# My income tax / ( food + rent ) ratio



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

I am a single elderly person. For 2015 and 2016 respectively my ratio was approximately 1.30 and 1.38. 

I feel hard done by because tax was greater than food and lodgings.

How do I compare to other folks ?


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

A few questions:

- Do you have a number in mind as to what the 'right' ratio is?
- Are you satisfied with the value you're getting from your income tax paid?
- Did you include other forms of taxation too (i.e., your share of property taxes paid indirectly, 'sin' taxes, user fees)?


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Never heard of this ratio before. Hard to know what it represents. A person may live in a crappy apartment and not eat well, so does that mean their taxes are actually too high if the ratio is over 1.00? Wouldn't it be better to simply pick on your marginal or average effective tax rate? BTW, as a single elderly person, my ratio would be 0.48, but does it say my taxes are low or I eat too much?

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

No indication whether the OP is talking about income tax, property tax, GST or all of them. Also whether the OP has a $5 million portfolio and is spinning off $300k of taxable income every year.... or is barely getting by on $30k of taxable income.


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

I have never seen this ratio before. 

I do not rent, but if I substitute the cost of housing, I too would have a ratio >>1. The reason for this is that I pay tax on RRSP withdrawals and investment income, while living modestly. I could postpone withdrawing from my RRSP till age 71, but I would then be paying tax at the highest marginal rate. I have to pay it sometime. As for my investment portfolio, I'm grateful that it is producing decent returns. If I had no returns on it, I would be paying less tax. I could also decrease this ratio by increasing the denominator. I could upsize my home or start eating at fancy restaurants, neither of which I feel inclined to do. 

We would all like to pay less tax, but the OP has not provided any data to show that he or she is being taxed unfairly.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I don't know the obsession is with tax. I have a rich friend who owns a villa and a condo in PV and lived on his 58 yacht in Point Roberts while evading taxes by having his residence in Malta. Then the CRA seized his yacht and he was forced to come clean (He runs lucrative businesses in Washington and BC).

Now he has a condo on Coal Harbour and an 84 foot yacht even though he is paying taxes again. Like what are you saving it for?

When you think about our country, you get health coverage, income supplements in GIS/OAS, and you will never be kicked to the street when you are old and can't afford seniors assisted residences. It makes planning significantly different than in the US. And we are free of estate taxes.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

*Some answers*


The response was greater than I expected.. Thanks.

Re: post # 2
- I have no target ratio in mind. Just curious about my fiscal lifestyle compared to others. 
- Summing up other taxes too difficult. 

#3 
- my marginal rates were 25.9% and 26.4% . I have another ratio.
If your belt size is greater than your shirt size, then "eating too much" . :joyous: 

 #4 
- income tax only 

#5
- I live in an assisted living apartment block for seniors.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

kcowan said:


> And we are free of estate taxes.


I don't know about elsewhere in Canada, but in Ontario the gov't charges a tax on the total value of the estate before the beneficiaries see penny #1. They call it "EAT" - ain't that fitting.

https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/tax/eat/


----------



## redsgomarching (Mar 6, 2016)

kcowan said:


> I don't know the obsession is with tax. I have a rich friend who owns a villa and a condo in PV and lived on his 58 yacht in Point Roberts while evading taxes by having his residence in Malta. Then the CRA seized his yacht and he was forced to come clean (He runs lucrative businesses in Washington and BC).
> 
> Now he has a condo on Coal Harbour and an 84 foot yacht even though he is paying taxes again. Like what are you saving it for?
> 
> When you think about our country, you get health coverage, income supplements in GIS/OAS, and you will never be kicked to the street when you are old and can't afford seniors assisted residences. It makes planning significantly different than in the US. And we are free of estate taxes.


i love this response. people are greedy but then people want all the things you listed but dont want to pay for them. the money has to come from somewhere. 
we have it really good here. there are methods to help manage taxes, use them, shut up, and enjoy subsidized health care.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Userkare said:


> I don't know about elsewhere in Canada, but in Ontario the gov't charges a tax on the total value of the estate before the beneficiaries see penny #1. They call it "EAT" - ain't that fitting.
> 
> https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/tax/eat/


That is simply the old probate fee. It is a percentage of the estate... 0.5%/$1000 on first $50k and 1.5%/$1000 for that portion over $50k in Ontario. It is annoying for sure, but will hardly bankrupt anyone or even make a dent in what beneficiaries receive. Cap gains taxes on 'crystallized' investments will be the one that eats one's lunch.

Don't like it? Move to a province with lower fees.

Added: AB never exceeds $525.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i can see that i shall have to increase my income taxes

it'll be challenging but there's no alternative
either increase taxes or buy a bigger shirt


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

*Additional answer*

 I like brevity, but admit my opening post was somewhat lacking. It is because it was my first ever OP. ( Other posts not opening. )

I apologize that it did not meet the standards of the polished purveyors of punditry that populate these pages. 
However, I will try to do better the next time.


----------



## redsgomarching (Mar 6, 2016)

stantistic said:


> I like brevity, but admit my opening post was somewhat lacking. It is because it was my first ever OP.
> 
> I apologize that it did not meet the standards of the polished purveyors of punditry that populate these pages.
> However, I will try to do better the next time.


posts: 124.........wat.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Pesky decimal point.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

2.2

Guess I'm just a cheap ***.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

stantistic said:


> I am a single elderly person. For 2015 and 2016 respectively my ratio was approximately 1.30 and 1.38.


I'm single and in my 30s. For 2016, my ratio is 1.9

I don't know if this measure is meaningful.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

kcowan said:


> When you think about our country, you get health coverage, income supplements in GIS/OAS, and you will never be kicked to the street when you are old and can't afford seniors assisted residences. It makes planning significantly different than in the US. And we are free of estate taxes.


Canadian taxes are worth every penny. Living in the US for a few years has been eye opening. Canada offers a great deal, overall, even for high income earners.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I have a former neighbour who was a Howe Street promoter. He lost it all in 1995 when he owned an office building and went bankrupt. The bank took his house and cars. He was our neighbour from 1997 until 2014. He now survives on GIS in a seniors home with his wife. The safety net is real. And I love it.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

*Miscellaneous comment*



> I don't know if this measure is meaningful.


My gut feeling on this subject is that a person should provide food for the belly and a roof over their head. When total expenditures on other things exceeds the above , I feel that something is amiss. This ratio is an attempt to give a simple numerical measure to that feeling.




> I have a rich friend who owns a villa and a condo in PV and lived on his 58 yacht in Point Roberts while evading taxes by having his residence in Malta


There are two ways to improve the ratio. One is to reduce the numerator by cheating on my income tax. However I am precluded from doing so because I was a graduate of the University of Manitoba, Civil Engineering, Class of 61. (One of the noblest Classes to ever trod the Halls of Academia where our moral compass was set. Though I must confess I have had twinges of doubt about Jake the Snake.)


Another way is to increase the denominator. While I am frugal, I am not yet beyond the first stage of “Reduce, Reuse and Recycle” with respect to toilet paper. However, I will not touch this subject further because it belongs to the Frugal Section.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

stantistic said:


> My gut feeling on this subject is that a person should provide food for the belly and a roof over their head. When total expenditures on other things exceeds the above , I feel that something is amiss. This ratio is an attempt to give a simple numerical measure to that feeling ...


Now I am confused ... the ratio formula as well as post # 7 says the only three factors are "income tax", "food" and "rent". Total expenditures is a different ball game than what was defined.

Secondly, the bit about "improve the ratio" by cheating on income tax suggests that under 1 is the desired goal. The time that I likely was in that situation was when I was living hand to mouth, going to university ... is that really a desired situation, especially for an older person?


IMO the ratio is too simplistic as more income tax means more income where if the food + rent is relatively stable, one should have more after-tax $$ to save/spend/give away.


If I have misunderstood anything, feel free to provide corrections.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

You don't misunderstand. The ratio is meaningless without context. Income tax/(rent + food) could be 0.5 and still be a good feeling just as much as a ratio of 5. It depends on the absolute value of 'income tax'.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

kcowan said:


> I have a former neighbour who was a Howe Street promoter. He lost it all in 1995 when he owned an office building and went bankrupt. The bank took his house and cars. He was our neighbour from 1997 until 2014. He now survives on GIS in a seniors home with his wife. The safety net is real. And I love it.


Canada's social safety net and health care are incredibly important. Just the fact that we don't abandon people.

If I were to lose my job in the US, suddenly I would have no health insurance. The cheapest option (which my ex coworker told me about) costs $331/month, adding an extra 4K a year in living expenses. Not only would I be unemployed, but I'd have to suddenly find an extra $331 per month. It's like a sudden 22% increase in my rent.

Or I could walk around without health insurance, and risk going bankrupt the moment I have a serious health issue... as many Americans do.

America has serious problems.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

stantistic said:


> I am a single elderly person. For 2015 and 2016 respectively my ratio was approximately 1.30 and 1.38.
> 
> I feel hard done by because tax was greater than food and lodgings.
> 
> How do I compare to other folks ?


 Few years back read the 2 largest expenses United States for the average person will pay over their life is taxes & interest.

The Canadian government is spending money hand over fist & inviting in illegal immigrants to devalue the dollar thinking it will help trade & so tax payers can pay the bankers more interest. 

When the markets drop +80% they are going to panic & really do stupid stuff.

Though taxes are not a major expense for Canadian land lords


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> You don't misunderstand. The ratio is meaningless without context. Income tax/(rent + food) could be 0.5 and still be a good feeling just as much as a ratio of 5. It depends on the absolute value of 'income tax'.


That's what I thought.




lonewolf :) said:


> Few years back read the 2 largest expenses United States for the average person will pay over their life is taxes & interest ... Though taxes are not a major expense for Canadian land lords


That part about "not a major expense" makes no sense to me. I can see where it might not be as big a concern as it would be for a regular person as some of it can be written off but I don't believe it can all be written off so it would still be a concern.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

lonewolf :) said:


> The Canadian government is spending money hand over fist & inviting in illegal immigrants


If the government is inviting immigrants, then they are _legal_.

And immigration has been a huge advantage to Canada, economically. Look at Japan for what happens when you don't take immigrants and have a shrinking population.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Can't say I've ever made this calculation, but I don't think it means very much. If you have a high income, taxes will almost always be more than food/rent. If you have a low income, food/rent will almost always cost more than taxes.

Of course it would be interesting to see this plotted on a chart or something. You would have to control for different types of income, because there are different tax rates for each type.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

nathan79 said:


> You would have to control for different types of income, because there are different tax rates for each type.


Not only across income types but the MTR on income itself varies too. A useless exercise.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

I think that nathan79 has neatly encapsulated my concerns.



> If you have a high income, taxes will almost always be more than food/rent. If you have a low income, food/rent will almost always cost more than taxes.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> A useless exercise.





it's a wonderful opportunity for a patriotic gal to tighten the belt, move into a tiny house, exercise more, yoga in the park, save on groceries, rethink her taxes & invest in a brand new wardrobe.


.












.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

james4beach said:


> If the government is inviting immigrants, then they are _legal_.
> 
> And immigration has been a huge advantage to Canada, economically. Look at Japan for what happens when you don't take immigrants and have a shrinking population.


 If someone breaks into your house uninvited do you kick them out or baby sit them supplying them with food & shelter while they stay home watching TV while your out working to pay the bills ?

Trudeau even goes further by saying how great a house Canada is & Canada is multicultural & welcomes Moslims. Mosques are being built close to boarders as a carrot so more will come to the land of milk & honey Trudeau makes us out to be 

Look @ Japan they have done a good job @ not inviting Moslims as a result they do not have 700 no go zones like France where French law is not inforce instead Sharia law rules.

Japan does not have a rape problem like Sweden that resulted from immigration. Study history large immigration always leads to civil war.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Eclectic12 said:


> That's what I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The Canadian Land lords are so called first nations. Race plays a roll in how your taxed in Canada which makes Canada a racist country.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

.

what a great invitation to save on groceries, tighten belt, dial down housing, buy clothing that's so lightweight it's transparent, work harder, boost income tax ratio

.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

Good eye
humble_pie
To save this thread
From the dead.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

stantistic said:


> Good eye
> humble_pie
> To save this thread
> From the dead.




thank goodness for the fun senior gentlemen
they are the ones can save cmf forum
i call them the silver knights


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

Au contraire, it is we elderly geezers who should be grateful to you for providing us with fashion guidance to women's clothing (or lack thereof).


----------



## Borat (Apr 28, 2017)

Good Thread


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

The darn visor on their armour is getting all steamed up here. :cower:


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

*My takeaway*

Thanks again to all CMF posters, even though I disagree with some about their comments about lack of utility of the ratio. My intention was to compare myself to others. 

For instance, I considered the ratio of 1.9 for one honourable member. I believe he holds down two jobs and is generally “..giving her..” with other activities. Whereas, another honourable member (ratio not stated), is contemplating a new wardrobe. I compared this to my ratio of approximately 1.34.

In considering my life’s trajectory , I have decided to follow the latter example. I will contemplate getting a new suit for an upcoming funeral in the not too distant future. Extrapolating from Statistics Canada data, my unreliable calculations indicate that it will be in 2620 days.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

stantistic said:


> ... In considering my life’s trajectory , I have decided to follow the latter example. I will contemplate getting a new suit for an upcoming funeral in the not too distant future. Extrapolating from Statistics Canada data, my unreliable calculations indicate that it will be in 2620 days.


Stantistic, the wind can blow many different directions over the next seven years. Whatever direction you find it blowing, I wish you well. OMO

P.S. Consider getting out and just flying a damn kite if conditions allow.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

stantistic said:


> Thanks again to all CMF posters, even though I disagree with some about their comments about lack of utility of the ratio ...


Say the ratio improves then I presume you are happy.
Now say that the ratio improves because your rent & food have doubled ... are you equally happy?
Say the ratio improves because your income falls ... are you still happy?

On the flip side, if your ratio becomes worse, I presume you are unhappy.
If the cause is an inheritance, are you still unhappy?


I can think of swings in the ratio that would be "bad" that I'd happily take and "good" swings that I would not be happy about.




stantistic said:


> ... My intention was to compare myself to others ...


I am not sure a lot of single, elderly people hanging out on CMF.

Perhaps it is a mistaken assumption on my part but I did not think you were interested to compare the ratio against a full time employee who also has a taxable investment account producing income while investment interest charges and RRSP reduce the taxable income. 

Are you interested in my ratio?


Cheers


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

> P.S. Consider getting out and just flying a damn kite if conditions allow.


I’m 80 plus but have never flown a kite. I’ll put that suggestion in my bucket list.





> Perhaps it is a mistaken assumption on my part but I did not think you were interested to compare the ratio against a full time employee who also has a taxable investment account producing income while investment interest charges and RRSP reduce the taxable income.
> 
> Are you interested in my ratio?


I find it hard to wrap my mind around your example and will give it further thought.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

stantistic said:


> I’m 80 plus but have never flown a kite.




dear stantistic

do you think we could have a date together? we'll go fly kites on a beach somewhere

.








.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

I couldn't believe what my eyes were seeing ! 
A man lifted by a kite "string". 
Muchas gracias h_p 
.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I am a bit puzzled by what the ratio is an indicator of, exactly. Tax is a rough proxy for income, and essentials:income ratio is interesting I guess. But since tax is progressive and depends on the type of income, it is not really a good proxy for disposable income. As a thought exercise I computed my ratio, and it's in the neighbourhood of 5. What now?


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

To my mind, that ratio is just another way of looking at financial things. For example, you can look at another person and compare yourselves by height. Or you can compare yourselves by weight.. The comparisons are similar but different. Sometimes one is important, sometimes the other, but it is a personal choice.
Another way I view the ratio -
r = income tax / (food +rent ) ~ income tax / necessities*
When r is less than one, I am working mostly for the benefit of myself. If greater than one, than I am working mostly for the benefit of others.
*Keeping in mind that there are various taxes built into the price of necessities. It is therefore only a coarse approximation.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I think these ratios are not very helpful without context. It cannot be used as an indicator of anything g as a comparison as it depends on what is included in the deminator and numerator. Changes in either direction can be good or bad. 

Just to test it out, for my family of four my ratio when my spouse wasn't working, my ratio was about 1.12 as a family, when started working as an employee, our taxes double, but our income did two, and the ratio is about 2.25. 
If decided to work as a contractor, our income went up, our taxes were deferred, so still a ratio of about 1.4. I assure that we have a much better quality of life with both of us working and him as a contractor through our company. So a low ratio in this case was bad. I could have also feed my kids a lot less to have a higher number.

Just for comparison, I ran my parents numbers (I manage their taxes and finances). They are seniors in their 80's
There normal ratio is about .7. The are both low income there for low tax and live in paid off house with minimal expenses.

We are in a very recent scenario where one parent is ill and may be unable to care for themselves. One parent may stay in the same paid off home, yet the other may have to move into a long term care facility.
The ratio now is .38 and .15. Their incomes and taxes remain the same, but the cost to have a parent stay in the rent free home and the other in an expensive care facility decreases the ratio. I assure you they will be in a much much worse living scenario. They expenses just essentially went up. We also ran a scenario where the other parent moves into a retirement home, which is more expensive, and that ratio goes to .13.

My point is, for comparison to be meaningful, either the expenses or the income need to be consistent.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

stantistic said:


> To my mind, that ratio is just another way of looking at financial things. For example, you can look at another person and compare yourselves by height. Or you can compare yourselves by weight.. The comparisons are similar but different. Sometimes one is important, sometimes the other, but it is a personal choice.
> Another way I view the ratio -
> r = income tax / (food +rent ) ~ income tax / necessities*
> When r is less than one, I am working mostly for the benefit of myself. If greater than one, than I am working mostly for the benefit of others.
> *Keeping in mind that there are various taxes built into the price of necessities. It is therefore only a coarse approximation.


Not really. In my case with both my spouse and I working, assuming our necessities stay the same, a higher ratio means I am making more money.

In my retired parents case, they aren't working any more, it means their expenses will get higher while their income remains fixed.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

On a side note, I personally like HPS comparison. Seeing those pictures, I have concluded that I will never be that 'well endowed' and that will not change


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Plugging Along said:


> I think these ratios are not very helpful without context. It cannot be used as an indicator of anything g as a comparison as it depends on what is included in the deminator and numerator. Changes in either direction can be good or bad.
> 
> My point is, for comparison to be meaningful, either the expenses or the income need to be consistent.





this is why kite flying is so relevant


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

very good comparison humble I missed that one post for context. 

BTW I found that kite video very relaxing, and can say that I have flown many kites, and have not found it nearly that satisfying nor calming. Usually it was me running a full speed hoping that the kite catches air before I collapse from being too tired. &#55357;&#56832;


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

stantistic said:


> I couldn't believe what my eyes were seeing !
> A man lifted by a kite "string".
> Muchas gracias h_p
> .


Indeed, I wouldn't have thought it possible. Being lifted into the sky by a kite seems like a child's dream.

What I recall flying a kite as a child was the magic of harnessing that tugging invisible force. 
A force that is always up there but doesn't appear to exist until it acts on a kite or the leaves of a tree.
What other invisible forces are out there that we don't know about I wondered.

Who has seen the wind?
Neither I nor you:
But when the leaves hang trembling,
The wind is passing through.

_(Who Has Seen the Wind -poem by Christina Rossetti and source of the title of W.O. Mitchell's novel)_


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

Some honorable members with paid up homes are making an error of "comparing oranges and apples" if they leave out of the calculation the forgone income from selling their home and investing that money at, say bank savings rate. It is just plain wrong to compare themselves with those who live in purely rented lodgings.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> stantistic said:
> 
> 
> > ... Another way I view the ratio -
> ...


Because the changes to the denominator and numerator that drive the ratio closer to (or under) one can result in more or less after tax income, drawing the conclusion about who benefit most is arbitrary, IMO.

Take my parents who were in their mid-70's, renting an apartment. When dad ran into healthcare issues, they moved to a retirement home where their income stayed the same while their rent/food (aka necessities) went up dramatically.

Or take my aunt in her 90's ... her daughter moved to a larger home then moved her mom into the new home. My aunt's income/taxes stayed the same but as her daughter was not charging her rent, the ratio would have move the "wrong" direction (i.e. over one). You might object that the daughter was covering the rent so I'll point out that other retirees I know have moved to cheaper apartments or to cities where both rent and food were cheaper, which would have the same impact on the ratio.


In both cases, the "work" or "taxes" stayed pretty much the same but what one had left after necessities changed dramatically.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

stantistic said:


> Some honorable members with paid up homes are making an error of "comparing oranges and apples" if they leave out of the calculation the forgone income from selling their home and investing that money at, say bank savings rate.
> 
> It is just plain wrong to compare themselves with those who live in purely rented lodgings.


Based on the ratio definition, IMO, as long as those with paid up houses are including the necessary expenses such as property taxes, utilities, maintenance such as roof repairs etc. without worrying about "forgone income" from what may or may not be made selling the house.

Or are you saying that context matters?


Cheers


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

> Or are you saying that context matters?


Context matters. I gave some context in post #1 and further context in post #7. I have nothing to gain by proselytizing the ratio. If you find it useful, use it. If not , ignore it.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

stantistic said:


> Some honorable members with paid up homes are making an error of "comparing oranges and apples" if they leave out of the calculation the forgone income from selling their home and investing that money at, say bank savings rate. It is just plain wrong to compare themselves with those who live in purely rented lodgings.


I think you may have your rational backwards, or perhaps I have different assumptions.

In my first scenario with my parents who are about your age. I included a fair amount for necessities such as utilities, rents, maintenance, insurance, property taxes etc. The ratio was about .7 this is because they live together so their expenses are shared. 
If I account for them as individuals, which is even more similar to your situation, the one who will be in care home has a ratio of .15 and the one still living at home but by themselves paying everything will have a ratio of .38. 
If I then factor that the one parents moves out of the home to an assisted living facility, like you, the new ratio goes down to .12. Now the ar both renting. 

You implie that you want a target over one. I believe that for a person whose income doesn't change that much, such as a seniors income, you want your ratio to actually go up, because then your expenses are going down. Opposite for some working. That's if you want any comparison. 

In my parents case, their standard of living will be definately worst as their ratio goes down.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

perhaps we could lighten up a little .each:


the way i see it, someone who is in their 80s who is able to:

1) master the language
2) crack jokes
3) manage their income taxes
4) compose poems
5) keep track of their food & rental costs
6) flirt
7) go on dates
8) fly kites
9) navigate the internet
10) riposte with juniors half their age ...


me i say that personnage is a national hero!


.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

stantistic said:


> Context matters. I gave some context in post #1 and further context in post #7. I have nothing to gain by proselytizing the ratio. If you fine it useful, use it. If not , ignore it.


I may have misunderstood as it seemed your disappointment that more people didn't post their ratio for comparison purposes without wanting a matching context seemed to indicate you did not think the context mattered much versus the stated "less than one is good" comment.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> ... You implie that you want a target over one ...


Not sure where this idea comes from ... the original post listed an over one with the complaint of being hard done by as taxes exceed food/lodging. Later on in post # 45, one is listed as the dividing line between being under, where one is working mostly for one's own benefit versus being over, where one is working mostly for the benefit of others.

The OP can confirm but my understanding is that a ratio under one is preferred.


As I say, I can think of changes to either denominator or numerator of the ratio that are good and bad for the spendable after-tax dollars so it it seems risky to skip figuring out what is driving the ratio up or down. 


Cheers


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

> Not sure where this idea comes from ... the original post listed an over one with the complaint of being hard done by as taxes exceed food/lodging. Later on in post # 45, one is listed as the dividing line between being under, where one is working mostly for one's own benefit versus being over, where one is working mostly for the benefit of others.


 

I too do not know how this started. I will therefore no longer post "explanations" because I only make more deviation from the simple request for info of other people's ratio. I do not  have any preferred ratio.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

kcowan said:


> When you think about our country, you get health coverage, income supplements in GIS/OAS, and you will never be kicked to the street when you are old and can't afford seniors assisted residences. It makes planning significantly different than in the US. And we are free of estate taxes.


Great reasons why it's great to live in our country - and visit anywhere else for <6 months of the year.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

stantistic said:


> ... I will therefore no longer post "explanations" because I only make more deviation from the simple request for info of other people's ratio ...


It is a forum where at times (me included) - people read too fast, didn't have enough coffee to wake up or simply don't connect the dots which leads to misunderstandings. Same thing happens at the water cooler at work or hanging out at the mall.

Skipping correcting misunderstanding or explaining will leave the misunderstanding but that is your choice.




stantistic said:


> ... I do not  have any preferred ratio.


I misunderstood then as the comment that when the ratio less than one is seen as working for oneself instead of others lead me to believe the preference was to have the ratio below one.


Cheers


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

"Skipping correcting misunderstanding or explaining will leave the misunderstanding but that is your choice. "

Insightful to my mind and well put.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

It was probably me who read to fast, I don't have time to post often, jus between work and the hospital. My point was that a lower ratio under one could also mean that your income is low, or your expenses are high. That's what I am finding with my retired parents as we look into the next chapter of their lives from living together in a paid off home to each living sperately on their assisted living areas. It just hit home with me, as their situation seems to be changing for the worst


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Plugging Along said:


> It was probably me who read to fast, I don't have time to post often, jus between work and the hospital. My point was that a lower ratio under one could also mean that your income is low, or your expenses are high. That's what I am finding with my retired parents as we look into the next chapter of their lives from living together in a paid off home to each living sperately on their assisted living areas. It just hit home with me, as their situation seems to be changing for the worst



plugging, you of all people?

busy or not won't you please read back through the entire thread before ragging on about whether the blasted ratio works or not.

stantistic is in _his or her 80s_

it's an age for fun, for kites, for beach parties, for frivolous clothes, for zany ideas. It's a time for doting fondly on any lively eighty-plus-year-old who participates in the forum, writes witty posts, has his income taxes under control & sincerely tries to give something back to the finance sector.

plug you are a great humanitarian & thank goodness we can count on you. If you read through the posts you'll see what i mean. Whether the ratio works or not doesn't matter a tinker's tit.

.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

HP. - fair anough, I was just correcting my mistake and misunderstanding. I have been stuck on the ratio as I have recently been the own in the tactical world of my parents finances. It is quite an accomplishment that stantastic is dong all those things. I haven't been paying much attention as my mother just had a stroke a week before her 80 birthday, so we have been in a disarray as I have been sorting through her finances, medical care, and now am looking at long term options. 

I merely posted as I have dlooking into options, some of these numbers in stantad if ratios have been popping up, so I started calculating for the sole purpose of getting my mind off things in reality. My frame of reference has not been one of fun recently. My intent was not to have an 80 year person have to justify their ratios. I provided some ratios that seemed to be closer to stantastics situations context wise, as that's what I actually thought he wanted, and I am dealing with that right.

If it's about kites and see through Lacey outfits, that's okay too. It was those pics and posts that got me to respond.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> stantistic is in _his or her 80s_


Google "Dotard"


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Plugging Along said:


> HP. - fair anough, I was just correcting my mistake and misunderstanding. I have been stuck on the ratio as I have recently been the own in the tactical world of my parents finances. It is quite an accomplishment that stantastic is dong all those things. I haven't been paying much attention as my mother just had a stroke a week before her 80 birthday, so we have been in a disarray as I have been sorting through her finances, medical care, and now am looking at long term options...


Hope things work out for your family. We've gone through this with parents recently as well. The medical and LTCH system is foreign and daunting. I can't imagine navigating it without a family advocate.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

*My confession*

 In the course of doing research for a contemplated posting, I discovered an error in post #12 wherein I stated by way of addendum, that I had not made previously an "opening" post. I therefore apologize to the discerning readers of CMF who expect a higher standard of journalism.

Before charges of prevarication are hurled against me, I will say how fortunate we are to live in a country which has a Constipation where, in Article XIII, it states that elderly people are entitled to be forgetful. This view is bolstered by the paraphrased words of a mid-twentieth century American philosopher - "Remembering is hard, especially about the past."


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Hope things work out for your family. We've gone through this with parents recently as well. The medical and LTCH system is foreign and daunting. I can't imagine navigating it without a family advocate.


Thank you. She is currently in a recovery centre, but we are thinking that LTC is what we need to start looking into, It's actually my father we are concerned about as he hasn't been functioning as well alone and is really stubborn that he want her home, which may not be the best for either of them, unless she makes tremendous progress.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

*Hidden message*

While meditating upon the twists and turns of this thread, I discovered a hidden Biblical message in the photos found in posts #29 and #32, (when they were viewed back to back).

The Spirit moved me to heed the injunction found in Genesis 1:28, wherein it is writ “ ...Go forth and multiply...”. And I attempted to do so. But alas, this did not come to pass.

For my spirit was willing, but my flesh was too weak.


----------

