business day to day.


It's definitely easier & less stressful to work for someone else as in most cases, being your own boss entails working harder and longer hours, etc., but if you're doing what you like and are successful at a job that provides fulfillment [and not just a pay cheque], the effort & satisfaction of pursuing one's own goals is well worth it for some people.

I knew a couple who had worked for others pretty much half their lives, but at the age of 40, both got tired of the grind of the corporate world and decided to open up a small restaurant; apparently a dream the husband always had & though the working hours are longer & they actually makes less, they have never been happier. 

It's interesting to hear what retirement/financial freedom means to people as it has a different meaning for everyone. My family doctor for example, retired in his late 50's to join Doctors Without Borders.


----------



## realist

I find it interesting that so many comments are focused on the question of if you have “contributed enough”. Canada’s social safety net makes the question of “putting in more than you got out of it” an interesting question. It is essentially insurance in many ways - if you never have to make a claim on your car insurance do you feel ripped off? Some people would say yes. 

I am childless, walk to work, have rarely been to the doctor in the last ten years, and generate minimal garbage yet I contribute to a system that subsidizes education, roads, health care and garbage collection. Am I “overpaying”? 

Conversely, I attended almost 20 years of government subsidized education. By my estimation the total sum of taxes paid over the course of my lifetime is less than I would have had to pay just for my private education. I have had at least two minor surgeries in my lifetime, and an overnight visit for a concussion, each of which would have cost a significant amount of money. At least one member of my extended family has received cancer treatments. 

Politically I am odd mixture of left leaning socialism and pragmatic capitalism. I believe that it is very important for us to provide things like education and health care (amongst other things) for society as a whole – even when these . I also believe that the market is significantly skewed in that we overconsume things that we do not pay for directly (e.g. roads as a good example) or the market prices do not capture the true cost to society (e.g. pollution, electricity, etc.).

Most people are not that good at understanding how much they actually get from government services, or worse they under value the things they don’t personally use but assume that *everyone* thinks that the things they use are the most important. They number of government services that indirectly benefit people who have no idea that they even exist is significant.

I think for a significant number of Canadians whether or not they “come out ahead” in terms of taxes paid vs. services received depends heavily on whether or not you get seriously sick at some point in your life. I’m not sure I’d call that a victory.


----------



## MoneyGal

Good points. Nice post.


----------



## Four Pillars

realist said:


> I think for a significant number of Canadians whether or not they “come out ahead” in terms of taxes paid vs. services received depends heavily on whether or not you get seriously sick at some point in your life. I’m not sure I’d call that a victory.


I'd argue another scenario where someone would like "come out ahead" might be if they live unusually long (ie into their 90's).

Excellent post!


----------



## kcowan

It is a matter of what kind of society we want. Do we want to leave our poor and underprivileged sick on the streets, or do we look after them. In spite of the costs, I think that we are more european than the yankees.

My Dad and my FIL thought it was a privilege to pay taxes to support this great country. I am not quite so enthusiastic. But they did have a point. I could have gone to the US upon graduation and decided against it. A working acquaintance did and I think he is too money focused now. He is much more rich than me but not better in lifestyle (IMHO).


----------



## Eclectic12

Daniel A. said:


> [ ... ]
> Most people feel they pay too much for what they use given the deficit we know that is not the case. [ ... ]


Let's see ... the deficit proves people aren't paying enough?

I guess paying two or three times for one set of helicopters, over-expensive "green" electricity rates, mega-city consolidation to the highest wage scale or "opps ... there's a billion dollars missing" aren't adding to the deficit, right?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

brad said:


> I just meant that my work is benefitting clients in another country, not in Canada, but of course Canada and Québec benefit from my income tax payments.


Not to worry ... it's a double-benefit. Taxes being paid plus one less on UI or welfare ... :biggrin:

... now if those dastardly foreigner's are paying extra to get you to ignore Canucks - that would be un-ethical! :rolleyes2:


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

Eclectic12 said:


> Let's see ... the deficit proves people aren't paying enough?


LOL, exactly.
Keep raising taxes to meet the deficits and surprise, surprise the deficit keeps moving away from you.
It's like a dog always chasing its shadow.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> LOL, exactly.
> 
> Keep raising taxes to meet the deficits and surprise, surprise the deficit keeps moving away from you.
> It's like a dog always chasing its shadow.


I don't mind paying taxes for reasonable value but a good chunk of the deficit is wastage that could reduce the deficit!


Cheers


----------



## realist

Eclectic12 said:


> Let's see ... the deficit proves people aren't paying enough?
> 
> I guess paying two or three times for one set of helicopters, over-expensive "green" electricity rates, mega-city consolidation to the highest wage scale or "opps ... there's a billion dollars missing" aren't adding to the deficit, right?


Electricity is actually a good example of where we are not paying enough, but there is are whole other threads on that topic so I won't belabor that here.


----------



## Eclectic12

realist said:


> Electricity is actually a good example of where we are not paying enough, but there is are whole other threads on that topic so I won't belabor that here.


Really? 

So you honestly believe *electricity costs more that the $0.80 per kilowatt hour* that solar producers were contracted to be paid for twenty years in Ontario? I'd have thought the cut to $0.54 per kilowatt hour for new contracts proved otherwise.

Another question is whether paying the same company for electricity *not* generated at natural gas plants while paying higher rates for the wind farm generated variety is needed? Bear in mind that Ontario has been an net exporter of electricity for the last six years.

Or a generator company turning their generator off and then on again unnecessarily during the day - is that really worth an extra $19 million in payments?


I could go on but to put my original point another way - the deficit is not just what services are used or are not used.


Cheers


----------



## brad

Eclectic12 said:


> Really? So you honestly believe *electricity costs more that the $0.80 per kilowatt hour* that solar producers were contracted to be paid for twenty years in Ontario?


It depends on what you mean by the cost of electricity. There are many externalities that aren't included in the price of electricity, just as there are many externalities that are not reflected in the price of gasoline -- the cost of wars to protect our access to oil in the Middle East, the health costs related to smog and other air pollutants, etc. Some studies have attempted to calculate the true costs of electricity and gasoline and they are much higher than the prices we are paying. But they're effectively subsidized because the economy would probably grind to a halt if we were forced to pay those prices directly rather than indirectly through our taxes as we do now. There are also issues of equity and fairness, as well as ripple effects: if the price of gasoline were 3 times higher than it is now, what would that do to the price of food (due to higher transport costs), how would it affect low-income people who have to drive to their jobs, etc.). Same goes for electricity -- you can balance electricity price increases with income tax decreases as you build externalities back into the cost, but you still have to be careful to avoid regressive effects on the poorest households who don't pay much income tax now anyway.


----------



## balexis

Eclectic12 said:


> Most people are not that good at understanding how much they actually get from government services, or worse they under value the things they don’t personally use but assume that *everyone* thinks that the things they use are the most important. They number of government services that indirectly benefit people who have no idea that they even exist is significant.
> Cheers


The government does not make it easy for people to realize the true value of many services such as health care and education (which are two darn big budget items). When I go to the hospital, I would like to get a detailled bill such as:
Treatment cost: 15 000$
Payment from Society: 15 000$
---
Total due: 0.00$

Same for education:
Undergrad studies in Foo: 25 000$
Payment from Society: 15 000$
---
Total due: 10 000$

I bet that in and of itself would make many people who keep on complaining about how much taxes they pay to just shut up (or to complain doctors and teachers earn too much).


----------



## kcowan

We get an electric bill from CFE every 2 months here in PV, Mexico:

Basic 150 kw at 0.737= 110.56
Intermediate 150kw at 1,237= 185.55
Excess 794kw at 2.61= 2027.44
Total 2368.44
IVA 16% 378.95
Billed 2747.39
Government subsidy 1603.30
Cost of production 3971.74

so about 40% subsidy. And posted on every bill received.


----------



## balexis

kcowan: Nice! I'd love to see this in Quebec as well.


----------



## Daniel A.

I gather that is Mexico kcowan.


----------



## Sherlock

It's interesting to ask whether it's ethically wrong to retire early, but what about those who work past 65, thereby denying those positions to younger people who may need them more, isn't that just as wrong? Whether they're refusing to retire because they didn't plan for their retirement and are now nearing retirement age and finding out they don't have enough to retire on, or whether it's because they think they'll be bored in retirement so they keep on working, in either case isn't that just as selfish as those who retire early and live off taxes?


----------



## Eclectic12

brad said:


> It depends on what you mean by the cost of electricity. There are many externalities that aren't included in the price of electricity, [ ...]


And some of the internal costs don't need to be there, such as waste and abuse.

I don't see how paying other people to buy our electricity (Ontario is a net exporter of electricity for the last six years) is helping.
http://www.thestar.com/business/art...-584-24-in-one-weekend-hour-to-take-our-power

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/12/01/parker-gallant-generating-losses/


The bottom line is that as long as the "official" costs are accepted carte blanche, not only won't the cost be known but one can be sure there will be lots of unnecessary items included.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Sherlock said:


> It's interesting to ask whether it's ethically wrong to retire early, but what about those who work past 65, thereby denying those positions to younger people who may need them more, isn't that just as wrong? Whether they're refusing to retire because they didn't plan for their retirement and are now nearing retirement age and finding out they don't have enough to retire on, or whether it's because they think they'll be bored in retirement so they keep on working, in either case isn't that just as selfish as those who retire early and live off taxes?


Or what about the lottery winner who won $10 million but kept his day job on the manufacturing line.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

balexis said:


> The government does not make it easy for people to realize the true value of many services such as health care and education (which are two darn big budget items).
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> I bet that in and of itself would make many people who keep on complaining about how much taxes they pay to just shut up (or to complain doctors and teachers earn too much).



Actually - quoted section about not understanding what has been collected from gov't services was realist's post, not mine.

And yes, it would be helpful to have a broader statement on the bill. However, I suspect the summary line items will still hide the waste/abuse.

If it were honest, one of my university bills would need a line item for the $2 million lawsuit with the student union over the name of the campus centre. The student's union wanted to go to take the disagreement to the combined council as per due process but the admin didn't want to waste time when they were "right".


Cheers

Cheers


----------



## Sherlock

Eclectic12 said:


> Or what about the lottery winner who won $10 million but kept his day job on the manufacturing line.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Very selfish, considering how high our unemployment rate is.


----------



## Spidey

Sherlock said:


> It's interesting to ask whether it's ethically wrong to retire early, but what about those who work past 65, thereby denying those positions to younger people who may need them more, isn't that just as wrong? Whether they're refusing to retire because they didn't plan for their retirement and are now nearing retirement age and finding out they don't have enough to retire on, or whether it's because they think they'll be bored in retirement so they keep on working, in either case isn't that just as selfish as those who retire early and live off taxes?


I guess in a free society these things are perhaps something each individual should contemplate and not something society should try to regulate. One thing I do have trouble with are those collecting very generous pensions being favored for work over new recruits. There seems to be an old boy's or old girl's network in the teaching profession where substitute work is given to such retirees. Meanwhile there are young recently graduated teachers who are unable to gain experience. (My wife worked with such a young lady in government.)


----------



## kcowan

Some people work to give them a sense of purpose. 

Some retired people continue to contribute even though they are not paid.

So there is no easy answer.


----------



## Brian Weatherdon CFP

Many have expressed how there is a continuing contribution -- whether retired or not. 
So may I ask? ....
.....at what age should a tree stop delivering oxygen and just live off the state?
.....at what age should strawberries or rhubarb stop giving of their fruit for pie?
.....at what age should we stop giving of our wisdom & experience to help others?
.....at what age should the sun stop nourishing our earth with its warmth & energy?
.....when and why would we ever just stop and "take" of others or our own savings?
How awesome is it, that we each get to rise each morning and give in the way we choose!! 

My personal retirement dream is to keep giving always because that's how I believe life works best for everyone. No guilt in that, and if you're worried about guilt have a chat with your local community foundation, food bank, seniors centre, church or faith centre, elementary school, environmental reserve, or other service who would welcome what you're able and eager to give. And thanks to each comment above, because you've been contributing here too.


----------



## lonewolf

The basic omni present physcological need of esteam which is to be able to live, be worthy of living & to be committed to that which is good & true is strong force & one does not need a paying job to achieve esteam.

That which is morral. Is to do that which promotes the most long term happiness weather it is working or not. Each wolf, fox, rabbit etc provides for its own exsistance or is granted none @ all. 







"I firmly believe the worlds troubles would be solved (& the earth would resemble heaven) if everyone would take total RESPONSIBILITY for himself. In talking to hundreds of people. I dont find that 1 in 50 holds himself up. Takes responsibility for his own life, does his own thing, accept his own pain (instead of inflicting it on others). This same refusal to take responsibility spills over into the financial sphere. Today people insist there is a right to everything - as long as you & I pay for it. Theres a right to work, the right to go to college, the right to happiness, the right to 3 meals a day. Who promised everyone all those rights? In believe in freedom of all kinds, except where freedom becomes licence & inflicts damage. But Americans confuse freedom with rights."
Ricard Russell


----------



## steve41

> I firmly believe the worlds troubles would be solved (& the earth would resemble heaven) if everone would take total RESPONSIBILITY for himself


 How about if everyone took responsibility for the simple tasks of learning to spell and how to string words together in coherent sentences.


----------



## lonewolf

Hi, steve

I will be responsible for bringing the chease to the party.


----------



## Nemo2

lonewolf said:


> Hi, steve
> 
> I will be responsible for bringing the chease to the party.


:chuncky:


----------



## Square Root

i sure don't feel guilty for retiring at 56. I have paid more in taxes than I or my family could ever hope to get back directly in benefits. Still do. That isn't the point though. This country provided the environment fo me to succeed and no reasonable amount of taxes paid from that success would be too much ,in my opinion.


----------



## Eclectic12

Spidey said:


> ... One thing I do have trouble with are those collecting very generous pensions being favored for work over new recruits. There seems to be an old boy's or old girl's network in the teaching profession where substitute work is given to such retirees. Meanwhile there are young recently graduated teachers who are unable to gain experience. (My wife worked with such a young lady in government.)


I believe this depends on the powers that be at each board. 

Though the individual's decisions can have a huge impact. My brother-in-law ignored the advice from friends and relatives for the first part of his career then was upset that only the Catholic board was calling him for substitute teaching. When he applied the advice, then became a known quantity - he was working steadily.

If I remember, I'll have to ask if he knows what the retiree to starting out teachers in his school board, now that he is full time.


Interesting about the retirees - I guess my relatives who have retired from teaching are of a different mindset. The only one I can think of who was willing to work as a substitute after retirement was in a farming community, where she might have worked five days of the school year.


Of course I found the provincial gov't employees who retired on Friday, were back at their desk as an independent consultant on Monday and bluntly said "management needs to hire someone from June through to the end of Sept as I don't work those months anymore" irritating as well.


Cheers


----------



## peterk

I intend to be retired by 35. If things go poorly, 40.
What a ridiculous notion that I wouldn't be contributing fully. To counter, I would make the following points.

1) If I make 80k a year and you make 30k I am paying 5x more tax than you (just income tax). If you work 40 years and I work 8 I don't have to feel bad, right?

2) If you're a stay at home parent.... You stop working at 25-35. pay no tax, get huge tax break for your spouse, spend massive amounts of other people's tax money on your child's health and education That sounds like you're really pulling your weight, doesn't it? and almost half the population is doing it...

3) What exactly am I paying for in taxes anyways? If 20% goes to actual services, 20% to infrastructure, and 60% to bureaucracy, taxes are a pretty darn inefficient way of me spending my money.

4) Going along with number 3, if the average 30k worker who's paying $3800/year in taxes, and 60% of that goes to waste. All I would need to do is volunteer or donate directly into society about $1500 of my time/money and I'll be doing my part. Sounds pretty easy for a retired person...

5) You assume your job is actually doing something beneficial. All you need is a desk job filling in spread sheets and you're off the hook for contributing to society? I would guess 90% of the jobs that people do (including mine) are either a detriment to or a drain on the well being of society. And that the only net beneficiaries those are wealth accumulators or glutenous consumers, neither of which have the ethical high ground.


----------



## Square Root

I think the original question must have been rhetorical? It did generate some good posts but anybody who really thinks it is unethical to retire early ( on their own assets) has other major issues, IMHO. 
Edit. I went back and read tne original post and the OP was referring to people who retire "on a shoesting" and thus " not contributing enough to society" This makes for a more reasonable question, so I temper my comment somewhat.


----------



## Jon_Snow

Yeah this thread, and it's very premise, always gives me a bit of a chuckle.


----------

