# Canadians struggling to save and pay off debt; 38 per cent have no savings



## the-royal-mail

Hi everyone, here is an interesting article with some discussion fodder. 38% with NO savings? Wow, this country is in trouble.

_Many Canadians are finding themselves caught between the struggle to save money and repay their debts, says a survey from TD Bank.
...
In the report, *38* per cent of Canadians surveyed said they had no savings at all...._

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...t-have-enough-money-to-live-on-120272324.html


----------



## HaroldCrump

Hey, I was planning to post this.
Yea, this was in the news yesterday.
And the very next item in the news was the following:

http://www.680news.com/news/national/article/215135--sales-of-alcohol-increasing-across-canada

_Sales of alcohol increasing across Canada
beer and liquor stores selling $9.2 billion worth of beer in the year ending March 31, 2010_

And how much does that work out per year per capita (adult)?

And let's not even talk about the sales of tobacco products.


----------



## Jungle

Good, we need somebody to spend money and stimulate the economy.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Savings stimulates the economy even more because those $$ saved are in fact invested one way or another.
It has multiplier effect.
Isn't there another statistic floating around these days that the Canadian propensity to save is as low (or even lower) than the US propensity?
Not good.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Savings stimulates the economy even more because those $$ saved are in fact invested one way or another.
> It has multiplier effect.
> Isn't there another statistic floating around these days that the Canadian propensity to save is as low (or even lower) than the US propensity?
> Not good.


Well it's their own damn fault I say! 

Why should we pity the current society's spending habits and lack of
fiscal responsibility?? If they haven't got a clue on how to manage their income on a budget preferring to just go hog wild with all those credit cards/new cars/new homes etc..they deserve what they get.

If you think the current mixed generation is in trouble..wait until this next
generation ( born in this decade)is old enough to become consumers.
what should we call them??

first there was generation X
then generation y (?)
Then generation LOST 
Pretty soon there will be new generation called "Nought."

"When I was 17, I dreamed of being king,
and having everything I wanted..
but that was the capitalists fault,
I went into default....
and now I'm the king...the king of nothing!"


----------



## carverman

*Another news item depicting the sad reality*

I think we are heading for some trouble in the "new world of tomorrow"..
check out this news item.."survey says..."
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/Survey-finds-nearly-one-third-capress-886125985.html?x=0

ONE THIRD! of Canadians can't afford to live now..what is going to happen
to them in the next 20-25 years when they reach retirement age?

Anyone care to guess?

Will the CPP and other gov't safety nets still be around?

Will the economies shrink so much that only certain sectors will still be
providing jobs for all the graduates?

and will the gap between the haves and the havenots continue to grow
wider and wider?

Can the city welfare system be able to support all,the ones in future need and who is going to pay for it?

Ok the micrphone on this soapbox is ON...who's first to give us their thoughts
on what seems to be a very sad state of affairs and it's not going to 
improve by any stretch of the imagination in the future either............


----------



## crazyjackcsa

HaroldCrump said:


> Hey, I was planning to post this.
> Yea, this was in the news yesterday.
> And the very next item in the news was the following:
> 
> http://www.680news.com/news/national/article/215135--sales-of-alcohol-increasing-across-canada
> 
> _Sales of alcohol increasing across Canada
> beer and liquor stores selling $9.2 billion worth of beer in the year ending March 31, 2010_
> 
> And how much does that work out per year per capita (adult)?
> 
> And let's not even talk about the sales of tobacco products.


There are about 25 million people 19+ so that would work out to about $370 per adult per year, sounds like a lot, but really that's only 30 dollars a month. Case of beer or a bottle of rye a month. 

Not allowing of course for the black market.


----------



## Addy

Time to bring home economics back to middle and high schools. Then personal financial planning. Too many people legitimately have no clue how to handle money.


----------



## Sherlock

What needs to be done, is tax the rich more, and give the proceeds to those 38%, then everyone will have money and all our problems will be gone.


----------



## olivaw

Are low savings/high debt a reflection of poor habits or are they simply a reflection of low interest rates?


----------



## steve41

I'm guessing that 38% would be whittled way back if we considered the fact that a lot of those 38% were anticipating some level of inheritance in their future. The 'Transfer of Wealth' effect is the elephant in the kitchen.


----------



## carverman

olivaw said:


> Are low savings/high debt a reflection of poor habits or are they simply a reflection of low interest rates?


Most families are stretched to the limit to put anything away in savings accts.
Our parents were still able to do that because even though the wages were
lower in those years, so was the cost of living and generally speaking one
parent stayed home to raise the kids. Today with the increased cost and
taxes heaped on the working poor, that is not as common. Two parents
have to work and the kids are left to their own resources.."latchkey" kids. 

I find it amusing that Harper is crowing about increasing the TFSA from 5K
to 10K in...again 4 years time from his re-election. What a joke!
Most families are struggling and dont find enough to put in 5K TFSA,
let alone a 10K!
Is this writing on the wall that universality for government benefits is not
sustainable in the future..and more people are expected to be on their own?

Look what's happening in the CPP changes. Now you can actually OPT OUT!


----------



## Karen

> Look what's happening in the CPP changes. Now you can actually OPT OUT!


Did I miss something? Is this true?


----------



## slacker

Karen said:


> Did I miss something? Is this true?


You missed nothing. This is false.


----------



## HaroldCrump

slacker said:


> You missed nothing. This is false.


Yes and no.
If the Liberals (or is the NDP?) have their way, the CPP would be extended to have an optional component as well, that you can opt out of.
I don't believe anyone has proposed (yet) making CPP entirely optional.
That would be an absolute disaster, IMHO.


----------



## Pigzfly

Devil's Advocate, for fun:

Not remembering the specifics, Japan has a high savings rate which leads to decreased growth (aside from their structural issues), according to a macro endogenous growth model.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Yes and no.
> If the Liberals (or is the NDP?) have their way, the CPP would be extended to have an optional component as well, that you can opt out of.
> I don't believe anyone has proposed (yet) making CPP entirely optional.
> That would be an absolute disaster, IMHO.



Well I did read somewhere on line about the new proposed changes and how they would affect cpp contibutions in the future, where the proposed changes would increase the
contributions of the employee and the employer to max of ???? ..and if the employee
had a private pension plan..there was some provision for the employee to "opt out",,
but now I can't find this info to support my case..but they are looking at more changes
for the future..so you never know what is going to happen 10 years or more down the
line. 

New CPP rules starting in 2012..

rhttps://dir.rbcinvestments.com/pictures/account-tom.caldwell/cpp%20changes.pdfules 

*If you plan to start receiving early benefits under the CPP between the ages of 60 and 65, and if you apply for benefits in 2012 or later, the new changes could reduce the benefits you will receive. This may influence your
decision on whether to take a CPP pension early.*

From...

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/pub/factsheets/retire.shtml#cpp_retirement_pension

*What if I change my mind after I start receiving my pension?*You can cancel your retirement pension up to six months after it starts, but you must request the cancellation in writing. You must also pay back all the benefits you received, and pay CPP contributions on any earnings while you were receiving the pension. 

and this...

"
Despite the above changes, the contribution rates to the CPP will remain at 9.9%. But more changes to the pension system may be coming. The Citizen reported:

Also Monday, Flaherty announced a panel of federal and provincial policy-makers would look into further changes to the country’s pension laws and report to Parliament with recommendations by year-end."

and this..

Possibly the biggest change, that should help to keep the CPP running for years to come, is an increased incentive to wait to collect until you are 65, or maybe even 70. Currently when you begin collecting your CPP at age 60, you have a 30% reduction in the amount you receive from the base amount at age 65. *Likewise, by waiting until age 70, you would have a 30% increase over the base amount. Under the new changes, beginning at 60 would reduce your payment by 36%, while waiting until 70 would increase your base payment by 42%.*

Reading between the lines..they are hoping that those that are CPP eligible wait longer to collect CPP and therefore..less of them may still be around
to collect at age 70..saving the CPP a ton of money, because all they
have to pay out is peanuts..a $2500 death benefit..and only if you qualify
for that.


and this...

5. Increase the low earning drop out. This change probably has the greatest universal affect on Canadians but the degree of change itself seems pretty insignificant. Currently, Canadians who retire at 65 can drop out 7 of their low earning years out of the total 47 years (from age 18 to 65) you were eligible to contribute to CPP. This drop out allows Canadians to remove years where they went to school or took time off or were unemployed. Under the new rules, the proposal is to increase the drop out period. But before you get too excited, the plan is to increase the drop-out to 7.5 years in 2012 and 8 years in 2014. According to the information paper circulated by the government, “This change would benefit virtually all CPP contributors and improve their basic retirement pensions.” While this is true, I’m not too excited about counting my pennies."


----------



## Addy

We live in a throw-away society, and I believe this is the root of all evil in regards to the original topic. Dollar stores, Walmart, technology that people feel needs replacing every few years, disposable vehicles, cheaply made plastic products... the list is nearly endless.

If people stopped buying so much crap there would be way less consumer debt.


----------



## carverman

Addy said:


> We live in a throw-away society, *and I believe this is the root of all evil in regards to the original topic.* Dollar stores, Walmart, technology that people feel needs replacing every few years, disposable vehicles, cheaply made plastic products... the list is nearly endless.
> 
> If people stopped buying so much crap there would be way less consumer debt.


Uh>..Addy...

The throwaway society is a byproduct of the times we live in.

Money is the root of all evil..and the pursuit of it. Modern society in Canada
want everything NOW..and not willing to save or wait to get it in the future,
and this has prompted big business and banks/credit companies to offer
all sorts of easy access to credit..just buy it now..and pay for it through
the nose..in a years time..especially with the store cards that often defer
payment in full for 6 months or even more,...while the compound interest counter keeps spinning like crazy. I sometimes take advantage of the only
store card in my possession (H-D) because I buy some big ticket items from
them when they have the 6 months or 1 year to pay.

Now this can be advantageous if you really need that big item, but don't
have enough income or savings to pay for it right away, even by bank
CC..so you buy it and defer the payment. Instant gratification...BUT..
there is a price to pay for that..H-D charges almost usuary rate of 29.9%
(just under the legal limits set by the gummint). 
H-D Credit dept hopes that you will put that sales receipt away or even
throw it away and don't mark the "drop dead" date on your calendar..when
all of a sudden all that accumulated interest becomes due an payable...
and yes..you can stretch out the payments on the principle and accumulated
interest..but then the interest accumulates on the interest..and so on.

So it is important to pay off that purchase 2 or 3 days before the drop dead
date and at a store so you have proof of payment..otherwise the credit
dept could receive your check and perhaps misplace it for a few days
past the drop dead date..and claim it was delayed in the mail or something.

Credit has to be used wisely and to the cc holders advantage (as convenience) and then it works for you..not the banks or the stores...but very few younger
people today know how to use it wisely..and frugally...of course!


----------



## I'm Howard

I am tired of hearing the excessive costs of living in Canada rationalised by what is supposed to be Universal Health Care, it's universal all right, no one can use it.

Many of our Hospitals are disgusting, they should have been replaced years ago.

Milk in the U.S is almost half what it is here, Gasoline is about 30% less, and they pay 7% on some things, not 13% on everything.

No wonder Canadians are stretched to the limit, excessive costs fuelled by government Taxes are the major reason.


----------



## carverman

I'm Howard said:


> I am tired of hearing the excessive costs of living in Canada rationalised by what is supposed to be Universal Health Care, it's universal all right, no one can use it.
> 
> No wonder Canadians are stretched to the limit, excessive costs fuelled by government Taxes are the major reason.


Taxes contribute to inflation, just like the cost of a bbl of oil. We live in
a world economy that is energy hungry and pretty much most of that
energy comes from oil pumped as far away as Saudi, Iraq and elswhere.

Now here's the thing about an oil based economy such as the one we and
the US live in:

1) current production (wells that were drilled years ago..are tapering off
in production as much as 40-50% ..regardless of what people think the
oil in the ground has to be pumped and it's not an inexhaustable source..
and it doesn't bubble like Jed Clampett saw..when he was shootin' at some
food.

2) Extracting oil from new sources (far north or off shore,in the gulf of mexico
is extremely expensive, not only to drill but to prevent disasters as what
occurred last spring with the BP well.

3) Oil futures and demand for it drive up prices.

4) any kind of instablilty in the world..like the current fiasco in Libya
affect oil prices.

5) Consumption..drives oil prices
6) Refinery capacity..or lack thereoff..
7) Emerging economies (China/India and elsewhere)..people earn more
and they no longer want to ride a bicycle or scooter to work..they want
a Toyota or Honda just like the western workers..

I'm sure there are more factors..but these are the ones with the greatest
effects on oil prices and cause and effect..of REAL inflation

These two factors (world price of free market oil and 3 levels of gov't taxes raise the inflation factor immensely. As oil increases in price..EVERYTHING
gets affected, consumer products and their delivery to the consumer,
fuel prices (home heating and transportation) and it also has far reaching
complications..that it can trigger recessions when costs get out of hand. 


Here's my prediction (Based on Jeff Rubins book "Your world is about to
become smaller)..that IF the price of oil keeps increasing into triple
digits ($110 to $140 a bbl)..a lot of serious impact is going to occur on
the US and Canadian economy..and perhaps trigger another one of those
"R" words!


----------



## Plugging Along

carverman said:


> *Money is the root of all evil..and the pursuit of it. * Modern society in Canada
> want everything NOW..and not willing to save or wait to get it in the future,


I agree with everything else in your post, except that money is the root of evil. I think this is part of the problem these days, is the preceptions of money. Money really is just a means to get to an outcome, and is neutral. it is neither good or bad, just like guns, they are neither good or bad, but depending on how it's used, it will have an outcome. 

People associate having money or things as being good or bad, or smarter, more beautiful etc. They put an emotional attachment and value to it. Then they start spending more then they can afford because 'they deserve it" or 'they've worked so hard...' etc. Money becomes a reward, and then psychology kicks in, who doesn't want to be rewarded to show they are a 'good person' or whatever. 

I know people who were brought up that people with money were greedy, or better than them, or prententious or other things, so then they did not want to be like that, and decided to just enjoy life and be happy, and not save. They look at having too much money as having negative qualities. I had one comment that they didn't want more money because this gave them the opportunity to appreciate what they had. 

I view having money as not providing happiness, but rather it provides more options and choices. If you never use those choices that's fine, but at least you have them. I try to put very little emotional attachment towards money, but see it as it really is. I think if people start to look at their personal views on money and try to detach the emotions, people will start to save more.


----------



## Addy

carverman said:


> Uh>..Addy...


carverman, please stop with the condescending attitude towards me. I have already mentioned your clearly condescending, chauvanist attitude towards women on this board, and yet you continue. I find the belittling comments rude and inappropriate. To those who do not read many of your posts, this comment on it's own may seem very slight, but you make these comments way too often. Please try and be respectful when replying to others, regardless of their gender.


----------



## carverman

Plugging Along said:


> I agree with everything else in your post, except that money is the root of evil. I think this is part of the problem these days, is the preceptions of money. Money really is just a means to get to an outcome, and is neutral. it is neither good or bad, just like guns, they are neither good or bad, but depending on how it's used, it will have an outcome.


You are entitled to your opinion P.A. It is a rhetorical statement.
personally..I like the Dire Straits lyrics..
"money for nothing and chicks for free" or Huey Lewis' Working for a living''..
Workin' for a livin' (workin') 
Workin' for a livin', livin' and workin' 
I'm taking what they giving 'cause I'm working for a livin'. 

Hey I'm not complaining 'cause I really need the work 
But hitting up my buddy's got me feeling like a jerk 
Hundred dollar car note, two hundred rent. 
I get a check on Friday, but it's already spent. 

[QUOTE}
People associate having money or things as being good or bad, or smarter, more beautiful etc. They put an emotional attachment and value to it. Then they start spending more then they can afford because 'they deserve it" or 'they've worked so hard...' etc. *Money becomes a reward, and then psychology kicks in, who doesn't want to be rewarded to show they are a 'good person' or whatever.* [/QUOTE]

Well that's just one viewpoint to explain the extremely high consumer debt
load these days..there are others..I'm sure. 



> They look at having *too much money as having negative qualities*. I had one comment that they didn't want more money because this gave them the opportunity to appreciate what they had.


Those are the ones that will get hit hardest when the crunch comes...and
it will at some point. It's a mindset called "instant gratification"..buy that
new home or new appliances or new car on payments based on what
you are making today with the hope that you will still have a job for the
next few years to pay those consumer items off. 



> I view having money as not providing happiness, but rather it provides more options and choices. If you never use those choices that's fine, but at least you have them. I try to put very little emotional attachment towards money, but see it as it really is. I think if people start to look at their personal views on money and try to detach the emotions, people will start to save more.


Well the way I see it..money CAN buy happiness. Just ask the million dollar
(or more) lottery winners...would you still want to work if you were lucky 
enough to win $50 million (or part of it tax free) and have the rest of your
life to spend it as you choose??


----------



## carverman

Addy said:


> carverman, please stop with the condescending attitude towards me. *I have already mentioned your clearly condescending, chauvanist attitude towards women on this board, and yet you continue*. I find the belittling comments rude and inappropriate. To those who do not read many of your posts, this comment on it's own may seem very slight, but you make these comments way too often. Please try and be respectful when replying to others, regardless of their gender.


Yes, I'm sorry for being "condescending" M'am. 

I guess you don't want me to reply to your posts then?


----------



## Plugging Along

I agree with the instant gratification piece of it. I went to a really interesting seminars that talk about the mindsets of the different generations, and one of the topics with the view that the younger generations do have a mindset of instant gratification. Look at the world they live in... email is now too slow, because of texting, if you need information, you don't go to the library and look it up in an encyclopedia, you google, etc. There were many many examples. It wasn't to put blame, but rather, explain the different views on where everyone is coming from.

There was a recent study that have been following kids and money, and it showed a correlation between kids that are made to wait for things (whether their parents attention, a cookie, etc) are showing more responsible attitude towards money. With two very young kids, this is what we've been trying to do since the beginning, but I see so many parents now, giving in to everything that their kids want, or don't want to see them unhappy, so pick them up immediately. Before we blame the kids these days, we should also take a look at what we have done to contribute to this mindset of instant gratification. 

In terms of money bringing happiness to lottery winners, there was a documentary on CBS or something a few years ago (I'm sure it could be googled), that actually refutes that fact that money brings happiness. They contacted large lottery winnings (I think the largest was over 80 MIL UK pounds), but not just the single millionaires, and found that those that were happy before they won, were just as happy. However, those who were unhappy before, we just as unhappy, if not more so. They found that for all groups the initial year or so, they felt happier, but then the novelty wore off, and their original states were heightened. I only know 1 really large ($5mil) lottery winner, and they were happy before, and continued working their janitorial job for years. Mainly because they wanted to still teach their kids a work ethic, and build for the future. 

I think those who think more money brings happiness will be disappointed. That being said, having the choice of being very wealthy, and happy, or poor and happy, I would definately choose having money. What I wouldn't choose is being wealthy and unhappy vs. well off and happy.


----------



## Larry6417

carverman said:


> Well the way I see it..money CAN buy happiness. Just ask the million dollar
> (or more) lottery winners...would you still want to work if you were lucky
> enough to win $50 million (or part of it tax free) and have the rest of your
> life to spend it as you choose??


Sort of. Winning a lottery causes a spike in *short-term happiness*, but happiness tends to revert to pre-winning levels due to "hedonic adaptation." See http://lifetwo.com/production/node/20070425-does-money-make-you-happy-lottery-winners-not-happy

However, I do believe that the converse is true: extreme poverty, obviously, causes unhappiness as expected from Maslow's hierarchy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg


----------



## carverman

Waaaa! "Carve's feelings are hurt"..<carve shuffles feet and wipes crock-o-dile tears from glassy eyes>...and to think that I actually had cultivated
some internet "friends" on this forum...

oh well..I guess I will have to seek redemption by visiting some porn sites..

slink!..slink!...Bwaaaaaha-ha-ha!!!!!!


----------



## KaeJS

I'm Howard said:


> I am tired of hearing the excessive costs of living in Canada rationalised by what is supposed to be Universal Health Care, it's universal all right, no one can use it.
> 
> Many of our Hospitals are disgusting, they should have been replaced years ago.
> 
> Milk in the U.S is almost half what it is here, Gasoline is about 30% less, and they pay 7% on some things, not 13% on everything.
> 
> No wonder Canadians are stretched to the limit, excessive costs fuelled by government Taxes are the major reason.


Howard, You have said it all.

The hell with Canada. I've been telling people for years that I would rather live in the States and people look at me funny.

US > Canada

Who cares if the rest of the world hates Americans. I would be an American. Its cheaper!!


----------



## I'm Howard

How much does Official bilungualism cost this country, and why do we pay a bonus to someone who speaks French but not to some one who speaks Chinese?

Why are Government and similar receiving Indexed Pensions and Full benefits on retirement while the reast of the world that pays those bills do not?

Why are politicians still getting generous Pensions, after two terms thay get what most people work 35 years for??

CPP in the future will not be available until you are 67, now if we would then stop subsidising poor people to have babies, maybe we would not be seeing an increase in children living below the poverty level?

The answer is either be vey rich or be very poor, don't be in between, and the only thing money can't buy is poverty.


----------



## carverman

Plugging Along said:


> I agree with the instant gratification piece of it. I went to a really interesting seminars that talk about the mindsets of the different generations, and one of the topics with the view that the younger generations do have a mindset of instant gratification. take a look at what we have done to contribute to this mindset of instant gratification.
> 
> In terms of money bringing happiness to lottery winners, there was a documentary on CBS or something a few years ago They found that for all groups the initial year or so, they felt happier, but then the novelty wore off, and their original states were heightened. I* think those who think more money brings happiness will be disappointed. *That being said, having the choice of being very wealthy, and happy, or poor and happy, I would definately choose having money. What I wouldn't choose is being wealthy and unhappy vs. well off and happy.


Well there is one axiom that I subscribe to these days..basically in my
twilight years..
(axiom is a broad and basic rule or truth: fundamental, law, principle, theorem, universal saying) 


"you come into this world with NOTHING....

and you leave with NOTHING.. 

(other than the clothes used to bury you if that is your choosing for final departure)..everything else is temporary..including the "millions" that 
are available to those more fortunate in life.


----------



## carverman

I'm Howard said:


> How much does Official bilungualism cost this country, and why do we pay a bonus to someone who speaks French but not to some one who speaks Chinese?


Because it's an official language..has to do with the British conquest of
the French on the Plains of Abraham (Quebec City)..Wolfe defeated
Montcalm..and the people of Quebec have never forgiven us for that.

There is a song that was part of WWII (and before) regimental band
repertoire..The Maple Leaf Forever..and because of the rather partisan
lyrics..it is no longer sung..although some pipe bands still play it. at
least in English Canada,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maple_Leaf_Forever



> Why are Government and similar receiving Indexed Pensions and Full benefits on retirement while the rest of the world that pays those bills do not?
> Why are politicians still getting generous Pensions, after two terms thay get what most people work 35 years for??


Umm?..because they are privileged law makers (we vote for them) and lawyers
too...and what about the senators (on parliament hill) that sit only for a few
days a year and get over $100K in salary, benefits and a lucrative pension?



> CPP in the future will not be available until you are 67, now if we would then stop subsidising poor people to have babies, maybe we would not be seeing an increase in children living below the poverty level?


CPP benefits in the future may not be sustainable if the population keeps 
growing without major changes. The plan could be in serious jeopardy.
There is some studies going on (well there was until the election) and
they are taking a hard look on what is possible and what is not.

More contributions will be required to handle the larger payouts to those
collecting after 65 or even 70. The benefits (even if they maintain 
Universality, could either increase or be rolled back based on other income
that the pensioners may have in the future...somewhat like the GIS.
Now the only difference with the CPP is that the gov't depends on the
industry and private individuals (self employed or otherwise) to contribute
and if the growth in the GDP doesn't increase over the next few years,

and as more baby boomers retire..some serious adjustments may be necessary.


----------



## Plugging Along

carverman said:


> Well the way I see it..money CAN buy happiness. Just ask the million dollar
> (or more) lottery winners...would you still want to work if you were lucky
> enough to win $50 million (or part of it tax free) and have the rest of your
> life to spend it as you choose??





carverman said:


> Well there is one axiom that I subscribe to these days..basically in my
> twilight years..
> (axiom is a broad and basic rule or truth: fundamental, law, principle, theorem, universal saying)
> 
> 
> "you come into this world with NOTHING....
> 
> and you leave with NOTHING..
> 
> (other than the clothes used to bury you if that is your choosing for final departure)..everything else is temporary..including the "millions" that
> are available to those more fortunate in life.



I'm not sure where you stand Carve, on one quote you say money can buy happiness, then your next quote indicates other wise. where do you stand on this? 

I think your $8 wine is getting to your brain 
Also, is there a reason you keep given definitions?


----------



## carverman

Plugging Along said:


> I'm not sure where you stand Carve, on one quote you say money can buy happiness, then your next quote indicates other wise. where do you stand on this? [/QUOTE}
> 
> Well actually P.A..I'm not standing right now..I'm sitting down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your $8 wine is getting to your brain
> Also, is there a reason you keep given definitions?
> 
> 
> 
> No I never drink wine on religious holidays..and this is one.
> 
> Definitions are for (possible less known words) that may require some
> explanation as to my way of thinking.
> 
> I like your way of thinking, though!
> 
> Hey check out the recent image of meself sitting down at my computer.
> and..my sig...C.A.R.V.E. A new acronym...
> 
> acronym: a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words, as Wac from Women's army Corps,
Click to expand...


----------



## m3s

I'm Howard said:


> I am tired of hearing the excessive costs of living in Canada rationalised by what is supposed to be Universal Health Care, it's universal all right, no one can use it.
> 
> Many of our Hospitals are disgusting, they should have been replaced years ago.
> 
> Milk in the U.S is almost half what it is here, Gasoline is about 30% less, and they pay 7% on some things, not 13% on everything.
> 
> No wonder Canadians are stretched to the limit, excessive costs fuelled by government Taxes are the major reason.





KaeJS said:


> Howard, You have said it all.
> 
> The hell with Canada. I've been telling people for years that I would rather live in the States and people look at me funny.
> 
> US > Canada
> 
> Who cares if the rest of the world hates Americans. I would be an American. Its cheaper!!


Gas is pretty easy to explain. It's taxed to pay for our roads that stretch across a vast and empty land if you ever leave the GTA. It makes sense to me to tax the gas to pay for the roads. Americans have far more people/km2

Half of my colleagues work in the states and it evens out really. It's even been discussed in detail on this board before. It's a complete myth that it's cheaper to live in the States, unless you're on a Cdn salary paid in CAD while it's worth 1.05USD and still have free healthcare.

Cdns are stretched to the limit because they think they need a new car every 3 years and will accept huge mortgages to over-pay for houses. It's pretty easy to live within your means with a middle income and save up money if you ask me.




I'm Howard said:


> How much does Official bilungualism cost this country, and why do we pay a bonus to someone who speaks French but not to some one who speaks Chinese?
> 
> Why are Government and similar receiving Indexed Pensions and Full benefits on retirement while the reast of the world that pays those bills do not?
> 
> Why are politicians still getting generous Pensions, after two terms thay get what most people work 35 years for??
> 
> CPP in the future will not be available until you are 67, now if we would then stop subsidising poor people to have babies, maybe we would not be seeing an increase in children living below the poverty level?
> 
> The answer is either be vey rich or be very poor, don't be in between, and the only thing money can't buy is poverty.


French is an official language. Would you rather assimilate or displace them à la third world? This is a very uneducated stance

If you don't reward politicians at least somewhat, you end up with a powerless government that's easily corrupted. They get paid very little compared to CEOs which you claim to be. Sure we love to beat on them but I also think this is a cliché uneducated opinion

The problem with the CPP is that healthcare has improved so much that people live far longer. Again I don't think it's that hard to save enough to retire younger in Canada on a middle-class income and I don't think the gov should manage our early retirement savings with CPP

Canadians not saving is completely psychological and lack of education imo. Instant gratification mindset and overly easy access to credit without understanding the time value of money. It's also groupthink, most people are sheep and subconsciously do whatever the heard around them seems to be doing


----------



## Financial Cents

@royal mail - that is one scary and depressing article....


----------



## the-royal-mail

It's overly simplistic to state that "French is an official language" and call it a day without first understanding the reason that a language spoken by a small minority of the population is given such prominence in this country. It was just Trudeau trying to appease the separatists in the 1960s and '70s. That's the whole reason behind it, nothing more. This country has spent $60 billion on bilingualism in the past 45 years. That is absolutely absurd. Quebec is a part of North America and anyone there who chooses not to learn and speak the language that everyone else on the continent is speaking is just cutting off their nose to spite their face. I see no reason the entire country should continue subsidizing this money pit to appease a province that has said many times they don't feel like they're a part of this country. We've done more than enough to try and accomodate them, especially considering how intolerant and discriminatory they are towards the English language in their province. Huge waste of money here.


----------



## Financial Cents

@Howard - I liked your comment about healthcare, I had a good laugh. True enough though.


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> It's overly simplistic to state that "French is an official language" and call it a day without first understanding the reason that a language spoken by a small minority of the population is given such prominence in this country. *It was just Trudeau trying to appease the separatists in the 1960s and '70s*.


??? I think it goes back further than that. Read the FLQ manifesto to
try and understand the dissatisfaction with federalism that goes back
beyond Rene Levesque..and Maurice Duplessis and perhaps even beyond that.
Quebec considers itself a separate "nation" that was assimulated into Canada
starting with the decisive battle on the Plains of Abraham.




> I see no reason the entire country should continue subsidizing this money pit to appease a province that has said many times they don't feel like they're a part of this country. We've done more than enough to try and accomodate them, especially considering how intolerant and discriminatory they are towards the English language in their province. Huge waste of money here.


They believe they are a separate and distinct society. This will never change.
Whether they chose to remain in Canada under the auspices of the BNA, is
up to them and whether they can muster another referendum and this time
get a majority of voters to say they want to leave. That's why the Bloc
is there..they are the federal representatives of the National Assembly.

Of course, if they were ever to leave..they want their 2.8 Billion of HST transfer payments that the PCs are withholding for their Jets, Jails and
Corporate tax cuts...Duceppe isn't too happy about that either!


----------



## m3s

the-royal-mail said:


> It's overly simplistic to state that "French is an official language" and call it a day without first understanding the reason that a language spoken by a small minority of the population is given such prominence in this country. It was just Trudeau trying to appease the separatists in the 1960s and '70s. That's the whole reason behind it, nothing more. This country has spent $60 billion on bilingualism in the past 45 years. That is absolutely absurd. Quebec is a part of North America and anyone there who chooses not to learn and speak the language that everyone else on the continent is speaking is just cutting off their nose to spite their face. I see no reason the entire country should continue subsidizing this money pit to appease a province that has said many times they don't feel like they're a part of this country. We've done more than enough to try and accomodate them, especially considering how intolerant and discriminatory they are towards the English language in their province. Huge waste of money here.


~1/4 of Canada's population are primarily Francophone

Québecois are no more intolerant to Anglos in their province than vice versa. Anglos go into Quebec thinking they can speak English because "everyone in the continent does" yet they would be offended if a Franco came speaking French to them in their province..

The official language of Quebec is French, just like the official language of most provinces in English. The only bilingual province is New Brunswick. The topic of the OP is 38% of Canadians can't save money and I think blaming bilingualism is absurd.

Do you really think it would be cheaper to separate than do write bilingual labels and documents? If so maybe Europe to reconsider the whole Union thing eh


----------



## Robillard

Pigzfly said:


> Devil's Advocate, for fun:
> 
> Not remembering the specifics, Japan has a high savings rate which leads to decreased growth (aside from their structural issues), according to a macro endogenous growth model.


I don't think a high saving rate, on its own, results in decreased growth. Arguably, a low saving rate may do more to discourage growth than a high saving rate. 

Recall that output, represented by GDP, can be measured by looking at either all the income generated or all the output consumed. The consumption approach is more common. The identity is:
Output = Personal consumption + Business investment + Government spending + Exports - Imports

When households save their output (represented by money earned), the money is transferred to business or government via the financial system. Business or government then spends that money on investments in capital equipment, infrastructure or other things. So households choosing to save instead of consume right now should not necessarily reduce output, assuming that the money saved is plowed back into the economy as investment or government spending. 

If households save too little, business needs to borrow money elsewhere or simply forgo making investments. In the case of Japan, where the saving rate is high, businesses are not making lots of productive investments, and instead the savings are funnelled into government bonds that finance the government deficit. 

The growth story is a bit tricky and debatable. The basic story is that it takes investment by business and/or government to generate growth. Business can invest in capital equipment and infrastructure that will produce more output per worker, and thereby result in growth. Alternatively, business can invest in research and development which can help discover productivity improvements. 

Government can do several things to raise productivity, and therefore encourage growth. Like business, the government can invest in infrastructure. Government can invest in education (human capital), which can raise worker productivity. The government can also invest in a healthcare system, which keeps workers healthy and therefore more productive. 

Anyways, I'm sorry that this went far off the main topic, which is that many Canadian have no savings. The point is that a low saving rate across the whole society could have detrimental effects on growth in the long run.


----------



## carverman

Robillard said:


> I don't think a high saving rate, on its own, results in decreased growth. Arguably, a low saving rate may do more to discourage growth than a high saving rate.


We are not talking about growth in the GDP..but how most Canadian families
are coping (or not) with their high debt load and low or non existant savings.

Whether business or government (invests) programs to help those that 
need it, is IMO, irrelevant in this discussion. 



> *If households save too little, business needs to borrow money elsewhere or simply forgo making investments. *


How so? ..and we are not talking about Japan here..we are talking about
Cdn households/consumers. 



> The growth story is a bit tricky and debatable. The basic story is that it takes investment by business and/or government to generate growth.


I agree with you on the business investment, as that usually results in
more jobs becoming available, or cheaper consumer goods, or improving
the local economy ...but government investing is a misnomer..gov'ts tend
to make decisions based on satisfying the needs of committees or lobbyists,
and more often than not there are drawbacks..that either result in increased
expediture spending compounding the debt load and tacking onto the deficit,
which can be called deficit spending..a nasty practice..as we have seen in
Ontario. The results, although somewhat meaningful for some, are not necessarily the best solution at hand for most. One example here is the
auto sector bailout by Ontario as well as other deficit spending in the
previous recession year that has caused a severe deficit situation in the
Ontario economy. The obvious solution to the Ont gov't is to raise taxes
on goods, commodities and services that were previously partially taxed
by the Feds (gst).

This tax burden stifles family incomes so that a bigger percentage of
their after tax dollars (read net family income) goes out to pay taxes again,
rather than save it or spend it on consumer goods..so it's a vicious circle
here and not a utopian premise as you are suggesting in your post.

Under ideal conditions, what you are saying is possible..but these are not
ideal conditions in the economy and gov'ts are not efficient managers of
money..although they are good at spending taxpayers dollars..and wasting
them in some cases. 



> Business can invest in capital equipment and infrastructure that will produce more output per worker, and thereby result in growth. Alternatively, business can invest in research and development which can help discover productivity improvements.


Yes, I agree. Private enterprise, which is mostly profit driven will endeavor
to improve productivity to allow more profit. The benefits of this is more
jobs created and in most cases cheaper consumer or industrial user goods. 



> Government can do several things to raise productivity, and therefore encourage growth. Like business, the government can invest in infrastructure. Government can invest in education (human capital), which can raise worker productivity. The government can also invest in a healthcare system, which keeps workers healthy and therefore more productive.


In theory what you are saying is true..but it all depends on which captain
and crew are running the gov't ship. Install a bunch of clowns in there
that do not have the backgrounds in economics and business..and you 
just end up with inefficiency and more waste. Yes gov'ts do help with
health care and education, but gov'ts are not always in tune with reality..
what is happening in schools/universities and where the future needs are
so that funds appropriated for education are spent wisely and correctly.
Same with health care costs..which in Ontario at least, are soaring out
of control.


----------



## andrewf

Japan's savings rate is too high, yes. They were investing in highly questionable public investments with very low rates of return, like bridges and highways to nowhere, tearing up perfectly good roads and repaving them, etc. This is a problem, but not the main one behind Japan's economic malaise. Japan has a very inflexible corporate system. There are still zombie banks from their financial crisis roaming around. The government also failed to create inflation through QE. They tried fiscal policy and wasted a bunch of cash as I mentioned above. They should have printed yen like crazy until they saw some inflation.


----------



## financialnoob

I think it's easy to blame the next generation for being irresponsible. And there's some truth to that. I know people who struggle to pay their rent but find money for the latest iPhone. At the same time, there are a lot of different obstacles to face that older generations didn't encounter:

Why 30-year olds are screwed?

Yeah, that's a link to a website that links to a newsletter. 

It's not so easy (or fair) to blame it all on just irresponsibility or poor saving habits. My parents were very poor when they came to Canada, but they worked hard and saved a lot and were able to retire early. If they had to do it again today? Impossible.

University education has sky-rocketed to the point that one year now costs what a 4-year degree used to. Young people start out with 3 to 5 times more debt, less job security and opportunities, and little room for advancement. If you can survive that, then you are looking at a ridiculous mortgage which is easily 2 to 4 times what your parents might have even dreamed of. Housing costs have increased dramatically. In the past 10 years alone, the average Toronto house went from $243K to over $431K. 

With just those two factors, it's easy to see why savings rates are so low. There are dozens of other things as well, but simply put, significantly higher debt loads = less money to actually save. It's really not that surprising.


----------



## I'm Howard

I paid $.4.99 U.S for a BBQ Chicken at Win Dixie, Loblaws wants $8.99 +H.S.T for the same thing.

We have difficulty saving because we pay too many damn taxes, we are gouged every time we turn around, rationalised by access to Health Care.

We all could easily afford to buy Insurance in the U.S with what we would save on groceries and taxes, and don't get me started on the differance in the price of wine and alcohol, there we really get screwed.

We will never spend another winter in Canada,a nd please don't bleat about being unpatriotic, it is too damn cold and we save more than enoughto justify Florida.

$40 U.S +7% Sales Tax for Nike Air,$21 U.S. a bottle of Glenlivet(for neighbour), the list goes on.


----------



## Andrej

I'm Howard said:


> I paid $.4.99 U.S for a BBQ Chicken at Win Dixie, Loblaws wants $8.99 +H.S.T for the same thing.
> 
> .


$5.99 at Food Bsics


----------



## I'm Howard

No FB's in this area, but i just noticed that the Glen Livet at our local LCBO is $21 more than I paid(dinner tonight at neighbours, picking up Wine because I have to), and I just had my house power washed by some one who charged me $350, which is better than the $500 CDN i got quoted, but not as good as the $60 U.S I paid in Florida, took exactly the same amount of time.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, I am boycotting all CDN purchases, within reason.

Read Today's Globe, take note of the pensions the public(joke, they serve anyone buy)servants will get, and look at what you will get.

We have way too much government, too many people with their hands in your pocket who treat you as an ATM.


----------



## Addy

Andrej said:


> $5.99 at Food Bsics


I find it strange people expect our food to be cheap. I would rather pay a few extra bucks and put something nourishing in my body. If you fill your body up with crap, hormone laced food simply to save money upfront I am sure it will cost your health in the end.


----------



## I'm Howard

Sorry addy, i don't like Seaweed, but Chicken and milk, that is on the menu.


----------



## andrewf

I'm Howard said:


> I paid $.4.99 U.S for a BBQ Chicken at Win Dixie, Loblaws wants $8.99 +H.S.T for the same thing.
> 
> We have difficulty saving because we pay too many damn taxes, we are gouged every time we turn around, rationalised by access to Health Care.
> 
> We all could easily afford to buy Insurance in the U.S with what we would save on groceries and taxes, and don't get me started on the differance in the price of wine and alcohol, there we really get screwed.
> 
> We will never spend another winter in Canada,a nd please don't bleat about being unpatriotic, it is too damn cold and we save more than enoughto justify Florida.
> 
> $40 U.S +7% Sales Tax for Nike Air,$21 U.S. a bottle of Glenlivet(for neighbour), the list goes on.


The price differential on chicken, milk, etc. has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with supply management--ie quotas. BBQ chicken is exempt from HST, like most groceries.

It's interesting that you keep crawling back to Canada to maintain residency. Not also complaining about OAS and free health insurance. 

Canada aint perfect, but I hardly hold the USA as an ideal with their artificial hormone laced chicken and milk, and tens of millions of people going without basic medical care--it's like a third world country.


----------



## Addy

I'm Howard said:


> Sorry addy, i don't like Seaweed, but Chicken and milk, that is on the menu.


Chicken=antibiotic resistant bacteria. Especially in supermarket chicken. The cheaper the chicken, the higher numbers of arb.


----------



## the-royal-mail

I agree with Addy. I don't know if Howard has seen Food, Inc, but that brought to mind the importance of quality food. You get what you pay for and consumers who keep demanding low prices on food perpetuate the whole feed lot concept for things like chicken and beef. That's not to say that paying more means the food didn't come from a feed lot, but we should all be careful when we boycott stores merely on the basis of price.

And for the record, BBQ chickens around here are $6.99.


----------



## Plugging Along

We've spend a fair amount of time in the US, and we do find it much cheaper there. Even their organic stuff is cheaper, and they was while we were living in NY and near San Fran, two of the most expensive cities in North America. 

It's not just taxes that causes things to be more expensive in Canada. You have to take a look the population size, distance, and turn over. The state of California has pretty much the same population in all of Canada. So of course th\ngs are going to be cheaper if you don't have to pay so much to ship them across the country. Also, these stores are able to turn over almost their whole inventory in a few days. I was amazed at this Target and Walmart across the street from our apartment. They were staying that they pretty much clear out the equivelent of a whole store every 2-3 days. 

I noticed the difference in costs of milk and diary. It's ridiculously low there, and that was their regular prices. That's because they are not regulated the same way here, and seeing what they put in there milk, made me try and find the organic when I could. There are alot of reasons things are cheaper in the US.

I actually do most of my shopping there, and head over on a trip about once a year. We get all the kids clothes and shoes for the year. So I do understand the frustration.

However, you also take a look at the medicine and healthcare. We had to take my infant to the hospital. It was impressively fast (in and out in emergency from the time we walked to out, with blood work and test results that we waited a little longer for) was under 3 hours. We had insurance, which should have covered everything. Then we came back to Canada, and got the calls from lawyers and collections agencies saying the insurance didn't pay enough and wanted another $600US. Our insurance went to bat for us, but this is a really common occurance, especially for those that cannot afford medicare. 

I would definately consider moving to the US if it wasn't for family here. However, we would also be making really large amounts of money, so these things wouldn't be an issue. If you were making an average salary in the US, it would be really hard too.


----------



## financialnoob

I'm Howard said:


> No FB's in this area, but i just noticed that the Glen Livet at our local LCBO is $21 more than I paid(dinner tonight at neighbours, picking up Wine because I have to), and I just had my house power washed by some one who charged me $350, which is better than the $500 CDN i got quoted, but not as good as the $60 U.S I paid in Florida, took exactly the same amount of time.
> 
> If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, I am boycotting all CDN purchases, within reason.
> 
> Read Today's Globe, take note of the pensions the public(joke, they serve anyone buy)servants will get, and look at what you will get.
> 
> We have way too much government, too many people with their hands in your pocket who treat you as an ATM.


The frustration with pensions is understandable. As a Canadian who lived in the US for a bit, there are absolute advantages to certain purchases, won't deny that. And there is certainly room for improvement in Canada, again, not denying that.

But I think you take a short-sighted view on some of these comparisons. For one thing, milk, and most groceries. The US government heavily subsidizes agriculture. Many countries do this, and Europe is much worse about it, but Americans pay a lot of money through taxes for this "cheap" food. There are close to $21B in direct subsidies for US farmers. A Canadian report on this estimated 62 cents of every dollar earned by farmers is from some form of government subsidy, putting the figure around $180B. If public pension plans are pissing you off, not sure what you say to 60%+ subsidies for agriculture.

And don't forget the minimum wage either. Until 2007, it was $5.15/hour. It's since been raised to $7.25 starting in 2009, or what Ontarians were paid in 2004. Yes, the US dollar was worth more, but it hadn't budged in years, and even the last move was fought long and hard. There are no guarantees for vacation time or paid holidays in the US. Companies can offer them as part of compensation but are not required to.

I bring up both areas because the federal government rarely monitors either for safety, and there is a cost savings and a different type of cost associated with that. If you haven't read Fast Food Nation, I'd highly recommend it. Or Food Inc. is good too as others mentioned. OSHA is a joke, and employees have few rights there. While poverty has declined somewhat in Canada, it continues to grow in America.

The social services are atrocious, and we can argue health care up and down but the simple fact remains that Canadians spend less on average, and live longer on average than Americans. Health care currently takes up 16% of GDP (compared to under 10% for Canada). You think you could save enough in groceries and other purchases to pay for health insurance, but the average health insurance policy for a family in the US in 2009 was over $13K (and over $4,800 for a single person).

I'm not saying there aren't advantages to the US. There absolutely are. And cheaper purchases are definitely one of those things. But you are an astute, intelligent person. You know very well that there is a cost to everything. Some of those things, I take advantage of whenever I'm in the US. But I would never want to bring everything associated with those things back to my own country.


----------



## barnabam

All these numbers are skewed to my way of thinking: they never ask the question of HOW these folks spend the money they DO have.

Without doubt there are those that simply cannot make it for one reaon or another (the poor will always be around unfortunately). 

But I firmly believe that most of these issues would be done away with IF people actually thought about how they spend the money they have. A WANT is not a NEED. DO they NEED to go out every weekend? Do they NEED a vacation EVERY year (sometimes two)? Etc, etc, etc ...

I have no pity for most of these folks, and to my mind they do not deserve it either.


----------



## carverman

carverman said:


> You are entitled to your opinion P.A. It is a rhetorical statement.


personally..I like the Dire Straits lyrics..
"money for nothing and chicks for free" or Huey Lewis' Working for a living''..
Workin' for a livin' (workin') 
Workin' for a livin', livin' and workin' 
I'm taking what they giving 'cause I'm working for a livin'. 

Hey I'm not complaining 'cause I really need the work 
But hitting up my buddy's got me feeling like a jerk 
Hundred dollar car note, two hundred rent. 
I get a check on Friday, but it's already spent. 



> People associate having money or things as being good or bad, or smarter, more beautiful etc. They put an emotional attachment and value to it. Then they start spending more then they can afford because 'they deserve it" or 'they've worked so hard...' etc. *Money becomes a reward, and then psychology kicks in, who doesn't want to be rewarded to show they are a 'good person' or whatever.*


Well that's just one viewpoint to explain the extremely high consumer debt
load these days..there are others..I'm sure. 


Those are the ones that will get hit hardest when the crunch comes...and
it will at some point. It's a mindset called "instant gratification"..buy that
new home or new appliances or new car on payments based on what
you are making today with the hope that you will still have a job for the
next few years to pay those consumer items off. 



Well the way I see it..money CAN buy happiness. Just ask the million dollar
(or more) lottery winners...would you still want to work if you were lucky 
enough to win $50 million (or part of it tax free) and have the rest of your
life to spend it as you choose??[/QUOTE]


----------



## carverman

barnabam said:


> But I firmly believe that most of these issues would be done away with IF people actually thought about how they spend the money they have. A WANT is not a NEED. DO they NEED to go out every weekend? Do they NEED a vacation EVERY year (sometimes two)? Etc, etc, etc ...


Needs and wants are perhaps a good thing in our consumerism society..
it keeps the economy going and the financiers richer..especially the
CC companies and the store cards, never mind the Affinity-Rewards cards.
So with easy access to "instant money" and self gratification (which comes
in many human forms), folks like to live on the "edge of financial reason."

_Hmmm..I like that expression..maybe I should have been a self taught
economist? _

So being deluged and inundated with advertising..buy now..pay later..no
money down..use your "x" cc and get double rewards point, air miles,
20c off a litre of gas for a year when you buy this particular make and 
model of card..etc etc...

I mean how can one resist the temptation? You look in your wallet (or purse)
and see moths fly out where the printed money used to be..BUT..then you
take out this accordion like folder of credit cards,store cards, bank cards,
affinity cards..and..what the heck..I do need that John Deere riding mower
that I've always wanted..$2500 + Hst..I'll just go to H-D on buy it on
the store cc with one year deferred interest/payments and ..I'm a happy
camper..do I need it?.. well no!..but on the other hand,
I really do want it to mow that lawn, because I hate
walking behind a push mower....and with ZERO DOWN, NO MONEY REQUIRED,
I'LL JUST PLUNK DOWN MY STORE CARD AND 'drive it home'!

I will look so cool and successful riding it next time compared to my neighbour that has to start up his old beat up smoking lawnmower. Maybe I'll give him
a smirk or a wink as I pass by on it next to my Brand new "Mercedes luxury
car", that I bought for ZERO DOWN for x months on my Mercedes Affinity card.

Stompin ' Tom....yer on!..play yer guitar and stomp us a song please!

*(BTW..This used to be the old theme on the CBC show.."Marketplace".)*"

The Consumer they call us
We're the people that'll buy it
While everyone else is out there, to sell some kind of merchandise
We run to the boss and tell 'im ..we NEED a bit more gold
Then some tax deductions later, we still wind up in the hole

CHORUS
Oh yes we are the people running in the race
Buying up the bargains in the ol' marketplace
Another sale on something, we'll buy it while it's hot
Save a lot of money...... spending money we don't got
*We'll save alot of money... spending money we don't got!*

The Consumer they call us
We always get a fair shake
We buy a fridge that doesn't freeze and a stove that doesn't bake
We can't buy nothing lasting, unless we get that raise in pay
And they'll only charge us more for the things, that cost less today

The Consumer they call us
we're fussy what we eat
we look at the price of t-bone steak and buy hamburg meat
And all those fancy packages we take down from the shelf
They're always full of good fresh air (and chemicals),
when they're full of nothing else

CHORUS
Oh yes we are the people running in the race
Buying up the bargains in the ol' marketplace
Another sale on something, we'll buy it while it's hot
Save a lot of money.... spending money we don't got
We Save a lot of money.... spending money we don't got

The Consumer they call us
When the man comes in the door
*To give us a deal on a vacuum when we buy a rug for the floor*
And how do we pay the finance when the monthly bills arrive?
They just send down the bailiff to reposess the car we drive!

The consumer is what they call us, we're always deep in debt
From buying drawers in Discount stores, to fixin' the TV set
We go to the bank for the money, and sign for another loan
And pray the lord doesn't see us.... stop in the tavern halfway home

CHORUS 
Oh yes we are the people running in the race
Buying up the bargains in the ol' marketplace
Another sale on something, we'll buy it while it's hot
Save a lot of money...... spending money we don't got!
We'll save a lot of money!.... spending money we don't got!

1 atta boy -> Stompin' Tom for coming up with those lyrics


----------



## the-royal-mail

Thanks barnabam for bringing the thread back on topic. I completely agree with you. However, I'm not sure the money bleed these days is on annual vacation or going out on the weekend. I go out on the weekend. Might cost me $40 to buy a beautiful meal for a friend and I, but I don't do that EVERY weekend. That won't bankrupt me. Where I believe most of the money bleed is happening is on things like cell phones, ereaders, laptops, ipads, iphones, new TVs, new DVD players, new DVDs and all the associated hardware. I could sort of go along with that if the stuff actually lasted, but at the rate this stuff sells it is clear that most of the money these days seems to be going to e-waste. 

I'm still using the TV and VCR I bought in 1999. Both work beautifully (though I am largely on DVDs but the VCR is still handy for tapes that never made it to DVD). And my phones are from 1980 and 1990 and work beautifully. Very little ewaste and corresponding financial red ink here. IMO that's where a lot of the money is going.


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> I'm still using the TV and VCR I bought in 1999. Both work beautifully (though I am largely on DVDs but the VCR is still handy for tapes that never made it to DVD). And my phones are from 1980 and 1990 and work beautifully. Very little ewaste and corresponding financial red ink here. IMO that's where a lot of the money is going.


You may be forced to upgrade soon. VCR tape media is no longer current,
and blank tapes may actually disapear in the next few years, as the
demand has dropped off tremendously, so it's not worth it for most stores
to stock it.

A lot of current movies are now on BluRay DVDs..so the regular ones are
getting phased out at some point and you can't play a BluRay DVD on the
older DVD players..although the opposite is true for BluRay Players....
..Backward compatibilty.


----------



## Plugging Along

Carve - Did you get into the wine again at midnight because it was the end of the religious holiday? You're repeating your posts within the same thread.

I didnt requote it, as I am trying to minimize my quotes, but look up a few posts, and then go back a couple of pages.


----------



## sags

High income earners, and the wealthy are always asking themselves, why can't those poor folks just save more. They must be blowing it on cigs and beer.

Considering the average wage is something like 45,000 and you pay 1/2 of it in taxes, it isn't hard to understand how people have trouble saving on 22,000 dollars a year net.

2000 a month isn't all that much to work with.

If two people are working and earning the average salary, they should be able to save. But, in a lot of family units, one person earns the average and one person earns much less than the average.

Bottom line is..............our share of the pie is getting thinner and thinner.


----------



## carverman

Plugging Along said:


> Carve - Did you get into the wine again at midnight because it was the end of the religious holiday? You're repeating your posts within the same thread.
> 
> I didnt requote it, as I am trying to minimize my quotes, but look up a few posts, and then go back a couple of pages.


Yes Ma'am..how did you know? I decided to treat myself and got 3 bottles
of Gray Fox "sacremental" wine and right after midnight went at them like
I was dye-ing of some hundred year thirst. First bottle went down good,
second went down easy..and then I managed to log on and my mind went
wild!...my 21 yr old "bad boy" personality was fighting with my 65 year
old "senior's moment"..the momentary lapses..where your mind goes
blank and all you can think of is "Beam me up Scottie..we're finished here!" 

Naw, I never revisit figments of my imagination..I'm setting the co-ordinates
for the jump into hyper-internet-galatic-space..
"to infinity!..and beyond!"...hic!


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> High income earners, and the wealthy are always asking themselves, why can't those poor folks just save more. They must be blowing it on cigs and beer.
> 
> Considering the average wage is something like 45,000 and you pay 1/2 of it in taxes, it isn't hard to understand how people have trouble saving on 22,000 dollars a year net.
> 
> 2000 a month isn't all that much to work with.


$45k is taxed on average 17-23%, hardly half. That's $35-38k, or ~$3k/month. Obviously they are blowing the other $1k/month on booze a partying, as they forgot they even had it and claim it went to taxes

That's not even counting any of the tax credits besides the big personal tax credit everyone gets

That's also just the average salary, which is skewed downward by entrepreneurs, drug dealers etc etc

If I look around at my peers, neighbours, or just people in general, more than 38% can afford to save money based on what they are buying/wasting on consumer debt. Taxes are hardly to blame imo


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> High income earners, and the wealthy are always asking themselves, why can't those poor folks just save more. They must be blowing it on cigs and beer.


well most of the welfare cases are. It's part of their culture..although the
excise taxes on a carton of cigs + HST here, takes a large chunk out of
their food budget..so it's KD and even that's getting expensive these days,
so a visit to the Food Banks is in order. A cartoon of" Indian smokes"..
a case of Molson's 24..and their good to go as they say. 




> $2000 a month isn't all that much to work with.


Works for me! Mine is about that each month after taxes. I do all of my
own cooking, don't dine out at all, not even TH or McD's and buy those
$8 bottles of wine. You can do it if you force yourself to..and you can
actually live quite well off $2000 a month. 

Now, I must admit, I have to stifle myself walking past those $250 bottles of wine at the LCBO..and choose something within my budget..but I can't help but think of my Frugality Forum friends professing frugality on one hand..
and then doing the opposite with their "frugal" $250 bottles of wine, 
at that moment.



> Bottom line is..............our share of the pie is getting thinner and thinner.


My ex is eating the last piece of my pie!


----------



## the-royal-mail

I agree sags. Though I don't consider $45K to be poor -- I consider that to be middle class. However, your excellent point remains. As a middle class earner myself that's why I'm so sensitive to the incessant fee, tax, surcharge and levy increases seemingly at every turn. Prices go up in stores, taxes go up constantly, gas is nearing $1.40 in some parts and salaries aren't keeping pace. But we're supposed to believe their bogus inflation numbers and say that everything's fine, inflation's low. Surrrree.


----------



## carverman

mode3sour said:


> $That's not even counting any of the tax credits besides the big personal tax credit everyone gets


I presume you are joking here, although I didn't see the smiley that would
indicate that. The tax credits they offer are all smoke and mirrors,
If you add up all the tax credits and personal credits you are allowed on
your own situation then number crunch according to their formulas, then
do some stupid math..if line x is less than line y..then insert $0..
at that point..its $0 for all the time you wasted doing their stupid number
crunching..ie: $12K in personal credits x 16% Fed + 5.05% prov and you
end up with $2520 that you can actually use as a tax credit against your
$30K of taxable income (if line 25 is less than $40,970 or less, FED) and
if line 23 is $37,106 or less (PROV)..
They are not giving the working poor families any breaks here..it's
just half truths to conceal that fact that well over 50% of taxpayers
are in that tax bracket.

As they say..the rich don't pay taxes because they can write off most
of their income as business expenses and the poor on welfare don't
pay any taxes because there simply isn't enough left in any case to
get them through the month..so who's going to pay for those F35 JSFs?


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> so who's going to pay for those F35 JSFs?


Your choice, you can pay for 65 of them now to replace twice as many money pits, or you can pay much more for them after losing contracts and trying to maintain 30 year old jets for another decade while the liberals do their "fair evaluation" to realize there's no other option

All the big numbers you hear are for the life of the jet, which is likely twice as long as predicted. How much will health care cost over the next 30-40 years?? A lot more than 65 JSF's that's for sure!

How about we reduce the police, the fire department, and the search and rescue while we're at it? Surely the failing US will pick up the slack


----------



## andrewf

Canada literally can't afford to defend itself with conventional forces. 65 JSFs won't matter. Our options are soft power by cultivating strong diplomatic relationships, or developing a nuclear arsenal. We opted not to go the second route. JSFs are useless for our defense--they are only good for buying the goodwill of our allies by participating in international missions.

We need to replace the aircraft, but let's be real about the situation.


----------



## Plugging Along

sags said:


> High income earners, and the wealthy are always asking themselves, why can't those poor folks just save more. They must be blowing it on cigs and beer.
> 
> Considering the average wage is something like 45,000 and you pay 1/2 of it in taxes, it isn't hard to understand how people have trouble saving on 22,000 dollars a year net.
> 
> 2000 a month isn't all that much to work with.
> 
> If two people are working and earning the average salary, they should be able to save. But, in a lot of family units, one person earns the average and one person earns much less than the average.
> 
> Bottom line is..............our share of the pie is getting thinner and thinner.


I do know I have asked why is it that people can't save more. I don't think that the 38% that can't save are just low income earners, I think it comes across all groups, and there are so many factors. The average means nothing. You have students, seniors, people living in small towns, self employed etc. Someone living in small town, making $44K living in a $50K house, is laughing. With averages, you have to assume that if there are 2 people, that they are each getting the average so $88K... otherwise it wouldn't be the average. There are many families that one person makes more than the average, and one person less. Hence, why averages really don't mean much. 

I know of a couple they make $150+K between the two of them (no kids), and they are always complaning about not having a lot money for extras, savings for retirement etc. They were worried that if one of them stops working, then things could get tight. This is all while they have gone on their third trip (to warm tropical places), in the last 5 months. I suggested maybe they should reign in their non-discretionary spending. They said, well that would only be the trips, and they only spend a couple of thousand each for each trip, they were all good deals, plus when else will they have this extra time (one of them is not working do to illness). 

I know many people that would be considered poor, yet still manage to save. How? Well, they definately have to make different choices. I'm not saying that all poor people make bad choices. I would make a bet that if I took a look at their spending, I would be able to find a way to save a small amount in many of the cases. 

I know it can be hard to save when making a low income. We treat savings like a regular bill payment, and when my both my husband and I were not working, we were not able to save, we didn't go into debt either though. One thing I do not understand is if you're income is too low to save, why not find ways to make more income. Don't tell me it's impossible. There are always ways, it just take some creativity, and a lot of hard work.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> Canada literally can't afford to defend itself with conventional forces. 65 JSFs won't matter. Our options are soft power by cultivating strong diplomatic relationships, or developing a nuclear arsenal. We opted not to go the second route. JSFs are useless for our defense--they are only good for buying the goodwill of our allies by participating in international missions.
> 
> We need to replace the aircraft, but let's be real about the situation.


People have taken far more things into consideration to decide that jets are a requirement, which you agree. The debate is only if they are the best purchase for the job. Canada spends practically nothing % GDP on military compared to other countries while we still defend other countries as well as ourselves during unconventional warfare. Yes you need more jets for conventional warfare, but the 1970's are over and you also need more cops to establish peace in a lawless city..

The presence of a single roaming cop car keeps the street crime at bay in a stable area. Yet a few F35's are useless for defense of a stable airspace? I guess we don't need to host world events such as the Olympics and G20 either. With the current handfull of F-18s, we manage to not only defend Canada but also the USA when their fleets have been grounded and additional countries as part of NATO air policing.

Besides diplomacy it's also technology, information, training, knowledge, intel, skills, surveillance, interoperability, economy and the list goes on. How about we just shut down NORAD and NATO contributions and all the other platforms and equipment you probably don't even know exists. Jets offer far more capabilities than you have considered. No other platform can provide a sensor with as much range/speed/flexibility etc

Let's just get some nucs, and police our air sovereignty with that? I'm sure that would be cheaper than 65 jets and whenever someone breaks the rules, we'll nuc their home without any sensor int, without radio or visual contact and without any warning. How about the cops just shoot anyone who speeds too? Then maybe more Canadians would save money instead of buying cars and jets eh?


----------



## carverman

mode3sour said:


> Your choice, you can pay for 65 of them now to replace twice as many money pits, or you can pay much more for them after losing contracts and trying to maintain 30 year old jets for another decade while the liberals do their "fair evaluation" to realize there's no other option


There ARE other options. Watching the CPAC channel yesterday, the whole
day on that channel was experts and interviewers discussing the F-35 JSF'
and whether that is a good choice for Canada.
Although the military wants the latest and greatest and stealth capability,
you don't need that kind of high tech to defend Canada's Sovereignty
in the far north or on maritime patrol..it's overkill. Yes, if you want to
participate in future bombing wars (like Libya and such), then a strike
fighter that can fly under the radar undetected to knock out russian made
SAM missile launchers is just the thing..but at 70 mil a piece for the basic
airframe, no engine, no avionics for attack or ECM, it's not going to be
the ideal fighter of the next 20-30 years for Canada. This was some
"sweetheart deal" that Harper and his cronies arranged with Lockheed-Martin.

Boeing is prime contractor for the Super Hornet, another strike fighter variant
that is based on the F-18 but next generation with partial stealth (ECMs) to
provide multirole capability and they are only 42 million COMPLETE with
avionics and ECMs! 

But I guess if the PCs want the Ferrari, they are not going to settle for a
Mustang at less than half the cost now. The F-35 is projected to be
double the intial cost with the next 10 years as delivery starts to ramp up.
Some countries like Britain who were initially eager to order 70, have decide
it's too expensive for their budgets and cut down the initial order to 40!

Now as one may know, on any high tech item, the huge developement cost
is written off over x copies..if those copies sold are less than anticipated,
then the cost per unit goes up tremendously!..and that's what's going to
happen if they decide to go ahead with it. Harper's promise to families
of new tax credits etc..will go out the window..because that promise is
predicated on the PC eliminated the deficit in the next 4 years..and that
isn't going to happen if they keep spending on Ferraris to fight foreign wars!



> All the big numbers you hear are for the life of the jet, which is likely twice as long as predicted. How much will health care cost over the next 30-40 years?? A lot more than 65 JSF's that's for sure!


Health care costs are esculating..but that's where they should be spending
the money..after all health care benefits all the people of Canada and
some are taxpayers. 



> How about we reduce the police, the fire department, and the search and rescue while we're at it? Surely the failing US will pick up the slack


Again, are we missing the point? Money spent on police/fire services/SAR
benefit the people of Canada directly. Some fancy JSF is only to fight
foreign wars because we are part of NATO and it's the old story with
technology changing the face of war.."Ya can't take a knife to a gunfight!"


----------



## I'm Howard

caverman, big guns are like cavalry in WW1, the real war is some guy on a mission from God with a virus in his briefcase or some computer hacker who shuts down the power grid or knocks out the computers for the banking system.

Canada does not need a strong Airforce, we need a strong Navy, we are surrounded by water, that is what we should be defending.

It is all BS, we are just ATM's for some jerk with his own idea of what is good for us, same kings, same vassals, differant castles.

I will vote for the first guy who says we are going to reduce Governments by 10%, bring benefits in line with the private sector, and quit paying Cops and Firemen over $100,000 a year.


----------



## financialnoob

mode3sour said:


> $45k is taxed on average 17-23%, hardly half. That's $35-38k, or ~$3k/month. Obviously they are blowing the other $1k/month on booze a partying, as they forgot they even had it and claim it went to taxes
> 
> That's not even counting any of the tax credits besides the big personal tax credit everyone gets
> 
> That's also just the average salary, which is skewed downward by entrepreneurs, drug dealers etc etc
> 
> If I look around at my peers, neighbours, or just people in general, more than 38% can afford to save money based on what they are buying/wasting on consumer debt. Taxes are hardly to blame imo


I got a chuckle out of grouping entrepreneurs and drug dealers together. Some drug dealers would also argue they are entrepreneurs! 

I think everyone knows people who could afford to save but don't. But I also think it's too simple to think the entire 38% is made up of lazy people. 

According to Stats Can, the median total income in Canada for households was $78K (before taxes) in 2005. However, the median income for unattached individuals was only $32K, while single parents had a median income of $44K. Note these figures include all types of income, including assistance from government programs. When looking at income-only, the numbers can drop even more ($70K for households, $27K for singles, $36K for single parents, again all figures before taxes). 

Median is more useful than average because, as you pointed out, averages are easily skewed. So $27K income is the middle point for singles; half make more, half make less. And half of single parents make less than $36K though they have the added costs of raising a child. That puts these groups at $9K to $18K below the average, a pretty significant margin. It's possible to do and still have a bit left over for savings, but not easily, and not a lot.

Which again, is not to excuse personal responsibility from this discussion. I know from first-hand experience that there are people who are guilty of poor spending habits. But it'd be good to avoid using a broad brush to paint everyone who can't afford to save as the same type.


----------



## andrewf

mode3sour said:


> People have taken far more things into consideration to decide that jets are a requirement, which you agree. The debate is only if they are the best purchase for the job. Canada spends practically nothing % GDP on military compared to other countries while we still defend other countries as well as ourselves during unconventional warfare. Yes you need more jets for conventional warfare, but the 1970's are over and you also need more cops to establish peace in a lawless city..
> 
> The presence of a single roaming cop car keeps the street crime at bay in a stable area. Yet a few F35's are useless for defense of a stable airspace? I guess we don't need to host world events such as the Olympics and G20 either. With the current handfull of F-18s, we manage to not only defend Canada but also the USA when their fleets have been grounded and additional countries as part of NATO air policing.
> 
> Besides diplomacy it's also technology, information, training, knowledge, intel, skills, surveillance, interoperability, economy and the list goes on. How about we just shut down NORAD and NATO contributions and all the other platforms and equipment you probably don't even know exists. Jets offer far more capabilities than you have considered. No other platform can provide a sensor with as much range/speed/flexibility etc
> 
> Let's just get some nucs, and police our air sovereignty with that? I'm sure that would be cheaper than 65 jets and whenever someone breaks the rules, we'll nuc their home without any sensor int, without radio or visual contact and without any warning. How about the cops just shoot anyone who speeds too? Then maybe more Canadians would save money instead of buying cars and jets eh?


Do you need stealth aircraft for sensing? Wouldn't the thousands of drones we could buy for the same coin be more useful in that regard? These aircraft don't seem remotely useful for 'policing'. Your options are to destroy aircraft in our airspace or do nothing. And if anyone was serious about controlling Canadian airspace, we're outgunned ten to one.

It's like the security guard trying to stop a dozen thieves from robbing a bank. He's really more just decoration for the customers than a real security measure. I guess in this analogy, the jets are to make Canadians feel better, not really to defend our airspace.


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> There ARE other options. Watching the CPAC channel yesterday, the whole
> day on that channel was experts and interviewers discussing the F-35 JSF'
> and whether that is a good choice for Canada.
> Although the military wants the latest and greatest and stealth capability,
> you don't need that kind of high tech to defend Canada's Sovereignty
> in the far north or on maritime patrol..it's overkill. Yes, if you want to
> participate in future bombing wars (like Libya and such), then a strike
> fighter that can fly under the radar undetected to knock out russian made
> SAM missile launchers is just the thing..but at 70 mil a piece for the basic
> airframe, no engine, no avionics for attack or ECM, it's not going to be
> the ideal fighter of the next 20-30 years for Canada. This was some
> "sweetheart deal" that Harper and his cronies arranged with Lockheed-Martin.
> 
> Boeing is prime contractor for the Super Hornet, another strike fighter variant
> that is based on the F-18 but next generation with partial stealth (ECMs) to
> provide multirole capability and they are only 42 million COMPLETE with
> avionics and ECMs!
> 
> But I guess if the PCs want the Ferrari, they are not going to settle for a
> Mustang at less than half the cost now. The F-35 is projected to be
> double the intial cost with the next 10 years as delivery starts to ramp up.
> Some countries like Britain who were initially eager to order 70, have decide
> it's too expensive for their budgets and cut down the initial order to 40!
> 
> Now as one may know, on any high tech item, the huge developement cost
> is written off over x copies..if those copies sold are less than anticipated,
> then the cost per unit goes up tremendously!..and that's what's going to
> happen if they decide to go ahead with it. Harper's promise to families
> of new tax credits etc..will go out the window..because that promise is
> predicated on the PC eliminated the deficit in the next 4 years..and that
> isn't going to happen if they keep spending on Ferraris to fight foreign wars!
> 
> 
> 
> Health care costs are esculating..but that's where they should be spending
> the money..after all health care benefits all the people of Canada and
> some are taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, are we missing the point? Money spent on police/fire services/SAR
> benefit the people of Canada directly. Some fancy JSF is only to fight
> foreign wars because we are part of NATO and it's the old story with
> technology changing the face of war.."Ya can't take a knife to a gunfight!"


People can arm chair it all they want, but they haven't scraped the surface of all the factors.

You can buy an airframe that's perfect for air sovereignty patrol, but it won't be interoperable with other countries for the next 30 years. JSF is a jack of all trades master of none fighter. I would rather buy a long range bvr fighter and a close air support fighter but that would surely cost more to be interoperable 5th gen

Super Hornet is a great jet but it's not a 5th gen fighter nor is it a jack of all trades. The Aussies are buying the Super Hornet as an interim fighter until they get the JSF. Canada is going the cheap route and extending the life of the Hornets instead.

We signed for a fixed price and we are sheltered from Lockheed Martin R&D costs. The media, the opposition, and these investigative TV shows just keep repeating the same poor information

We could also buy a 1000 cheap Mig-29's. That has a lot of other downsides on all the other factors I listed but hey it would defend Canada according to your understanding of air defense.



I'm Howard said:


> Canada does not need a strong Airforce, we need a strong Navy, we are surrounded by water, that is what we should be defending.
> 
> It is all BS, we are just ATM's for some jerk with his own idea of what is good for us, same kings, same vassals, differant castles.
> 
> I will vote for the first guy who says we are going to reduce Governments by 10%, bring benefits in line with the private sector, and quit paying Cops and Firemen over $100,000 a year.


Navy costs even more and it's slow as molasses. Small number of air force can cover a much larger range in far less time, which is good for the stable area we have. You cry for money saving and say you want Navy?

How much does a CEO make? He still makes just as much during these economic conditions and he is just as much to blame as the public sector. Cops make nothing in Mexico and they aren't corrupt at all



andrewf said:


> Do you need stealth aircraft for sensing? Wouldn't the thousands of drones we could buy for the same coin be more useful in that regard? These aircraft don't seem remotely useful for 'policing'. Your options are to destroy aircraft in our airspace or do nothing. And if anyone was serious about controlling Canadian airspace, we're outgunned ten to one.
> 
> It's like the security guard trying to stop a dozen thieves from robbing a bank. He's really more just decoration for the customers than a real security measure. I guess in this analogy, the jets are to make Canadians feel better, not really to defend our airspace.


I guess you don't understand show of force do you? Sure a brute force mob can overrule a cop car, but that doesn't mean it's just decoration. I lock on a bike is "decoration" as well then. I already explained that we have stable streets and a stable airspace, so 2 security guards and 2 jets on standby maintain the peace. 1 cop calls for backup etc, more jets get put on alert. You have 0 understanding of the subject

1000's of drones that have no person to interpret the information and can do nothing else, so we'd need more satellites since Canada is not covered by radio towers. What we actually need is a few AWACS like Australia, but we're talking about Canada here that spends less GDP on military than Kenya. JSF is the cheap route. I should really be screaming that JSF is not enough, but I would rather see debt paid off myself. It's just ridiculous to cry over the 1.5% GDP we spend as if it's the biggest waste, when it's actually the bare minimum!

It's a shame that the media is designed so that a 5th grade drop out could understand, because this is a very complex topic that is obviously not explained at all.


----------



## KLR650

Addy said:


> Time to bring home economics back to middle and high schools. Then personal financial planning. Too many people legitimately have no clue how to handle money.


Look at this: 
http://news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2009/...tial-to-student-success-stronger-economy.html

It's about time they did this.


----------



## carverman

mode3sour said:


> You can buy an airframe that's perfect for air sovereignty patrol, but it won't be interoperable with other countries for the next 30 years. *JSF is a jack of all trades master of none fighter.* I would rather buy a long range bvr fighter and a close air support fighter but that would surely cost more to be interoperable 5th gen


Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion... and how it influences your vote.

IMO, FWIW..

1. Canada does not need stealth capability. The Russian threat went out
with the end of the cold war. Canada needs interceptor capabilty and that
can be satisfied with the next generation of CF18 (or the super hornet)
as the US navy calls it. These are optimized for defence/offence and patrol
and carry weapons and ECM,and the infrastructure to support them (maintenance) is already in place. The controls are pretty much the same,
so the cost of retraining pilots (one of the most expensive logistics component) is minimized. The engines are new..mach 1 + and that's all the
airforce needs. At 42 mil per copy, you still have lots of millions left over
for support and weaponry. 

2. Canada needs better and improved maritime patrol aircraft. The Aurora
subhunter is a piston driven aircraft that is half a century old. I'm not saying
that high speed jets are the solution here...but an upgrade to protect our
maritime borders should be a priority, not some "shock and awe" demonstration of superior technolgy aircraft dropping bombs on the middle east! Look at what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan after the stealthy
B-2s and B-52 dropped their bunker busting bombs...they had to move in
ground troops and encounter many countless lives lost on both sides..and
its still going on..and it will continue..that kind of war will not defeat the
will of the people to control their own destiny. As soon as Canadian troops
leave this year, the Taliban will start moving in again..and in a year or two
it will be a similar sitiuation to what it was in 2001. 

3. Lester Pearson, one of the top few PMs that I still have respect for,
always said we are a nation of peacekeepers..if that is our role..we don't
need stealth jets..leave that to our US friends to invade and bomb the
hell out of any country that doesn't agree or follow with the US foreign policies.

4. We need to concentrate on the quality of life for Canadians over the
next 20 years!

5.We are already in a big deficit..we don't need some US made war machines
to add to that! Canadians are already struggling with personal debt..the
US is practically "bankrupt" with debt in the multi trillions! Why should we
saddle the next generation of Canadians to pay for war machinery that some
other country will benefit from. Time to think with a bit of sensibility here!



> Super Hornet is a great jet but it's not a 5th gen fighter nor is it a jack of all trades. The Aussies are buying the Super Hornet as an interim fighter until they get the JSF. Canada is going the cheap route and extending the life of the Hornets instead.


Neither is the F-35! It's not even completely developed yet and they are
asking for advance orders? C'mon..lets see the track record of these
planes first. There are other options, including the European strike fighters
that are just as capable..it's just that Lockheed-Martin is trying to convince
us that this expensive contract is right for us..because it will generate jobs
in Canada..ya right..have to see that when it materializes! 



> We signed for a fixed price and we are sheltered from Lockheed Martin R&D costs. The media, the opposition, and these investigative TV shows just keep repeating the same poor information


How is that? With any military contract, the fixed price" is just the price
for this year, next year and the year after that and 10 years from now
when the last jet gets delivered, with inflation and cost overruns it will
be DOUBLE what they are quoting today. Don't believe that propoganda
for a minute! 



> We could also buy a 1000 cheap Mig-29's. That has a lot of other downsides on all the other factors I listed but hey it would defend Canada according to your understanding of air defense.


Well even if that was an option, Canada being part of NATO would not
buy jets from a country that it is trying to defend western values and policies
from. That is a ridiculous assertion.




> Navy costs even more and it's slow as molasses. Small number of air force can cover a much larger range in far less time, which is good for the stable area we have. You cry for money saving and say you want Navy?


The navy can do it more efficiently. Flying expensive supersonic jets around
wasting large amounts of expensive fuel to find enemy subs or boat people
is just ridiculous..and what are the jets going to do up north?
..count the number of seals and polar bears..c'mon man! 



> It's a shame that the media is designed so that a 5th grade drop out could understand, because this is a very complex topic that is obviously not explained at all.


The media is just trying to show the true reality of the situation, so even, yes,
even a 5th grade dropout can understand try to understand something..not just accept the hot air of a dictatorial PM that is trying to shove his political decisions down our collective throats!


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion... and how it influences your vote.
> 
> IMO, FWIW..
> 
> 1. Canada does not need stealth capability. The Russian threat went out
> with the end of the cold war. Canada needs interceptor capabilty and that
> can be satisfied with the next generation of CF18 (or the super hornet)
> as the US navy calls it. These are optimized for defence/offence and patrol
> and carry weapons and ECM,and the infrastructure to support them (maintenance) is already in place. The controls are pretty much the same,
> so the cost of retraining pilots (one of the most expensive logistics component) is minimized. The engines are new..mach 1 + and that's all the
> airforce needs. At 42 mil per copy, you still have lots of millions left over
> for support and weaponry.
> 
> 2. Canada needs better and improved maritime patrol aircraft. The Aurora
> subhunter is a piston driven aircraft that is half a century old. I'm not saying
> that high speed jets are the solution here...but an upgrade to protect our
> maritime borders should be a priority, not some "shock and awe" demonstration of superior technolgy aircraft dropping bombs on the middle east! Look at what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan after the stealthy
> B-2s and B-52 dropped their bunker busting bombs...they had to move in
> ground troops and encounter many countless lives lost on both sides..and
> its still going on..and it will continue..that kind of war will not defeat the
> will of the people to control their own destiny. As soon as Canadian troops
> leave this year, the Taliban will start moving in again..and in a year or two
> it will be a similar sitiuation to what it was in 2001.
> 
> 3. Lester Pearson, one of the top few PMs that I still have respect for,
> always said we are a nation of peacekeepers..if that is our role..we don't
> need stealth jets..leave that to our US friends to invade and bomb the
> hell out of any country that doesn't agree or follow with the US foreign policies.
> 
> 4. We need to concentrate on the quality of life for Canadians over the
> next 20 years!
> 
> 5.We are already in a big deficit..we don't need some US made war machines
> to add to that! Canadians are already struggling with personal debt..the
> US is practically "bankrupt" with debt in the multi trillions! Why should we
> saddle the next generation of Canadians to pay for war machinery that some
> other country will benefit from. Time to think with a bit of sensibility here!
> 
> 
> The media is just trying to show the true reality of the situation, so even, yes, even a 5th grade dropout can understand try to understand something..not just accept the hot air of a dictatorial PM that is trying to shove his political decisions down our collective throats!


The JSF isn't even stealth, it's just next generation (which you falsely call the Super Hornet) There's no such thing as stealth, it's just designed to be low observable. It's still a loud aircraft loaded with electronics, and it can already be easily detected. It's a cat mouse game, and stealth is just a catch phrase

Buying the Super Hornet is cheaper in the short term. I work with the pilots and maint and it's not a factor either way. They train all the time anyways and maint is provided with the jet at first. Super hornet is a completely different jet than the hornet. I argued for the hornet for a long time, but the biggest factor is now interoperability. You cannot understand how important this is unless you're in the trade. We ordered half the JSF that we would have ordered Hornets, there goes all your savings!

The fact is there are far more contributing factors than we can even discuss here. The current gov has done a great job to listen to the subject matter experts, instead of catering to tomorrow's votes and screwing over the future instead. The Aurora needs to be replaced as well but thankfully we filled bigger holes first with the Globemasters, Herc Js, Chinooks, Cormorants and hopefully JSFs. Personally I'd replace the Auroras with a couple much more capable Wedgetails, but that's just me

Peacekeeping is just a cop out for spending absolutely nothing on the military. I understand where you're coming from as the US has spent far too much on their Leviathan forces, but we have found a good balance imo. All the other air assets are required for peace keeping, the JSFs are for air policing which is peacekeeping of the sky believe it or not. The JSF can just peacekeep the sky for much longer period effectively with other nations. It's a matter of paying more for the same thing later, or just buying it now while it's relevant and useful


----------



## sags

Tax independance day keeps getting pushed back later and later into the year. I believe I read that, in total Canadians pay over 50% of their income in taxes, fees, and levies.

It is only because two or more people are working in the family unit, that allows homes to be sold at today's prices, and consumers to have any money at all to spend.

Yes, low wage earners bring down the averages, just as 7 figure CEOs bring them up. Someone earning 5 Million per year brings a lot of 25,000 per year wage earners up to a higher average.

Bottom line..............if you earn 20 dollars an hour, you would earn about 40,000 per year, or below the average.

People line up by the thousands for a 20 dollar per hour job, because there aren't many of them around.


----------



## Square Root

Boy, you guys sure have a lot of complaints. Canada must be the world's worst country based on this thread. Come on.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Tax independance day keeps getting pushed back later and later into the year. I believe I read that, in total Canadians pay over 50% of their income in taxes, fees, and levies.


^ fully endorse the above.
Between the various types of taxes, fees, levies, etc. the middle class is sinking deeper and deeper.
For many, it appears they are working mostly for others rather than themselves.

In the past few decades, the middle classes have avoided complete capitulation by using two strategies - putting the previously non-working spouse to work (primarily the woman of the household) and secondly by postponing their retirement age and/or continuing to work in some capacity after "official" retirement.

It is always easy to blame the victims ("it must be their fault that they can't save").

However, IMO, it is the culture of entitlement i.e. the public sector must control and pay for everything (health care, retirement, energy, etc.) that is causing us to have a oversized govt, an overpaid public sector, and high taxes to support all that.

In simple words, our govt. is just too damn big and our taxes too damn high.


----------



## andrewf

Is there any empirical evidence of this? The fed government has been shrinking in % GDP terms, and is now smaller than it's been since the 1960s. Total government as a % of GDP has fallen significantly since the early 1990s, and is now about the same as the US (and we'll probably soon have a smaller government share in the future).

Frankly, griping about government getting ever bigger might be fun, but is it factual?


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Is there any empirical evidence of this? The fed government has been shrinking in % GDP terms, and is now smaller than it's been since the 1960s. Total government as a % of GDP has fallen significantly since the early 1990s, and is now about the same as the US (and we'll probably soon have a smaller government share in the future).
> 
> Frankly, griping about government getting ever bigger might be fun, but is it factual?


You have to factor in REAL inflation, not that hogwash that the gov't
wants you to believe..and rising prices of commodities, gas, oil, electricity,
home heating, and yes property taxes with the a*sh*les at MPAC acessing
property values so that you continue to pay more in taxes than the real
rate of inflation....and then the municipality sets the mill rates and we're
off again as taxes esculate to dig deeper into our pockets. This is sheer
nonsense! A senior living in his/her home should be hit with esculating
property taxes if they are not planning on selling..they are just robbing
the poor senior blind..who may be only depend on gov't pensions as income. 

and of course we have those on parliament hill that are spending taxpayers
dollars without any accountabilty..after all they get tax break concessions
and fat gov't paychecks and pensions.


----------



## carverman

mode3sour said:


> The JSF isn't even stealth, it's just next generation (which you falsely call the Super Hornet) .


The F-35 is so considered stealth and it is the JSF. They took some pages
from the SR-70 Blackbird and redesigned it for the future needs. It sucks
back gas like you wouldn't believe. Slap some radar absorbing paint and
the rather angular design and you have stealth. If you mean the F-18,
yes, it is not what you can call steath, as the fuselage reflects radar,
but they can do tricks with the ECM to at least give the incoming
pilot on a bombing run some kind of chance. Smart weapons is the key
these days. 



> There's no such thing as stealth, it's just designed to be low observable. It's still a loud aircraft loaded with electronics, and it can already be easily detected. It's a cat mouse game, and stealth is just a catch phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> NA Rockwell built the B-2 delta wing bomber with "some stealth" capability,
> (ok low observable as you prefer), so they could sneak into Iraq and knock
> out the air defenses early. The US spent a huge fortune developing it for
> that purpose.as they have the Vietnam era B-52s constantly being upgraded
> with ECM and other types of self defence. The B-2 program was a huge
> cost overrun,originally estimated around 1/2 billion per copy,w and the few that they built with all the cost overruns were over 2 BILLION a copy.
> But that is the US military-industrial complex, so they just do what they want
> to do, regardless of final cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is there are far more contributing factors than we can even discuss here. The current gov has done a great job to listen to the subject matter experts, instead of catering to tomorrow's votes and screwing over the future instead. The Aurora needs to be replaced as well but thankfully we filled bigger holes first with the Globemasters, Herc Js, Chinooks, Cormorants and hopefully JSFs. Personally I'd replace the Auroras with a couple much more capable Wedgetails, but that's just me
> 
> 
> 
> Well, IMO, instead of procuring high tech fighters for participating in future
> global wars, they should be concerned about defending our borders. Yes,
> the CF-18 are aging, what's left of them..a few were crashed, but what
> they have left can still be made serviceable for protecting our borders.
> Remember the SAR Seakings...that were falling apart in the sky and they
> cancelled the CH-1 program at "several million" in cancellation penalties
> to the taxpayers.. We got a raw deal there again with the buffoons on
> parliament hill making decisions and then going back on them..and of
> course lets not forget Diefenbakers folly..the Avro Arrow..we lost our
> capability to build fighters (except for the CF-100 and those were dated0
> well by the mid 50s), and once the decision was made to cancell, not
> only several hundred million of taxpayers money was wasted..but the industry
> that could have been around to build us next generation fighters was gone
> forever..over a stupid decision to replace manned fighters with Bomarc
> missiles...ya right, the politicians know what they are doing and get it
> right all the time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peacekeeping is just a cop out for spending absolutely nothing on the military. I understand where you're coming from as the US has spent far too much on their Leviathan forces, but we have found a good balance imo. All the other air assets are required for peace keeping, the JSFs are for air policing which is peacekeeping of the sky believe it or not. The JSF can just peacekeep the sky for much longer period effectively with other nations. It's a matter of paying more for the same thing later, or just buying it now while it's relevant and useful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure if you consider peacekeeping as the guy with the biggest gun! That's
> the US wildwest mentality!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## andrewf

Carver, when measuring government spending as a % of GDP, inflation is irrelevant. You're comparing dollars to dollars in the same year, regardless of how much they buy. So you didn't really address anything that I wrote. I filed your comment under 'angry anecdotal rant'. Yeah, government can suck, but I don't see any evidence that it's any worse than in the recent past. Sorry--I'm a stickler for evidence.


----------



## HaroldCrump

I measure it simply....in terms of impact to my bottom line.
Just in the last 5 - 7 years, we have seen a slew of new taxes, fees and surcharges.
The health care premium, the electronics recycling fee, the (now defunt) eco fee, the HST (in particular, its rather interesting impact on gas prices).
Just to name a few.
The only positive change has been the reduction in the GST by 2%.

Wages have hardly kept place with inflation, esp. in the last 3 years.
I don't want to re-start the whole core vs. non-core CPI debate, but there is inflation everywhere except in wages.
Inflation very conveniently does help the govt. by increasing its tax revenue without them having to lift a finger.
So to that extent, Caverman's gripe with inflation is relevant although technically you are correct.

I also notice that you conveniently use the term federal govt. however a large chunk of the waste is coming from the provincial levels, in my case courtsey of the Clowns in Queen's Park.

Whether this money has gone towards increasing the size of the govt. in terms of social programs, administrative staff etc. or whether it has simply disappeared down a black hole is another matter.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> I measure it simply....in terms of impact to my bottom line.
> Just in the last 5 - 7 years, we have seen a slew of new taxes, fees and surcharges.
> The health care premium, the electronics recycling fee, the (now defunt) eco fee, the HST (in particular, its rather interesting impact on gas prices).
> Just to name a few.
> The only positive change has been the reduction in the GST by 2%.


The only positive change? What about the cut to the lowest tax bracket here in Ontario, and cutting corporate income taxes in half? The cut in corporate income taxes is huge, and will flow directly to workers and consumers in competitive industries.



> I also notice that you conveniently use the term federal govt. however a large chunk of the waste is coming from the provincial levels, in my case courtsey of the Clowns in Queen's Park.
> 
> Whether this money has gone towards increasing the size of the govt. in terms of social programs, administrative staff etc. or whether it has simply disappeared down a black hole is another matter.












Ministry of Finance


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> The cut in corporate income taxes is huge, and will flow directly to workers and consumers in competitive industries.


I agree with that...cut to corporate taxes is of all-round benefit, short term and long term.

That said, as a country we do poorly when it comes to total govt. spending as a % of GDP, if that's the measure you want to use.
The graph you posted indicates that both the federal and provincial spending as a % has remained steady throughout a period of over 20 years.
So essentially, the govt. spending has in fact grown at the same rate as GDP...not exactly a cause for celebration.
It hasn't grown dramatically either like some banana republics so I suppose we have something to be thankful for.

But when you compare against the industrialized developed world, we don't do too well.
I don't recall the exact figures but last I recall, we were just below the highly socialized European countries like France and UK, both of which are facing severe budget crisis.

Even the highly recessionary Japan has far less total govt. spending as a % of GDP, but then they don't have the savings propensity problem that we appear to have.


----------



## andrewf

Last numbers I saw had government spending as a % of GDP around 42% or 44% of GDP (fed+prov+municipal) in Canada, a hair lower in the states (which is pretty good given we get public health care to boot--I guess they get a world-beating military). The rest of the G8 were somewhat to a lot higher. Our share is down from 55% plus in the early 90s. That's a pretty big swing.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> So you didn't really address anything that I wrote.* I filed your comment under 'angry anecdotal rant'*. Yeah, government can suck, but I don't see any evidence that it's any worse than in the recent past. Sorry--I'm a stickler for evidence.


Hey Andrew!...didn't know you cared so much about me...why...
"tank yew!..tank yew very much" ! 


but will you still respect me in the morning,
or will you hit me without warning,
like you often do .."


Carve _.....has left the building!_.


----------



## andrewf

Do you not agree that that is an accurate description? I didn't mean any offense. You're capable of reasoned argument, but that post wasn't one.


----------



## realist

I'm Howard said:


> Milk in the U.S is almost half what it is here, Gasoline is about 30% less, and they pay 7% on some things, not 13% on everything.


Milk is cheaper because they use BGH and barns in the south that don't have to deal with winter.

Gas is cheaper partly because they tax it less. They pay for roads with toll booths.


----------



## realist

sags said:


> Tax independance day keeps getting pushed back later and later into the year. I believe I read that, in total Canadians pay over 50% of their income in taxes, fees, and levies.


Tax independence day is meaningless. When is mortgage independence day? When is car payment independence day? Telecom Independence day? Student loan Independence day? Road toll independence day?

People forget that we get stuff from taxes. Of course they only count the "useless" stuff when they want to complain about it. 

To bring this remotely on topic - I have a positive bank balance and no debt right now. In the US I would still owe a couple hundred grand for my education alone. To say nothing of having had to pay for a surgery, and a hospitalization when I was younger. Thanks taxes!


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Do you not agree that that is an accurate description? I didn't mean any offense. You're capable of reasoned argument, but that post wasn't one.


Hey c'mon Andrew..after 65 years the ole brain has it's well..brain fa*ts.

Sometimes I amaze myself with the stuff that pops into my head..other
times, well, I can't even remember my previous thought that lead to
the next...brain cells are decaying faster than the PC's popularity.

Must be that cheap $8 wine..I'll really have to splurge and start drinking the
better stuff...or visit a Chinese herbalist for some concoction that stops
brain rot.

Oh well, maybe next time, I'll actually come out with some facts..instead
of pulling it out of my butt!


----------



## brad

realist said:


> Milk is cheaper because they use BGH and barns in the south that don't have to deal with winter.
> 
> Gas is cheaper partly because they tax it less. They pay for roads with toll booths.


Both of these are a bit simplistic. An awful lot of milk is produced in northern US states that have harsh winters even by Canadian standards, and a lot of Americans refuse to buy milk from BGH-treated cows. I think the reason milk is cheaper is that the US government provides subsidies.

Not all states have toll roads, and those that do usually only have toolbooths on major highways. Gasoline prices are subsidized (and taxed lower) in part because the US is a large country with a lot of internal transport of goods and services by road. The true cost of gasoline (if you internalize all the costs that are currently treated as externalities) would make it unaffordable, probably something like $30 or more per gallon.


----------



## carverman

brad said:


> Gasoline prices are subsidized (and taxed lower) in part because the US is a large country with a lot of internal transport of goods and services by road. The true cost of gasoline (if you internalize all the costs that are currently treated as externalities) would make it unaffordable, probably something like $30 or more per gallon.



US Gas subsidies...(from an online source)

"There is growing awareness in this country that the full cost of using oil for transportation is "subsidized" -- that is, gasoline prices paid by consumers do not reflect the full economic cost to society. The true cost is hidden by myriad direct and indirect public subsidies, which include 

-reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry
- lower than average sales taxes on gasoline
-government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists
-"hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air, water, and noise pollution"


In the middle east gasoline is really cheap because the oil rich nations subsidize it so much, that the motoring public buy a gallon of gas for around
50cs. They can fill up the tank of those big Mercedes for around $5-$10.

Now what is going on in our country? If a nation (the US) is so deep in
debt, they were going to lay off their gov't workers a couple weeks ago..
can provide various subsidies and tax incentives..why can't me.

Why are the Feds and Provincial gov't tacking on all these taxes. Why
aren't the Feds encouraging expanding refining capacity.

Andrew?..provide us with your wisdom on why Canada can't do that.
I mean , the PCs are given tax breaks to big oil for exploration and other
overhead expenses..and this is coming from the taxpayer....so why can't
the taxpayer benefit?


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> The F-35 is so considered stealth and it is the JSF. They took some pages
> from the SR-70 Blackbird and redesigned it for the future needs. It sucks
> back gas like you wouldn't believe. Slap some radar absorbing paint and
> the rather angular design and you have stealth.


Carve I detect aircraft for a living. Nothing is invisible. A stealth feature is only to avoid 1 method of detection, usually in ideal conditions in straight and level flight at cruise with no external stores, bomb bay doors or moisture on the fuselage. JSF even uses a radar that can easily be detected passively. Sensors have improved just as much as "stealth"

When you buy a new car you get all kinds of features that race teams spent millions to research and develop. Sure you can save a bit of money buying old tech, but if you know you're gonna drive it until it literally dies why bother? It's not like we're gonna break the budget with 0.001% GDP. The only reason it gets so much coverage is because jets are flashy. It's debated ad naseum by people who don't know what they're talking about while bigger and smaller expenses are completely ignored.




carverman said:


> Remember the SAR Seakings...that were falling apart in the sky and they
> cancelled the CH-1 program at "several million" in cancellation penalties
> to the taxpayers.. We got a raw deal there again with the buffoons on
> parliament hill making decisions and then going back on them..and of
> course lets not forget Diefenbakers folly..the Avro Arrow..we lost our
> capability to build fighters (except for the CF-100 and those were dated0
> well by the mid 50s), and once the decision was made to cancell, not
> only several hundred million of taxpayers money was wasted..but the industry
> that could have been around to build us next generation fighters was gone
> forever..over a stupid decision to replace manned fighters with Bomarc
> missiles...ya right, the politicians know what they are doing and get it
> right all the time!


So you want to cancel the JSF so that we are screwed over for the next gen fighter now, and end up paying billions more for it later instead of being involved from the start? Sounds exactly like what you just described. The opposition doesn't even have any alternative plan to the JSF, and would more than likely end up paying more for it or whatever the alternative in some way or another. Anything cheaper today will just cost more in the long term.




carverman said:


> Sure if you consider peacekeeping as the guy with the biggest gun! That's
> the US wildwest mentality!


Why don't you go to Somalia and do some peacekeeping yourself with a pistol and no authority to shoot? They figure out your hands are tied pretty quick and ignore you.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Why are the Feds and Provincial gov't tacking on all these taxes. Why
> aren't the Feds encouraging expanding refining capacity.


The dough has to come from *somewhere*.
Gas prices are either too cheap or too expensive...it's never right.

Too cheap for those that believe the true "cost" of gasoline should be factorted into the price, including the environmental cost.

Too expensive for those that complain about how the various levels of govt. are leveraging the gas prices to fill their coffers and give themselves a free raise without having to lift a finger.


----------



## canabiz

We were in Pennsylvania over the weekend and gas was about a buck a litre. We also had to pay for toll roads quite a few times. 

For the amount of cars and people traveling in the States at any given time, I completely understand the impact of oil (and energy sources in general) on the good ol' U.S. of A.


----------



## andrewf

brad said:


> I think the reason milk is cheaper is that the US government provides subsidies.


Our quota system is a big part of it. The value of the dairy quotas in Canada is somewhere around $25 billion. At a 8% discount rate, that's equivalent to a tax of $2 billion/year on Canadian dairy consumption, or $235 per year for a family of four. The banning of BGH is the other piece, as BGH causes cows to yield over 30% more milk. Unfortunately it's been linked to breast, colon and prostate cancer.




carverman said:


> Now what is going on in our country? If a nation (the US) is so deep in
> debt, they were going to lay off their gov't workers a couple weeks ago..
> can provide various subsidies and tax incentives..why can't me.
> 
> Why are the Feds and Provincial gov't tacking on all these taxes. Why
> aren't the Feds encouraging expanding refining capacity.
> 
> Andrew?..provide us with your wisdom on why Canada can't do that.
> I mean , the PCs are given tax breaks to big oil for exploration and other overhead expenses..and this is coming from the taxpayer....so why can't the taxpayer benefit?


I thought you usually rail against government meddling. Now you want the government to subsidize gasoline?

I don't think driving in Canada is a bad deal. Canada has the lowest gasoline taxes in the developed world (OECD) after the US and by a huge margin. We have hardly any toll roads. Car use is a big source of urban smog, which is a leading cause of illness and death in Canada. I don't think we should be encouraging the waste of fuel.


----------



## carverman

mode3sour said:


> Carve I detect aircraft for a living. Nothing is invisible. A stealth feature is only to avoid 1 method of detection, usually in ideal conditions in straight and level flight at cruise with no external stores, bomb bay doors or moisture on the fuselage. JSF even uses a radar that can easily be detected passively. Sensors have improved just as much as "stealth"


well then, if the prominences of the airframe stiil reflect radar, even with
the classified paint job, what is the fuss about the F-35? Advanced
avionics, mach 2 engine/airframe? new ECMs..what exactly in your
estimation is worth 65 million+ per copy?



> Sure you can save a bit of money buying old tech, but if you know you're gonna drive it until it literally dies why bother? *It's not like we're gonna break the budget with 0.001% GDP. *The only reason it gets so much coverage is because jets are flashy. It's debated ad naseum by people who don't know what they're talking about while bigger and smaller expenses are completely ignored.


Ok, I''ll flip it back at you. 

Tell me why exactly do we need an F35 JSF?..besides satisfying the egos of
military brass and perhaps the pilots that fly our CF-18s.



> So you want to cancel the JSF so that we are screwed over for the next gen fighter now, and end up paying billions more for it later instead of being involved from the start? Sounds exactly like what you just described. The opposition doesn't even have any alternative plan to the JSF, and would more than likely end up paying more for it or whatever the alternative in some way or another. Anything cheaper today will just cost more in the long term.


No I didn't say exactly that I want to cancel the jet prgm..if infact it
has already been tendered..that would be as bad as the CH-1 which
had to be replaced eventually as the politicians waffled over what to
do and the Seakings started to fall out of the sky due to old age.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have that crystal ball to predict
world events in the next 20 years and where the next political hotspot
is going to occur to warrant a surgical strike by F-35s. I expect that
after the military gets them, there will be a lot of hoopla about them
and how great they are and lots of demonstration flying at air shows..
..and for that we need 65 of them? 

And as far as the opposition not having "plan b" to the F-35, we have
to give them a chance to find out what the requirements are.

Do you know what the requirements are for the military..How much
all weather interception are we going to do? Who are we going to strike? 
It's fine for the military to say we WANT these jets..but do we really
need them and is the money that we are going to spend on them
a good bang for the buck. I'm not saying that the military doesn't
need new jets, that is a given..but do they really need F-35 ( partially
developed) and why?




> Why don't you go to Somalia and do some peacekeeping yourself with a pistol and no authority to shoot? They figure out your hands are tied pretty quick and ignore you.


Well lets not use Somilia as an example..they have no oil for the western
nations to protect, lawlessness prevails, so there is no gov't or ideology, endangered civilians being slaughtered to protect, and currently no
identifiable dictator that should be removed from power..so it's a no
brainer to even suggest Somalia. US foreign policy dictates where the
next tactical actions will take place under the auspices of the UN or Nato.

They got the B-2s,B-52H's, the stealth Night Hawk, AWACS, and spy satellites as well as drones, so tell me again..why do we need the F-35, other than satisfy a few egos as well as send a lot of our money south of the border.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> I thought you usually rail against government meddling. Now you want the government to subsidize gasoline?


If they are picking MY pockets..yes, but gov'ts are supposed to be for the
people, not just of and by the people. Gov'ts are in place to redistribute
wealth..(or in some cases lack of any)..so they shouldn't be slapping
on HST on top of Ont road tax and GST..almost 50% of that litre of
gas is taxes, not production costs.



> Car use is a big source of urban smog, which is a *leading cause *of illness and *death in Canada*. I don't think we should be encouraging the waste of fuel.


So are car crashes..and that doesn't stop people from driving. People drive.
they consume fuel and cars that the auto giants, Japanese & Koreans
produce, so the average consumer contributes to the world economy
every time he/she turns on the key. The insurance industry benefits,
the refinerys, oil exploration and yes, ...the gov'ts and their taxes upon
taxes!


----------



## andrewf

None of that is an argument for fuel subsidies. What do you want, government owned fuel refineries?


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> well then, if the prominences of the airframe stiil reflect radar, even with
> the classified paint job, what is the fuss about the F-35? Advanced
> avionics, mach 2 engine/airframe? new ECMs..*what exactly in your
> estimation is worth 65 million+ per copy*?
> 
> Tell me why exactly do we need an F35 JSF?..besides satisfying the egos of
> military brass and perhaps the pilots that fly our CF-18s.
> 
> 
> Do you know what the requirements are for the military..How much
> all weather interception are we going to do? Who are we going to strike?
> It's fine for the military to say we WANT these jets..but do we really
> need them and is the money that we are going to spend on them
> a good bang for the buck. I'm not saying that the military doesn't
> need new jets, that is a given..but do they really need F-35 ( partially
> developed) and why?
> 
> 
> They got the B-2s,B-52H's, the stealth Night Hawk, AWACS, and spy satellites as well as drones, so tell me again..why do we need the F-35, other than satisfy a few egos as well as send a lot of our money south of the border.


I'm not an expert on the price of fighter jets, just their application. I think people are getting way too bent around the axle on the price though. According to wikipedia we spent $35 mil US (1977) per CF-18, and then we modernized them for $1.2 Bil US which equates to about another $15 Mil a piece by my quick calculations for the 80 updated jets. That's not including all the maint and overhauls etc. We're buying half the JSF's, so why is $65 Mil such an outrageous cost? The opposition quotes worst case all encompassing prices over the entire 30 years.

It's not about the egos of pilots. We all know the JSF loses the specs battle in just about every situation, but it can be configured to do just about anything rather well. It's not about airshows... the CF-18 is a better demo jet. It's about not working on 1970's technology anymore, or 1990's technology for the next 30 years.

JSF is developed for export to be a jack of all trades jet. CF-18 was one of our smarter purchases but it was designed to be a carrier jet, and just happened to work out splendidly as a multi-role fighter. The CF-18 was designed with the USN in mind, the JSF was designed with the Navy/Army/Marines/Air Force and export countries in mind! The R&D costs are sheltered and mostly already covered under the F-22 and previous projects. We get the technology at a bargain really.

As you've touched on, you don't know what the next 30 years of warfare will hold. The RAF tried to save a few dollars by taking the machine gun out of Eurofighters. The reasoning was that machine guns are irrelevant in todays air-to-air combat. Turns out the machine gun is handy in 911/unconventional warfare as a warning or against smaller targets instead of wasting million dollar missiles. It also messed up the balance so bad, it was cheaper to refit the guns than to design a counterweight.

As far as the pilots egos they really couldn't care less if they're in a Super Hornet or a JSF, they're still the coolest guys in Canada in their minds. They might be ashamed to fly the Euro-fighter though, I don't know. Super Hornet costs half the price but it is already outdated. Electronics have made leaps and bounds since. I think the JSF is the bang for the buck jet in the long term. Sure you could maybe develop something better suited, but it would cost a lot more. It's really not about having the best possible jet, I think the F-22 is an outrageous waste.

JSF is more like a BMW M3 than a Ferrari. Again there are far more considerations than we can even touch on. What's on the news is obviously just for sensationalizing effects. M3 has its issues as well, but if you want to compete and drive to work on Monday, it's the best bang for the buck available


----------



## Addy

The thing that worries me most, and I don't care if anyone calls me paranoid, is how handy these jets will become when Harper wants to show his true colours. I swear dictatorship is in that mans wet dreams.


----------



## Square Root

Addy said:


> The thing that worries me most, and I don't care if anyone calls me paranoid, is how handy these jets will become when Harper wants to show his true colours. I swear dictatorship is in that mans wet dreams.


I don't think so. He can't even win a majority...yet.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Yes, I realize the left-wing rhetoric being spewed in the media likes to speculate but I have seen no evidence that Harper is anything to worry about. In fact I think it would good for this country to move away from the extreme left-wing style we've been burdened with for way too long.


----------



## andrewf

I'd rather spend more to get better hardware. Buying jack-of-all-trades equipment seems short-sighted.


----------



## Addy

the-royal-mail said:


> Yes, I realize the left-wing rhetoric being spewed in the media likes to speculate but I have seen no evidence that Harper is anything to worry about.


I know better than to listen to themedia.

My father went to school with the man. If he came knocking on my door I would not allow him entrance. He is a complete ***. Typical "I was picked on in school so now I will rule the world and SHOW THEM!" personality. I very much can see similarities in Harper and Hitler.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> None of that is an argument for fuel subsidies. What do you want, government owned fuel refineries?


Why yes, why not? We do have one..Petro Canada, an amalgamation of several smaller oil companies right around the Trudeau era and "NEPotism", 
the movement that was started that established it...
an oil company owned by the taxpayers of Canada. 
And Andrew, since you are a stickler for facts..here's the background...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program

As the naming convention was the result of that.

They had a refinery in Mississauga for a number of years, but it seems
they have "merged"with Suncor...the oil giant that is enjoying the PC's
corporate tax cuts.
http://lubricants.petro-canada.ca/en/about/202.aspx

Jets, jails and corporate tax cuts!..OH MY!
(we are not in "Kansas" anymore "TOTO" ! )..... or so it seems.


----------



## carverman

mode3sour said:


> I'm not an expert on the price of fighter jets, just their application. I think people are getting way too bent around the axle on the price though. According to wikipedia we spent $35 mil US (1977) per CF-18, and then we modernized them for $1.2 Bil US which equates to about another $15 Mil a piece by my quick calculations for the 80 updated jets. That's not including all the maint and overhauls etc. We're buying half the JSF's, *so why is $65 Mil such an outrageous cost*? The opposition quotes worst case all encompassing prices over the entire 30 years.


Elimentary, my dear Watson. The cost of maintaining the current fleet of
jets and infrastructure that provides the maintenance, is incorporated 
under separate rules and budget for government military operations throughout Canada. 
We have the unified forces that came about under Paul Hellyer, who was instrumental in unification of the army, navy and airforce..
http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/unification.html

Buying new military eqt for the military, is a capital cost appropriation by parliament and that burden is carried on the shoulders of the Canadian taxpayer.



> It's not about the egos of pilots. We all know the JSF loses the specs battle in just about every situation, but it can be configured to do just about anything rather well. It's not about airshows... the CF-18 is a better demo jet. It's about not working on 1970's technology anymore, or 1990's technology for the next 30 years.
> JSF is developed for export to be a *jack of all trades jet.*


Another buzzword being thrown around these days,..like "stealth" and
"generation 5" and "coalition". 



> [/B] CF-18 was one of our smarter purchases but it was designed to be a carrier jet, and just happened to work out splendidly as a multi-role fighter. The CF-18 was designed with the USN in mind, the JSF was designed with the Navy/Army/Marines/Air Force and export countries in mind! The R&D costs are sheltered and mostly already covered under the F-22 and previous projects. *We get the technology at a bargain really*.


That remains to be seen in the next few years. The Avro Arrow was going to
be a bargain as well, and we were going to sell some abroad and maybe
even to the Americans, but US industrial-military complex was concerned
about competition from the Canuks on super fighters, so they hatched up
this scheme that the only way to defend our northern borders from the
Russians was to buy and install the BOMARC missile. Hundreds of millions
of taxpayers money was spent setting up missile sights around the DEW
line..in the end it was a "flop" and a bad decision made by an old waffling
politician (Dief the chief) that was easily influenced into changing his
mind by others. In the end we lost an industry that we were leaders in
at the time, and ended up with NOTHING as a result!



> As you've touched on, you don't know what the next 30 years of warfare will hold. The RAF tried to save a few dollars by taking the machine gun out of Eurofighters. The reasoning was that machine guns are irrelevant in todays air-to-air combat. Turns out the machine gun is handy in 911/unconventional warfare as a warning or against smaller targets instead of wasting million dollar missiles. It also messed up the balance so bad, it was cheaper to refit the guns than to design a counterweight.


I suspect that the next 30 years of warfare will be a re-enactment of
the medieval crusades..suicide bombers wreaking havoc on the general
public as a "terror weapons". (Hitler used buzz bombs (V1s) and V2s on
London..and there was nothing really that could stop them..ok the jet
powered V1 maybe, a few got shot down, but they couldn't touch
the V2s with no matter what they had at the time.)

As a result of 9/11 look at the increased security of airports and the Canada-US border as an example. A different threat requires different solutions..and frankly'
speaking here, no high tech strike fighter will be able to help in these unique circumstances.
Sure we can participate in NATA or UN missions on some Arab country,
but that's not what is in our mandate as a Nation. Lets leave keeping
world peace to the big boys on the block,..and their new "World Order"!



> As far as the pilots egos they really couldn't care less if they're in a Super Hornet or a JSF, they're still the coolest guys in Canada in their minds. They might be ashamed to fly the Euro-fighter though, I don't know. Super Hornet costs half the price but it is already outdated. Electronics have made leaps and bounds since. *I think the JSF is the bang for the buck jet in the long term.* Sure you could maybe develop something better suited, but it would cost a lot more. It's really not about having the best possible jet, I think the F-22 is an outrageous waste.


Well lets just say we agree to disagree on this issue..from a frugality POV,
I'm for the Super Hornet. Ok it may not have the latest and greatest 
avionics equipped,..but what exactly are we supposed to defend our borders
from and secondly, what in your opinion is the best and most effective
way to do it????


----------



## HaroldCrump

Addy said:


> I very much can see similarities in Harper and Hitler.


Surely you can't be serious.
That would be like saying Jack Layton is like Joseph Stalin.
Harper and Hitler share no similarities other than the first letter of their names, just like Jack and Joseph do.

Everyone has a different style of leadership within their own party and within their own office.
I don't judge leaders by that.

Come to think of it, Hitler was quite delegating when it came to managing his party and affairs of the state.
He surrounded himself with fierce loyalists (or so he thought) and was happy to delegate the task of f*ing up the world to them.
Himmler for the extermination of the Jews, Rommel for conducting war, Goebbels for propaganda, etc.
Quite contrary to what you make Harper out to be.


----------



## Addy

HaroldCrump said:


> Surely you can't be serious.
> That would be like saying Jack Layton is like Joseph Stalin.
> Harper and Hitler share no similarities other than the first letter of their names, just like Jack and Joseph do.
> 
> Everyone has a different style of leadership within their own party and within their own office.
> I don't judge leaders by that.
> 
> Come to think of it, Hitler was quite delegating when it came to managing his party and affairs of the state.
> He surrounded himself with fierce loyalists (or so he thought) and was happy to delegate the task of f*ing up the world to them.
> Himmler for the extermination of the Jews, Rommel for conducting war, Goebbels for propaganda, etc.
> Quite contrary to what you make Harper out to be.


I said I see similarities. If your father went to school with the jack *** then you may see where I come from.

Hitler was thought well of until he showed his true colours. I pray we do not see that side of Harper, and the Tories get a new leader and soon.


----------



## andrewf

I am not a fan of state owned companies in competitive industries. The government was right to privatize PetroCan, and we shouldn't reverse it.

Besides, government-owned refinery means that government will tax you in other ways to run their likely inefficient refinery. No thanks!


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Surely you can't be serious.
> That would be like saying Jack Layton is like Joseph Stalin.
> Harper and Hitler share no similarities other than the first letter of their names, just like Jack and Joseph do.
> 
> Come to think of it, Hitler was quite delegating when it came to managing his party and affairs of the state.
> He surrounded himself with fierce loyalists (or so he thought) and was happy to delegate the task of f*ing up the world to them.
> Himmler for the extermination of the Jews, Rommel for conducting war, Goebbels for propaganda, etc.
> Quite contrary to what you make Harper out to be.


This is getting W-A-Y off topic folks..and the original subject line of this
thread..but what the hey!..I'll jump in without a parachute...

I read the book on Hitler, the meglomaniac as he was referred to by the
west. Originally in the 30s, he was seen as a "great leader" because he
was determined to lead Germany out a multi-year depression, struggling
under the immense debt load of reparations, which was for paying back
"damages" they caused during WWI for starting the war, then deciding
to back out when they determined they had no chance of winning.

In the rail car in France (forget the name.. Compenye?) German Military
chief of staff (generals) signed documents on behalf of the Kaiser that
Germany would agree to those terms of Armistice. 
This occurred just after the Nov 11, 1918 cessation of hostilities.

When Hitler took over through his putsch, he was made Chancellor of
Germany..the highest position next to Kaiser Wihelm. Later on when
the Kaiser died, Hitler got rid of any opposition (they just disappeared)
and declared himself through legal process to be Fuehrer of Germany
(leader).

This was never a democratic process, but more autocratic assertion of power,
by use of force and/or/ either capitulation of his opponents, or in some cases he
just had his brownshirts murder them as a quick solution to the "question". 
au·to·crat (ôt-krt)
n.
1. A ruler having unlimited power; a despot.
2. A person with unlimited power or authority: a corporate autocrat.

Later on, the Nazi (German Workers Party) was formed as a "token party"
to which the chosen could belong. everybody from workers, to burgers (mayors) to party officials and they had their own pecking order.

Now fast forward to the present political scene here.."Herr Harper" is
an elected representative in his own riding and was chosen by his party
to lead them as prime minister of Canada (if elected).

This is somewhat between a true democratic process and a plutocratic
process where the people with the big bucks ensure that things go according
to plan, This is not quite the same as the "electoral college" in the US,
where regardless of popular opinion/vote, the "elite" can actually determine
who becomes president...ie George Bush's "vote recount staged in Fla,
where his brother was governor of that state).


----------



## HaroldCrump

Addy said:


> I said I see similarities. If your father went to school with the jack *** then you may see where I come from.
> 
> Hitler was thought well of until he showed his true colours. I pray we do not see that side of Harper, and the Tories get a new leader and soon.


My dad didn't go to school with him so I can't obviously comment on that part.
However, outside of the opposition propaganda and attack ads, I see no evidence of how Harper's leadership style within his own party behind closed doors has any impact on the functioning of govt. and their overall policy and platform.

Earlier during this election campaign, we used to hear of polls around "which leader would you rather have a beer with?"
Maybe it's just me, but I see no relevance whatsoever of such decision making.
Some of the greatest crooks and swindlers were rather likeable chaps.

Also, during the entire period from 2006 - 2011, I have seen very little evidence of Harper behaving like Herr Harper.
If you are referring to incidents like the Ms. Guergis being kicked out of the party without a public consultation, etc. we don't know the whole story to make a judgement.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Some of the greatest crooks and swindlers were rather likeable chaps. [/QUOTE}
> 
> So are the current crop of politicians.
> 
> Also, during the entire period from 2006 - 2011, I have seen very little *evidence of Harper behaving like Herr Harper.*If you are referring to incidents like the Ms. Guergis being kicked out of the party without a public consultation, etc. we don't know the whole story to make a judgement.


Herr Harper has excercised his authority as PM to proroge Parliament for
the Olympics, so he could go and watch rather than be stuck in Parliament
Hill making decisions for the good of the people. Rather than be sympathetic
with the plight of middleclass Canadian familes, he and his cronies decided
to push a budget through on three major issues..F-35 jets, superjails and
some more corporate tax cuts to Bay street and Big oil.

While his programs cannot be compared to Herr Hitlers "progroms"..eliminating
one or more races from the face of Europe and engaging the entire German
nation in a senseless and provoked war...Harper, given the chance and
a majority will do whatever he wants to do.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Herr Harper has excercised his authority as PM to proroge Parliament for
> the Olympics, so he could go and watch rather than be stuck in Parliament
> Hill making decisions for the good of the people. Rather than be sympathetic
> with the plight of middleclass Canadian familes, he and his cronies decided
> to push a budget through on three major issues..F-35 jets, superjails and
> some more corporate tax cuts to Bay street and Big oil.


caverman, you are proof that attack ads work.
You are buying into the meanest, lowliest form or propaganda...Herr Goebbels would have been ashamed of you 

Surely you can't seriously believe the Prime Minister requested the Gov. General to prorogue parliament to watch the pathetic winter Olympics?

I find all the attack ads distasteful, even the ones by the conservatives.

I try to look beyond that, and into the platform of each of the parties.
For me, voting and politics is about picking the one that does the least damage.
The ones that get out of the way of ordinary, hard working people and businesses and let them work, live, save/invest/spend money freely.

And I am seriously, seriously worried about the rising prospects of the misguided, ultra-left, tax-and-spend socialists.
I am convinced that I, and other hundreds of thousands of people like me, will be the sacrificial lambs at the altars of the wet dreams of the socialists.

I run a single income household, raise young kids, work for a medium scale private sector business, have no cushy govt. guaranteed pension, no unionized job security and none of the perks that some folks in ivory towers have.

And I believe I'm not alone...there are hundreds of thouands of me all across the country.

All I ask for is for the govt. to leave me, and the business that employs me, alone.
Don't doctor the economy to create artificial inflation.
Don't raise taxes to break the backs of the middle class to pay for cushy benefits for others.

And, at this point, there is only one political party that comes anywhere even close to this idea.


----------



## Karen

> Herr Harper has excercised his authority as PM to proroge Parliament for
> the Olympics, so he could go and watch rather than be stuck in Parliament


That really doesn't make any sense, Carverman, because Harper, as Prime Minister of the country, would have been expected to attend the Olympics regardless of whether Parliament was in session or not. Can't you imagine how the media would have criticized him if he had not attended?


----------



## andrewf

That prorogation was to duck the first contempt of parliament charge over the stonewalling on the torture documents.... apparently 'lost' in a sea container in Kandahar or something. We'll find out after the election what finally came of that process.


----------



## carverman

Karen said:


> That really doesn't make any sense, Carverman, because Harper, as Prime Minister of the country, would have been expected to attend the Olympics regardless of whether Parliament was in session or not. Can't you imagine how the media would have criticized him if he had not attended?


Ach de lieber! Mein dear Fraulien Karen. Herr Harper is supreme ruler, he
does as he pleases. Zo if ze vishes to dissolve parliament with any excuse,
to delay parliamentary proceedings ze may do so.

He has jets..maybe not F-35s yet, but what is there to stop him from
flying to Vancouver for the official opening for one day (or maybe even
two) and then flying back to attend to the countriy's business..after
all he does have his mouthpiece (Mr. Baird) to serve him well in his absence.

Now if you vish to believe otherwise..I have some swampland in Florida
I am vishing to sell you! yes?/No?


----------



## carverman

I guess the feds don't practice frugality..here's the latest news blurb on
the jets...
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/harper-dismisses-reports-f-35-cost-hikes-184746535.html

I guess we'll hear about cost overruns on the superjails too..why not
just bring back the death penalty like in the US? Why should taxpayers
pay $50K a year for the privilege of letting the likes of Bernardo, Olsen,
and our famous "Kernal" Williams to rot in jail for the rest of their natural
lives..hang 'em..hang em high!!!..people have been executed for lesser crimes.

We are definitely becoming a bunch of softies here in Canada!


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> why not just bring back the death penalty like in the US?
> We are definitely becoming a bunch of softies here in Canada!


Heil Der Fuhrer Herr Caverman!


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Heil Der Fuhrer Herr Caverman!


Why Harold! didn't knowed yer cared so much...Tank yew! Thank yew very much! I wonder if I would do that if I was "elected" king! 

Off with their heads I say!


----------



## andrewf

carverman said:


> why not just bring back the death penalty like in the US? Why should taxpayers pay $50K a year for the privilege of letting the likes of Bernardo, Olsen, and our famous "Kernal" Williams to rot in jail for the rest of their natural lives..hang 'em..hang em high!!!..people have been executed for lesser crimes.


Apparently, executing someone is usually more expensive than keeping them incarcerated for the rest of their lives. That's the American experience at least.


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> Another buzzword being thrown around these days,..like "stealth" and "generation 5" and "coalition".


Stealth I've already explained is a buzzword to make it sound more exorbitant. Gen 5 will eventually be a requirement to avoid fratricide and provide better decision making abilities so the commanders/pilots/controllers properly ID the correct targets during complicated time sensitive situations. It's like when ABS and traction control are designed by a racing team and eventually become the standard years later because it is proven to be worth the cost. That's why the Super Hornet is an interim jet for the Aussies. Again the Super Hornet was designed solely to replace the Tomcat, while the JSF is designed to replace the Hornet, Viper, Warthog, and Harrier II making it a legitimate "jack of all trades" buzzword. Coalition is also not a buzzword as fighter jets are far more effective as a team, and Gen 5 will be required to participate safely and accurately




carverman said:


> I suspect that the next 30 years of warfare will be a re-enactment of the medieval crusades..suicide bombers wreaking havoc on the general public as a "terror weapons". (Hitler used buzz bombs (V1s) and V2s on London..and there was nothing really that could stop them..ok the jet
> powered V1 maybe, a few got shot down, but they couldn't touch the V2s with no matter what they had at the time.)
> 
> Well lets just say we agree to disagree on this issue..from a frugality POV,
> I'm for the Super Hornet. Ok it may not have the latest and greatest
> avionics equipped,..but what exactly are we supposed to defend our borders
> from and secondly, what in your opinion is the best and most effective
> way to do it????


Your prediction of the future sounds more like the past to me, that fight is over. We knew 911 was a possibility but unfortunately taxpayers have to learn the hard way. There are unfriendly countries developing highly sophisticated threats and some powerful allies are weakening drastically while we hold valuable limited resources. This may not happen, just like we didn't know if 911 would happen but we prepare for all possible situations not just the past. Cancelling the JSF is a lot like cancelling the Avro Arrow or the Sikorsky helos - a bad decision in the long term. A penny wise, pound foolish imo

Super Hornet is a legitimate airframe just like the BOMARC missiles were legitimate defense. Whether or not they are the best should be left to the strategic experts imo and not the taxpayers or politicians thinking only of votes during their short career. Canadian military are very conscious of overall costs as we know the public's opinion is very harsh, we wouldn't support the JSF program if we didn't think it was the best deal.



carverman said:


> I guess the feds don't practice frugality..here's the latest news blurb on
> the jets...
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/harper-dismisses-reports-f-35-cost-hikes-184746535.html


Once again you're drinking the propaganda kool aid.

Also for the record, I've toured Canada maximum security prisons and they would make better museums than jails. I'd put a jail in the middle of SK or Tuktoyaktuk myself, but I'll leave that to the people who have all the facts as I only have the propaganda to go by.



HaroldCrump said:


> caverman, you are proof that attack ads work.
> You are buying into the meanest, lowliest form or propaganda...Herr Goebbels would have been ashamed of you


----------



## carverman

mode3sour said:


> Stealth I've already explained is a buzzword to make it sound more exorbitant. Gen 5 will eventually be a requirement to avoid fratricide and provide better decision making abilities so the commanders/pilots/controllers properly ID the correct targets during complicated time sensitive situations. It's like when ABS and traction control are designed by a racing team and eventually become the standard years later because it is proven to be worth the cost. That's why the Super Hornet is an interim jet for the Aussies. Again the Super Hornet was designed solely to replace the Tomcat, while the JSF is designed to replace the Hornet, Viper, Warthog, and Harrier II making it a legitimate "jack of all trades" buzzword. Coalition is also not a buzzword as fighter jets are far more effective as a team, and *Gen 5 will be required to participate safely and accurately*


_well here we go again_!..sounds like the Dolly Parton song...
have you been watching "War Games,..the movie? Future scenarios will
be more "stealth" infiltration by alQueda..and your Mach 2, 5 gen tactical
fighter/bomber/reconnaisance..isn't going to be much help in these cases. 



> Your prediction of the future sounds more like the past to me, that fight is over. We knew 911 was a possibility but unfortunately taxpayers have to learn the hard way. There are unfriendly countries developing highly sophisticated threats and some powerful allies are weakening drastically while we hold valuable limited resources.
> *This may not happen, just like we didn't know if 911 would happen but we prepare for all possible situations not just the past.* Cancelling the JSF is a lot like cancelling the Avro Arrow or the Sikorsky helos - a bad decision in the long term. A penny wise, pound foolish imo


The US knew about 9/11 long before it happened. There were warnings
and the CIA and FBI couldn't get their fingers out of their ****es to act
on that...sloppy lax airport security..at least now, 10 years later they
do pat downs on babies..ya right. 
IMO, they should cancel the JSF and pay the penalty for breaking the
contract and go back out to tender..this is the worse and possibly
the costliest decision Harper has made for us. We will be paying for
that mistake for generations to come at the expense of families that
are struggling to make ends meet..and Harper throws them a bone saying
here's yer tax credits folks...but ya gotta wait 4 years because there is
no money and we have to pay down the deficit first.,
*Give me a break!!!!!*



> Canadian military are very conscious of overall costs as we know the public's opinion is very harsh, we wouldn't support the JSF program if we didn't think it was the best deal.


Then the cdn military should be more concious of Canada's needs to defend
its borders, not with high tech high polluting jets of questionable strategic
value, but examine all the requirements and resubmit them. 




> Once again you're drinking the propaganda kool aid.


As a cdn citizen and voter, I WILL CHOOSE where I get my information
from and make my own decisions to vote based on that.



> Also for the record, I've toured Canada maximum security prisons and they would make better museums than jails. I'd put a jail in the middle of SK or Tuktoyaktuk myself, but I'll leave that to the people who have all the facts as I only have the propaganda to go by.


Prisoners give up their rights while rotting in jail. You want Harper to
establish "Club Fed" for these depraved killers! They deserve the same
punishment as they meted out to their victims!..and "kernal" Russell Williams
collects a military pension too? GIVE ME A BREAK!!


----------



## v_tofu

what exactly is considered savings?

rrsps? pension? precious metals? cash under the mattress?


----------



## archanfel

v_tofu said:


> what exactly is considered savings?
> 
> rrsps? pension? precious metals? cash under the mattress?


How about houses? Most people's assets are tied in their primary residence. Paying off mortgages should count as savings, but I don't think they are.


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> have you been watching "War Games,..the movie? Future scenarios will be more "stealth" infiltration by alQueda..and your Mach 2, 5 gen tactical fighter/bomber/reconnaisance..isn't going to be much help in these cases.


I wasn't born when that movie came out carve but I've actually worked in Cheyenne




carverman said:


> The US knew about 9/11 long before it happened. There were warnings and the CIA and FBI couldn't get their fingers out of their ****es to act on that...[/B]


First of all we "know" about thousands of potential attacks on a daily basis; second you haven't scraped the surface and it has nothing to do about not getting off a$$ss to act. Even if we knew that doesn't change the fact that air defense budgeting was so lax due to public opinion such as yours, and many have argued 911 was a covert op. Either way it wasn't laziness



carverman said:


> Then the cdn military should be more concious of Canada's needs to defend its borders, not with high tech high polluting jets of questionable strategic value, but examine all the requirements and resubmit them.


You have a uneducated view on the requirements and the propaganda won't educate you beyond a child's debate. 5th Gen is far more than advanced weaponry and stealth clichés; it's advanced safety, sensors, information, efficiency, and lower maint etc. We finally have a long overdue contract to replace the '80s radars that compliment the fighters and the maint cost has been extraordinary as the parts just don't exist anymore, let alone jeopardize the safety of pilots and the security of borders/high profile events. This is exactly what happens when you don't upgrade equipment on time, and exactly what happens if we buy an older gen jet and try to use it for 30 years. Anyways this is my last post on the subject.



carverman said:


> "kernal" Russell Williams collects a military pension too? GIVE ME A BREAK!!


He paid into it, we don't take away criminal's assets as far as I know beyond fines. I'm not defending him in any way


----------



## carverman

mode3sour said:


> and many have argued 911 was a covert op.


and lets not forget Iraq and the WMD....none were found, but they went
ahead with their high tech jets (Nighthawk/B-2) and we were inundated
with "shock and awe"..as they precision smart bombed the bunkers and
air defences to prove the latest weapon designs and a chance of course
to use those aircraft in combat..after all, if they had to spend HUNDREDS
OF BILLIONS in development, might as well find a place to put them to
"good use"..bomb the hell out of a third world Arab country!

Yup!..it's the "new world order" , as G. Bush senior once announced as they
bombed Iraq in '91 for invading Kuwait..an oil rich nation. 

This would be my take on it. The US wanted it to happen, so they had
an excuse to go gunning after alQueda, specifically Bin Laden. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories




> You have a uneducated view on the requirements and the propaganda won't educate you beyond a child's debate. 5th Gen is far more than advanced weaponry and stealth clichés; it's advanced safety, sensors, information, efficiency, and lower maint etc. We finally have a long overdue contract to replace the '80s radars that compliment the fighters and the maint cost has been extraordinary as the parts just don't exist anymore, let alone jeopardize the safety of pilots and the security of borders/high profile events. This is exactly what happens when you don't upgrade equipment on time, and exactly what happens if we buy an older gen jet and try to use it for 30 years. *Anyways this is my last post on the subject*.


Why? I'm just asking questions and stating my POV.. and you are coming up with your POV. 
Nothing wrong with that..except perhaps it has nothing to do with this forum
on frugality..but I enjoy debating this thing..a very expensive capital
appropriation..probably the largest we have ever spent on any military aircraft
in the last 50 years! All I'm hearing so far is that its an upgrade to 80's radars,
as if there hasn't been upgrades done to the avionics of the current fleet. 

As far as border security, I will have to say that this is the wrong jet for
that job. .but if the military (specifically our airforce generals) , want the
latest toys to "play war" with, I guess no amount of convincing them is going
to prevent that. I just hope that hasty choices were not made because
they only had a certain amount of time to ramrod the contract through ,
and try to avoid flack from the opposition parties.


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> and lets not forget Iraq and the WMD....none were found, but they went
> ahead with their high tech jets (Nighthawk/B-2) and we were inundated
> with "shock and awe"..as they precision smart bombed the bunkers and
> air defences to prove the latest weapon designs and a chance of course
> to use those aircraft in combat..after all, if they had to spend HUNDREDS
> OF BILLIONS in development, might as well find a place to put them to
> "good use"..bomb the hell out of a third world Arab country!
> 
> Yup!..it's the "new world order" , as G. Bush senior once announced as they
> bombed Iraq in '91 for invading Kuwait..an oil rich nation.


I never defended the US 5% GDP military budget. Ours is 1.5% GDP and when you consider the jets last 30 years it's not really the "biggest expenditure ever" as the propaganda tells you.



carverman said:


> All I'm hearing so far is that its an upgrade to 80's radars, as if there hasn't been upgrades done to the avionics of the current fleet. As far as border security, I will have to say that this is the wrong jet for that job. .but if the military (specifically our airforce generals) , want the
> latest toys to "play war" with, I guess no amount of convincing them is going
> to prevent that. I just hope that hasty choices were not made because
> they only had a certain amount of time to ramrod the contract through ,
> and try to avoid flack from the opposition parties.


The radars are a whole other long overdue $50 mil contract that you have no awareness of. I would say that is more dire than the sea kings but of course sea kings falling out of the sky if more propaganda worthy. Likewise no amount of convincing will explain to you that Super Hornet are just as good to "play war" with however they are no cheaper and only less advanced in terms of technology and flexibility. You'd have to see the system to understand and having a jet that does it all is key when you only buy one.

From the horse's mouth



> Canada’s top soldier is defending a multibillion-dollar deal to buy U.S.-made fighter jets even as the Liberals zero in on the issue as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s potential Achilles’ heel in the next campaign.
> 
> “From my perspective, the F-35 is the best aircraft with the best value for Canada,” General Walter Natynczyk said in a visit to the Globe and Mail editorial board on Friday.
> 
> Gen. Natynczyk, the Chief of Defence Staff, argued that the state-of-the-art jet fighters are the best deal on the market, given that Lockheed Martin’s mass-production lines are about to fill up with F-35 orders from Canada and other U.S. allies.
> 
> “The cost per unit is the cheapest for any fourth- or fifth-generation aircraft,” said Gen. Natynczyk, *explaining that any attempt to buy older jets might actually cost more money.*


----------



## carverman

mode3sour said:


> From the horse's mouth:
> 
> Canada’s top soldier is defending a multibillion-dollar deal to buy U.S.-made fighter jets even as the Liberals zero in on the issue as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s potential Achilles’ heel in the next campaign.
> 
> Gen. Natynczyk, the Chief of Defence Staff, argued that the state-of-the-art jet fighters are the best deal on the market, given that Lockheed Martin’s mass-production lines are about to fill up with F-35 orders from Canada and other U.S. allies.
> 
> “The cost per unit is the cheapest for any fourth- or fifth-generation aircraft,” said Gen. Natynczyk, explaining that any attempt to buy older jets might actually cost more money.


Well, coming from the same (or similar) ethnic background as the General,
I have a lot of respect for him, and our military..
....but not the current crop of politicians, which in my mind seem to have a hidden agenda, and instead of getting to work with each other, waste a lot of precious
parliamentary time bickering with each other. Thank God our military is not
run along the same lines as Parliament! 

I won't argue with your POV that the F-35 MAY be the best choice for
Canada's armed forces as far as technology. After all our military has 
had a good history of doing "what is right", from the time of WWI and the decisive
battles that put Canada's soldiers in the world spotlight, to the beaches
of Normandy WWII, Korea, and now Afganistan, (which in my mind is a
"No WIN" situation) ..but nevertheless.....hearing all the political rhetoric these
days about "jets, jails and corporate tax cuts", "the loyal opposition" in fact,
painted Mr. Harper as not being trustworthy, as well as the parliamentary 
committee that determined that his party was infact "In contempt", just made things worse and confusing to the general public. 

As a taxpayer and a voter, I get innundated with all sorts of campaign
propoganda and attack ads...so much in fact that it has an overwhelming
effect of distorting the real truth..something that the Canadian public
taxpayers/voters are deprived of...

...so thank you, MODE3SOUR for bringing some of the true facts on
the F-35 to light. I guess the Canadian taxpayer will decided in a couple
of days, who should still be in command.


----------



## andrewf

Seems to me that the opposition to this buy has not much to do with the F35s themselves, but the lack of open and transparent tendering process. It's ridiculous to set bid criteria that only allow for one bidder. No private sector procurement would be done this way.

You don't sole source twenty billion dollar contracts. It's just nuts.


----------



## m3s

I agree with you the opposition is against the process, not the actual jet, but it's still pointless. The selection process is mostly going through the motions, takes forever, and achieves nothing in these cases. It's a pointless system for many reasons. The requirements can be doctored, the offers are doctored, cheapest is not greatest and many others. Globemasters are an excellent example of a sole source purchase, and the JSF is even better because it is a joint project. The other option would have been to pay Bombardier more to design a lesser airframe.

Let some people sit down and make an educated decision. The whole selection process is a prime example of bureaucracy and wasted time. All this is is a sensational thing for the opposition to oppose. I can tell you we waste money all the time solely thanks to the public's opinion. A helo crew got chastised in the propaganda last year for landing in public to eat some fast food en route to Vancouver Olympics. So now, they land in an airport, pay the airport and taxi fees and waste time to eat. Same thing for military vehicles, we often have to rent cars solely to avoid the propaganda.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Seems to me that the opposition to this buy has not much to do with the F35s themselves, but the lack of open and transparent tendering process. It's ridiculous to set bid criteria that only allow for one bidder. No private sector procurement would be done this way.
> 
> You don't sole source twenty billion dollar contracts. It's just nuts.


Yes, you have a valid point Andrew, and that is why the opposition are
ticked off enough that they started up a committee to see if Harper 
was indeed in contempt by not supplying the factural information, 
specifications on what the military requirements were, and the costing
estimates of the *initial procurement *of 65 F-35s. 

Now it is possible that some of the info on the technological advances in these
jets is classified, and would be top secret only available to the minister
of national defence (Peter McKay), and *not available without special 
permission*, for consumption by ordinary parliamentary representatives.

That is understood..you can recall the minister in Quebec that left
sensitive documents lying around in his GF's apt...and had to resign
because of that..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Bernier

However, the big issue here is not the alleged $65 mil per copy of the JSF,
*but the way it was done*. Ok, Canada's top general is saying that there
are no other choices... and the F-35 is the ONLY jet to do the job for Canada's
forces in the next 30 years (Generation 5). 

Fine, but they should have gone through them normal tendering process to arrive at that.

The military can certainly give the politicians their recommendation, but
we are not technically at war, so a war cabinet that makes the decisions for the good of the nation is not required in this case, therefore civil procedures should be followed. Go through a tendering process, advise the opposition parties, and IF the only choice after tendering ..is the F-35, at least everyone is satisfied..
....not as it is now! 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-eng.asp


----------



## m3s

Tendering process wastes a lot of time and money. Maybe it needs to be looked at itself. The Cdn army bought ridiculous expensive Mercedes G Wagons when I was new in the army the rumour was that the other offers pulled out due to the ridiculous Cdn tendering process. Not that I minded driving a luxury SUV around in the mud, and not that I was an educated as I am about the reasoning for the JSF. Maybe the army needed Mercedes, but it smelled funny to me but it was done "by the rules". The tendering process has proven pointless to me for many small contracts


----------



## donaldhumiston

If the most of us would keep spending like nobody cares, how do you see things would be in the next few years? Thing is, the only ones who can make a difference is us. How? Well, live within our means, that's what I always say. It keeps me away from those plastic cards.


----------



## steve41

Hey. Didn't the Mayans predict the world would end on Dec 21, 2012? Why are we even talking about saving for retirement?


----------



## andrewf

Let's get one thing straight: Parliament has unconditional powers to call for persons and documents. If a majority of the House specifically calls for certain documents, they must legally be produced, no ifs ands or buts. It is up to Parliament to use this power responsibly, and in cases where the information is sensitive, to decide whether to review them in secret.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Tier 3 retirement money should be there to prepare for your future, whatever it will be. It needs to be discussed, along with any impact caused by fees.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Let's get one thing straight: Parliament has unconditional powers to call for persons and documents. If a majority of the House specifically calls for certain documents, they must legally be produced, no ifs ands or buts. It is up to Parliament to use this power responsibly, and in cases where the information is sensitive, to decide whether to review them in secret.


That may be so, Andrew..but giving Parliament the authority to request
documents for the purpose of debating the pros and cons of selection
(of anything in the national interest) is not necessarily in the best interests
of the Cdn public. For somethings such as public benefits, yes, those
can be examined and debated and voted upon...but when it comes to
purchasing items of technological merit and how that technology would
be best suited for the purpose of what is being procurred for, the average
elected representative hasn't got a clue. They would have to rely on
expert interpretation of documents and _some sensitive ones at that _from
the prospective contractor of military eqt, to arrive at some consensus
of what exactly they are spending the money on it.... and whether that
purchase contract fulfills the purpose in the first place. 

It's a complex matter, not just the dollar figure involved..but other aspects of that technological purchase that will provide the *most efficient means *of defending borders, or on some foreign mission as required by NATO (or the UN).

I don't agree with the statement that just because certain countries have
(or will have F-35s) that we should also..but going back to the days of
the tank warfare, it was evident, that if _you had an inferior tank of
questionable protection against enemy fire_ *and the enemy had superior
armanent*, then you would lose in a fire fight. It's a bit different of course
in todays scenarios, as there are many factors involved..reconnaisence, and
getting under the enemy radar is another..whether you can label this
with the current buzzword "stealth" or not, its still the same. 

MODE3SOUR has some valid points as well, speaking from the military
point of view. Although I did spend some time in the reserves
as a young lad and later on in technology (Telesat), I do understand
some of the reasons for going single source on eqt. We had to do
that with the satellite procurement for several reasons, which I won't
go into here, since it's off topic... similar to this topic.


----------



## andrewf

Carver, in a technocracy we leave the decision-making to experts. In a democracy, the advice of experts is important, but the decision and oversight should remain with elected representatives. Parliament has the unconditional power to require the production of documents and persons in the course of holding the government to account. Whether Parliament acts according to the recommendations of the experts is their prerogative. 

Is that really controversial?


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Whether Parliament acts according to the recommendations of the experts is their prerogative.
> 
> *Is that really controversial*?


A rhetorical question?


----------



## barnabam

the-royal-mail said:


> Thanks barnabam for bringing the thread back on topic. I completely agree with you. However, I'm not sure the money bleed these days is on annual vacation or going out on the weekend. I go out on the weekend. Might cost me $40 to buy a beautiful meal for a friend and I, but I don't do that EVERY weekend. That won't bankrupt me. Where I believe most of the money bleed is happening is on things like cell phones, ereaders, laptops, ipads, iphones, new TVs, new DVD players, new DVDs and all the associated hardware. I could sort of go along with that if the stuff actually lasted, but at the rate this stuff sells it is clear that most of the money these days seems to be going to e-waste.
> 
> I'm still using the TV and VCR I bought in 1999. Both work beautifully (though I am largely on DVDs but the VCR is still handy for tapes that never made it to DVD). And my phones are from 1980 and 1990 and work beautifully. Very little ewaste and corresponding financial red ink here. IMO that's where a lot of the money is going.


I cannot disagree with you here. I was using vacations and weekend outings as examples from a VERY lengthy list. 

In the end, we all waste some portion of our discretionary income (we cannot save everything or, as some say, "you gotta live too!"), but this spending NEEDS to be kept in check. 

The general pubic, however, doesn't seem to think this way. We can blame 'consumerism' all we want (and relative ot China, we are amateurs on this topic ... the crap they buy is incredible!), but the truth is that people refuse to educate themselves regarding BASIC personal financial concepts. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

There are those that would have us believe that things have changed since the 'Great Recession' and people's attitude towards saving has changed. Don't believe it. Bad habits are hard to break whether it is smoking, drinking, or wasting money. People typically need a good scare to make them change. This last recession did no such thing.


----------



## I'm Howard

I know I am not alone, but why will people spend years learning, years earning, save their monies, then let their fingers do the walking through the Yellow Pages and phone some person they don't even know and expect them to look after their money??

My personal experiance, Dad at 85 called me, proud of himself because He had bought from his FA, a Tax Shelter that was 100% deductible.

I sat down with him and carfeully explained that, yes indeed it was a 100% deductible, but that still meant he had invested $40 for every $100 of the shelter in drilling somewhere in the Arctic, that 20 years from now might, but very doubtful, be worth something.

I look after his money, now 92, he called me and wanted to know why his Girl Friend's FA had just got her a bond PAYING 6% , so I explained to him that She was indeed getting paid 6%, but the acquisition cost of the Bond was about $104, so She was really only making a little over 2% .

Courses MUST be given in School, then maybe we'll have less Ph.D's in Polynesian Fertilitry Rites complaining they are in debt to $80,000 and can only get a minimm wage job..

Local FA. Mercedes, license Plate, SPRSLMN,
[Super Sales Man).


----------



## carverman

I'm Howard said:


> he called me and wanted to know why his Girl Friend's FA had just got her a bond PAYING 6% , so I explained to him that She was indeed getting paid 6%, but the acquisition cost of the Bond was about $104, so She was really only making a little over 2% .
> 
> Courses MUST be given in School, then maybe we'll have *less Ph.D's in Polynesian Fertilitry Rites complaining they are in debt to $80,000 *and can only get a minimm wage job..
> 
> Local FA. Mercedes, license Plate, SPRSLMN,
> [Super Sales Man).


Super Salesman? I would have interpreted that plate as
SPaRSe LeMoN"..but whatever turns your crank. 
I like your statement ...
"Polynesian Fertilitry Rites" complaining they are in debt to $80,000 "

I presume you are referring to 4 years of college with a useless degree
that they can't apply and then have to take a different kind of job
rather than one in a field that they took 4 years to study? 

I can't believe how many of these "whiz kids" fresh out of university
go out into the world in a dreamlike stupor that they are the solution
to the world's problems. Couples carrying a $40K university gov't paid tuition
loan each, get some kind of job to start, then a $300K house mortgage,
two leased cars, big screen TV and home theatre, two gym memberships,
buy all their furniture for their house on credit from Sears/Leons, and
go out several times a week to restaurants.

Reminds me of that song by the Barenaked Ladies.."If I had a million dollars"..
but these people are so clueless when it comes to managing their money..
that they hit the wall real fast and have to declare personal bankruptcy
and lose all of their "bought on credit" possessions. 

I guess their lifestyle adopts the motto.."live for today..who cares about
tomorrow!"


----------



## KaeJS

> Where I believe most of the money bleed is happening is on things like cell phones, ereaders, laptops, ipads, iphones, new TVs, new DVD players, new DVDs and all the associated hardware. I could sort of go along with that if the stuff actually lasted, but at the rate this stuff sells it is clear that most of the money these days seems to be going to e-waste.
> 
> I'm still using the TV and VCR I bought in 1999. Both work beautifully (though I am largely on DVDs but the VCR is still handy for tapes that never made it to DVD). And my phones are from 1980 and 1990 and work beautifully. Very little ewaste and corresponding financial red ink here. IMO that's where a lot of the money is going.


TRM, what's the point in having money if you do not _spend_ it?

Money is only good for 2 things.

1. Survival
2. Spending

If you're meeting number 1, you should be doing number 2.

TV and VCR from '99? Thats a bit outdated. But if you're comfortable with it, then that's okay. But there must be *something* you spend your money on? Unless you really just want to buy your freedom from work


----------



## the-royal-mail

The trouble, Kae, is that while I am surviving today, I have been through too much BS in my life to know that it isn't safe to throw all caution to the wind just because things are going well. In fact, if things are going well I take that as a warning to get prepared because dark clouds are on the horizon.

Rest assured I do have money leftover to spend and waste. The difference between me and everyone else seems to be that I save the money first, get the e-savings in place and then plan my purchases based upon projected near-term surpluses.

I plan my spending based upon what's in the bank.

The TV works beautifully and so does the VCR. Funny, I'm still on the same VCR but have since gone through 4 DVD players in the past 6 years. Cheap crap. That's why I call it e-waste lol.


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> The TV works beautifully and so does the VCR. Funny, I'm still on the same VCR but have *since gone through 4 DVD players in the past 6 years. Cheap crap. That's why I call it e-waste* lol.


Well then..stop buying those cheap "no name" DVD players..they are designed
only to last as long as the distributer's warranty...Gold Lion..Crappy Tire
branded, and other Big box stores "no name" products.
Or for a "few dollars more" you can get their extended warranty..read...
return the broken crappy DVD player for another new crappy DVD player


----------



## Plugging Along

KaeJS said:


> TRM, what's the point in having money if you do not _spend_ it?
> 
> Money is only good for 2 things.
> 
> 1. Survival
> 2. Spending
> 
> If you're meeting number 1, you should be doing number 2.
> 
> TV and VCR from '99? Thats a bit outdated.


Though money is good for those two things, it can be also saved in order to be used in the future for those two things. I see nothing wrong with saving money, as it is also good for providing you options with uncontrollable things may occur. I also have a TV from 99, and a vcr from 96 and really don't see anything wrong with it. The VCR may be outdated, but it's only used in our cabin, and the TV is our main TV and works great, though a little large. I didn't realize that was old. We have a 13 inch that is from 94 that we still use. 



carverman said:


> Well then..stop buying those cheap "no name" DVD players..they are designed
> only to last as long as the distributer's warranty...Gold Lion..Crappy Tire
> branded, and other Big box stores "no name" products.
> Or for a "few dollars more" you can get their extended warranty..read...
> return the broken crappy DVD player for another new crappy DVD player


I thought you were the king of frugality. I have bought 2 $10 dvd players on Boxing day 06' (one for my cabin, and one for our house), and they both still work. No warrenty needed. Also, why is one renting or buying dvd's? We watch most of our movies on tv.


----------



## carverman

Plugging Along said:


> I also have a *TV from 99, and a vcr from 96 *and really don't see anything wrong with it. The VCR may be outdated, but it's only used in our cabin, and the TV is our main TV and works great, though a little large. I didn't realize that was old. We have a 13 inch that is from 94 that we still use.


I see you like other kinds of old "vintage". 




> I have bought 2 $10 dvd players on Boxing day 06' (one for my cabin, and one for our house), and they both still work. No warrenty needed.


You are lucky so far, the reliability of these $10 MIC (made in Chia) dvd players is directly proportional to the amount used. If you only use them occassionally as in summer months, they will last 2x as long. 

Consider this..that $10 DVD player was made for less than a $1 in China,
imported to NA by a distributor..who added their 40-50% markup/shipping charges, then reshipped to a big box store for another 40% markup/shipping charges..so now they can sell it for $10 and still make a profit..but the components inside (CD spin motor/ tracking control ), are the cheapest of the cheap.


----------



## carverman

Plugging Along said:


> I thought you were the king of frugality.


Right now, P.A...I am the king of NOTHING!


----------



## the-royal-mail

Actually, renting or buying DVDs has been a peaceful Godsend for me. I can watch the shows whenever I want, in their entirety and not have to tolerate commercial interruptions and other advertising. I get a lot of use out of my DVDs and I only buy movies and TV episodes that I really like. So I have a small collection and it gets a lot of use. Movies shown on TV get edited and chopped and shortened and saturated with commercials.

BTW, the first DVD player I bought didn't even last a year and it was a brand name unit at Future Shop. Extended warranty on a $90 item? I then bought cheap brands at other stores for like $20-30 and they lasted twice as long as the more expensive unit. So the lesson is that these things are cheap, not designed to last, no matter how much you pay.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The branded DVD players are essentially the same garbage but with a brand logo and a nice price tag.
I now buy only the non-branded $9.99 ones.
I figure I can buy 5 of these for every 1 of the branded ones.
Even if the branded one lasts twice as long (they don't), it's still a better deal.

The other benefit of the imported, non-branded ones is that (in most cases) they ignore the region codes and play everything.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Agreed, HaroldCrump.

I heard it was against the law for retail stores here to sell region-free DVD players. I was looking for one last year and ended up buying a unit off ebay. Came to about $40 and included a piece of paper explaining the key-press sequence needed to allow the unit to play DVDs from all regions.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Visit one of the liquidators, wholesale or outlet stores like Liquidators World, Tiger Direct, Factory Direct or XS Cargo.
Then look for players that are not any of the well-known brands like Sony, Phillips, etc.
Price should be no more than $9.99.

That's the one you want.

There _are_ region free DVD discs (Region Code 0), but often rare and expensive.
Much better to buy a region free player.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> The branded DVD players are essentially the same garbage but with a brand logo and a nice price tag.
> I now buy only the non-branded $9.99 ones.
> I figure I can buy 5 of these for every 1 of the branded ones.
> Even if the branded one lasts twice as long (they don't), it's still a better deal. [/QUOTE}
> 
> The other benefit of the imported, non-branded ones is that (in most cases) they *ignore the region codes and play everything*.


Well maybe so..but I bought a Brand x, clearance DVD player from Future
Crap about 5 years ago. MIC, it was defective right out of the box!

Took it back, and got a SONY, also MIC..but this one has worked on a daily
basis for 5 years now. Difference in price..$50 for the Brand x crap...$100
for the Sony.

IMO, even though the DVD players may be made in the same factory,
the name brands seem to have some extra quality control.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> it was defective right out of the box!


Why didn't you take it back?
Almost every store has an exchange policy at the very least.
I'd never pay $50 for a DVD player, let alone $100.


----------



## jamesbe

I once paid $1000.00 for a DVD player


----------



## the-royal-mail

Canadians are lousy savers, apparently:

http://www.financialpost.com/opinio...alling+short+savings+front/4761344/story.html


----------



## jamesbe

Why is it that everyone I talk to does save? hmmm...


----------



## andrewf

Wow. That makes me feel better about my saving habits. I save close to the national annual average each month.

On the other hand, it means there are going to be many poor seniors who will have spent all their money as soon as they got in during their working years, and will rely on the generosity of others in their retirement. It makes it harder for me to argue against a larger mandatory CPP (at least a higher replacement rate on exist YMPE, not an increase in YMPE).


----------



## MoneyGal

It's an interesting conundrum. Canada has one of the lowest old-age poverty rates in the OECD, but much higher population poverty rates than other OECD countries. This is one of those situations in which I think average data is likely very misleading. 

(My data source: http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/osfi/index_e.aspx?ArticleID=4355 - see the presentation slides)

Editing to add that it is hard to know from the linked article how much Canadians are saving. I don't know how "saving" was defined. When a surveyor asks you if you are saving money, do you think of your CPP contributions, your mortgage payments, your work group RRSP or pension plan (if you have one) in those categories? Or is this...just money in the bank? If it is the latter, I don't save either and I do not think you can make a rational argument for "savings" defined in that way in this interest rate environment. 

Back to my initial point: Canada actually has a relatively high population poverty rate among its peers in the OECD. If you are working, though, you are making retirement savings in the form of CPP. And if you are poor/have low income, your income replacement rate in retirement is actually likely to be quite high via CPP + OAS + GIS in whatever combination.


----------



## brad

MoneyGal said:


> It's an interesting conundrum. Canada has one of the lowest old-age poverty rates in the OECD, but much higher population poverty rates than other OECD countries.


Also, in the United States (and I assume Canada as well), the proportion of the older adult population living in poverty has been declining since the 1970s, but because the older adult population is growing the actual number of elders living in poverty is increasing. It'll be interesting to see how these trends play out as more and more baby boomers join the 65+ age demographic. The growth rate of the older adult population in the US is expected to double over the next 20 years; elders currently account for 13% of the US population but are projected to account for 20 percent by 2040. I'm assuming the projections for Canada are likely to be similar but I don't have a source for the data.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Brad makes a good point about % of seniors in poverty vs. actual numbers.

Couple of factors at play.
In both the US and Canada, the number of people at or approaching retirement with guaranteed defined benefit pensions has been falling steadily.
This problem is worse in the US than in Canada, but we are trending towards the same.

Secondly, and as a result of the above, there is increasing transfer of wealth from the younger generations to the older.
The younger generations are struggling more and more with several crushing factors:
- high mortgages, thanks to an insane RE market in both US (until 2007) and still here in Canada
- rising cost of education (student loans)
- punitive high taxes (already in Canada, coming soon to the US)
- rising cost of raising kids
- consumer products driven peer pressure (latest gadgets, vehicles, etc.)

No one wants seniors to rot in poverty, obviously.
But this is coming at the cost of transfering wealth from the younger, working generation to the older generation.

Problem is going to get worse with defined benefit pensions going the way of the Oozlum bird.
Given the rate of savings of the current generation that we are seeing in the above reports, when this generation is nearing retirement, more and more inter-generation transfers will be required to keep them out of poverty.
And thus it becomes a vicious cycle.


----------



## MoneyGal

The source is the one I linked - a report from the Chief Actuary of the CPP, released today. 

Here's the thing though: while actual numbers of seniors living in poverty may be increasing, unless population-wide poverty levels improve in Canada, then non-seniors (as a group) will tend to fare more poorly than seniors (as a group). 

Aging populations tend to concentrate wealth in the elderly, for a whole bunch of reasons. 

In fact, poorer individuals and families can actually see increases in wealth and income as they age to 65 and beyond, as they begin to access public pensions.


----------



## andrewf

OAS should go away, as it's a terribly inefficient way of reducing poverty. With CPP you're largely self-funding your own retirement, with little in the way of transfers between people (biggest transfer seems to be men to women, on average). OAS involves a large transfer from current working-age population to existing retirees as a sort of PAYGO pension. This is not much of an anti-poverty measure, since much of the OAS benefits go to middle class to upper-middle class retirees. These people should be self-funding their retirements through private savings. CPP should be sufficient to ensure high lifetime income seniors don't require GIS, and GIS should be sufficient to ensure low to no-CPP seniors don't live in poverty. The system we have now is a mess. It works, in large part, but it strikes me as very costly and wasteful. 

Of course, there are questions of equity in eliminating/phasing out OAS. This is the problem with new entitlements--easy to enter into, hard to exit.


----------



## KaeJS

What I don't understand is that I save, save, save.

I have always been frugal -- and yet, I look around and people have way more stuff/more expensive crap than I do! 

I think because my parents were poor, I'm automatically going to be poor. That's the only conclusion I can draw.

I work with a 25 year old guy who drives a $47,000 car. He just bought it brand new a couple months ago. But I also know his salary is only $33,000.

So, after tax, he bought a car that will cost him 2 years of his salary?

What about gas and insurance? What about maintenance? A home? Retirement? Investing? A new car after that one gets old? When he crashes it and gets screwed? Children? What about living?

How in the hell does this make any sense?

This is the most frustrating and stressful thing in my entire life. I will probably die prematurely due to stuff like this.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Actually Kae, I think you answered your own question. That car probably has his disposable income down to ZERO and he probably lives at home or with roomates and eats Kraft Dinner. We've heard the expression house poor but what about car poor? There are homeless people down in some US inner cities with fancy Cadillacs but no home.

The difference between him and you is you are pacing yourself and trying to do everything right. He's focused his energy and desires into his car.

That's my guess. Keep up what you are doing. Cars don't go for longer than 5-10 years. Go and visit a scrapyard and you'll see what I mean. Most of the cars aren't old at all.


----------



## canadiancanuck

KaeJS said:


> How in the hell does this make any sense?
> 
> This is the most frustrating and stressful thing in my entire life. I will probably die prematurely due to stuff like this.


Why do you care? You should be stress free in comparison. You can't controll what other people buy. For all you know he had a windfall, which still I agree is not the smartest way to spend an inheiritance, but if you let stuff like that eat you up you're going to be angry all the time.


----------



## Plugging Along

carverman said:


> I see you like other kinds of old "vintage".
> 
> You are lucky so far, the reliability of these $10 MIC (made in Chia) dvd players is directly proportional to the amount used. If you only use them occassionally as in summer months, they will last 2x as long.


I like lots of vintage things... that includes the wines too... I was being serious that I didn't think that my TV was that old. I went to my parents house the other day, and they still had the tv from the 70's. I thought that was old. 



the-royal-mail said:


> Actually, renting or buying DVDs has been a peaceful Godsend for me. I can watch the shows whenever I want, in their entirety and not have to tolerate commercial interruptions and other advertising. I get a lot of use out of my DVDs and I only buy movies and TV episodes that I really like. So I have a small collection and it gets a lot of use. Movies shown on TV get edited and chopped and shortened and saturated with commercials.


We have an expensive dvd player that was given to us as a gift (I think they paid $600+ at the time, it's from 98/99 also. However, to be honest we don't really watch dvds very often at all. Right now, it's only for the kids on occasion, and we usually PVR all our shows to get through the commercials. For me, the PVR was the best thing and well worth the price, as its replaced our dvd player pretty much. 



jamesbe said:


> Why is it that everyone I talk to does save? hmmm...


My theory is people tend to hang out with people that are similar. Those that don't save, usually don't talk about it very much, or they lie. The other reason is that different people have different ideas of what 'saving' means. We know someone who 'saves' by going only on trips that cost them under $1500/person (sometimes up to 4/5 times a year). They consider themselves really frugal. They have a government pension for the future.

I know other people who are 'saving' for their next big whatever. I think savings is all in the eye of the beholder from their reference point. I know a few multimillionaires who are spenders and don't really believe in savings, because they just have investments always coming in, but they don't put any more aside for retirement, they just spend less than what comes in. 



KaeJS said:


> What I don't understand is that I save, save, save.
> 
> I have always been frugal -- and yet, I look around and people have way more stuff/more expensive crap than I do!
> 
> *I think because my parents were poor, I'm automatically going to be poor. *That's the only conclusion I can draw.
> 
> I work with a 25 year old guy who drives a $47,000 car. He just bought it brand new a couple months ago. But I also know his salary is only $33,000.
> 
> So, after tax, he bought a car that will cost him 2 years of his salary?
> 
> What about gas and insurance? What about maintenance? A home? Retirement? Investing? A new car after that one gets old? When he crashes it and gets screwed? Children? What about living?
> 
> How in the hell does this make any sense?
> 
> *This is the most frustrating and stressful thing in my entire life. I will probably die prematurely due to stuff like this*.


I used to see things similarily to you too. I just assumed that if I had no debt that everyone else was like me too. I assumed that everyone else just had more money than me. I often wonder how so many people appear to be doing so much better than us, and I just assumed that people made more than me all the time. The truth is, that many of the people that appear to be better off may have more things, but are much less secure. They don't worry about all the other things that you mentioned, as they will just charge it or deal with it when it happens. Then something bad happens and they are the victim because how can they be dealt such a lousy hand  and can't get ahead. It is frustrating to watch this, so I just ignore it, and set my own goals, and decided to live the life I want to have, and make it happen.

There really is no reason to get stressed over something you can't control. You don't know the whole story, and how does someone over spending really impact you.

BTW... my parents came here with nothing, and would be considered 'poor' by our standards, but they had a great work ethic, some smarts, and would no longer be considered poor. Nor are any of my siblings and I.


----------



## Four Pillars

Plugging Along said:


> For me, the PVR was the best thing and well worth the price, as its replaced our dvd player pretty much.


The PVR is one of the greatest inventions of all time.


----------



## Dmoney

KaeJS said:


> What I don't understand is that I save, save, save.
> 
> I have always been frugal -- and yet, I look around and people have way more stuff/more expensive crap than I do!
> 
> I think because my parents were poor, I'm automatically going to be poor. That's the only conclusion I can draw.
> 
> I work with a 25 year old guy who drives a $47,000 car. He just bought it brand new a couple months ago. But I also know his salary is only $33,000.


While in school I worked evenings and weekends to pay for tuition and had a co-worker in a similar situation. He works his *** off all summer and throughout the school year to put himself through school. The big difference between us is that he has an iPhone 4, iPad 2, $200 headphones, $200 sunglasses, expensive clothes and any other toy you can imagine. 

Both of us have immigrant parents who worked their asses off to get to where they are, but there is a huge difference in our attitudes towards money. My parents saved up in the 70s, living on one income while saving the other, and were able to buy a house with cash in 1981. To a large extent I have adopted their attitude towards money. I have a phone that was out of style 8 years ago and none of these fancy gadgets, but I have an investment portfolio approaching 40K and steadily growing.

It's a tradeoff, and down the line you'll be much better off than the guy blowing two year's salary on a car. I don't need the newest gadget because in 3 months it will be replaced and cost a fraction of what it first did. My co-worker however, will never have money because the more he makes, the more he spends.


----------



## donald

You got to remember,the "guy" thats working for a car for the next 2 yrs,doesnt "see what you see" nor does he care to,your thoughts on money and his thoughts on money are different-you see,and can foresee what kind of problems he is setting him self up for,your viewing his decisions from your perspective,he doesnt have your view point.(your thoughts are not his thoughts and vice versa)

Plus,id bet you have high standards for yourself,and have high self confidence and self worth-hence your investments ect,your stragies on how your going to build them ect,thats kind of how i think about it....im not a whole lot older than you but we are on the right path,i like your chances over his for growing your assets,nest egg ect.20 yrs from now that guy will prob be telling his kids what an idiot he was when he was 25 and bought a car for a 2 yr salary.Like everybody says the only person you can control is you,its actualy a weakness in you if your jelous,because you know better not to be,but you are if that makes sense...i struggle with comparing myself to others to and it one thing im working on,self improvment is hard.


----------



## I'm Howard

Dmoney, you could be my younger Brother, when He dies his Daughter will inherit several millions of dollars.


----------



## Dmoney

I'm Howard said:


> Dmoney, you could be my younger Brother, when He dies his Daughter will inherit several millions of dollars.


Good for her, as long as it doesn't destroy her will to make it on her own. I think my favourite philosophy and quote about inheriting money is from Warren Buffett... "Leave your kids enough to do anything, but not enough to do nothing"

I used to think I'd love to inherit millions, or win a huge lottery, but I now feel that being gifted huge sums of money is not nearly as fulfilling as earning it yourself.

Although at the same time, I wouldn't say no to either...


----------



## Jon_Snow

I think alot of the time it is a conscious decision about how you want to live your life. My wife and I choose to save 4 -5k per month instead of "living it up". Part of me yearns to buy a 60k Audi (I am a car guy), a big house with a pool and a hot tub, and honestly we COULD... but we have chosen not to pursue that lifestyle. Simple as that. It is either live like "millionaires" with all the trappings and work until 65 or beyond to pay for it all, or live a good (but not flashy) life and retire in our forties with actual "millions" in the bank. Needless to say we are shooting for the latter.


----------



## sags

Seems like a simple rationale to me.

Not enough income = no savings + increasing debt loads.

If the economy is to continue growing, wages have to keep up with inflation.

On an inflation adjusted basis, people can buy less goods with their money today than they could 20 years ago.

Take away the opportunity to borrow against future earnings, which is all that debt is, and the economy would have collapsed a long time ago.

The government knew this, and that is exactly why they lowered barriers to credit.

Unless wages go up dramatically, there are only two ways it can go.

Personal debt will continue to rise, or spending will stop and the economy will slow down.


----------



## bmckay

I agree with a lot of what has been said in this thread. 

In general, I believe that people need to take responsibility for themselves and not complain when they are "broke" or in debt, yet continue to eat at restaurants everyday, buy the Ipad2, buy a car instead of taking the bus, etc.

The people with the mentality I have suggested are the most financially secure.

"ohhhh but everyone else is getting the Ipad2". 

lol


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> If the economy is to continue growing, wages have to keep up with inflation.


But that is not always the case. Gov't can meddle with this by imposing
wage freezes..or like McGinty giving the Ont civil service a 1% wage hiike
over the next 2 years, when the real rate of inflation )(gasoline, heating/
electricity/insurance/food) is closer to 5% annually.



> On an inflation adjusted basis, *people can buy less goods *with their money today than they could 20 years ago.


True is some cases, but not in others. Some consumer goods are actually
cheaper today (made in China) than they were 20 years ago..but items
that are still manufactured in NA will cost more...ie: cars. 

Now a hypothetical question ..is that 2011 model of car a better buy
for the current inflated value of the Cdn dollar than it was 20 years ago?
In other words, removing actual depreciation out of the equation,
is the 2011 model you are buying today, the same value (bang for the buck)
than a 1981 comparable model you were buying then? 



> Take away the opportunity to borrow against future earnings, which is all that debt is, and the economy would have collapsed a long time ago.


Access to credit is what keeps the economy going...while on paper, the
self worth may be more today than 20 years ago..subtract one's debt from
equity,and you arrive at true self worth..which in some cases is negative.



> The government knew this, and that is exactly why they lowered barriers to credit.


Government self interest here. In order to bring in tax dollars and stimulate
the economy through consumer purchases (or gov't stimulus spending), 
credit has to be readily available..even if borrowed against the future. 



> Unless wages go up dramatically, there are only two ways it can go.
> Personal debt will continue to rise, or spending will stop and the economy will slow down.


The economy goes through cycles of growth and recession. As soon as
interest rates and commodities rise, that puts a damper on consumer
spending and the economy starts to slow down.

The current rise in oil prices (for an oil based economy) will have an 
effect within a given time to slow down spending and if prolonged
slowdown in consumer spending occurs, a mini-recession or possibly
a full one can occur.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Update:
*Household debt reaches record $1.5 trillion*

_According to the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, Canadian household debt has reached a record $1.5 trillion, and calculates that more than half of indebted Canadians are borrowing just to afford day-to-day living expenses such as food, housing and transportation._

http://www.680news.com/news/nationa...ut-household-debt-reaches-record-1-5-trillion

There seems to be a suggestion in that news report that somehow the ballooning household debt is influencing the BoC's decision to keep interest rates low, to avoid bankrupcies and ensuing a US-style housing collapse.

Not sure how true that is, if it is, they are simply compounding the problem.
The clear message in this article is that it's ok to have high consumer debt because interest rates are low and the govt. will keep it low for next year or longer.
So it's ok to spend like crazy.


----------



## umpatan

carverman said:


> Most families are stretched to the limit to put anything away in savings accts.
> Our parents were still able to do that because even though the wages were
> lower in those years, so was the cost of living and generally speaking one
> parent stayed home to raise the kids. Today with the increased cost and
> taxes heaped on the working poor, that is not as common. Two parents
> have to work and the kids are left to their own resources.."latchkey" kids.
> 
> I find it amusing that Harper is crowing about increasing the TFSA from 5K
> to 10K in...again 4 years time from his re-election. What a joke!
> Most families are struggling and dont find enough to put in 5K TFSA,
> let alone a 10K!
> Is this writing on the wall that universality for government benefits is not
> sustainable in the future..and more people are expected to be on their own?
> 
> Look what's happening in the CPP changes. Now you can actually OPT OUT!


Harper is raising the TFSA to 10K to help out the rich. See if anyone making $12.00 an hour is able to put anything into a TFSA let alone RRSPs. This TFSA is only another ploy the conservative government is using to bail out the Rich to help weasle out of paying income taxes on their investment portfolios, as they have to keep paying income taxes on the capital gains of their non registered mutual fund accounts. (Keep in mind that you have to save 18% of your gross income plus $5,000 in TFSAs before you even have to worry about having non registered investment accounts). Even those making $45,000 a year would be hard pressed to contribute to a TFSA even if they are single. I would like to see the NDP governemnt scrap the TFSA and just give a cheque to low income Canadians for $500 instead. Worrying about paying income taxes on dividends or capital gains of mutual fund distributions, and worrying about the 200 day moving averages is all a "bourgeois headache" from someone making $12 to 18 an hour.


----------



## Jon_Snow

This is the first I've heard of this TFSA news. For real?


----------



## Dmoney

umpatan said:


> I would like to see the NDP governemnt scrap the TFSA and just give a cheque to low income Canadians for $500 instead.


I'd hate to see the NDP elected because they'd be likely to do just that. How is giving a chunk of the population money going to solve the problem of the government not having enough money?


----------



## HaroldCrump

Jon_Snow said:


> This is the first I've heard of this TFSA news. For real?


I believe the proposal was that TFSA contribution limit will be raised to $10K _once the deficit is eliminated_, expected to be 2015 - 2016.
I don't think it's happening, so no need to hold your breath.


----------



## carverman

umpatan said:


> Harper is raising the TFSA to 10K to help out the rich. Worrying about paying income taxes on dividends or capital gains of mutual fund distributions, and *worrying about the 200 day moving averages is all a "bourgeois headache" from someone making $12 to 18 an hour*.


I make $0 per hour and solely dependent on my gov't
for pension income... and what is left of the underfunded Nortel pension plan. 
Now I must admit. that if I take my yearly gross income and divide it by 1924 (yearly) working hours (37 hr
avg work week x 52 weeks... when I worked at Nortel), it would work out to approx $17.67 an hour( in my current retirement income)..and I still manage to pay income taxes, property taxes, HST and save $100 to $300 a month in my TFSA.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> I believe the proposal was that TFSA contribution limit will be raised to $10K _once the deficit is eliminated_, expected to be 2015 - 2016.
> I don't think it's happening, so no need to hold your breath.


Not happening in Canada, anytime soon you say?......Pity!

I seriously doubt that with the Harper gov'ts curremt spending agenda..that the deficit will be eliminated in 3-4 years.

It certainly would be nice..but before that date comes around some "creative accounting" could be in the works for a "smoke and mirrors" illusion created by the Harper gov't to hide the fact that the deficit still exists,
and infact may be rising...the superjets, superjails, corporate tax cuts and less jobs available in a economy that is not growing as well as the BOC or the gov't is predicting.

With Auditor General Sheila Fraser gone now, and the guy
that the Harper gov't hired to replace her..well lets say..
if you believe anything they say now..there might be
some "prime development land" in a Florida swamp that
you might be interested in investing in...


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Update:
> *Household debt reaches record $1.5 trillion*
> So it's ok to spend like crazy.


Consumer spending stimulates the economy, Harold.

If the "younger generation" today, just salted as much as they could in savings,as "our parents", the economy could in fact enter a serious recession and possibly collapse. 

Spending, especially piling on the credit card debt, just defers the inevitable..that at some point..the Canadian consumer has to "pay the piper"!

I have only major CC (and a Home Depot cc ...and I only use the H-D card for the 1 year deferred payment deals). 
I use my PCMC for all my purchases..including groceries, because I get PCMC points for each dollar I spend with my CC on groceries at Loblaws.

However, it never ceases to amaze me that if one decides to just make the minimum monthly, instead of paying it off at before the due date like I do, it would take many years to pay off roughly $1000.00 at the $20 minimum monthly payment... because of high CC interest and interest compounding. 

On my last online MC statement (interest 19.97%) it said that for a balance of $937.xx and the minimum monthly payment of $20.61....

*" it will take approximately 18 yrs, and 2 months to repay the amount shown on the statement" *($937.xx)..

..and that is provided, there are no further purchases charged against it.

Imagine how long it would take me, if I ran the card up to my credit limit of $9300?..

Heck, I wouldn't live long enough to pay it back if I paid only the monthly minimum...


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Consumer spending stimulates the economy, Harold.
> 
> If the "younger generation" today, just salted as much as they could in savings,as "our parents", the economy could in fact enter a serious recession and possibly collapse.


That is not true.
Our modern bourgeois media and financial industry has sold us on the concept of extreme consumerism.
It is held above our heads like the sword of Damocles..._shop till you drop, or else face recession_.
And thus we spend like zombies and go deeper and deeper into debt.
Not just individuals, but governments too.
As we can see all around the world - developed, emerging and underdeveloped.

Fact is that savings (individual as well as aggregate) is what fuels capital investment, which in turn, generates future growth.
The capital investments lead to innovation and improvements in the efficiency of factors of production, such as machinery, technology etc.
Aggregate savings are also required to invest in the superstructure of the economy, such as infrastructure, health care, etc.

I just don't buy this whole "shop till you drop or else.." blackmail.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Ditto!

Nice avatar Harold.


----------



## Causalien

KaeJS said:


> What I don't understand is that I save, save, save.
> 
> I have always been frugal -- and yet, I look around and people have way more stuff/more expensive crap than I do!
> 
> I think because my parents were poor, I'm automatically going to be poor. That's the only conclusion I can draw.
> 
> I work with a 25 year old guy who drives a $47,000 car. He just bought it brand new a couple months ago. But I also know his salary is only $33,000.
> 
> So, after tax, he bought a car that will cost him 2 years of his salary?
> 
> What about gas and insurance? What about maintenance? A home? Retirement? Investing? A new car after that one gets old? When he crashes it and gets screwed? Children? What about living?
> 
> How in the hell does this make any sense?
> 
> This is the most frustrating and stressful thing in my entire life. I will probably die prematurely due to stuff like this.



In a few years KaeJS, you'll be in my shoes.


----------



## petea4

HaroldCrump said:


> Fact is that savings (individual as well as aggregate) is what fuels capital investment, which in turn, generates future growth.
> The capital investments lead to innovation and improvements in the efficiency of factors of production, such as machinery, technology etc.
> Aggregate savings are also required to invest in the superstructure of the economy, such as infrastructure, health care, etc.


I don't think that is the case today. Why are so many companies sitting on cash? Why are they not reinvesting it on their workforce to spread the wealth as it used to be not to long ago?


----------



## Jungle

KaeJS have you read the Millionaire Next Door? He describes how people spend all their money on multiple cars, vacations, massives homes, boats, shopping trips etc, and appear to be rich, don't really have any money, as it was all paid with consumption and debt.


----------



## carverman

petea4 said:


> I don't think that is the case today. Why are so many companies sitting on cash? Why are they not reinvesting it on their workforce to spread the wealth as it used to be not to long ago?


Well speaking from my Nortel experience ("too big to fail") it's easy to get over your head if you commit too much cash to a technology where the the market isn't ready yet.

In the 70s, Nortel developed DMS switching technolgy. Nortel made a killing on new digital telephone switching technology when their timing to market was just right in the 80s, when the "Baby Bells" in the US, Bell Canada and other provincial telcos were realizing that they needed to invest huge capital in the new technology, and scrap the old analog switching gear..dial sets and push button digitone sets. 

That was not the case though, when they ramped up investment in internet provider systems, and new fiber technolgy (high speed information pipes) in 2000.
Although there were talks with CISCO on merging the technolgy and second sourcing, instead of combining forces with CISCO, who already had the technology developed and were very successful selling their routers...Nortel decided (in a headstrong CEO move) to buy their own router technology to compete with CISCO at a cost of.. 9 billion US! (Bay Networks). 

That decision was the start of the "beginning of the end" for Nortel-Networks ( name change resulting from combining NORthern TELecom and Bay NETWORKS). 

At the beginning of the new millenium there was a lot of customer backlash on that decision, because most already had CISCO routers, and were hesitant to introduce a second equipment line into their infrastructure...then the recession hit.

Nortel didn't have a crystal ball to see 5 years into the
future on how the changing economic times would
stack up against them. Starting in 2001, their business
took a downturn because the cost of borrowing venture
capital by their customers had also changed, so the telephone operating companies (Telcos) started to put off, cancel or reschedule orders. This put the over expanded and overstressed communications manufacturer (Nortel) into a *serious cash flow situation*..resulting in the new CEO to "cook the books", to make Nortel's profitability reports and stock market guidance appear much better than it actually was.

Speaking from the Nortel sad history, *you HAVE to have cash reserves on hand to pay the bills in a downturn in the economy, *and you really can't count on future orders until they are received and the customer has the cash to pay for them. 
*CISCO sat on their cash reserves*, didn't stretch
themselves thin in overexpansion and so they are still
in business today! Cash reserves are equivalent to
your own rainy day savings.


----------



## Uranium101

I am heavily in debt right now. 150% of my pre-deducted annual salary with interest rate around prime + 2.
100% of the interest is tax deductible though. It is not a mortgage.

I owed $0 for all my life up until the 2008-2009 recession.
Luckily I worked at a recession proof company. Although the pay was $10k below market, I was able to hang on to that job. After knowing my job was safe, I went out and borrowed extensively to fund my stock purchasing program.
I didn't sell any stocks even though they have gave me around 150% return in just 2 years. I repaid most of the loan with dividends and bi-weekly salary.

I borrowed more back in August 2010, and August 2011 to fund my desire of buying on bargains. I didn't buy exactly on the lows though. I went through hellholes (nightmares) when stocks dropped a lot lower than what i have thought they couldn't go lower.

It is good to be in debt, as long as you know when it's the right time. And knowing the things you purchased. I did not go into debt to buy clothes, houses, cars like most people do.

Once I pay off my current debt, and if I do not see anymore buying opportunities, I will go out and get a new car. My current car is 11 years old after all. Hopefully, my dividend income is enough to finance the monthly payments and insurance. Oh, every interest I've incurred are tax deductible.


----------



## HaroldCrump

petea4 said:


> I don't think that is the case today. Why are so many companies sitting on cash? Why are they not reinvesting it on their workforce to spread the wealth as it used to be not to long ago?


Both of your questions are related.
The reason companies are not investing is twofold - (a) economic uncertainities, esp. in emerging markets and (b) low RoR.
Companies will invest only when both conditions are favorable.
This is where fiscal policy comes into play.
This is the perfect opportunity for governments to invest in the economic superstructure such as infrastructure, health care, financial regulation, technology, etc.
And the govt. should get that by encouraging people to save and provide a reasonable RoR on the savings.

I don't buy this extreme opinion peddled by the media that you have to shop till you drop...and that is our foremost duty as citizens to keep the economy going.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> I don't buy this extreme opinion peddled by the media that you have to shop till you drop...and that is our foremost duty as citizens to keep the economy going.


Consumers keep the country's economy afloat by "spending money they don't got"!

- CC are the modern provision for convenience shopping..you want that article..just feed your plastic into the POS (point of sale) terminal, hit the "yes" button, sign the CC receipt, and you are out the door a happy customer to enjoy the article you bought NOW, instead of having to save for it, then run to the bank for the cash.
(Most merchants will not longer accept cheques due to fears of NSF).

- Gov'ts (fed/provincial) get huge tax revenue from the purchase of consumer goods and services...if the consumer isn't buying, the gov'ts are getting tax revenue either.

- banks..can capitalize on the 20% interest charged on CC and, store cards can capitalize even more..
...you buy that article at Sears, you are probably paying Sears close to 30% in interest. (I mention "close to"
because there are some rules CC related rules the gov't has written in on CC interest. At 30% (or more) interest charged, the gov't feels that would be equivalent to 
"usury"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_percentage_rate

- consumer spending keeps the chinese factories rolling and big box/dept/small business in business..in fact
everyone takes CC..the lawyer, the dentist..the baker
the candlestick maker....

So who is the victim here? Everyone is happy when the consumer spends. Except the finally tally on how much the consumer debt load has increased.

Lose that job..source of income and all of a sudden..it's financial disaster for those individual(s).


----------



## KaeJS

carverman said:


> you want that article..just feed your plastic into the POS (point of sale) terminal, hit the "yes" button, sign the CC receipt, and you are out the door a happy customer


That was clever.

And, I don't think people should be allowed to declare bankruptcy.

If you're a company - it's a bit of a different story. But, personal bankruptcy? I just don't think that's very fair, to anyone.

Either way, people need to spend.

The wolves need the sheep to provide the food.
Just the same as the intelligent people need the dumb ones to keep their pockets lined with moolah.


----------



## hboy43

KaeJS said:


> The wolves need the sheep to provide the food.
> Just the same as the intelligent people need the dumb ones to keep their pockets lined with moolah.


Very Darwinian observation. Likely accurate too.

hboy43


----------



## andrewf

What if they owe an amount they could never repay? Indentured servitude? Off to the salt mines?


----------



## jcgd

They should have to carry it till the day they die. It seems unreasonable, but they put themselves in that position.


----------



## the-royal-mail

No one wants to say no to their kids and no one wants to do without. That's the problem these days. Yes, there are a few (mostly concentrated in CMF) exceptions to this but the trend seems to be away from saving and proper management and more on shell games and debt to get 'stuff' no matter what.


----------



## crazyjackcsa

jcgd said:


> They should have to carry it till the day they die. It seems unreasonable, but they put themselves in that position.


 That's a sweeping generalization if ever I saw one. Is the system abused? Sure, but all systems are. There are many legitimate reasons a person or family would need to claim Bankruptcy. And it isn't the magic "get out of jail free card" many think it is.

My sister had to claim bankruptcy. She didn't want too, her deadbeat husband (who is now her deadbeat exhusband) led the family down the road with terrible spending habits.

But looking at the facts, it was really the only thing she could do.

That was going on six years ago. She still has to deal with it, prepaid credit card rules, higher interest rates on borrowing, a whole mess of things.


----------



## Dmoney

crazyjackcsa said:


> My sister had to claim bankruptcy. She didn't want too, her deadbeat husband (who is now her deadbeat exhusband) led the family down the road with terrible spending habits.


But why should her deadbeat husband be let off the hook? Agreed that people need accountability for their actions. 

We already have it much better than in the US where the leading cause of bankruptcy is due to medical expenses. Those are the people I feel for.


----------



## jcgd

Yes, it was sweeping, but I was referring to the person who is actually responsible. The husband in that case. 

Speaking of medical expenses, it is absolutely disgusting how much they charge for stuff. Charge an arm and a leg for what hurts/ kills you... not keeps you alive.


----------



## KaeJS

Causalien said:


> In a few years KaeJS, you'll be in my shoes.


I hope this is a good thing. 



Jungle said:


> KaeJS have you read the Millionaire Next Door? He describes how people spend all their money on multiple cars, vacations, massives homes, boats, shopping trips etc, and appear to be rich, don't really have any money, as it was all paid with consumption and debt.


Haven't read it, yet. I know the general premise of the book, though.

My plan is to hit 50 and then acquire as much debt as possible, then take the back door out of the world. I'll stuff $10k under my mattress for my funeral. 



andrewf said:


> What if they owe an amount they could never repay? Indentured servitude? Off to the salt mines?


Too bad. So sad.

Not my problem.

Sounds a lot like my favourite line I hate to hear "But you/they have money."

It doesn't matter who has money. What matters is that each individual is responsible for themselves.

If you owe it, you owe it. Pay it.


----------



## carverman

KaeJS said:


> And, I don't think people should be allowed to declare bankruptcy.


Easy access to LOTS of credit leads to financial mismanagement and getting over your head very quickly, if you are not able to pay off the monthly balance on each CC. 

Having more than 1 CC with limits over $1K is begging for personal financial disaster..unless, of course, you practice
frugality/"safe CC" (I like that word!), and common sense.
I only have 1 CC master card issued by my bank PC Financial. 

In all the years I've had it.they have never made a penny off me in interest... and I'm sure they regard me as "black sheep in their herd"...but according to my implied CC agreement, if I pay the balance in full within the 20
day grace period..they can't charge me any interest. 

If everyone practiced "safe CC use" ,
the FAT BANKERS/(wolves in sheep's clothing) would not be as rich as they are today..at least not from CC use..but alas..that is not the case today...".here sheep!...sheep!..look what nice shiny new CC's we have for you today..c'mon.."it's free"..just take it!" 

Easy credit access can lead to abuse..especially around Xmas time.. 
ie:."hey..Future Shop/Best Buy is having a sale on something..*WOW!.."50 inch flat screen with Home theatre for $1699!!!*..but I don't have a dollar left in my bank acct right now..but OTOH... those DVD action movies/HNIC (hockey night in Canada) games would look SOOOO GOOD during those long Canadian winter nights..
oh what the hey!.."I'll use my FutureShop CC card, get 90 days interest /payment free and worry about it later".

And this is the way it's going these days..car dealers also offer huge incentives at end of year model sales.."no money?..no problemo"..just give us $500 down on your plastic, "*sign here*" (on the financing plan offered),
we will give you "zero interest" financing for 4 years (or whatever)..naturally....
WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THE REST...and yes..why NOT?.. drive away tomorrow..in your SHINY NEW VEHICLE as
a Christmas present to your self (selves).

SEARS/THE BAY/CTC/HOME DEPOT/LOWES..affliation CCs with customer perks offered..."Buy now..hurry! hurry!
Don't wait a minute longer..and deny yourselves gratification...use your <insert store card here>
and get double..limited time offer: triple <store card points>on your purchase right now..and a chance to qualify for a free vacation...and we'll let you even take your spouse/GF/mother-in-law with you...so she can't say over SKYPE..
"I'm watching you Carl !!!!"
Now is THAT A DEAL OR WHAT????

"Baa! Baa CC sheep.."Where are those "CC offering Lil BoPeep's" that don sheep's clothing and lie down amongst the "consumer lambs" awaiting them to fatten up the BoPeep's wallets"... and the inevitable financial slaughter?" 

On my monthly statement last month, PC MC had to disclose the facts of borrowing at their CC interest rates (19.97%)

I had a balance of $9378.xx. My state read."if you choose to pay only the MINIMUM MONTHLY BALANCE (approx $20 in this case), *IT WILL TAKE YOU 18 YEARS AND 2 MONTHS TO PAY OFF THIS BALANCE!*
(That I should live so long!)

Baaaaaa! Baa! I'm just a stray sheep wandering off from the flock.....I guess...



> Either way, people need to spend.


It's the way capitalizm works Kaejs.
The Chinese, (under Chairman Mao), tried a different route..the communist system...they were riding bicycles
to work for 50 years, instead of Japanese/Chinese made cars. They were eating a bowl of rice back then and
wearing "communist issue boiler suits" instead of
banker's bowler hat/3 piece suit and eating sushi like they are now. The Chinese have embraced capitalism in a big way...and the world economies are starting crack at the
seams.

Here's an attempt at explanation of political ideologies:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081115030339AAHv701



> The wolves need the sheep to provide the food.
> Just the same as the intelligent people need the dumb ones to keep their pockets lined with moolah.


...and the *gap between the haves and havenots keeps getting bigger* and bigger...triggering dissention amongst the sheep.."OCCUPY X "movement"..Baaa!

BAaaa...Here sheep! Here sheep..get yur free credit cards and go and spend, stop wasting your time protesting against *something you can't change anyway*.


----------



## OptsyEagle

The problem, all the people miss, is that in a capitalistic ecomony, there always has to be a very large number of people with almost nothing. If you gave them a whack of money, they would bid up the prices of all the things they need, and hence spend it all and presto...they are back to having nothing.

It is an economic law. The best a person can do is to improve their income and net worth, while others reduce theirs.

I didn't make this rule, but that is the way it is. If you want to improve their lot, you need to make the entire economic output grow, and this is best done by giving tax benefits to the corporations and the rich. Of course poor people cannot fathom this, so thier poverty will continue. 

I wish it could be changed, but it cannot.


----------



## HaroldCrump

OptsyEagle said:


> The problem, all the people miss, is that in a capitalistic ecomony, there always has to be a very large number of people with almost nothing.


Good point, that behavior is inherent in the Labor Theory of Value.
Even the classical economists like Ricardo and neo classics like Keynes admit it when they talk about _normal rate of unemployment_.



> If you want to improve their lot, you need to make the entire economic output grow, and this is best done by giving tax benefits to the corporations and the rich.


That doesn't work either.
Well, it does, but not in the way it is expected to.
This was the premise of the Thatcher-ism "trickle down effect".
But it hasn't panned out at all.

What has happened, however, is over a period of decades the _absolute_ levels of poverty - at least in the developed and emerging world - has reduced.
The _relative_ poverty has increased.

The gains towards absolute levels of poverty has mostly been a result of democratic capitalism, social welfare style of governance.
Left to itself, in its classical form, capitalism has no mechanism and ability to remove absolute poverty.


----------



## OptsyEagle

HaroldCrump said:


> Left to itself, in its classical form, capitalism has no mechanism and ability to remove absolute poverty.


It's even worse then that. 

Since capitalism is a system that directs wealth to those who earn it, and wealth by definition is simply the difference between the rich and the poor, you eventually see that you cannot have capitalism unless you have a lot of poor people. Without some poverty, capitalism doesn't work.

My point above about directing tax incentives and benefits to corporations and the rich, to improve the economies overall wealth, is more of a system that says, hey if we give the money to the poor, all they do is spend it all. Since that is inflationary, the more we give them, the more they will need. So instead, give it to the rich, let them create wealth, then take some of this new wealth from them and provide some benefits for the poor. It also gives even more incentive for the poor to produce. That is the only way it can work.

What we do now, is simply take it from the rich and give it to the poor and as I said, the absolute numbers of people, below the poverty level, will not change, but the rich will now be a little poorer and certainly a lot less likely to work harder. Well done!


----------



## the-royal-mail

Plus who in their right mind would choose to work if it wasn't necessary for their survival?

We would not work if the gov't would pay our way and business wouldn't be able to find and retain employees since they wouldn't put up with the BS they have to endure out of need for a job.


----------



## HaroldCrump

OptsyEagle said:


> Since capitalism is a system that directs wealth to those who earn it, and wealth by definition is simply the difference between the rich and the poor, you eventually see that you cannot have capitalism unless you have a lot of poor people. Without some poverty, capitalism doesn't work.


Who has _earned_ the wealth is indeed a profound question.
I don't think we can say clear as a bell that "capitalism is a system that directs wealth to those who earn it".
In fact, it might be the polar opposite.
i.e. capitalism is a very efficient system at appropriating the value from those that created it, and channeling it towards those that didn't.
Appropriation of labor surplus and allocating it to capital in the form of profit.

The entire history of capitalism since the earliest days of the industrial revolution is characterized by appropriating the value created by the workers.

These days, it is more indirect and the differences have been blurred because of the rise of the middle class, the working professionals, the technocracy and social democracy.

You are right on with the statement that "you cannot have capitalism unless you have a lot of poor people".
The reason it is right is not because capitalism endears the rich and condemns the poor.
It is because it is _necessary_ to appropriate the fruits of labor for capital formation.
And for ensuring the "normal rate of unemployment" in order to regulate business cycles.


----------



## carverman

KaeJS said:


> Haven't read it, yet. I know the general premise of the book, though.
> My plan is to hit 50 and then acquire as much debt as possible, then take the back door out of the world. I'll stuff $10k under my mattress for my funeral.


Smoke and mirrors? ...he who dies with the most toys..wins..because they
can't after you when you "exit stage left"?




> It doesn't matter who has money. What matters is that each individual is responsible for themselves. *If you owe it, you owe it*. Pay it.


It's more like:
"I owe, I owe..it's off the work I go..and so they do..but in a capitalistic society as we have here..you are definitely better off as a lender than a borrower. 

Invest it in something safe..like a first mortgage on a property, 
and you have a steady monthly income coming in for 20 odd years. 
That's how you get ahead..not by running up credit cards as most do.


----------



## londoncalling

In a sick and twisted way I am grateful that people fall into the credit card trap. Without the bankers getting fat on ridiculous interest rates and fees from these fools they wouldn't be able to get by on the already large fees they charge clients as customers using their institution for checking and savings accounts. I remember talking to some people in the UK a few years ago and they were astounded that we pay a bank to let us give them our money so they can lend it to others. At the time, I was amused and saw their point of view. Now that the Euro-mess has been going on I am not so sure that it is necessarily a bad thing. Regardless, I still cringe when I see my statements and the bank is taking money for nothing.


----------



## KaeJS

carverman said:


> *Smoke and mirrors? *...he who dies with the most toys..wins..because they
> can't after you when you "exit stage left"?


Smoke and Mirrors, exactly.

Just my little way of saying "Thank you" to the world. 

*london*

I don't want to be biased, but banks need to make money, too.

People demand branches in locations all over the place so that it is convenient for them to do banking. Branches cost a lot of money.

Nobody stops shopping at merchandising locations. Yet, these locations (WalMart, Canadian Tire, etc) are literally just ripping you off.

These companies receive product at price x and then sell it to you at price y.

They essentially do nothing except for offer a place of storage and convenience. This is what a branch does.

Merchandisers are in business to make money. So are banks.

And anyways, I know it doesnt "make it all better", but almost all banks have a monthly plan under $5 that can be waived with $1-1.5k in a chequing account. If you're smart with your money and know how to use it properly, you shouldn't even need more than the lowest plan they have to offer. You get your direct deposits, direct withdrawals, pay a few bills, and use a credit card for all of your purchases. You'd be lucky if you used up more than 5 transactions a month if you did it the way you're supposed to.


----------



## sags

I have heard lots of people say they don't worry about their debt.

They figure they will owe it for the rest of their lives, and just leave it when they leave this world.

It is probably going to be true for a lot of people.

My buddy died at age 62. He bought everything that everyone else had. He gambled and partied. He bought his home for 30,000 and owed 220,000 on it when he died. He owed another 70,000 in credit card and line of credit debt. He owed on a new car.

But then he died and everything was life insured.

His wife got the life insurance, his pension, the paid off home, the brand new car, and all the new stuff he had bought............all free and paid off.

Being in debt worked out well for her.......

It will be interesting to see how the life insurance companies deal with a life insured debt problem heading their way.............


----------



## carverman

londoncalling said:


> . Without the bankers getting fat on ridiculous interest rates and fees from these fools they wouldn't be able to get by on the already large fees they charge clients as customers using their institution for checking and savings accounts.


In a capitalist oriented society..profit IS the motivation to be in business..
and banks ARE in business to make OBSCENE PROFITS for themselves by setting up schemes to charge their clients service charges on just about everything..
like managing YOUR money for you.. and keeping it in a safe place..
...after all, your bank investments (unless you deliberately invest in mutual funds, where all bets are off on the yearly returns) are generally safe..you won't lose your life's
savings because over here the banks and the CDIC (Canada Deposit Insurance Fund), ensure that at least up to $100K LIMIT per individual...your money is definitely safer than stuffing it in a shoebox under your bed..

but for that comfort zone that your life savings are protected by the banks, they "stiff" you for service charges.

The Canadian Bankers, fat cats as they may be...are not quite as bad as the "Mr Potter" banker character on
"It's a Wonderful Life" being played just before Christmas
day and stars Jimmy Stewart.



> I remember talking to some people in the UK a few years ago and they were astounded that we pay a bank to let us give them our money so they can lend it to others. At the time, I was amused and saw their point of view. Now that the Euro-mess has been going on I am not so sure that it is necessarily a bad thing. Regardless, *I still cringe when I see my statements and the bank is taking money for nothing*.


"Londoncalling" (Isn't that a song by the CLASH now?)

(_London calling to the faraway towns
Now war is declared, and battle come down
London calling to the underworld
Come out of the cupboard, you boys and girls
London calling, now don't look to us
Phoney Beatlemania has bitten the dust
London calling, see we ain't got no swing
'Cept for the ring of that truncheon thing_).


Anyway...that's how it works in our western societies. 

The former "evil empire", as Ronald Regan (former US President called them), worked on a different ideology principle/plan (ie: communist 5 year plans)...everything the people (peasants/"worker bees") created/contributed in their endeavors, or the fruits of their labours, BELONGED TO THE STATE, not themselves...because their
land and monetary possessions WERE CONFISCATED
by the state!

The state then took most of the value of the goods and labour and used it to whatever purpose they wanted..like
building war materials during the cold war in the 60s/70s,
rather than build factories for manufacturing consumer
goods to better the lives of the "worker bees". 

STALIN during the early 30s..literally starved 8 million
Ukrainians to death, by confiscating their land and holdings, into the collective farm system..where huge state farms formed from the confiscated land owned by the peasants was almagamated into STATE OWNED COLLECTIVE FARMS and the peasants were forced to work there (or in state factories producing goods for the state...tanks, bombers, nuclear missles, war machines....

The peasants OTOH that contributed to the GDP of the state, got a tiny "survival allotment"..mostly small wages, NO PENSION PLANS, and a tiny bit of land for "the Dascha" (roof over your head) and a tiny plot for their vegetable garden to survive. 

The communist bosses and "communist mangement" oligarchy, took a major slice of the GDP for themselves 
and got fatter and greedier "on the profits", because they were higher up on the "communist food chain"..

so in reality..was there any difference in their system?
and our western (for profit political ideology?)

I'll answer my own rhetorical question..YES, the capitalist
system like we have in "the West" is profit motivated..
BUT..in the process of generating that profit, goods,
services AND EASY ACCESS TO CREDIT are created to be distributed to the people to improve their standard of
living. 

In the communist system, EASY CREDIT did not exist.
Ie: there was no such thing as VISA or Master Card available to the peasants/"worker bees", and the stores (magazins as the Russians called them..were mostly empty of consumer goods.

Rather than lining up to pay for consumer goods one bought off the store shelves with VISA/MC, like here..over there you lined up for every household commodity, like bread, butter, clothing..and paid for it in "state cash"...
..when the shelves were bare..you were turned away....no
rainchecks!

I still have family in the Ukraine, which up until
the USSR broke up, was under direct control of Moscow.
You want to hear more about "how good" their lifestyle
was over there during the communist regime?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_main_difference_between_capitalism_and_communism


----------



## hystat

crazyjackcsa said:


> My sister had to claim bankruptcy. She didn't want too, her deadbeat husband (who is now her deadbeat exhusband) led the family down the road with terrible spending habits.


he was the same guy before she married him and agreed to make a family unit together...(your parents can probably verify that)
It was her choice who to marry. She had an oops. Now, every other consumer must absorb that debt. 
I don't accept that I should have to pay a few bucks more here, and a few cents more there, every time I shop at a store that absorbed the losses. 
Her mistake, not mine.


----------



## carverman

hystat said:


> It was her choice who to marry. She had an oops. Now, every other consumer must absorb that debt.
> *I don't accept that I should have to pay a few bucks more here, and a few cents more there, every time I shop at a store that absorbed the losses. *Her mistake, not mine.


So what?  What does someone else making mistakes and mis-managing their life and financial resources have to do with anyone else? NOTHING is guaranteed in life..not even life itself... or the quality of life.

Credit cards are easy to come by these days..too easy, the application in most big stores is just fill in your name and address and sign here....and a quick credit check on your credit rating and that's pretty much it.

If you turn out to be a good customer and pay off your CC charges every month, or better still for the CC issuer, pay the minimum amount and be indebted for a good many years..that's your perogative as a consumer. 

If you can't resist temptation of easy credit and all the schemes that go along with it as incentive to buy Ie:.."buy now/pay later".. and take on too much debt, then can't pay at least the minimum monthly, you are not in control of your life or finances.
If you have declare bankruptcy...so be it..it's a lesson learned for the next time.

Thank goodness, there are no debtor prisons these days, because they would probably be overflowing with people declaring bankruptcy as a way out!

The stores that issue the store CC know that a certain percentage of their CC customers WILL default on their CC balances..that's why most charge 29.97% simple interest...and you pay a LOT more than that if the interest is compounded, athough most don't mention the EAR (effective annual rate). 

<from online sources>
In general, credit cards available to middle-class cardholders that range in credit limit from $1,000 to $30,000 calculate the finance charge by methods that are exactly equal to compound interest compounded daily, although the interest is not posted to the account until the end of the billing cycle.
*A high U.S. APR of 29.99% carries an effective annual rate of 34.96% for daily compounding and 34.48% for monthly compounding,* given a year with 12 billing periods and 365 day. <end of extraction>

Store cards and even bank cards take big losses on defaulters, so EVERYONE ends up paying for that in higher interest rates and possibly increases in store merchandise.
The stores are in business to make money..not take heavy
losses from people that can't handle credit. 

Take car/house insurance premiums..even if you have had ZERO claims,why do your car/house insurance premiums keep going up every year?

Inflation?...maybe, but that's just a "drop in the bucket" in relation to big premium increases. 
The big reason is the losses the insurance companies realize ( deducted from their profit margins), in order to pay the claims.

So in reality..you are paying for someone elses carelessness..or misfortune...in many ways, whether you want to or not. 

Property taxes.. city welfare roll/public housing accomodation for welfare receipients, fire/police services...etc.. you ARE paying for things that you may never use yourself, 
but are used by someone else on a daily basis. 
How does a city pay for those kinds of services out of their coffers?...from tax revenue collected...your tax dollars at work!


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I have heard lots of people say they don't worry about their debt.
> They figure they will owe it for the rest of their lives, and just leave it when they leave this world.
> 
> My buddy died at age 62. He bought everything that everyone else had. He gambled and partied. He bought his home for 30,000 and owed 220,000 on it when he died. He owed another 70,000 in credit card and line of credit debt. He owed on a new car.
> 
> *But then he died and everything was life insured*.


And that's why my life insurance premium quotes are so high!..I can't
afford even $50K of life insurance..because in the eyes of the insurance
companies, I am too high a risk for life insurance at my age...but there are people out there that live on the edge..as they say.


----------



## sags

I don't think it's difficult to get insurance on the stuff you buy, or on loans.......they practically beg you to take it.

Some people almost plan it out.........my brother's ex-wife worked at Ford and bought a new car........made one payment........and got "hurt" at work. She was on disability for years and never made another car payment.

Some people know how to play the system.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Some people almost plan it out.........my brother's ex-wife *worked at Ford and bought a new car........made one payment........and got "hurt" at work. She was on disability for years and never made another car payment.*
> *Some people know how to play the system*.


Yes, and some people abuse the system because they
can get away with it! Yesterday, I tried to get a para transpo to take me to the hospital and back for my monthly infusion.
I'm not supposed to drive afterwards, so I am registered with para and they pick me up/drop me off at the Ottawa hospital, then pick me up to take me home.

Ok..yesterday.. their scheduling was really off..and I spent
an hour waiting for the driver to pick me up..when I mentioned that... he got very flustered and we started talking about people abusing the heavily subsidized para transpo to go to bingos, go shopping etc...all picked up
by the city taxpayers. 

The driver mentioned that he picked up one couple in Rockcliffe (a VERY posh area of Ottawa, where Harper lives)... (he thinks the man was a doctor) that asked him to drive him and his wife to the Hull (Gatineau)Casino.

Fer heaven's sake..para is for people with needs..that can't drive themselves anymore to doctor or hospital appts...yet you have "these people" that will
abuse the system..because they can gamble and drink at the Gatineau Casino... and get a cheap ride home (2 bus tickets)...

Abuse will happen.. if they can get away with it..whether it's running up CC to the max and not wanting to pay their debts..or abusing public funded transportation.


----------



## Uranium101

I have seem people abusing the tax system.
A couple with 2 children divorced intentionally so they can claim dependents and get some kinds of single parent benefits. that would save them at least $5000 a year.


----------



## HaroldCrump

It has been reported today that the Canadian average debt to disposable income ratio has gone up another couple of points to 151%.
At the same time average net worth has declined by 2.1%.
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/13/canadian-debt-climbs-to-new-highs-statcan/#more-123518

Most of this seems to be locked up in mortgages, to pay for the insane RE valuations.
And as we all know with absolute certainity, RE always goes up, so there is no risk here.
In fact, the HELOCs should be leveraged further to buy consumer goods like cars, electronics, etc.

The finance minister and the gov. of the central bank keep paying lip service to household austerity, while rubbing their hands in glee behind their backs.


----------



## sags

Times are tough.......even PM Harper is feeling the pinch these days.

His family is wearing the same clothes in this year's Christmas card, as they wore on last year's card..........for goodness sakes.

One set of "good clothes" takes me back to my childhood.

Next it will be hand-me-downs and Salvation Army Thrift store shopping for the PM.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cana...per-christmas-card-controversy-172707277.html


----------



## the-royal-mail

It's the same photo or from the same batch of photos. Big deal. At least he sends Christmas cards vs that "holiday" crap that some send.


----------



## kcowan

the-royal-mail said:


> At least he sends Christmas cards vs that "holiday" crap that some send.


You must be a conservative supporter!

(Joyeuses Fetes to you too.)


----------



## Sampson

What is the purpose of a Christmas card anyway? To show genuine, sincere friendship.

I thin k our Prime Minister has a lot more to do than send out a Christmas card to Canadians to demonstrate his sincerity.


----------



## KaeJS

^ bingo.


----------



## the-royal-mail

An estimated 1.9B Christmas cards are sent every year, most by post. The PM is merely respecting a historic tradition in this country and does not need to be justified. I would say we're very lucky in this country if our complaints are about this sort of thing.


----------



## HaroldCrump

the-royal-mail said:


> An estimated 1.9B Christmas cards are sent every year, most by post.


You should be happy, the-royal-mail


----------



## sags

double post


----------



## sags

In the you gotta be kidding category.......

A guy stabs his wife to death in a Walmart store, and they cordon off the area and the shoppers keep on shopping, while the police investigate the crime scene.

Lordy, what have we sunk to...?


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> *The PM is merely respecting a historic tradition in this country and does not need to be justified.* I would say we're very lucky in this country if our complaints are about this sort of thing.


Reminds me of a song that Presley once sang...

"Return to sender
Return to sender

I gave a letter to the postman,
he put it in his sack.
Bright and early next morning,
he brought my letter back.

Stephen wrote upon it:
Return to sender, address unknown.
No such number, no such postal code.
I seemed to have offended him, 
about cutting me some tax slack,
I write I'm sorry... but my letter just keeps coming back.

So then I dropped it in the mailbox 
And sent it "Special D".
But bright and early next morning 
it came right back to me.

He wrote upon it:
Return to sender, address unknown.
No such person, no such postal code.

This time I'm gonna take it myself
and put it right in his hand.
And if it comes back the very next day 
THEN I'll understand - 
...with his writing on it

Return to sender
Return to sender"


----------



## loggedout

We are living in a quickly changing world. It's really difficult for me to fathom how things will be even 5 years from now. I see our old way of doing things where the ordinary person's purchasing power was the result of the work they put in breaking down due to the combined impact of advances in technology, automation, outsourcing and globalization. It's why people are continually and increasingly reaching towards credit for consumption. The struggle to save will increase. Jobs for ordinary people are simply not paying well enough to keep our consumer economy going without cheap credit.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Why should we all pay higher consumer prices to allow business to pay people more money, which will only be further taxed by the gov't and squandered by the individual? Both gov'ts and individuals have shown a blatant inability to manage their funds.

People need to adjust their expectations and gear-down their wants.


----------



## Sampson

the-royal-mail said:


> Why should we all pay higher consumer prices to allow business to pay people more money, which will only be further taxed by the gov't and squandered by the individual?


Because that's how we measure 'progress' in our society. Who doesn't want to see wonderfully high GDP growth?


----------



## carverman

Sampson said:


> Because that's how we measure 'progress' in our society. Who doesn't want to see wonderfully high GDP growth?


Consumer spending and easily available credit is one of the main reasons for GDP growth.

The consumer wants an item that he/she doesn't have enough money immediately to pay for in cash.

The consumer secures a bank card, bank loan,mortgage to buy that big ticket item now...such as (college tuition, house, vehicle, furniture/appliances/home theatre-big screen tv. etc.. by signing for it either through a bank or gov't loan, or by application for a CC card, conventional loan, or line of credit, which commits them by signing, 
to pay back a portion of the loan each month+ interest. 

Consumer buys the items..runs up a personal debt amount for each credit line.

Consumer is obligated to find employment to repay a stated amount each month, for each credit line.

Businesses/banks make money by selling the goods directly, or allowing the consumer to borrow to buy those items... either on a cash debit basis or througha loan.

Gov'ts collect revenue (consumer taxes).
Businesses make a profit and hire staff to run business and expand.
Banks/cc companies/lenders turn a profit from the interest they collect.

More consumer goods are produced as a result (even if most are made in China these days).

More staff/employees are hired
More income taxes are paid to the gov't less on unemployment insurance benefits. 

The GDP of the economy grows...but in return, the consumer is left with a bigger personal debt load than ever before.


----------



## buaya

carverman said:


> The GDP of the economy grows...but in return, the consumer is left with a bigger personal debt load than ever before.


Rinse and Repeat. Seriously, on one hand we are being told (threaten?) that as a population we are too much in debt, while on the other hand businesses are told not to sit on too much of the cash they have in hand. 
Borrow, Expand, spend more!!! As a business owner, I have seen how easy credit pre-2008 allows the owners in my industry (printing) to go out and buy million dollar presses to expand with virtually no money down and no payments for 6 months to a year.
Now, due to increasing diminishing volumes due to online presence, most of these printing companies are closing or consolidating. As a broker (reseller) I can now buy print cheaper then what I was paying 5 years ago and this does not even take inflation into consideration.

So, what should we do. Borrow and spend and help to grow the GDP or just spend what we have on things we need and but then the GDP will not grow or may even shrink and then we are told that we will be contributing to a recession.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The issue with this whole shop-till-you-drop approach is that it leaves no scope for governments and businesses to invest in technological advancement, infrastructure etc.
Savings are required for capital investment.

While the production and consumption of final goods and services is important, complete obsession with consumer goods has limited the ability of governments and organizations to invest in R&D, infrastructure and other factors that are very important - even more important than developing the next cool iPhone 5 or similar junk.

The OECD keeps telling us that our productivity is one of the lowest in the G8.
We are getting C+ in innovation.
Our infrastructure has not been upgraded in decades.

If you look back at countries that built very strong industrial bases, you will note that all of that happened as a result of a very high propensity to save vs. propensity to consume.
For example, Japan and Germany.
Even the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


----------



## StudioTaxLover

Addy, you are 100% CORRECT! When I first read David Chilton's "The Wealthy Barber" I wrote to the (Alberta) Minister of Education and strongly urged him to make that book Required Reading in, say, Grade 7.

But, sadly, I got the usual Politician's Reply.


----------



## StudioTaxLover

Yes, making the Canada Pension Plan optional would be a HUGE MISTAKE!

I contributed all my working life and NOW, I am VERY happy I did.

But, sadly, too many people now cannot think ahead at all.


----------



## HaroldCrump

StudioTaxLover said:


> Yes, making the Canada Pension Plan optional would be a HUGE MISTAKE!


I don't think anyone suggested making CPP entirely optional.
What has been discussed at various levels is to make _additional_ contributions into CPP _optional_.


----------



## HaroldCrump

5 yr. fixed mortgage rates have been lowered again - they are now under 3% for the first time in decades.
This is an unprecedented level of cheap money, never before seen in generations.

This comes on the heels of a recent report by Royal LePage that the rate of RE price appreciation is slowing - prices are still going up but the rate of increasing is leveling off.
Therefore, this latest move is well timed to trigger a fresh round of buying frenzy and even more crazy RE valuations, leading to higher and higher mortgages that will take decades to pay off.


----------



## Jon_Snow

My mortgage term is up in a few months and with these rates I am leaning towards not paying it off... I agree that this move may help keep the bubble inflated for a while longer.


----------



## sags

Asked today on CNN, how people should invest their money in this economy, Suze Orman replied "What money......people don't have any money. That's the problem".

People are broke and nothing the leaders.......political or business....are doing is going to correct the dilemna of a consumer driven economy with consumers who have no money to spend.

The December retail sales, dismal as they may turn out to be, were fuelled by borrowing as consumers added another 1 Billion to their credit card debt.

Grinding down wages looks good in the short term, but is a death spiral for an economy.


----------



## sags

Interesting assessment of the consumer situation by Howard Davidowitz, who has been a retail analyst for many years, and purchases companies near bankruptcy and revives them.

He is also very entertaining to watch..........see the video 

http://articles.businessinsider.com...ebt-confidence-strong-holiday-shopping-season

If the US consumer debt level of 117% is labelled as "crushing", how would the Canadian consumer debt level of 150% be characterized?


----------



## Causalien

The rate is insane.

My land+home valuation increased by 30%, but the current market price of comparables is 20% lower than the city valuation. 

Essentially city is telling me to bend over and pay 30% more in home taxes. If I don't have the money, I am sure one of the politicians will tell me to get a HELOC to pay for the taxes. 

What the government is subconscious trying to convey to its population, from a my point of view as a responsible money manager. Is to drop everything else and borrow my heart out to consume and while I am at it, getting taxed at a higher rate. Increase in velocity of money while increasing income = higher government tax revenue. Wages going down, inflation going up. Spend spend spend.

Right now, I am thinking of taking the whole equity out as a HELOC and do something nasty that falls outside of what they expected. But I don't really see anyway to profit in this setup.


----------



## Berubeland

I think the canadian focus on real estate has led to an enormous misallocation of resources. 

Too many house poor people, way too many and no one wants to buy a small house either. Look at the amount of people who want to buy another property as well. I can tell you that about 10% of people are suited to be landlords. It's not exactly a great gig. 

It's about 17% of our GDP at the present. If everyone is stretching to buy a house how can they afford to buy anything else or start a business. Furthermore we don't build stuff anymore in Canada or the US. What percentage of the population is suited to doing knowledge work? What are all the others going to do? 

It's crazy...


----------



## HaroldCrump

It's crazy alright.
This whole thing is a wonderful mirage in a desert, where all travelers can stop and have a drink at the trough.
It benefits everyone - RE agents, mortgage brokers, banks, lawyers, appraisers - there is a whole pyramid of mouths that feed off this house of cards.
And of course all levels of the govt. that gets to collect higher and higher taxes, fees, etc. based on ever increasing property valuations.

It is amazing how smug this whole industry is.

Reminds me of Iceland just before the collapse.


----------



## KaeJS

HaroldCrump said:


> It is amazing how smug this whole industry is.
> 
> Reminds me of Iceland just before the collapse.


You can say that again.


----------



## sags

I think it all started with the television show, "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous".

We have Robin Leach to blame for this mess.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> People are broke and nothing the leaders.......political or business....are doing is going to correct the dilemna of a consumer driven economy with consumers who have no money to spend.
> 
> The December retail sales, dismal as they may turn out to be, were fuelled by borrowing as consumers added another 1 Billion to their credit card debt.
> 
> *Grinding down wages looks good in the short term, but is a death spiral for an economy*.


You are absolutely right there Sags. The Cdn economy lags the US by a "few months"..what we are seeing now is unprecedented in our history ..more and more people owe money on a larger scale than ever before!

With most manufacturing jobs gone to China, leaving only the service industry and local construction..the economy simply is not growing the way it was anticipated by the gov'ts..because people have too much debt already.

So how does any gov't stimulate the economy? *On tax payer funded intiatives?*..that's only good for a short term..
what is the long term solution?

*Pay down the debt ..or take on more debt?* Either way it is going to be extremely difficult now and in the future
as costs continue to rise. The federal transfer payments (increases)have already been directly linked to the
economy..so even Flaherty knows that the current system of transfer payments will not be sustainable after
2015. 

We all know what happened in the Ontario "Rae Days" period when he came up with the brilliiant idea of "spending our way out of the recession back then"...it didn't work long term and Ontario was saddled with years of debt..but less than what McGuinty and Harper have managed to do.

God Forbid Rae of being nominated for Liberal party leader..he made a mess of his bed when he was NDP premier of
Ontario..he's a has been dead duck!


----------



## Causalien

Give me a leader that cuts debt any day and I'll vote for him. The current selection is between: evil and the devils. Come back Jean Chrétian, give me back my old Canada.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The drunken spending continues:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/01/26/household-debt-cibc-study.html

_The debt-to-gross income ratio of those most indebted families is 160 per cent. The proportion of the most indebted families is greater in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario where housing is the most expensive.

Shenfeld attributed the growth in debt growth to a combination of ultra-low interest rates and weak growth in household real incomes.

"Borrowing is what fills the gap between what we want to buy and our incomes, particularly for lumpy expenditures like houses, vehicles and other durable goods. Strong growth in real incomes can therefore reduce the reliance on debt by the household sector."_

I found the last para disturbing (my bolds):

_The household debt-to-income measure was deeply flawed, they argued, and a better gauge would be to assess whether Canadians can afford to make their debt payments. By that calculation, household finances are on firmer ground *as long as interest rates stay low.*_

OK, so these "experts" are saying that this is fine because rates are low, and this will stay fine only as long as rates stay low.
And after that?

So now we know why rates will not go up anytime soon.

The other thing this expert is ignoring is that regardless of _"whether Canadians can afford to make their debt payments"_, the fact remains that the loan has to be paid off at some point -by someone.
If not the borrower, then his/her estate.
Ability to make monthly payments is not the correct measure of debt affordability, IMO.
Esp. when we talk about $640K mortgages amortized for 40 years.
Or credit card/LOC balances that keep getting rolled over.

There is a huge leakage of wealth going on here - wealth and income that would otherwise have been directed towards retirement and investments.


----------



## the-royal-mail

^ Good post, Harold. I say follow the money. Who is benefitting from this? It's certainly not the end users as by the time they pay these debts back they've paid back much more than the value of the house, regardless of what the interest rate is. We have an entire generation of 20 and 30 somethings now who think that home ownership is necessary at all costs, even if mortgages are at $640K. Sheer madness.


----------



## KaeJS

HaroldCrump said:


> OK, so these "experts" are saying that this is fine because rates are low, and this will stay fine only as long as rates stay low.
> And after that?


And after that?

We follow in the footsteps of our big brother down south.

Houses go on sale, and people that aren't complete morons (like myself) will move out to the country and buy a house for $100k fully paid and work part time at a grocery store for the rest of my life while collecting dividends.

I will then proceed to sit back, smoke my pipe, and laugh silently in my head at the world around me.

Ah, for what fools we Canadians will be when we didn't learn from our Big Brother's mistakes.

If anyone cares to join me in about 5 years, I will host the party.

For those that have more funds and Million dollar portfolios, it is BYOB.
For those, such as Belguy, who have been rattled by the economy, I will provide.

TRM, I will mail you an invitation, just because I know you love the mail and little post stamps so much.


----------



## andrewf

You generally can't buy much more than a decrepit shack for $100k in 'the country'.


----------



## KaeJS

Well, yeah. That's true of the prices today.

But if we do end up like the US, I'm sure you will be able to get a decent home for $100k in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## Sherlock

Lots of news articles today about how boomers are piling on more debt.

Here's one:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...er-consumers-pile-on-new-debt/article2315580/

Do you guys include CPP and OAS when you calculate how much income you'll have in retirement? The way things are going, I don't think CPP/OAS will exist, or will be significantly reduced, by the time I'm ready to retire. There are too many old people, and they have too little savings. And the boomers are many times worse than their parents and grandparents, so they'll have even less when they all retire. I don't see how the government can take care of them, there just won't be enough money. Harper has mentioned pushing back OAS from 65 to 67, perhaps in a few decades they'll have to push it back to 75. I am preparing to fund my retirement solely with my investments, if I get CPP then great, if not I'll still have enough to have a decent retirement.


----------



## Dmoney

andrewf said:


> You generally can't buy much more than a decrepit shack for $100k in 'the country'.



This link might not work properly... but here's 300+ properties for $75k - $100k i found by randomly clicking on MLS.ca

Many are 3+ bedrooms, brick family homes. Sure, some are crappy shacks, but some are great homes in the middle of nowhere. 

This is in Canada's current "bubbly" housing market. If the market falls, there will likely be thousands and thousands of houses for less than $100k.

You could easily house an entire family in many of these homes.... provided you don't mind being out of the city. 

http://www.realtor.ca/map.aspx?&vs=VEResidential&beds=0-0&baths=0-0&minp=0&maxp=0&area=london&trt=2#acr:false;ac:false;baths:0-0;beds:0-0;fp:false;gar:false;pmin:75000;pmax:125000;rmin:0;rmax:0;openh:false;pool:false;stories:0-0;buildingstyle:;buildingtypeid:;viewtypeid:;waterfront:false;forsale:true;forrent:false;orderBy:A;sortBy:1;LisStartDate:;mapZ:9;page:1;mapC:43.3890819391175, -81.10931396484375;curView:;curStyle:r;leftMin:false;rightMin:false;chkSchl:false;chkTran:false;chkPol:false;chkMed:false;chkWrk:false;chkFire:false;chkAll:false


----------



## tombiosis

She knows discipline was the main problem. But also, “I didn’t fully understand that more credit cards wouldn’t be better,” says Ms. McKaeff, 47. The ease of getting them “gave me false impression that I had an endless amount of credit.”

This woman sounds like an idiot. Sadly, there are many in the general population who think like this.


----------



## HaroldCrump

This news items was discussed on the Lang O'Leary show tonight as well.
Another stat is that the most indebted group (in terms of the ratio being measured) is the 45+ age group.

As our friend steve41 often posts here, this is the age when most people start saving seriously for retirement, after mortgages, kids etc. expenses are supposed to be behind them.
Yet, it appears that is no longer happening.
In fact, they are piling on more and more debt.

Even if we assume for a second that interest rates stay low and they can afford the monthly payments, the debt doesn't go away.
Unless it is made to vanish magically through massive inflation over the next decade.

And that might be the plan, after all.


----------



## andrewf

DMoney, I think the statement is only meaningful if you are comparing apples and oranges. I look at a a few of the properties you searched for. Many are "diamonds in the rough", "in need of a bit of work", "perfect for a contractor's winter project". They were mostly pretty modest. If you're selling a $700k house in Toronto to move there, you are taking a big step down in housing quality. For something around the same level, you'd need to spend $200k or so, possibly more. I'm not saying it is not a viable retirement strategy--just that you should look at what $100k buys before you make your plan.


----------



## Dmoney

andrewf said:


> If you're selling a $700k house in Toronto to move there, you are taking a big step down in housing quality. For something around the same level, you'd need to spend $200k or so, possibly more. I'm not saying it is not a viable retirement strategy--just that you should look at what $100k buys before you make your plan.


Agreed, but if you're selling a $700k house in Toronto, you're likely getting $200K-$300K for the house and $400K to $500K for the land it sits on. Move that to the country and you're paying slightly more for the house (assuming it costs more to build due to getting materials etc. to the middle of nowhere) but you're paying next to nothing for the land. 

A colleague of mine is looking at buying a place in the downtown core of Toronto and he's finding that a good quality house is minimum $1.2-1.3 million whereas a falling apart house is $850k minimum. Granted, he's looking in expensive areas, but if we assume the falling apart homes are worth very little, that's pricing the land at well over $500K. 

While $100K won't buy you the mansion of your dreams, I'd argue that $200-300K definitely would. And $100K would buy you a decent 3-bedroom starter home that you could pay off in cash from the start and never pay interest to a bank. Keep in mind that when I looked up that link I literally just zoomed out of London, moved slightly out of the city and filtered for anything between $75,000 and $125,000. I definitely didn't do heavy research, just wanted an overview of what could be had in the $100K range.


----------



## carverman

Dmoney said:


> This link might not work properly... but here's 300+ properties for $75k - $100k i found by randomly clicking on MLS.ca
> 
> Many are 3+ bedrooms, brick family homes. Sure, some are crappy shacks, but *some are great homes in the middle of nowhere.*
> ]You could easily house an entire family in many of these homes.... provided you don't mind being out of the city.



The problem with living in cheaper accomodation in the middle of nowhere is:

1. Rising cost of gas/wear and tear on your car commuting 1hr or more to get to work (if you are not retired)
2. Wear and tear on you in that commute and lost hours in the day sitting
in traffic in urban areas trying to get into work
3. The unredictable Canadian winter and road conditions driving back and
forth to work
4. Medical care centers may be farther away



> This is in Canada's current "bubbly" housing market. If the market falls, there will likely be thousands and thousands of houses for less than $100k.


Even if the housing bubble bursts due to economic situations, a $500k or more, house is not going to be offered up for grabs for $100K by the mortgage holders. You are dreaming in technicolour! 
It would be a nice utopian dream if that happened and the economy could start over at more affordable housing prices and living costs..but it probably isn't going to happen..because of supply and demand... and those that have invested heavily not wanted to lose their investments.

Even if the family that owned the..(well lets say $500K valued) home before real estate the bubble bursts, and had to walk away because there was no money to pay the mortgage, the banks would re-calculate the money owing on
the property, and offer it for sale at whatever they think would be reasonable to recover their loans. 

Even in a rececession/depression there are always people (investors) with cash and opportunists to buy up properties and hold on to them to resell later when the economy improves.

The real losers are the ones that have paid inflated real estate prices because they chose to live downtown or in the city where they work. If they lose their jobs and can't find a new one to continue earning income and become unemployed, they run the risk of losing their house to the mortgage holders.

The other interesting thing is the property taxes..it would be interesting to see what the cities and Ontario Municipal Property Assessment Corp would do in a true recession, where the property prices fall on the resale market.

a) Would the city take a cut on the taxes based on their mill rate and assessed property value?
b) Would the Ontario Assessment Corp (or whatever it's called) factor declining real estate prices in their new re-assessment and give the homeowner a break? 
Not likely..so it would be an interesting conundrum when that happens.


----------



## kcowan

carverman said:


> a) Would the city take a cut on the taxes based on their mill rate and assessed property value?
> b) Would the Ontario Assessment Corp (or whatever it's called) factor declining real estate prices in their new re-assessment and give the homeowner a break?
> Not likely..so it would be an interesting conundrum when that happens.


Exactly. They would adjust the mill rate to ensure that their budget increases are covered.


----------



## Dmoney

carverman said:


> Even if the housing bubble bursts due to economic situations, a $500k or more, house is not going to be offered up for grabs for $100K by the mortgage holders. You are dreaming in technicolour!
> It would be a nice utopian dream if that happened and the economy could start over at more affordable housing prices and living costs..but it probably isn't going to happen..because of supply and demand... and those that have invested heavily not wanted to lose their investments.


Not dreaming at all...

Another quick link here...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Irish+property+prices+collapsing+officials/6043391/story.html

Average house prices in Dublin, Ireland have fallen nearly 65% from 2007 highs. Add in the fact that Canadian prices have risen over that period and you've got the possibility of 70%+ declines. 500K x 30%, *average* price of a $500k house is now $150k. 

And another

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204517204577046851524557104.html

The low-water mark for the market came in January 2010, when the median price for a home in the city of Phoenix fell 64% to $92,000 from $253,000 in December 2007, according to the Cromford Report. In October, the median returned to $92,000 in the city of Phoenix.

Another *average*.

Detroit average price by one account is 42% below the lows of *October of 2000*. 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lp...vember-likely-2012-01-11?reflink=MW_news_stmp



We seem to have this idea that we're immune to the world's problems, and while I strongly believe that any Canadian correction will be much more moderate (stronger in Vancouver but still moderate), the worst case scenario could easily see $500k homes become $100k homes after several years.


----------



## carverman

Dmoney said:


> We seem to have this idea that we're immune to the world's problems, and while I strongly believe that any Canadian correction will be much more moderate (stronger in Vancouver but still moderate), the worst case scenario could easily see $500k homes become $100k homes after several years.


No we are not immune to the world's problems or the US economic situation where they are slowly going bankrupt...However, inflated marked prices even though they are overinflated NOW, will not come down to 20% of their pre-recession
values...if you believe that... then better start saving your money to buy up all those "bargains" on the real estate market,
..IF it happens. Yes, there will be an adjustment in real estate prices just like in Toronto in the 80s, where the
housing prices fell because of inflated real estate prices and buyers ended up owing more in mortgages than the houses were worth on the market once the bubble burst...but..it was short lived. 

While some managed to hold on..because the banks were going to sue for any shortfall in the sale of their homes on the deflated market, most just walked away from their homes because they owed more than the houses were worth at the time. Whether the greedy banks pursued them to recover any shortfall between what the houses sold for (by the banks as
a power of sale) or took their losses..I don't know..but within a few months after that recession, the real estate prices started to go up again.

I don't know about Vancouver, so I won't comment on what may happen there, but if a serious recession/depression occurs in Canada, don't expect that a 1 million dollar house will go for $100K...if you do YOU ARE DREAMING
IN TECHNICOLOUR!


----------



## Dmoney

carverman said:


> I don't know about Vancouver, so I won't comment on what may happen there, but if a serious recession/depression occurs in Canada, don't expect that a 1 million dollar house will go for $100K...if you do YOU ARE DREAMING
> IN TECHNICOLOUR!


First off, I didn't say $500k houses would fall to $100k, but when you brought it up, I showed you cases of just that happening. I definitely never said million dollar homes would become $100k homes, but I'm sure there are numerous instances of that as well. 

If the Canadian bubble pops rather than just deflating slowly (ie. house prices remain flat while incomes expand), there are several reasons why it won't be as brutal a crash as in the US or Ireland. 

Keep in mind I said there would be thousands of homes available for $100k, not that all homes would be $100k. Seeing as how there's already nearly 13K homes listed for between $75k and $125k, it's not technicolour dreaming to assume that there will be thousands more if prices fall even 10%.


----------



## Causalien

Yes and who is John Galt?

The only way for the interest rate to go up at this moment. Is for the bond market monster to rear its ugly head. When the government has an incentive to keep rates low because raising rate will bring a revolt of the population, you can count the government out.

When the banks has an incentive to keep the rates low so as to not take a loss on its books and because of competition, you can count the banks out from raising rate.

When your citizens are indebted at 1.6 dollars per 1 dollar income, you can count the citizens out.

If you follow the money, then you'll see that everyone benefits. Bernanke had the guts to raise interest rate to pierce this bubble. Our central bankers don't. The way I see it, they'll only have the guts to pop it, when the US economy is bank on track. So that wage increases can offset the crappy housing market. This, according to Helicopter Ben's projection, won't happen until 2014. 

This is why I am saying this, the next 4 years of Canada relies on perception of the safety of Canadian banking system and the belief that Asians are coming with briefcase loaded with cash to buy houses outright. Problem is, I know that one of this statements are absolutely false.


----------



## buhhy

The Asians coming to buy houses outright?


----------



## Mall Guy

KaeJS said:


> And after that?
> 
> Houses go on sale, and people that aren't complete morons (like myself) will move out to the country and buy a house for $100k fully paid and work part time at a grocery store for the rest of my life while collecting dividends.
> 
> I will then proceed to sit back, smoke my pipe, and laugh silently in my head at the world around me.
> 
> If anyone cares to join me in about 5 years, I will host the party.


PEI is perfect for this type of thinking (actually most of Atlantic Canada is, except Halifax, and St John's, NL, the new "have" province), airport close by, hospitals, beaches, good restaurants, university, ocean front property that carries for less than a car payment, and check out the Stats Can page with the population ratios . . . there's a dance at the fire hall at least once a month, potluck dinners, summer is gorgeous, winter in Florida . . . and you can still work at Sobeys . . . an open mind can save lots of $$$ . . . party should now be a "lobster scran" . . . and it beats the hell out of Elliot Lake !

http://www.realtor.ca/map.aspx?&vs=...false;chkWrk:false;chkFire:false;chkAll:false - change the criteria to see what you get for $500,000 !!!
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/pro...&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=&GeoCode=1102075


----------



## HaroldCrump

The party continues:

*Canadians dig themselves deeper in debt*

_Canadians dug themselves even deeper in debt in the first part of 2012, despite repeated warnings of the danger that carries.
A consumer credit report released Thursday by Equifax Canada showed that Canadians pushed their non-mortgage debt 3.4 per cent higher in the first quarter than a year earlier._

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canadians+themselves+deeper+debt/6447944/story.html

In the meantime, more and more folks are warning about the RE bubble and the govt. conscious interest rate policy to inflate the bubble:

*Bank urges rate hikes to slow housing market*

_A major international bank said today that Canada's best hope to avoid a real estate crash would be for policymakers to raise interest rates by half a per cent over the medium term.
"We believe that the best way to engineer a soft landing in the housing sector would be for the Bank of Canada to increase its policy rates slightly," says the report, from international financial conglomerate Nomura's contributing economist, Charles St-Arnaud.
House prices have more than doubled since 2001, and increased 6.7 per cent in the past year alone. Along the way, that housing boom has created a debt balloon, as personal debt loads recently hit a record 153 per cent of disposable income, according to the latest official data._

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/04/12/rate-hikes-housing-nomura.html


----------



## HaroldCrump

The party continues:

_Canadian households continued to increase their debt load in the third quarter, pushing the debt-to-income ratio to an all-time high of 164.6 from 163.3 in the previous quarter, Statistics Canada said on Thursday._

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/12/13/canadians-are-carrying-more-debt-than-ever-before/

Now 164.6% and counting.

And this does not yet include all the holiday spending on minimum payment credit cards and HELOCs.
Those bills will start to roll in during Jan and Feb.

At this rate, we will be at 175% before 2013 is over.

On the one hand, we complain about a retirement crisis and on the other hand borrow nearly double of what we make.
How does that square?


----------



## Nemo2

HaroldCrump said:


> At this rate, we will be at 175% before 2013 is over.


I haven't read the entire thread, (so apologies if this has been previously addressed), but if the debt-to-income ratio is calculated by an exercise of simply appraising total income/total debt without factoring in those, (of us), who have zero debt, then the indebtedness of those _with_ debt must be far higher.


----------



## MoneyGal

N2 - you and I (and many others here I am sure) are the outliers on the LH side.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Nemo2 said:


> I haven't read the entire thread, (so apologies if this has been previously addressed), but if the debt-to-income ratio is calculated by an exercise of simply appraising total income/total debt without factoring in those, (of us), who have zero debt, then the indebtedness of those _with_ debt must be far higher.


Hi Nemo2, I realize that too. Therefore, the situation is in fact much worse.
There was another piece of data in there somewhere in that article that says only about 60% of that is mortgage debt.
Rest is consumer debt.

Even with mortgage debt, it is a non deductible debt and has to be paid off at some point.
I have no idea what the average mortgage amortization is current, but given the vast number of 35 and 40 year mortgages that were sold between 2006 and 2010, the average amortization can't be much less than 25 to 30 years.

So, your average 30 or 35 year old Joe aint paying off his mortgage until into his late 50s (at best) or into his 60s (more realistically).
No wonder we have a retirement crisis !


----------



## Sampson

HaroldCrump said:


> So, your average 30 or 35 year old Joe aint paying off his mortgage until into his late 50s (at best) or into his 60s (more realistically).


But this is also true of older folks who simply keep extending the duration of their mortgages after each renewal no?

Has anyone ever come across a histogram separated by income? So do poorer or richer folks actually hold lower/higher debt:income. I also have some general issues with broad-based statistics like this. Demographics will play a role as younger folks should have higher ratios, doesn't mean they are higher risk, the distribution of values. 

I know our debt to income level would considered high (even with my wife back to work), possibly as high as 200-250%. However, we have no consumer debt and our debt:assets is below 50%. Our savings rates are typical 20-35% net income. Certainly our situation isn't the norm either, but these generic numbers probably aren't very useful at gauging the issue.


----------



## MoneyGal

Here is the data you are looking for, Sampson: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2012002/tables-tableaux/11636/tbl01-eng.htm


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> 1. So, your average 30 or 35 year old Joe aint paying off his mortgage until into his late 50s (at best) or into his 60s (more realistically).
> 2. No wonder we have a retirement crisis!


1. Plain Jane is probably doing a tad better. 
2. Indeed.


----------



## Sampson

Thanks MGal, clears up a few things :encouragement:.

1) The more money your make, the more debt, and higher debt ratio you hold.
2) Debt does not decrease very rapidly as you age - there is no breakdown of mortgage vs. pure consumer debt as a subbranch from the age categories, but a possible explanation would be HELOCs used fro consumer spending, or individuals rolling over and extending their mortgages.
3) Kids result in more debt
4) Higher education results in more debt
5) Home owners (with no mortgage) have a lot of debt.

Point 5 is the most surprising to me. People/Canadians can't handle money.

Thanks MGal, (now if there was only even more detailed data....)


----------



## MoneyGal

Oh, there is so much more, and it is all free! Here is a bit more info on consumer vs. mortgage debt: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2012002/article/11636-eng.htm#b1

All of these are from the the 2009 Canadian Financial Capability Survey (CFCS), which is [snipped from link above] "supported by the Department of Finance Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, was conducted to assess the financial knowledge, saving patterns and credit use of Canadians. It included questions on the assets and debts of survey respondents. The CFCS is the most current source of data on the characteristics of Canadian borrowers collected by Statistics Canada."

All of the tables are available for download, so you can cross-tabulate and correlate data sets.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Sampson said:


> 3) Kids result in more debt


Ha, so Jon_Snow is right after all ? :rolleyes2:

If I look at my debt graph, it has gone down a lot since before I had kids.
When I had 0 kids, I had a $100K mortgage (my only debt)
After 1st kid, my mortgage was down to $50K
After 2nd kid, mortgage is now down below $25K (numbers are relative only, not nominal).

Maybe I should have more kids. I will be debt free.



> 4) Higher education results in more debt


Sure, that is understandable, but does it result in a higher ratio of debt/income?



> 5) Home owners (with no mortgage) have a lot of debt.


Heil HELOC Heil


----------



## Sampson

@ MGal, thanks for the links, something to read while I eat my cereal in the morning - unfortunately, not on the payroll and not interested enough in running my own statistics.

@HC, as anecdote, we accumulated all our debt (mortgages only) before having kids and have made significant strides to paying it down. The numbers would make you gasp. At one point, our Debt:income was probably as high as 380-400%. But we do subscribe to lifecycle financial planning. Our wages increased 30%, we have directed 10% of savings to top-up payments, and have made some money in the markets.

The numbers wouldn't be so bad if the average Canadian had good financial knowledge. I don't believe in the axiom that debt is good or bad. It needs to be managed, and risks assessed, that is all. I'm guessing most Canadians and even our government doesn't feel the same way though.


----------



## crazyjackcsa

When we started out with no kids, we had a ratio of about 275%. It was all mortgage. Flash forward 5 years and two kids and it's down to 158%. Pay raises have been minimal in that time, barely keeping pace with inflation. It would be even lower (100%) but we're putting RESP money aside that would go on the mortgage if we didn't have kids.

It's still too high for my liking, but every month it comes down. This time next year it will sit at 135%. The more interesting number for me is the net worth.

$197,000 is the average? I wonder what the mean is? There have to be a lot of low net worth households out there if I can come in over the average at the tender of age of 32 with two kids and a family take home income of 45k.


----------



## HaroldCrump

^ It is now therefore statistically proven that having more kids causes lower debt.
Jon_Snow, pl. take note.

_ceteris paribus, ergo, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet_, more children = lower debt ratio.

This logic is just as accurate as the one that says having more kids causes more debt


----------



## marina628

When you have children you stay home more thus saving money :love-struck:


----------



## Jon_Snow

HaroldCrump said:


> ^ It is now therefore statistically proven that having more kids causes lower debt.
> Jon_Snow, pl. take note.


Ah, Crump, you are a riot. :biggrin:

Still not havin' any. 

And for the record, our decision not to have kids wasn't so we could grow our net worth quicker - we just got too damn old!


----------



## Barwelle

You can adopt me... I'm in my early 20s...


----------



## Jon_Snow

HC, have you seen the recent article from the Financial Post regarding the costs of raising a child to adulthood? They say count on spending 12k per year - of course some parents will spend much more and some much less. Does this seem in line with your child raising experience?


----------



## KaeJS

Barwelle said:


> You can adopt me... I'm in my early 20s...


We can be brothers.

Just think about the Audi S5's we could buy with the inheritance we would be receiving from Mr. Snow...


----------



## My Own Advisor

@KaeJS,

Can I get in line for Jon's inheritance? Are we taking numbers?


----------



## sags

People have reached the end game........so it really doesn't matter now.


----------



## crazyjackcsa

If you read those "Cost of Children" posts, a lot of crazy assumptions are made. Ie, the cost for larger cars and larger houses, all the schooling through university, recreation clubs and sports teams and so much more.

I've never met a couple that said "We bought a small house and a small car because we aren't having kids"

Also young parents are often given gifts to help offset some of those costs.

Over the past 5 years I don't think we've spent more than a couple thousand per year on each child. The biggest expense is daycare, after that, a couple hundred on clothes, a little bit of food, and that's it. Some toys at christmas and birthdays and you're done.

"Start up" for the first kid was more with a crib (el cheap-o used for two kids) and a playpen and highchair (again el cheap-o used for two kids).

I'd argue it's the "opportunity cost" that's far higher with kids. I have no time (or inclination) to work late, arrive early, volunteer, go to classes to get ahead. Why? Because I feel I receive a far higher "divided" by spending time with them.


----------



## Four Pillars

It costs $1.7 million according to this genius:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/y...ith-finances-in-mind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yup...


----------



## Jon_Snow

Sorry, I am going to be one of those "die broke" cases... :biggrin:


----------



## KaeJS

That chick is nuts. There's no way in hell it costs $1.7M to have a child.

_Edit: At my current salary for 50 years, I wouldn't even make $2M in my lifetime. LOL_

It probably does cost ~$300k, though.



Jon_Snow said:


> Sorry, I am going to be one of those "die broke" cases... :biggrin:


Me too. That's the best way to go.

I can't wait until I turn 60 and start blowing all my money and racking in the debt. I'll make sure Sunlife covers everything when I die. :biggrin:


----------



## KaeJS

Hm. That leads me to a question.

Suppose I have life insurance and I owe funds. If I commit suicide, does my life insurance still cover it?

Hmm.. to Google I go....

Edit: Apparently suicide will void a life insurance policy 99% of the time.


----------



## Sampson

Parenting in these modern times seems to add extra expenses. What is often understated is how many parents try to 'keep up with the jones'. Next you go to the mall, point out all the $500, $1000 strollers, the attachments, the baby gear. I have seen many parents spend somewhat frugally on themselves, but 'spoil' their babies with expensive stuff. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you yourself are a parent with young children, notice how often other parents 'check out' your baby gear.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Jon_Snow said:


> HC, have you seen the recent article from the Financial Post regarding the costs of raising a child to adulthood? They say count on spending 12k per year - of course some parents will spend much more and some much less. Does this seem in line with your child raising experience?


Not at all, and we live quite comfortably.
I agree with crazyjacksca and Sampson above - if you are in the "Keeping up with the Joneses" race, regardless of whether you have kids or not, you will spend more money than planned.
All these "studies" about how much kids "cost" are based on lots of assumptions, projections, etc.
$12K per year is BS, at least in my experience.

Is it possible to spend $12K a year or a kid - sure, just send him to private school, expensive private lessons, 3 vacations a year, live in a large $800K house with a $750K mortgage, of course anything is possible.

Also, all these studies focus on how much expenses are required for kids, but conveniently ignore the extra expenses for those without kids (eating out, entertainment, etc.)


----------



## 44545

crazyjackcsa said:


> ...I've never met a couple that said "We bought a small house and a small car because we aren't having kids"...


I've met many however who say, "now that we're having kids, we need a bigger house/car."

Responding to the above that my parents raised two kids in a 1,200 square foot house while owning a 1970's VW bug usually has the parents-to-be frowning at me, while walking from their 3,500sq/ft granite McMansion to their brand new, loaded Honda Odyssey Touring (mini?) van.


----------



## MoneyGal

I'm raising two kids in a 1200-square-foot house today. :02.47-tranquillity:


----------



## jcgd

MoneyGal said:


> I'm raising two kids in a 1200-square-foot house today. :02.47-tranquillity:


My lord, that's practically child abuse. Next thing you'll tell us they share a bedroom!


----------



## Ethan

Kids are likely for my fiancé and I 2-3 years from now. If my fiancé were to go on mat leave for 1 year, we would lose $55k in income (her salary less EI benefits for the year), on top of the additional expenses a child would bring. While our debt won't increase, it certainly won't be decreasing at the same rate it is today.


----------



## uptoolate

HaroldCrump said:


> Is it possible to spend $12K a year or a kid - sure, just send him to private school, expensive private lessons, 3 vacations a year, live in a large $800K house with a $750K mortgage, of course anything is possible.


Try just the private school, and not even an expensive one! The discussion about how much private school education is worth? 14 years at a middle of the road private school or a cool million (in today's dollars) at age 40. A top flight private school and make it over 2 million at age 40. Hard to believe it is worth it, either in terms of what is learned or in extra networking options but that's just me I suppose.


----------



## Plugging Along

I will be the outlier here. I have spent more than $12K/child/year, and really it wasn't that hard, and I would do it again. I am not complaining, as when my spouse and I decided to have kids, we waited until we were more established, and could afford to spend more on our kids.

Here's some numbers:
Montessory School - $5K/year/child from Preschool to just Kindergarten
Childcare : Nanny $25K/ year, this was actually cheaper per child once we had the second child - we did a nanny share in the beginning to keep the costs down.

That's $35K a year. Are these numbers outrageous. Nope, in my area, 'regular' crappy preschool is still $2K a year, and daycare averages about $1200 a month per child. 

The income lost for two mat leaves was well over $100K.

I am not complaining by any means, as I know these are the choices we are making for our kids. If we were making alot less, we would have made different choices, but I will admit, I do find it hard not to give my kids experiences when I know I can afford to.


----------



## Pennypincher

HaroldCrump said:


> Not at all, and we live quite comfortably.
> I agree with crazyjacksca and Sampson above - if you are in the "Keeping up with the Joneses" race, regardless of whether you have kids or not, you will spend more money than planned.
> All these "studies" about how much kids "cost" are based on lots of assumptions, projections, etc.
> $12K per year is BS, at least in my experience.
> 
> Is it possible to spend $12K a year or a kid - sure, just send him to private school, expensive private lessons, 3 vacations a year, live in a large $800K house with a $750K mortgage, of course anything is possible.
> 
> Also, all these studies focus on how much expenses are required for kids, but conveniently ignore the extra expenses for those without kids (eating out, entertainment, etc.)


Are they including childcare? Cos I spend $14,400/year/child alone. With two kids, that is $28,800. Frankly, private school tuition is cheaper! Good thing is that one is starting kindergarten next year.

Yes we spent $900 on a double stroller. But it was one of the few things we splurged on because we knew we would use it. We accepted a lot of hand me down toys and clothing for the kids.


----------



## MoneyGal

Pennypincher said:


> Are they including childcare? Cos I spend $14,400/year/child alone. With two kids, that is $28,800. *Frankly, private school tuition is cheaper*! Good thing is that one is starting kindergarten next year.
> 
> Yes we spent $900 on a double stroller. But it was one of the few things we splurged on because we knew we would use it. We accepted a lot of hand me down toys and clothing for the kids.


Not at most private schools I've looked at. Most private schools that have ever been on my list are about $25K+ per child per year.


----------



## Pennypincher

Wow MoneyGal. I don't think there are any private schools in my city with that price tag. Usually it's anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000. But I don't believe in the private school system anyway. It's just sad that I could send my kids to a private Lycee for junior kindergarten at age three, with before and after care - cheaper than $1,200/month daycare.


----------



## MoneyGal

Probably fodder for another thread, but I have one kid in public school and one in private school - the private school kid is severely dyslexic, and the public school system is just not set up to handle kids with learning disabilities effectively. (NOTE: not behavioural difficulties, just a different learning approach required.)


----------



## Plugging Along

^ I think many people say that they will go with public school, and would never consider private. We actually bought our house that backs on to a public school, where we fully intended to send our kids. However, we have learned that some plans may not fit the child. Our oldest is considered gifted, and needed the additional challenges that original choice could not provide. As a result, we had to look into other programs which we never really thought of. We have found what we think is a good fit in the public system, but will watch closely, and have fully planned to be prepared for Private school tuitions if the public school doesn't fit. 

My point was really to reiterate that we are not trying to keep up with the Jones, but rather meet our our childs needs, that may cost more than intended. I think people automatically make assumptions when they hear about choices other parents make, with out really understanding the overall picture.


----------



## HaroldCrump

It blows me away that we (and the financial media) focus so much on how much kids cost, as if it were some product you purchase at Wal-Mart, yet the same financial media does not focus even half on how much the modern day $750K house with a 0% down 35 yr. mortgage costs.

How about we stack those two costs up vis-a-vis each other and then evaluate against each of our personal goals (such as financial independence, saving for retirement, world travel, etc.) to determine which one costs more i.e. makes it longer for us to achieve our respective goals.

Pick your own goals and run the math.


----------



## namelessone

People's common excuses for not investing is "I don't have any money to invest" but when does cars become an entitlement? Car ownership costs $8000 per year on averge. People don't realize how expensive car ownship is. How many people can save $8000 per year? Yeah, they all want to live in big empty houses 20km away so they "need" cars to get around. 
I lived 2km from work. I can walk to work in the summer within 25 minutes or takes the bus to work within a few minutes.
Despite an average income or even below average income, I save 40% of my after tax income.


----------



## sags

Median wages haven't increased in 30 years, factored for inflation.

Not surprising therefore, that people can't afford homes or cars, without low interest rates and long term payments.

Also not surprising that debt loads are rising and saving rates have fallen.

Spending is only half the equation. Income is just as important.

Business has not rewarded their employees for productivity growth. The money all flows to the top.

As Henry Ford said...........business needs to remember working people have to able to afford their products.

An auto worker earning 14 dollars an hour today, can't afford to buy a new car.

Perhaps whey the average age of cars on the road is the oldest ever.......and getting older every day.


----------



## brad

namelessone said:


> Car ownership costs $8000 per year on averge. People don't realize how expensive car ownship is.


Wow, that's high. Of course it's an average, which means it's possible to own a car and pay much less than the average. My total costs of car ownership in 2011 were $2,900 including fuel, license, registration, maintenance/repairs, and insurance. About double that amount this year because I had a few costly repairs and had to buy new snow tires.


----------



## Barwelle

brad, what about depreciation? Not sure if the $8,000 amount namelessone mentions includes depreciation but it's still one of the costs of ownership. I would guess that it does because I agree with you that it sounds high.


----------



## Nemo2

We have a 2005 stick shift Honda Civic......no repairs this year, just a few oil changes, gas, registration & insurance.


----------



## Barwelle

Nemo2 said:


> We have a 2005 stick shift Honda Civic


Wow... me too!


----------



## brad

Barwelle said:


> brad, what about depreciation?


Good question; I never consider it (by the way I have a 2005 stick-shift Toyota Matrix). I have a sort of blind spot to depreciation because I typically drive my cars until they're almost worthless (I sold my last car for $350 after driving it for 400,000 km). In that regard, depreciation doesn't seem worth tracking: should I assess depreciation on the chicken I bought for supper?


----------



## Barwelle

Well your chicken has 100% depreciation when you eat it... so if you wanted to call it that, then yes!

My point with bringing up depreciation is that, when you said this:



brad said:


> My total costs of car ownership in 2011 were $2,900 including fuel, license, registration, maintenance/repairs, and insurance.


There isn't any amount in there for the purchase price. I suppose you could just say your cost of car ownership in 2005 was $20,000 (or whatever it cost) + expenses because you bought a new car, but to me, it makes sense to spread the cost over the full period of ownership, because at any point, your car still has some value that you could gain back by selling. But since that value decreases every year, that loss in value is another "expense", or cost of ownership.

Anyways, it is a technicality. I track my net worth, but I don't include the value of my car because like you, I will drive it until it is almost worthless. But if I sat down one day and figured out how much it's costing, purchase price / depreciation would be in that calculation.

400,000km... that's impressive! what kind of car was it?


----------



## brad

Barwelle said:


> I suppose you could just say your cost of car ownership in 2005 was $20,000 (or whatever it cost) + expenses because you bought a new car, but to me, it makes sense to spread the cost over the full period of ownership, because at any point, your car still has some value that you could gain back by selling. But since that value decreases every year, that loss in value is another "expense", or cost of ownership.


Yep, I get it but I've always had a hard time accepting the argument that the loss in value is an expense. Maybe I view cars too much like chickens, or more accurately like computers. If I buy a new computer this year I wouldn't spread its cost over the years that I own and use it, any more than I would spread the cost of a bag of rice that I buy this year but don't finish using until next; the money came out of my wallet this year. Similarly, I wouldn't consider the loss in value of my computer over time as an expense. I know this is a basic economic/accounting principle, but it's one I've never found very convincing. I almost got thrown out of my economics class at university because I kept challenging the professor on stuff like this; I don't know why it brings out my ornery side ;-)


----------



## Guigz

sags said:


> Perhaps whey the average age of cars on the road is the oldest ever.......and getting older every day.


And this is bad because... ?

I would be very happy if I could drive my car until it was old enough to drink.

Also, while the median wage has not increased, the median wage per family unit has increased 11% between 1980 and 2005 (in 2005 dollars). 

I don<t think the economy is to blame, I think that we are to blame for the predicament that we are in.


----------



## crazyjackcsa

The chicken you ate would have a value upon its exit, if you used it to fertilize a garden...

I agree with Brad on the car thing, I always have. Perhaps if I did the constant trade it I would have to consider the depreciation more.

As far as costs, I'm looking at about $4,000 a year for the truck, $1000 a year for the old car, and somewhere in the middle for the other two.

I've been the last owner of every vehicle I've ever owned.

On the average age of cars though. Classic cars pull that number down an incredible amount. The average age of my fleet is 23 years. If I bought two brand new cars today (at an age of 0) and scrapped the daily drivers the average age on my cars would still be 14-years-old.

My father in-law owns two cars. One is brand new, the other a 1938. So the average age of his vehicles is 38.


----------



## brad

Barwelle said:


> 400,000km... that's impressive! what kind of car was it?


A 1990 Honda Civic wagon. I sold it on to a family of four, who drove it another 160,000 km before selling it to someone else.


----------



## Plugging Along

HaroldCrump said:


> It blows me away that we (and the financial media) focus so much on how much kids cost, as if it were some product you purchase at Wal-Mart, yet the same financial media does not focus even half on how much the modern day $750K house with a 0% down 35 yr. mortgage costs.
> 
> How about we stack those two costs up vis-a-vis each other and then evaluate against each of our personal goals (such as financial independence, saving for retirement, world travel, etc.) to determine which one costs more i.e. makes it longer for us to achieve our respective goals.
> 
> *Pick your own goals and run the math*.


I think you hit it on the nose, whether its kids, car, big house, these are all life style choices. For any thing out side the basics, it's a choice. I see nothing wrong with spending on the kids, having a big house, multi vehicles,vacations, etc if you have the income to afford it and still have room to save. The real problem is that many people don't see these as choices, but rather as needs, and then don't have the savings. 

The reason there is so much on the cost of kids, is that I think people are truly surprised and don't think the costs through, and then they let media and society dictate what is being spent. When we first decided that we were going to start a family, we wrote down our family mission statement, values, and goals on what was important to us. This included what were the top priorities, (education/school, experiences), down to clothing, and toys. When we lost our incomes, we made cuts immediately. 

There is really nothing wrong with spending, I quite like it. However, the reductions in savings rate come from people not making any choices in cutting.


----------

