# The richest got $37 billion richer during COVID-19, while millions lost their jobs



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Canadian billionaires’ wealth skyrocketing amid the pandemic


When you add up the total wealth growth of Canada’s richest 20 billionaires since the March 2020 COVID-19 lockdown, their wealth has ballooned by $37 billion. Data from Forbes’ annual billionaires list and their “real-time billionaires” listing shows that Canada’s top 20 billionaires have amassed a




www.policynote.ca





Interestingly, none of Canada's top 20 richest lost wealth during the pandemic.

There are some big companies struggling but the richest seems to be invincible and continues to make money while millions of people lost their jobs.

These situations increase the difference between the rich and the poor. That's pathetic.

A few days ago, our private driver from when we went to Indonesia in 2018 contacted us. There are no more tourists so he lost his job, there's no government help, he lost his rented car and after 6 months of pandemic he exhausted his emergency fund. There's no job so he's trying to start a new business, but he has no capital to start with... That guy was so friendly and resourceful, he would drive us all around Indonesia 16h/day, he would pick us up at 4 AM in the morning as he would drop us at 2 AM in the night.

Meanwhile, some people who have not even lost their job are currently complaining that they don't have a nice chair and nice desk to work from home?

Meanwhile, the richest are making billions in a few months... during a crash... during a pandemic...?!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The billionaire case is the extreme example, but it also applies to moderately wealthy people. Central bank stimulus has been amazingly good for investment portfolios. I doubt they are doing this deliberately, but the central banks (especially the Federal Reserve) are contributing to the rich/poor wealth gap and therefore contributing to the instability in society.

For example, someone who is rich and has $10 million invested might have enjoyed a 5% gain year-to-date thanks to financial market stimulus ... and is $500,000 richer. Compare that to someone poor, who likely works in a non professional job, who probably had a decline in pay (if they are lucky) or total job loss. The poor person is undeniably poorer after COVID.

And that's how the gap keeps widening.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Yes, exactly.

As I could work from home at full pay and I could make investments which are profitable at the moment, I'm lucky to be part of the "rich" side even though I'm definitely not rich.

But then someone in a non-professional job who could not work from home and lost his job, well that one was on the "poor" side, even if his salary was maybe just 20% below mine.

There's a thing. The richest got much richer and the poorest got much poorer (exception made for those who collected the 2000$ CERB which was higher than their usual salary). In the middle class, some got richer, some got poorer. The extremes between the richest and the poorest got much wider and the line splitting the middle class thickened a bit.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

james4beach said:


> Central bank stimulus has been amazingly good for investment portfolios. I doubt they are doing this deliberately, but the central banks (especially the Federal Reserve) are contributing to the rich/poor wealth gap and therefore contributing to the instability in society.
> The poor person is undeniably poorer after COVID.


 The Fed goal is to own everything they are players in the great reset. Destroy the middle class is part of the plan. Covid is not destroying peoples lives it is government


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

Ray Dalio, a billionaire, has been making this criticism frequently of late. He says capitalism is great for creating wealth, but not so good at distributing it.

Here's his latest analysis, from today.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fireseeker said:


> Ray Dalio, a billionaire, has been making this criticism frequently of late. He says capitalism is great for creating wealth, but not so good at distributing it.
> 
> Here's his latest analysis, from today.


Yes he's been quite vocal about this. I really like how sensible and honest Dalio is. He argues that capitalism needs to be reformed. Not abandoned, but reformed to be more fair.

He says that "trickle-down" does not work. The idea that wealth for the elites naturally trickles down to workers, is not working.



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/what-billionaires-said-about-wealth-inequality-and-capitalism-in-2019.html


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

There's even a name for it.... "K-shaped recovery".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Yes he's been quite vocal about this. I really like how sensible and honest Dalio is. He argues that capitalism needs to be reformed. Not abandoned, but reformed to be more fair.
> 
> He says that "trickle-down" does not work. The idea that wealth for the elites naturally trickles down to workers, is not working.
> 
> ...


Sorry "trickle down" does work.
Just not to the extent some people want it to.

It's very easy to see how, without the super wealthy, we wouldn't have smartphones today.
I'm all for figuring out a system where it is is more of a torrent than a trickle, but I don't want to kill the golden goose.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> It's very easy to see how, without the super wealthy, we wouldn't have smartphones today.


I've never heard of anyone who contributed to the invention of the semiconductor who became super wealthy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I've never heard of anyone who contributed to the invention of the semiconductor who became super wealthy.


Well I don't think they're starving, plus a Nobel prize is kinda nice.
Also the guys who actually brought it to the people got rich, so that's nice.

The thing is we can all agree the current system isn't perfect, but they also aren't proposing better systems.
Often they're proposing far worse solutions.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I've never heard of anyone who contributed to the invention of the semiconductor who became super wealthy.


 ... and with the smartphones we all (almost) have, the super-wealthy becomes the perpetually-super-ultra-wealthy, for the next century(s) (if it still exists).


----------



## depassp (Mar 22, 2020)

MrBlackhill said:


> I've never heard of anyone who contributed to the invention of the semiconductor who became super wealthy.


That's true, but...

The wealthy people who bought the first few very expensive smartphones helped fund development and research which eventually reduces the cost of that smartphone so more people can afford it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Oddly, it was conservatives who pushed the drive for global free trade and now it is conservatives who espouse protectionism.

I guess it didn't work out like they thought it would.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Oddly, it was conservatives who pushed the drive for global free trade and now it is conservatives who espouse protectionism.
> 
> I guess it didn't work out like they thought it would.


I was for free trade, still for free trade. It isn't like the Liberals flipped to Free trade either, Trudeau was working hard to sabotage NAFTA with his social justice and discriminatory quota crap.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

depassp said:


> The wealthy people who bought the first few very expensive smartphones helped fund development and research which eventually reduces the cost of that smartphone so more people can afford it.


Meanwhile other research topics far more important than smartphones are struggling to get help funding their researches. I don't call this a fair distribution of the collective effort for a better society.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Meanwhile other research topics far more important than smartphones are struggling to get help funding their researches. I don't call this a fair distribution of the collective effort for a better society.


Propose a better solution.

The thing is, who is better able to decide what will work out and be valuable in the future.
1. The people who have been able to figure out what is valuable in the past.
2. Some other group.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Propose a better solution.


Unfortunately, that's not my field. I only know it's not optimal and we must work towards a better solution.


----------



## depassp (Mar 22, 2020)

MrBlackhill said:


> Meanwhile other research topics far more important than smartphones are struggling to get help funding their researches. I don't call this a fair distribution of the collective effort for a better society.


You're missing the point. Smartphones were a small silly example.

People often complain about the wealthy and fail to realize that they do play an important role in our society and that role generally increases the society's average wealth.

Yes, the widening wealth gap is problematic but that does NOT mean we should burn down the whole system and build it up again with perfectly equal wealth distribution.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

depassp said:


> People often complain about the wealthy and fail to realize that they do play an important role in our society


As the non-wealthy also play a very important role in our society.



depassp said:


> Yes, the widening wealth gap is problematic but that does NOT mean we should burn down the whole system and build it up again with perfectly equal wealth distribution.


I've never said we should burn down the whole system. I've never said we need equal wealth.

I just said the widening wealth gap is problematic, as you agreed.

The consumer society is also problematic. All that people spending their savings just to buy the latest iPhone... all that people spending so much money on Amazon because it's now so easy to purchase something with one click... the middle class contributing to the wealth of the richest. I don't have an iPhone and I've bought less than 10 things on Amazon in my whole life.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> As the non-wealthy also play a very important role in our society.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think we agree on all 3 points.
The issue I have is all these people complaining about it, but not doing anything to deal with the issue.

Sure, you're 'raising awareness' of something we all know about, but you're not proposing any actions. Or the actions you propose only make things objectively worse.

Thomas Sowell writes about this extensively, his interviews from the 80's are outstanding.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrBlackhill said:


> Meanwhile other research topics far more important than smartphones are struggling to get help funding their researches. I don't call this a fair distribution of the collective effort for a better society.


Nothing is stopping people from donating to causes they consider important. But some people demand that the government fund them instead.

It's always easier to spend someone else's money.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> The issue I have is all these people complaining about it, but not doing anything to deal with the issue.


If I had the global solution, I'd be in politics, but that's not my field.

Meanwhile, I'm doing my part for the society and the environment and I'm not giving all my money to big names.

FAANG don't get much money from me. Sure, I have a basic Netflix account and I have a Microsoft OneDrive storage. That's about it.

Meanwhile, I'm not part of the consumer society. I buy in bulk from local merchants.



Prairie Guy said:


> Nothing is stopping people from donating to causes they consider important. But some people demand that the government fund them instead.
> 
> It's always easier to spend someone else's money.


I admit that the government is wasting a lot of money through its inefficiency, but multi-billionaires investing in their own projects is egoist. The government should make sure the wealth is well distributed for a better society. Meanwhile super-wealthy people have so much power but they distribute their wealth based on their own beliefs, no one is voting for them.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

You are going to tell me that Travers Beynon and Dan Bilzerian are spending their money towards a better society?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> I admit that the government is wasting a lot of money through its inefficiency, but multi-billionaires investing in their own projects is egoist. The government should make sure the wealth is well distributed for a better society.


The government is well known for waste and many times not doing what's best for their people.



MrBlackhill said:


> Meanwhile super-wealthy people have so much power but they distribute their wealth based on their own beliefs, no one is voting for them.


And why does one need to vote for them ... it's their money right?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I admit that the government is wasting a lot of money through its inefficiency, but multi-billionaires investing in their own projects is egoist. The government should make sure the wealth is well distributed for a better society. Meanwhile super-wealthy people have so much power but they distribute their wealth based on their own beliefs, no one is voting for them.


Okay, I understand the argument "the government should".
Just a few counterpoints.
1. First someone has to create the wealth, when you take everything, you destroy wealth creation.
2. Goverments that seize and redistribute do a bad job, this has led to horrible outcomes every time it's been done.

The real question, is when I do work, and create something, should I get the fruits of my labour?
If I don't get my own work product, why would I work?

Again, there seems to be this idea that the super wealthy don't really deserve what they created, and somehow this should belong to people who didn't create it.
That sounds like jealousy and greed, not fairness.

Finally I don't trust the government to distribute fairly.
I don't trust Trudeau, I don't trust Harper, Martin, Chretien, Campbell, Mulroney, the list goes on.
The situation in the US is even more nuts, do you trust Trump to redistribute the wealth fairly?

Plus there is the idea that robbing one person and giving it to others, isn't fair at all anyway. I think it's MOST fair to allow people to keep that which they create.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Continue to shrink the ability of consumers to spend and see what happens to the economy.

Fortunately, economists already know the answer. The economy shrinks and dies.

We are facing a crossroads where the old capitalism doesn't work anymore. We need a new form of capitalism that distributes the wealth more evenly.

If the wealthy don't like it, they can always leave. We got along before we met them and we will get along without them now.

I suspect they won't find the low tax jurisdictions very hospitable locations to live. They tend to be dirt poor countries with no infrastructure.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Sorry "trickle down" does work.
> Just not to the extent some people want it to.


It seems that people had unrealistic expectations of trickle-down.

Reality is that most wealthy people just hoard wealth. Asset price inflation results in larger family trusts and not much other benefit to society, other than some 'wealth effect' which can help with spending.

More aggressive taxation of the wealthy is the most obvious way to redistribute this hoarded wealth. There was a time when the top tax rate in the US was 90%.









When the Top U.S. Tax Rate was 70 Percent—or Higher


"Name a country where that’s worked. Ever,” asked Michael Dell in Davos. There's a simple answer.




www.theatlantic.com


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And quoting from the above article. These were indeed the better days... it's probably time to revisit government policies that existed in those better times:

As you’ll see in the chart below, through the entire administrations of presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, the top-tax-bracket rate was at least 70 percent, and for long periods was much more. (John Kennedy’s tax-cut plan of the early 1960s took the top rate from 90 percent down to 70 percent.)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The middle class was borne from those days of high taxation on the wealthy, and the wealthy managed to continue getting wealthier.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

James Please support your claim that Ray Dalio said it doesn't work.
James Please support your claim that most wealthy people just hoard wealth. GivingPledge is a nice counterfactual there.


It isn't perfect, maybe there are better solutions, but that's different than saying it doesn't work.

The current system works quite well for almost everyone.
I don't see anyone here fleeing to move to North Korea or Venezuela.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The middle class was borne from those days of high taxation on the wealthy, and the wealthy managed to continue getting wealthier.


Right. The norm in America is to have high taxes on the rich. Look at the stretch 1932 - 1981.

Higher taxes are coming one way or another. Politicians can either decide to do it now, in a measured way. Or they can be replaced by new politicians who are forced to over-correct for all of this later.

The wealthy should support higher taxation NOW. The second option is far more disruptive and runs the risk of dramatic over-correction and potential wealth seizure.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Right. The norm in America is to have high taxes on the rich. Look at the stretch 1932 - 1981.
> 
> Higher taxes are coming one way or another. Politicians can either decide to do it now, in a measured way. Or they can be replaced by new politicians who are forced to over-correct for all of this later.
> 
> The wealthy should support higher taxation NOW. The second option is far more disruptive and runs the risk of dramatic over-correction and potential wealth seizure.


Give us your money, or we'll beat you up and take it.
That's really the attitude of the far left, take a look at Venezuella, see how that turns out for everyone.

Spoiler alert, it doesn't work out well for the rich, and it works out even worse for the poor.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> The current system works quite well for almost everyone.


Except those that are demanding "free money" because someone else has "greener grass" than they do, lol.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Except those that are demanding "free money" because someone else has "greener grass" than they do, lol.


That's the problem, it's simple greed.

None of these people have ever looked into why some are rich and some are poor, or what they can do to make things better. Instead they clamour to steal from others.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> That's the problem, it's simple greed.


You think the poor are greedy?

The rich have to pay their fair share, as they did in America between 1930 and 1980. The current regime of ultra-low taxes for the rich is a very modern phenomenon, and quite honestly it's destroying America.

The rich got greedy, they had a good run. It was lots of fun and we all had a lot of laughs, but now the party is over. Time to equalize things and go back to traditional American values.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I made money during the crisis. one of my companies was shut down due to covid for several months, no government support, but my real estate did well, I bought 4 more places and my stocks did very well since I bought new ones cheap.

nothing special, anyone here could have done it but you didn’t, now you complain about how unfair it is...it was your choice, don’t blame others for your fear. Probably increased my net worth by double digits, I’m guessing, but some of my daily stock gains were a year‘s salary for most people, some days it was high 6 figures.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> You think the poor are greedy?


If they are demanding "free money" from the rich ... YES!



james4beach said:


> The rich have to pay their fair share, as they did in America between 1930 and 1980. The current regime of ultra-low taxes for the rich is a very modern phenomenon, and quite honestly it's destroying America.
> 
> The rich got greedy, they had a good run. It was lots of fun and we all had a lot of laughs, but now the party is over. Time to equalize things and go back to traditional American values.


You seem to *instantly equate* becoming rich with greed which may or may not be the case. Running a growing and very sucessful company may have nothing at all to do with greed.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> You think the poor are greedy?
> 
> The rich have to pay their fair share, as they did in America between 1930 and 1980. The current regime of ultra-low taxes for the rich is a very modern phenomenon, and quite honestly it's destroying America.
> 
> The rich got greedy, they had a good run. It was lots of fun and we all had a lot of laughs, but now the party is over. Time to equalize things and go back to traditional American values.


Yes, people who want things they didn't earn and didn't work for are greedy.
I'm Canadian, not American, so my values are slightly different. 
Maybe that's the problem, I want to discuss our way through problems, not pull out a gun and start shooting. Maybe you've been in the US too long.

I do find it interesting that throughout most of US history, but you pick the highest taxes in history as your reference point of what "traditional" is.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> You seem to *instantly equate* becoming rich with greed which may or may not be the case. Running a growing and very sucessful company may have nothing at all to do with greed.


I didn't equate those things. When I said the rich got greedy, I mean by bringing tax rates very low. They control (US) government and brought their own tax rates lower, currently paying far less tax than the typical / average over the long term. That's the greed ... paying less than the American historical norm.

In my view, when someone is wealthy, they have a moral obligation to help out the society and their neighbours. In our country this is accomplished via taxation, because taxes fund social services which help out the less fortunate.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I didn't equate those things. When I said the rich got greedy, I mean by bringing tax rates very low. They control (US) government and brought their own tax rates lower, currently paying far less tax than the typical / average over the long term. That's the greed ... paying less than the American historical norm.


You're saying the same this again, just their greed is "indirect" via tax cuts and they own the government.



james4beach said:


> In my view, when someone is wealthy, they have a moral obligation to help out the society and their neighbours. In our country this is accomplished via taxation, because taxes fund social services which help out the less fortunate.


There is no singular moral obligation, that's why we have taxes! 
Social services should provide a "helping hand" up to get those back on their feet again and not a "rich paid hand out" because people want something for free.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I didn't equate those things. When I said the rich got greedy, I mean by bringing tax rates very low. They control (US) government and brought their own tax rates lower, currently paying far less tax than the typical / average over the long term. That's the greed ... paying less than the American historical norm.
> 
> In my view, when someone is wealthy, they have a moral obligation to help out the society and their neighbours. In our country this is accomplished via taxation, because taxes fund social services which help out the less fortunate.


I take it the other way, people got greedy and raised taxes.

Since then they've wised up and started lowering taxes, but they remain far above the average historical tax rate.


Your call for "fair" high taxes, is just you wanting money you didn't earn.

I agree there is a moral obligation to help others, but they also have a moral obligation to work themselves. The problem is the massive sense of entitlement.

Do you have any idea how many people we import to work farms, while able bodied locals refuse to do such hard work.
I'm sorry, but as long as you're too lazy to work, you don't deserve my charity.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Social services should provide a "helping hand" up to get those back on their feet again and not a "rich paid hand out" because people want something for free.


What if through a string of bad luck, you ended up poor? Let's say you struggled to stay employed, struggled with your housing, have trouble affording food and raising your children. Maybe it's not children, but another factor, like an injury that causes disability. It prevents you from working, and you struggle to get by.

What if your 'misfortune' is getting old, and doing worse than some other people who get old. This is a complete lottery! It can happen to any of us.

Would you not request that others in society, who have much more than you, help you out? I think you would.

And that's the deal we have in society. Since this can happen to any of us -- ANY of us can have misfortunes, be born into a poor family, get injured, have a string of bad luck, etc -- we have a "deal" where those of us who end up with excess money pay more tax, to transfer money (often via services) to others.

*Yes, for the recipient, it's something for free*. As it should be. If you or I were the unfortunate person and the situation was reversed, we would get money for free. That equality among all Canadians is what makes the system fair. All of us are potential payers, and simultaneously potential recipients.

It's a lot like an insurance pool ... do we complain when a person (after suffering misfortune) makes an insurance claim and collects money from the other premium payers? I don't complain. I say, "thank goodness I'm more fortunate" and I happily keep paying my insurance premiums, knowing that the insurance will also help me if I need it later.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

James, you realize that the amount of money collected in the USA from the rich hasn’t changed over the years by much despite the tax rate changing from 90% to under 50%.

also, I did wind up injured, unable tow work, etc. I found other ways to make money, I didn’t get any social services and it was really good encouragement to learn, as opposed to the poor I know on social services with no intention to change their lifestyle. There was a point in my journey that really applies to this situation...there was a point where I could sell all my investments and could have paid off all my debts. The problem is, had I done that I would cut off all my income with nothing to replace it. Instead, I decided to remain in debt and let my investments grow...hard choice, but one made me rich and the other would have left me poor. Same thing with the economy if you get rid of the wealth makers, what’s going to fund tomorrow?

also, an insurance payment is paid by the policy owner, not his neighbour.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> The government is well known for waste and many times not doing what's best for their people.





MrMatt said:


> Okay, I understand the argument "the government should".
> Just a few counterpoints.
> 1. First someone has to create the wealth, when you take everything, you destroy wealth creation.
> 2. Goverments that seize and redistribute do a bad job, this has led to horrible outcomes every time it's been done.
> ...


Well, hopefully, as a society, we are trying to improve ourselves, so hopefully we are trying the improve the efficiency of the government.

Otherwise, we should burn down the government? No more taxes and we do whatever we want with our money. Everything would be private. You are sick? Pay the whole bill. Your kids want an education? Pay the whole bill. You have no job? Better find another soon because nobody is going to help you financially. Amazon is super-hyper-wealthy while companies trying to find a cure to cancer are struggling? Who cares, people want to spend all their money on Amazon, not on a potential cure to cancer... unless they have seen cancer in their family and friends. A kid have almost nothing to eat because his family is struggling and also his dad is beating him up? Too bad for him.

If the future of government is hopeless, then the future of the society itself is also hopeless... If we cannot trust the government to try to improve itself, what should we trust? Who should distribute wealth fairly if it's not the government?



cainvest said:


> And why does one need to vote for them ... it's their money right?


I was saying that because their wealth gives them a lot of power. If Bezos wants to use his wealth to buy an army and conquer New Zealand so it becomes his private island, sure, it's his money, right?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> What if through a string of bad luck, you ended up poor? Let's say you struggled to stay employed, struggled with your housing, have trouble affording food and raising your children. Maybe it's not children, but another factor, like an injury that causes disability. It prevents you from working, and you struggle to get by.
> 
> What if your 'misfortune' is getting old, and doing worse than some other people who get old. This is a complete lottery! It can happen to any of us.
> 
> Would you not request that others in society, who have much more than you, help you out? I think you would.


True, real misfortunes do happen but that doesn't mean you should just get a free handout but rather a hand up. If you're causing your own financial misfortunes that needs to be corrected, as in, someone else manages your money for you. For other issues, disability, etc, the government should find some way for them to become productive in society, not give them a free ride. I'd bet less than 0.001% truely require a free ride on society so that shouldn't be a problem for our current system.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> I was saying that because their wealth gives them a lot of power. If Bezos wants to use his wealth to buy an army and conquer New Zealand so it becomes his private island, sure, it's his money, right?


So you're suggesting that nobody should be allowed to get rich because they might do something illegal?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Taxes on the wealthy should never have been lowered by the government. It was purely political to appease the upper class.

Raising taxes on the wealthy will restore some balance. There are profitable corporations that pay nothing in taxes.

Many of the extremely wealthy today did nothing to earn their riches, but be borne into a wealthy family. It is known as winning the "wealth lottery".

Take away their inherited wealth and see how well they "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

Poverty is caused by a lack of money........not character.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

When I was working in the US, being a high income earner, my taxes kept declining every time Trump cut taxes. In the last few years, Trump helped make me "rich".

As I walked to the office, sometimes stepping over the bodies of the homeless collapsed on the streets (I am only exaggerating slightly here) I often thought to myself: I would happily pay more taxes to help these people. Maybe the government could fund services for mental health, provide more shelter, pay them money, or other resources. I don't know ... I'm not a social worker or public policy expert.

I found living in America to be disturbing. One reason it was disturbing was that society was quite clearly crumbling around me, with intense poverty visible everywhere -- in every American city I went to. At the same time, my taxes kept going down and I got wealthier and wealthier. You don't have to a be a genius to connect these dots.

More than once, I explained to non-Americans that they have completely the wrong idea about America, supposedly the land of riches. When you travel around the US, you actually see that it is a country in poverty. The country _is not_ well off. That's why we have MAGA, and brewing radical leftists, and very high tensions.

This experience taught me some important things. The most important takeaway is that your quality of life (as a rich person) is affected by the condition of everyone around you. Is it kind of unfair to just pay out cash to very poor people? Yes maybe it's unfair, maybe they didn't deserve it. But I guarantee you that YOUR quality of life improves when you share some of the wealth.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> So you're suggesting that nobody should be allowed to get rich because they might do something illegal?


There's being rich and being rich... Not everything is black and white. There's a spectrum of possibilities, but there's a limit...

I could do everything I dream of with a wealth of 10 millions without any single worry. And yet some people have a wealth of 100 millions. 1 billion. 10 billion. 100 billions. Where's the limit? We can't even wrap our mind around how much 100 billion is. That's more than 5000$ every hour during 2000 years. And can someone be wealthier than the GDP of some countries?

There are also lots of super-rich people simply living on the heritage of their grand-grand-grand-grand-parents. They haven't work their a** off to build that wealth. They can continue living on that wealth for centuries.

By the way, the rich are greedy, not the poor. That's already a big problem.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Well, hopefully, as a society, we are trying to improve ourselves, so hopefully we are trying the improve the efficiency of the government.
> 
> Otherwise, we should burn down the government? No more taxes and we do whatever we want with our money. Everything would be private. You are sick? Pay the whole bill. Your kids want an education? Pay the whole bill. You have no job? Better find another soon because nobody is going to help you financially. Amazon is super-hyper-wealthy while companies trying to find a cure to cancer are struggling? Who cares, people want to spend all their money on Amazon, not on a potential cure to cancer... unless they have seen cancer in their family and friends. Kids have almost nothing to eat because his family is struggling and also his dad is beating him up? Too bad for him.
> 
> ...


Well we should try to improve the efficiency of the government.
But we also need to ensure it's doing the correct things.

Truduea is using the power of the government to enrich himself and his friends, while trampling on the rights of citizens, and sowing divisiveness and hostility throughout the country.

Good question, since we can't trust the government, who can we trust?
People, people accountable to other people.

The problem is that we have King Trump and King Trudeau sitting far away on mountaintops dictating to the peasants how things should be.
We need to take the power from PMO, and put it back in the hands of the parliment so it can be debated.
The Feds should get out of Provincial jurisdiction, and focus on national issues.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> There's being rich and being rich... Not everything is black and white. There's a spectrum of possibilities, but there's a limit...
> 
> I could do everything I dream of with a wealth of 10 millions without any single worry. And yet some people have a wealth of 100 millions. 1 billion. 10 billion. 100 billions. Where's the limit? We can't even wrap our mind around how much 100 billion is. That's more than 5000$ every hour during 2000 years.
> 
> ...


Your dreams are too small, there are no limits to mine.

You could give me $100 Trillion, and I'd make plans.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Your dreams are too small, there are no limits to mine.
> 
> You could give me $100 Trillion, and I'd make plans.


If I give you $100 trillion, you better be able to use that to solve all of the world's issues.

If that's all for yourself, I wouldn't give you a penny.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> When I was working in the US, being a high income earner, my taxes kept declining every time Trump cut taxes. In the last few years, Trump helped make me "rich".
> 
> As I walked to the office, sometimes stepping over the bodies of the homeless collapsed on the streets (I am only exaggerating slightly here) I often thought to myself: I would happily pay more taxes to help these people. Maybe the government could fund services for mental health, provide more shelter, pay them money, or other resources. I don't know ... I'm not a social worker or public policy expert.


So instead of donating to a homeless shelter with your own money you want everyone else to pay for your charity. You don't care as much as you claim.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrBlackhill said:


> There's being rich and being rich... Not everything is black and white. There's a spectrum of possibilities, but there's a limit...
> 
> I could do everything I dream of with a wealth of 10 millions without any single worry. And yet some people have a wealth of 100 millions. 1 billion. 10 billion. 100 billions. Where's the limit? We can't even wrap our mind around how much 100 billion is. That's more than 5000$ every hour during 2000 years. And can someone be wealthier than the GDP of some countries?
> 
> ...


We get it...you're jealous.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Well we should try to improve the efficiency of the government.
> But we also need to ensure it's doing the correct things.


That's why hopefully we have a fair system to vote for the people in power. Nobody is perfect, the world will always be divided and - in fact - that's healthy. But it's easy to critic what the government is doing... what would you do? There are also many people working at the government working their a** off with great visions to improve the society.

While there are many of the rich billionaires and multi-millionaires wasting their own money on useless things that do not benefit the society. That's certainly a biggest waste than what's wasted in inefficiency of the government.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrBlackhill said:


> While there are many of the rich billionaires and multi-millionaires wasting their own money on useless things that do not benefit the society. That's certainly a biggest waste than what's wasted in inefficiency of the government.


Have you accomplished anything noteworthy in your life? I'm asking because you're complaining about people who have had great success. Do you have a track record that make you credible?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> We get it...you're jealous.


Give me 10 millions tomorrow and it will all go in donations. Because there's absolutely no reason for me to be the only lucky one and use that money for myself out of greed. Many people working on projects for a better society will certainly do a better use of that money.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’m surprised that if you work for and earn money you are considered “greedy” but, if you don’t take the risks of the people who work for it, you deserve a share of their success. James, I don’t read about you inviting the homeless guy to your house or even lunch, you just stepped over them, but you want my money to solve the problem. You sure you’re not sags jr?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> you're complaining about people who have had great success.


I've never complained about success. You are translating "wealth" into "success"? That's another big issue.

I've had lots of great success throughout my life. I don't quantify my success to how much wealth I have.

I know lots of successful people who are not wealthy.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

My stepfather worked 45 years as a farmer, working an average of 85h/week. Always 7 days a week. Taking 1 week of vacation every 5 years. Was he successful in managing that million-dollar business by himself throughout his life? Definitely. Is he wealthy? Now that he retired and sold, we could say that - a bit more than a million, no more. Considering that he took 1 week of vacation every 5 years, worked 85h/week, 7 days/week, was living his daily life on a 20k$/year budget...

Meanwhile, some other people are bored engineers working 35h/week, 4 weeks of vacation every year, all the holidays, doing 80k$/year managing inefficient bureaucratic businesses, not doing anything noteworthy throughout their life and will likely retire at 60 with a few millions also. Wealthy? Yes. Successful? No.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

People who quantify their success from their wealth are necessarily greedy. Because why they give their so-hard-earned success-validating money?

Meanwhile, I call successful human beings those who are giving their time in voluntary work to help people in need. (See how money and wealth was not part of this sentence?)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Getting tired of the primary school level of counter arguments yet Mr. Blackhill ?

They go round and round....we can't afford it, rich people deserve it, the poor are lazy, anyone can do it...and nary any recognition that there is a problem.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> That's why hopefully we have a fair system to vote for the people in power. Nobody is perfect, the world will always be divided and - in fact - that's healthy. But it's easy to critic what the government is doing... what would you do? There are also many people working at the government working their a** off with great visions to improve the society.
> 
> While there are many of the rich billionaires and multi-millionaires wasting their own money on useless things that do not benefit the society. That's certainly a biggest waste than what's wasted in inefficiency of the government.


Well I'd immediately prohibit sexual and racial discrimination.
Strengthen free speech protections, and ensure all constitutional rights are protected.

Appoint the required judges, put criminals in jail, provide better victim supports. Improve rehabilitation services.
Take measures to ensure laws are applied fairly and equally, remove several stupid laws.

I'd work to ensure that the proper level of government is involved in issues. ie get the Feds out of provincial jurisdiction.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> People who quantify their success from their wealth are necessarily greedy. Because why they give their so-hard-earned success-validating money?
> 
> Meanwhile, I call successful human beings those who are giving their time in voluntary work to help people in need. (See how money and wealth was not part of this sentence?)


Money is a tool.
Tony Robbins has fed millions more people because he's rich.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Well I'd immediately prohibit sexual and racial discrimination.
> Strengthen free speech protections, and ensure all constitutional rights are protected.
> 
> Appoint the required judges, put criminals in jail, provide better victim supports. Improve rehabilitation services.
> ...


That's good, you can give an opinion on of few subjects that the government has to deal with. But half of the people will manage to give you fair arguments against your ideas because they have other priorities. Money is limited and good ideas are not lacking. Resistance is always present. Change is slow.

The government has much more things to deal with than these specific subjects. It's the overall picture that makes it difficult to be a great government. They have to prioritise, also. Talk to a 100 people about the top 10 most important issues to deal with and you'll get 100 different priority lists. For instance, you haven't talk about the environmental changes or the healthcare system or the education system, etc.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> That's good, you can give an opinion on of few subjects that the government has to deal with. But half of the people will manage to give you fair arguments against your ideas because they have other priorities. Money is limited and good ideas are not lacking.
> 
> The government has much more things to deal with than these specific subjects. It's the overall picture that makes it difficult to be a great government. They have to prioritise, also. Talk to a 100 people about the top 10 most important issues to deal with and you'll get 100 different priority lists. For instance, you haven't talk about the environmental changes.


Really?
You think there are "fair arguments"
For sexual discrimination? Racial discrimination? 
Against free speech? Constitutional rights?

Fair trials?
Supporting victims of crime?
Enforcing laws fairly?

Governments focusing on their constitutionally stated responsibilities?

Now I could have put more outlandish things, but I honestly don't think there is much if any valid criticism for those half dozen priorities, and even if there was I don't think there is widespread opposition to ANY of those proposals.
Care to share which proposal is too expensive?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Money is a tool.
> Tony Robbins has fed millions more people because he's rich.


Not every rich people are doing donations, that's the issue, unfortunately.

And also, I hate when we see titles like "Mr. X gave 100 000$ in donations this year, wow!" Well, Mr. X makes 10 million a year, that's 1% of his income. I do give more than 1% of my income to causes and I don't make the newspaper... People don't put things into perspective.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Really?
> You think there are "fair arguments"
> For sexual discrimination? Racial discrimination?
> Against free speech? Constitutional rights?
> ...


I'm just trying to say that's it's easy to say what should be done, but unfortunately setting those things in place is harder than it seems.

I'm pretty sure most politicians agree with what you're pointing out, the issue is the prioritisation.

Put a cost, a complexity level and a time frame to each idea and now try to prioritise all those ideas to get the maximum value out of all this and inside your time frame, budget and probability of success. Not that easy.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrBlackhill said:


> Put a cost, a complexity level and a time frame to each idea and now try to prioritise all those ideas to get the maximum value out of all this and inside your time frame, budget and probability of success. Not that easy.


I'm just saying that because I'm making a parallel with my job... I'm in charge of the prioritisation of the software developments.

I get hundreds of great ideas every day. Some are "quick wins", some a bigger projects but game-changers.

That means I also get hundreds of complains about people not seeing their great ideas being developed yet.

When there's someone really mad, I get him involved in my daily life of prioritisation for a couple of days/weeks. They stop complaining afterwards because they've suddenly seen a deep-dive into the reality of managing emergencies, budget, resources, complexity, deadlines, new needs, etc.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> I’m surprised that if you work for and earn money you are considered “greedy” but, if you don’t take the risks of the people who work for it, you deserve a share of their success. James, I don’t read about you inviting the homeless guy to your house or even lunch, you just stepped over them, but you want my money to solve the problem. You sure you’re not sags jr?


I donate to charities, and also chose to file & pay Canadian taxes. I didn't have to pay Canadian taxes, but I did it to help my province. I did it to help @Prairie Guy, who I think is my neighbour.

Also, donated to Canadian Red Cross as I'm more interested in helping fellow Canadians than Americans, when I have excess money.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm just trying to say that's it's easy to say what should be done, but unfortunately setting those things in place is harder than it seems.
> 
> I'm pretty sure most politicians agree with what you're pointing out, the issue is the prioritisation.
> 
> Put a cost, a complexity level and a time frame to each idea and now try to prioritise all those ideas to get the maximum value out of all this and inside your time frame, budget and probability of success. Not that easy.


That's the problem, you'd think they'd agree, but the current Federal Government isn't actually doing them.
They're increasing racial and gender discrimination, they're not appointing judges, they're not enforcing laws equally, they're not sticking to Federal areas.

That's the thing, we can all agree they're good ideas, and it's obvious the government should actually work on them.
But right now, at this very minute we have a government actively working against those objectives that we just agreed on.

Since you didn't even know that the government is working against those principles, I can understand why you might think it is okay to give them more control.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

james4beach said:


> I donate to charities, and also chose to file & pay Canadian taxes. I didn't have to pay Canadian taxes, but I did it to help my province. I did it to help @Prairie Guy, who I think is my neighbour.
> 
> Also, donated to Canadian Red Cross as I'm more interested in helping fellow Canadians than Americans, when I have excess money.


how many jobs did you create? How many affordable homes did you provide for people? How much money did you donate? I’m betting it’s a lot less than the rich you want to take from...step up to our level, then complain. Or better yet take it away and put the people out of work and houses.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> how many jobs did you create? How many affordable homes did you provide for people? How much money did you donate? I’m betting it’s a lot less than the rich you want to take from...step up to our level, then complain. Or better yet take it away and put the people out of work and houses.


That's the thing.

Rather than ask why are people only making minimum wage, doing low value work, how can we get them engaged so they do more valuable work, which WILL make them more money.

The thing is we want EVERYONE to be able to deliver more value. Trust me, as a manager, I'd rather have 4 guys generating $100/hr each ($400/hr total) than 8 guys generating $50 each ( Still $400/hr).

It's not why does Jeff Bezos make billions, it's why are others only making hundreds or thousands.

The whole perspective on wealth creation is backwards and stupid, we need to empower people to do more, not impair those who already did.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> how many jobs did you create? How many affordable homes did you provide for people? How much money did you donate? I’m betting it’s a lot less than the rich you want to take from...step up to our level, then complain. Or better yet take it away and put the people out of work and houses.


I think paying my fair share in taxes helps support all kinds of useful services in society.

And why do you take so much offense at the idea of taxing the rich? The issue is raising taxes on the very wealthy.

Do you think you're rich?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

No matter how many peanuts people like James contribute. it’s nothing compared to what the wealthy contributes...who cares if that is only 1% off what they make it’s 1000’s more than others contribute.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

I agree with taxing the very wealthy much more. But we've created such a complicated economic and taxation systems that the very wealthy always have the means to get creative with their money and avoid paying a large portion of taxes they would otherwise owe.

So usually when people shout "tax the rich" and governments obliges, they end up taxing the mid-upper middle class more. And generally I find its this economic rung that have made the greatest sacrifices to get their marginally higher incomes, working away from home and family for weeks on end, taking stressful and long hour management positions etc.

Its extremely difficult to properly tax the rich, and why would the government want to tax their friends.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I think paying my fair share in taxes helps support all kinds of useful services in society.
> 
> And why do you take so much offense at the idea of taxing the rich? The issue is raising taxes on the very wealthy.
> 
> Do you think you're rich?


I don't think it's fair to take half of what someone earns.
I don't think it's fair to take money, by force, or threat of force, if you're just going to give it away.

I think if you take peoples money, in the form of taxation, you have an obligation to be responsible with how you use it.
That means, not simply giving money to your friends and family, or giving it away to causes that don't benefit Canadians and Canadian communities.

Also don't use that money in ways that hurts Canadians.

You keep saying "the very wealthy", but ignore the fact that they already pay the vast majority of taxes in Canada.
The 10% pay almost half the income tax in the country.

We spend so much money that those who make less than a living wage STILL have to pay income tax.


I don't think anyone should be permitted to take anything from another without a VERY GOOD reason. Because they want to give it to the Chinese government, or their friend with the private island aren't good enough reasons.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Remember the very wealthy also founded and fund the top universities in the USA. Unlike the government run ones here in Canada who always demand more handouts to operate...you’d think the top educational institutions could figure out that tax payers are a limited resource And a 340B definite for a population of 34M is not sustainable, or even a good idea.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

The same USA universities that cripple their students with $200K in student debt when they graduate?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Think Canada is better? Canada has everyone subsidiz other people’s education, then the welfare as they re unemployed because we tax the job makers into mediocrity. oh wait, you’re probably one of those who thinks education should be free, Canada straps everhome with the student’s debt instead of them paying the true cost of their education.
btw, I’ve got two kids in university right now, one who make go overseas, with two more to go, who won’t have any student debt when they graduate...why?because I planned for it, and saved for it. Too bad other parents don’t. Then again, why sacrifice something for your kids when you can demand it from “the rich”.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

5Lgreenback said:


> The same USA universities that cripple their students with $200K in student debt when they graduate?


Go to state college


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

For the record, I'm certainly not happy with the amount of taxes I pay either.

Yes Canada is better, subsidizing education enables more social mobility among economic classes, which further enables a more stable society, this stable society enabled you to generate enough wealth to pay for your kids educations. Now maybe we should let some less fortunate kids get an education too so they have the same opportunities?

Or we could just keep the status quo of wealth funnelling to fewer people until Canada breaks out into civil war and everybody looses.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Where does personal responsibility come in? Less than 20 years ago I was dead broke and living off credit cards, no social services helped me, when do people have to earn something for themeselves? Maybe then theyd have some pride instead of excuses...I had no special education, I just didn’t want to starve or have my family starve, so I taught myself to make money without a job. Anyone could do what I did, but why would they when they can get handouts for no effort?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I was raised not to be a burden on society, not that I’m entitled to be because I was poor. I didn’t want to be poor, so I changed that, despite chronic pain and permanent injuries.

I also taught my kids about investing and passive income, and they’ve already started, they won’t be burdens on society or Whiney employees when they graduate as they will never have to work, but they will do something productive with their lives.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> Go to state college





Just a Guy said:


> Where does personal responsibility come in? Less than 20 years ago I was dead broke and living off credit cards, no social services helped me, when do people have to earn something for themeselves? Maybe then theyd have some pride instead of excuses...I had no special education, I just didn’t want to starve or have my family starve, so I taught myself to make money without a job. Anyone could do what I did, but why would they when they can get handouts for no effort?


I'm all for personal responsibility. But I also feel its extremely disingenuous to accuse lower economic classes of people of being victims of their own laziness, stupidity or not working hard enough.

Economic production of society and individuals has increased dramatically since the 1970's, yet wages have decreased and cost of living has sky rocketed. The wealth being created by this economic growth is being funnelled to fewer and fewer people (percentage wise). In other words- people are working harder, and getting less, its a race to the bottom. Thankfully Canada seems to be better than the USA in this regard, but we definitely need to find a way out of this race sooner or later.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Where does personal responsibility come in? Less than 20 years ago I was dead broke and living off credit cards, no social services helped me, when do people have to earn something for themeselves? Maybe then theyd have some pride instead of excuses...I had no special education, I just didn’t want to starve or have my family starve, so I taught myself to make money without a job. Anyone could do what I did, but why would they when they can get handouts for no effort?


Go on, tell us your story with pride.

Were you born in a family with an unknown dad because your mom was a wh*re? A drug-addict drug-seller stepdad who went to jail? An alcoholic and bipolar mom? Did your parents ever tried to kill you when you were a kid? More than once? Were you locked in a basement throughout all your childhood? Were you taken in charge by the Youth Protection? Were you moved at 12 to a foster family who sexually abused you? Did you start living by yourself in an apartment at 15 years old?

Oh, sure, you think we are all born equal and we just have to take some personal responsibility, move our *ss and get through life. That's easy. Yes, I agree, that's easy when the only issue you have to overcome is being broke and other small issues as such.

No single kid ever asked to be born in this world. It's the society's responsibility to take care of those kids and try to give them equal chances. Free education is part of it.

I'm glad you had an easy life so your kids can get financial help and support from their parents. That's not true for all kids.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> Go on, tell us your story with pride.
> 
> Were you born in a family with an unknown dad because your mom was a wh*re? A drug-addict drug-seller stepdad who went to jail? An alcoholic and bipolar mom? Did your parents ever tried to kill you when you were a kid? More than once? Were you taken in charge by the Youth Protection? Were you moved at 12 to a foster family who sexually abused you? Did you start living by yourself in an apartment at 15 years old?
> 
> Oh, sure, you think we are all born equal and we just have to take some personal responsibility, move our *ss and get through life. That's easy. Yes, I agree, that's easy when the only issue you have to overcome is being broke.



my parents divorced when I was young, so I didn’t have a father figure either. There’s a chance he molested my sister who also turned out fine. My mother’s second husband was an alcoholic, I planned to move out early and spent years preparing for it. I moved out young, with everything I needed including furniture and all my household needs. I survived abusive relationships, yet somehow I overcame it all...probably because I never took the victim mentality approach to my life. It was just life with things to overcome.

my best friend had her dad die just after her birth, her mother was schizophrenic and one of her mom’s boyfriends did try to kill her and her family, her brother died of cancer at about 30, yet she put herself through school and has travelled the world. She always finds a way to live her dreams.
we used to compete on how many homes we lived in, well into the double digits.
she’s one of the most successful people I know, she’s currently living in Scotland and has never has social services help, even when they fled for their lives.
I can go on and on with examples of people I know who’ve overcome any obstacles you want to name because I hang out with people who succeed not give up.
I also chose to take responsibility for my own kids, it a choice. Mine won’t be a burden because I chose not to make them one or believed they would be taken care of by the state while I go off and do drugs and produce more kids to abandon. Personal responsibility is a very large net.

just because we are successful doesn’t mean we didn’t overcome adversity, we are successful because we overcame adversity.

you also seem to miss the point that I don’t make any money from a wage or job, haven’t for decades, so quit using that excuse.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

No single kid ever asked to be born in this world. It's the society's responsibility to take care of those kids and try to give them equal chances. Free education is part of it.

I'm glad you had a life easy enough so your kids can now get financial help and support from their father. That's not true for all kids.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> I can go on and on with examples of people I know who’ve overcome any obstacles you want to name because I hang out with people who succeed not give up.


So you also think that everybody (kids included) can overcome any psychological issue by themselves without any help.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Don’t have kids if you’re not going to take care of them, I don’t want to take care of your kids because you’re irresponsible. You have to hold people accountable, not bail them out for being selfish. They did invent birth control, so there are two bad choices someone made, that you want me to deal with.

it’s been my experience that people can overcome a lot, its condescending of you to assume that people can’t. it’s also wrong to bail them out all the time so they don’t reach their potential.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

MrBlackhill said:


> So you also think that everybody (kids included) can overcome any psychological issue by themselves without any help.


Anyone can, can't you see? Psychological issues, rigged economic systems and poverty traps, thats all non-issues that must not be discussed. Can't wait to tell all the worlds poor nations how wealthy they can become with just a little.....personal responsibility.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Don’t have kids if you’re not going to take care of them, I don’t want to take care of your kids because you’re irresponsible. You have to hold people accountable, not bail them out for being selfish. They did invent birth control, so there are two bad choices someone made, that you want me to deal with.


Because we all know that every single human on this planet follow this simple rule to the letter.

Great, we're done with one of the world's big issues. It's easy. Just tell people : don't have kids if you're not going to take care of them.

Thanks for solving this problem.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The poverty trap was created by bleeding hearts who think they can run somebody else’ live bettter than they can. Let’s keep giving handouts for nothing, that has really fixed the problem so far.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> Because we all know that every single human on this planet follow this simple rule to the letter.
> 
> Great, we're done with one of the world's big issues. It's easy. Just tell people : don't have kids if you're not going to take care of them.
> 
> Thanks for solving this problem.


better than enabling them to keep doing it and walking away without any consequencs...works well so far, just look at the world today, especially Africa. Lets not have consequences for our decisions, that would be unfair, the rich can take care of it.

im betting you haven’t adopted any of these kids you are sooo concerned about, but you want me to pay for.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

On another subject @Just a Guy

We've heard of your opinion on poor people who should just move their *ss and do something that brings more income.

You've done it, from zero to hero, you deserve it.

This thread is also about the richest. You deserve your wealth, but what about all the super-wealthy people who were born already billionaires? They can do absolutely nothing throughout their whole life other than spending money on stupid things. But since you don't want to tax the richest, you're okay with that, I guess? People who never deserved their wealth can continue partying all their life for generations and generations. Their life spending millions in partying is certainly more valuable to the society...

If the poor must move their *ss and build wealth, so should the born-billionaires. After all, we're born equal, from my understanding of your speech. But... seems like there's something unfair going on, not?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Someone took responsibility and earned that money, maybe even passed it on. It’s their money they earned it, you certainly didn’t, should I come into your life and retake all your hard work away so you don’t pass it on? I can give it to deserving dead beats instead Of undeserving ones who’s parents actually made it instead of just making kids. That would be fair of course.

you do know that most wealthy people are self made not inherited right? Oh wait, that’s fact, we dont want to confuse the issue with those kind of things. I’m a 1%er how rich do I need to be for you? Built it up in under 20 years, yet the poor who get more money than university graduate caseworkers who oversee them ca’t get out of poverty.

I suppose the better solution is to keep telling people they can’t change their lives...tell them enough and they’ll all believe it. Who will pay the bill then.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

So I deserve to make anything that I wish with the inheritance of the wealth my grand-grand-grand-grand-grandfather has built 150 years ago, allowing generations and generations of grand-grand-grand-grand-grandchildren to live off that wealth? Since that wealth has been built 150 years ago, I can still as of today decide to not work a single hour in my life and I can decide to be egoist and not add any more value to the society?

A healthy economy should encourage the creation of wealth, the growing of wealth, no?


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

MrBlackhill said:


> On another subject @Just a Guy
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is also about the richest. You deserve your wealth, but what about all the super-wealthy people who were born already billionaires? They can do absolutely nothing throughout their whole life other than spending money on stupid things. But since you don't want to tax the richest, you're okay with that, I guess? People who never deserved their wealth can continue partying all their life for generations and generations. Their life spending millions in partying is certainly more valuable to the society...


My winter work often involves me being around some of the worlds wealthier people and chatting with them. Mostly great people to talk to, but many of them inherited all their money and were gifted "jobs" on easy street. They're justifications, sense of entitlement and extremely simplistic economic theories of the less fortunate masses sound awfully similar to what you read here. Obviously I bite my lip knowing a good portion of these folks are rich by pure luck.

That famous human psychology experiment of the rigged monopoly game favouring one player and the winners claiming they won due to their superiority 100% of the time rather than a whole lotta luck seems to ring true in real life.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Says you who wants to take it from the wealthy...if the natives can demand remunerations for what happened to their great, great, great, grandparents or the blacks for their triple great ancestors all unearned, why cant a family benefit from work their relatives actually did. I’m guesing that wealth is also still working in society and contributing, unlike complaints about actions which never happened to people, or it wouldn’t have lasted that long.
keep feeling entitled and don’t forget to give all your money to the government in your will. Wouldn’t want your family to benefit from your work.

maybe read the millionaire next door or the millionaire mind which is based on real research on what millionaire are really like instead of your assumptions.

5L, I actually work very closely with the poor everyday, I’m willing to bet people like you, who like to judge, don’t even know where the shelters are located in your city.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Funny, all you people tend to think the poor cannot succeed and need to be taken care of, whereas I tend to believe they can become successful...kind of condescending and ironic. Especially when you judge my opinion.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> give all your money to the government in your will. Wouldn’t want your family to benefit from your work.


I will, gladly, because I'm not self-centred nor centred only on my own family.

I make enough money to benefit myself, my family, my friends. And the society from the taxes I pay and the donations I make.



Just a Guy said:


> Funny, all you people tend to think the poor cannot succeed and need to be taken care of, whereas I tend to believe they can become successful...kind of condescending and ironic.


That's wrong. That's definitely not what I think. I simply think that some people need a little help, enough to have the same chance as others to hopefully become a successful human being. And I recall that my definition of successful human being does not rely on wealth.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Im not out to take from the wealthy- not sure if thats directed at me. I do believe they should have to pay the same tax rates as most other wage earners however. If they are paying 50-60% of their earnings in taxes like I am, then fair enough. But we all know they aren't.

I'm just stating the system is broken, and the elementary level theories of why wealth funnelling to the few at the cost of the many is justifiable are nonsense. 

We need to come up with a solution that works for the masses and not just wealthy. A way to bring wages up to more livable wage again (we can then lower taxes so companies don't make their employees use government hand outs to make up the difference). I'm not sure what that looks like, but I hope its more thought out than the conservative perspective that "all wealth is earned solely by the wealth taker, no ethics or morals should be questioned and society in no way contributed to their success" Or the far lefts theory of basically "We need the government to take money from anybody that has more than me".


I'm glad you work with the poor, thats great. Do they get to hear about your story of rags to riches and how easy it was to build wealth?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You do know how tax incentives work right? The rich have to spend the money on society they don’t get to keep it they just don’t let the government spend it. The money is spent either way. The rich have more money because they make more money, not because they keep it all and don’t pay taxes. If I write off a computer it’s because the government wants me to stimulate the economy by employing the sales guy and his company. I bet my company buys more computers and employs more people thereby than an individual does. Either way the money is spent.
even the stingiest wealthy person pays more dollars to the tax system than any poor individuals how much inequality would be enough for you? Why does it have to be a percentage?

I suppose you must prefer the liberal stance of spend as much money as you can, impoverished not just this generation but every generation to come so we get a free ride.

actually I do mentor a number of people, not a lot relatively since most don’t want to change, but I do influence some.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> I will, gladly, because I'm not self-centred nor centred only on my own family.
> 
> I make enough money to benefit myself, my family, my friends. And the society from the taxes I pay and the donations I make.
> 
> ...


I have no issues with a hand up, I wouldn’t want anyone to go through what I did, but thats miles away from hand outs which you repeatedly call for at the expense of the rich.
I’ll bet your will says you’ll pass your estate to your family.
as for success, you’ll note the most successful person I know isn’t rich, but overcame tons of adversity.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> as for success, you’ll note the most successful person I know isn’t rich, but overcame tons of adversity.


We agree on that.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrBlackhill said:


> So I deserve to make anything that I wish with the inheritance of the wealth my grand-grand-grand-grand-grandfather has built 150 years ago, allowing generations and generations of grand-grand-grand-grand-grandchildren to live off that wealth? Since that wealth has been built 150 years ago, I can still as of today decide to not work a single hour in my life and I can decide to be egoist and not add any more value to the society?
> 
> A healthy economy should encourage the creation of wealth, the growing of wealth, no?


One thing I can say with certainty is that I don't want you deciding how my money should be spent. If I inherited enough to never have to work that's my life and my choice. You have no say in the matter.

Are you willing to let me decide how your money should be spent?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> One thing I can say with certainty is that I don't want you deciding how my money should be spent. If I inherited enough to never have to work that's my life and my choice. You have no say in the matter.


Good, so all the heirs of the Royals in Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, England, Jordan, Monaco and Morocco are a good thing and their family should live forever wealthy. And as Canadians, we are very happy to be part of the Monarchy.

Same for the families of the 2000 billionaires in the world. In year 4112 there will be that kid explaining that he's part of Bezos family who was the CEO of Amazon in year 2000s and that's why their family didn't need to work for the past two millennia. The heirs will be living in a world (like depicted in Elysium film) living off the wealth built centuries ago, enough so that they don't have to create more wealth, because anyways the poor who are trying to built their own wealth will be feeding them all their needs.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

I'm not royalty...not that it matters. The only thing that matters is that you don't get to decide how I spend my money.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> I'm not royalty...not that it matters. The only thing that matters is that you don't get to decide how I spend my money.


Why would I want to decide how to spend your money? I don't want that. I want people to be taxed so that a part of the extra money that you don't need can be used for the better of the society, so that you don't decide as an egoistic individual where that extra money should be spent, but only from your vote. And we are all egoistic individuals to some extent.

Anyways, to everybody in this thread who don't want their income to be taxed a penny... why don't you move to UAE? You'd save so much money.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Why would I want to decide how to spend your money? I don't want that.


But you do want to decide ... you've decided that the money should be spent by the government.



MrBlackhill said:


> I want people to be taxed so that a part of the extra money that you don't need can be used for the better of the society, so that you don't decide as an egoistic individual where that extra money should be spent, but only from your vote. And we are all egoistic individuals to some extent.


Maybe focus on fixing the massive cash waste in government first? If you don't fix that first only 1 cent out of every $1000 is likely going to "better society" causes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My tax dollars went to pay welfare benefits. JAG's tax dollars went to pay welfare fraud investigators. It all works out.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

MrBlackhill said:


> I want people to be taxed so that a part of the extra money that you don't need can be used............


Huh?

ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> I want people to be taxed so that a part of the extra money that you don't need can be used............





like_to_retire said:


> Huh?


He's basically saying the marginal tax rate should go to 100% for all earnings over $100,000/yr.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> The current system works quite well for almost everyone.
> I don't see anyone here fleeing to move to North Korea or Venezuela.


You are cherry picking the worst to flee to. Lots of people wouldn't mind living in Denmark, where, reportedly, all income above average income is taxed at 60%.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Do you have any idea how many people we import to work farms, while able bodied locals refuse to do such hard work.
> I'm sorry, but as long as you're too lazy to work, you don't deserve my charity.


You are assuming that the $ migrant workers get has the same purchasing power at their home than it does here. But I'm not convinced. The money they get here I suspect has far more purchasing power at home than it does in Canada. So it is worth it to them, but not worth a hill of beans to Canadians.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> But you do want to decide ... you've decided that the money should be spent by the government.


I don't want to decide that either. All my points are about my opinion. I want the society to decide as a whole and I vote to give me opinion. And so far, as a country, on the overall and the bigger picture, Canada is doing pretty well as one of the best countries to live in the world.



cainvest said:


> Maybe focus on fixing the massive cash waste in government first? If you don't fix that first only 1 cent out of every $1000 is likely going to "better society" causes.


Because the top 10% richest would certainly not waste their money on stupid stuff if they were to keep all their money? Because we don't live in a consumer society? Because every individual is giving so much of their time and money to those in need. Because every individual is investing in environmental causes and such?



cainvest said:


> He's basically saying the marginal tax rate should go to 100% for all earnings over $100,000/yr.


I'm saying that my income after taxes already allows me to live pretty d*mn well, so - yes - that's why I'm okay to pay those taxes. And I know the government is inefficient, wasting money, but that doesn't mean the government should be burnt down. We are improving it and many people working at the government are working pretty d*mn hard for the benefits of the society.

What's your solution? No government, we keep all of our money and we pay 100% of every single service we need? Or a government like UAE at 0% taxes on income, but taking money from your pockets elsewhere?

Go and live in UAE if you don't want income taxes.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

MrMatt is arguing that Canadians should do back breaking hard labour for well below poverty wages. It's cleary a sign that the system is broken. I'm sure MrMatt would be the first to walk off the job for being bent over 10 hours a day harvesting crops for $6 an hour in 38 degree heat.

Your right, able bodied canadians should do the job, if the wages were actually fair they would. You know, simple supply and demand. Or does that rule only apply when it benefits those at the top?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

5Lgreenback said:


> Economic production of society and individuals has increased dramatically since the 1970's, yet wages have decreased and cost of living has sky rocketed.


Is that really true? Last time I checked the minimum wage has risen faster than inflation. Can you tell me your source for "wages have decreased"?


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Pluto said:


> Is that really true? Last time I checked the minimum wage has risen faster than inflation. Can you tell me your source for "wages have decreased"?


Minimum wage in recent years may have risen faster than inflation, which IMO is the governments bad attempt to address the declining middle class. But real purchasing power of the middle class has been diminishing since the 1970's , quite dramatically. Thats pretty well agreed upon for most economists and financial journalists.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm saying that my income after taxes already allows me to live pretty d*mn well, so - yes - that's why I'm okay to pay those taxes.


And I'm living in Quebec where we pay the highest income tax and we pay 15% sales taxes. In fact, people in Quebec are part of the most taxed in the world.

Am I okay with that? No. But I'm okay with paying taxes. I've never said I wanted people to pay more taxes and I've never said I wanted people to pay less taxes. I've just said I want people to pay taxes. And I've said I'm okay with a system where the richest pay more taxes.

I'm saying I'm okay with a taxing system like this example from Germany in 2010 (just to show a visual of how such a curve looks like).


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So let’s give the money from the rich to the poor so they can have more kids who will be poor...just look at Africa for a model. I’d rather the rich remain rich and pay for themselves before creating hoards of poor...as maye west said “ I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor, I prefer being rich”.

qubec isn’t just highly taxed, they are also living off the other provinces as they consume the most in transfer payments and government bribes for votes. That province is the richest, by consumption, of the Canadian ones, you should be giving money to the others. The fact that your from Quebec where they feel entitled to other people’s money, explains a lot. Why would anyone work if all their money was just going to be taken away and given to people who don’t work?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> That province is the richest, by consumption, of the Canadian ones, you should be giving money to the others.


But you've just said the richest should not be giving their money?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

See you don’t like the idea either. At least when it could affect you


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Marginal tax rates are meaningless. The wealthy actually pay a lower tax rate than the middle class.

Like Warren Buffet said.......his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> See you don’t like the idea either. At least when it could affect you


I didn't say I didn't like the idea, I was trying to figure out why you would say that.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Marginal tax rates are meaningless.


No they're not. I pay 52% on every extra dollar I make and it's too much. It's a disincentive. 

ltr


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

Some of the discussion on this thread reminded me of a book by Thomas Piketty.









Capital in the Twenty-First Century - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




.

It was also made into a documentary and currently on Netflix.

I found both the book and doc very interesting with a mixture of economics, history, science, philosophy, business, sociology, political studies, psychology and finance.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

5Lgreenback said:


> real purchasing power of the middle class has been diminishing since the 1970's , quite dramatically. Thats pretty well agreed upon for most economists and financial journalists.


Well that source is pretty vague. It could be true however, I'd want more detail on how that conclusion is drawn by most economists and journalists. Here is an article that says purchasing power has "hardly budged". 








For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades


Adjusted for inflation, today's average hourly wage has about as much purchasing power as it did in 1978. Most wage increases have gone to the highest earners.




www.pewresearch.org





How does "hardly budged" become, in your mind, a "dramatic decline"?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Why does it have to be a percentage?


Say everybody is rich and taxed at 20%, a flat tax rate. Say the cost of living very decently and without worries is $50,000 (house, food, etc.). Any amount available above that is extra money.

Flat tax rate :

If I make $100,000 taxable income, I'll have $80,000 after taxes and after my living expenses, I have $30,000 left.
If I do 2x more money, $200,000, I'll have $160,000$ after taxes my living expenses, I have $110,000$ left. Which is... 3.66x times more?!
If I do 10x more money, $1,000,000, I'll have $800,000 after taxes and after my living expenses, I have $750,000 left. Which is... 25x times more?! And 6.82x more than someone making 5x more than me pre-taxes.

Progressive tax rate :

If I make $100,000 taxable income, I pay 10% taxes, I'll have $90,000 and after my living expenses, I have $40,000$ left
If I do 2x more money, $200,000, I pay 35% taxes I'll have $130,000$ after taxes my living expenses, I have $80,000$ left., which is 2x more.
If I do 10x more money, $1,000,000, I pay 55% taxes I'll have $450,000 after taxes and after my living expenses, I have $400,000 left, which is 10x more. And 5x more than someone making 5x more than me pre-taxes.

So if I'm an individual paid $100,000 and that my cost of living is $50,000 and then I double my salary... on a flat tax rate point of view, I've more than doubled my extra money. On a progressive tax rate point of view, well it depends how the progressive rate is set up, but if it's done correctly, I'd be doubling my extra money, which is fair even though I pay more taxes.

My example is oversimplified and has flaws, though. I'm still posting it as some people with more knowledge can correct the flaws. I like to learn from debates.

But flat vs progressive is a big debate. I can see both pros & cons of each system.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

londoncalling said:


> It was also made into a documentary and currently on Netflix.


Yes, I've seen it on Netflix! Very interesting documentary.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Pluto said:


> Well that source is pretty vague. It could be true however, I'd want more detail on how that conclusion is drawn by most economists and journalists. Here is an article that says purchasing power has "hardly budged".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The LondonCalling documentary posted above is a good place to start. 

Your article states that at best, wages have stagnated and the don't break down how they compute purchasing power, the devil is in the details there. Theres a big difference between being able to afford child labour Chinese goods, and the ability to afford property/housing and wealth creating assets. And even when housing and property is included lots of other variables get involved that can skew the numbers.

I'm not sure of your age, but I'm guessing you may not know many people under the age of 40? 

The Portal is a podcast by Eric Wienstien a mathematician/ economist, part of the podcasts mission is exploring what happened to the economy and political landscape back in the 1970's that shifted the economy to work primarily for those on the top ever since.

The Freakonomics podcast has explored this in a couple episodes as well. 

.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

There is a word for taking all the earnings from the worker and giving it to someone else who doesn’t work for it. Which seems to be what you are advocating. If you don’t know the word, ask a black man from the southern states.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

5Lgreenback said:


> The LondonCalling documentary posted above is a good place to start.
> 
> Your article states that at best, wages have stagnated and the don't break down how they compute purchasing power, the devil is in the details there. Theres a big difference between being able to afford child labour Chinese goods, and the ability to afford property/housing and wealth creating assets. And even when housing and property is included lots of other variables get involved that can skew the numbers.
> 
> ...


yes, I agree, the devil is in the details but I don't get any details from you. 
I know a fellow whose daughter is about 30. he asked her if she needed financial help due to the covid 19 debacle. She said, "Dad, I made 18,000 in the last two weeks". She cuts hair. She drives a new land rover. 
Up to age 25 I lived in poverty, but nevertheless, I had lots of fun. Age 26 I made, in today's dollars, 2188.50 per month. Is that the kind of earnings that is comparable to today's young folks you speak of? My guess is lots of people under forty today make comparable incomes to what I made. If you want to go back further, my first job, a high school weekend job, I made a dollar an hour. In today's dollars that's 7.21 an hour. I'm not convinced today's young are worse off than I was. In relation to what our incomes were, things were not cheap. I do recall one fellow my age who said he can't wait until he is 40. He explained that over forty is when most people make the most money due to the experience they have gained up to that point. 
Another example is my first [used] car. In today's dollars it cost 1777.00 dollars. So if you know young folks today driving around in a 2000 dollar beater, its comparable to my costs. 

But anecdotal stuff about people under 40 gets us nowhere. I guess I'll have to search for most economists and journalists who know there are dramatic declines in purchasing power since the 1970's. I don't see it myself.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Just a Guy said:


> There is a word for taking all the earnings from the worker and giving it to someone else who doesn’t work for it. Which seems to be what you are advocating. If you don’t know the word, ask a black man from the southern states.


What? Good ol straw man attempt there.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

5Lgreenback said:


> MrMatt is arguing that Canadians should do back breaking hard labour for well below poverty wages. It's cleary a sign that the system is broken. I'm sure MrMatt would be the first to walk off the job for being bent over 10 hours a day harvesting crops for $6 an hour in 38 degree heat.
> 
> Your right, able bodied canadians should do the job, if the wages were actually fair they would. You know, simple supply and demand. Or does that rule only apply when it benefits those at the top?


Ahh yes, ascribe a position I don't hold to me. Much easier than actually debating my position.

Well since I've literally worked >10hrs/day for less than $6/hr in high heat, I'd say no, I wouldn't be the first.

As far as the wages being "fair", who gets to decide what is "fair". 
The biggest problem is that farmers have to compete with foreign farms who pay low wages. 
The government could address that as a food security issue, but it would be expensive. Imagine if Mexico/US did close the borders for food during COVID.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Marginal tax rates are meaningless. The wealthy actually pay a lower tax rate than the middle class.
> 
> Like Warren Buffet said.......his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did.


Not actually true, (in Canada) but hey, don't let facts interfere with reality.

There is a really good public policy reason for having an inclusion rate of <100%.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Pluto said:


> yes, I agree, the devil is in the details but I don't get any details from you.
> I know a fellow whose daughter is about 30. he asked her if she needed financial help due to the covid 19 debacle. She said, "Dad, I made 18,000 in the last two weeks". She cuts hair. She drives a new land rover.
> Up to age 25 I lived in poverty, but nevertheless, I had lots of fun. Age 26 I made, in today's dollars, 2188.50 per month. Is that the kind of earnings that is comparable to today's young folks you speak of? My guess is lots of people under forty today make comparable incomes to what I made. If you want to go back further, my first job, a high school weekend job, I made a dollar an hour. In today's dollars that's 7.21 an hour. I'm not convinced today's young are worse off than I was. In relation to what our incomes were, things were not cheap. I do recall one fellow my age who said he can't wait until he is 40. He explained that over forty is when most people make the most money due to the experience they have gained up to that point.
> Another example is my first [used] car. In today's dollars it cost 1777.00 dollars. So if you know young folks today driving around in a 2000 dollar beater, its comparable to my costs.
> ...


I gave a couple places to start in my above post. Sorry if they don't fall into the 3 minutes of reading link your looking for, but those are out there as well I'm sure. 

The very article you posted yourself, mentions the growing problems that come with growing inequality. Your splitting hairs or being disingenuous if you need to see the words "dramatic" in an article because I used that word. The point is it's large problem.

Another thing of note in your link- they talk about household income, well in the 1970's the household income was far more likely to be coming from 1 partner, rather than both being required to pay the bills in todays age. That alone could make the "dramatic" difference you seem to be nit picking for.

Glad to hear of the 30 year old doing well. That certainly would be the exception. Most 35 year olds I know are renting and lucky if they can scrounge enough dough to buy an fixer-upper apartment, despite having full time careers.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> Ahh yes, ascribe a position I don't hold to me. Much easier than actually debating my position.
> 
> Well since I've literally worked >10hrs/day for less than $6/hr in high heat, I'd say no, I wouldn't be the first.
> 
> ...


You were upset that "able bodied" Canadians were unwilling to work for the poverty level wages on a farm/ orchard. Almost implying that they should be forced to, no?

Who gets to decide fair? Well lets go with the cliche of letting the free market decide- at a certain level of pay, Canadians would absolutely be willing to the job.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You realize that by raising wages you increase costs right? You can spend your way out of debt. Increase cost of labour increase the cost of living. Basic math.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

5Lgreenback said:


> What? Good ol straw man attempt there.


Right take everything from someone who does the work and give it to people who don’t do the work. That’s not slavery at all. That’s fairness in your book.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Again with the straw man. I'm not going to discuss a position I don't even hold with you.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

5Lgreenback said:


> You were upset that "able bodied" Canadians were unwilling to work for the poverty level wages on a farm/ orchard. Almost implying that they should be forced to, no?
> 
> Who gets to decide fair? Well lets go with the cliche of letting the free market decide- at a certain level of pay, Canadians would absolutely be willing to the job.


Nope, I'm not upset.
I'm not implying that we should force them to do that work either.

I think they should have the free choice, to take the job, or not take the job.
You're the one arguing they shouldn't be allowed to choose for themself.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Boomers, gen-X, millennials: How living costs compare then and now - National | Globalnews.ca


It's official: Boomers are the lucky generation.




globalnews.ca







> Millennials don’t exactly have it easy. The median hourly wage for today’s workers between the ages of 17 and 24 is still 10 per cent lower than it was in 1981. But millennials did, at least, start their career at a time when wages were once again trending upward.
> 
> Indeed, Canadians in their late 20s and early 30s today enjoy slightly higher wages than their peers did in 1980s.





> *Same pay for more time in school and higher costs*
> The wage growth enjoyed by older millennials is modest and becomes even less impressive when you consider that today’s young workers are much more educated.
> 
> Although baby boomers already had more schooling than their parents, the trend toward higher and higher education rates continued through the decades. In 1976, just over 10 per cent of Canada’s prime-aged workers had a university degree, according to Statistics Canada. In 2014, that share was just short of 30 per cent.
> ...





> Millennials are also facing living costs that are likely considerably steeper in at least two respects: education and housing.
> 
> The price of a university degree today is much higher than it was for generation X, let alone boomers, with undergraduate tuition fees rising from $3,500 in 1993-1994 to $6,571 for 2017-2018.





> *Housing is hammering millennials most of all*
> If gen-Xers received the biggest blow in terms of earnings, millennials are the ones who got slammed by the housing market, according to Paul Kershaw, associate professor at UBC’s School of Population and Public Health and founder of Generation Squeeze, a group that advocates for young Canadians.
> 
> And “housing prices have risen much more dramatically [than wages],” noted Kershaw.





> “The typical senior is nearly nine times richer than the typical millennial, a wealth gap between similar age groups that has more than doubled since 1984,” reads the report.





> So why don’t millennials and young gen-Xers just leave for more affordable pastures?
> 
> For one, today’s generation is “more constrained to a bigger urban environment for jobs than previous generations were,” argued Kershaw.
> 
> Big cities are often where young workers are most likely to find more and better jobs.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Huh, Where did I argue that who can’t choose what for themselves?

And what were you implying with your comment of able bodied Canadians not doing farm labour?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

5Lgreenback said:


> Huh, Where did I argue that who can’t choose what for themselves?
> 
> And what were you implying with your comment of able bodied Canadians not doing farm labour?


I'm saying that they're chosing not to.
You're the one arguing for government interference in that choice.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> I'm saying that they're chosing not to.
> You're the one arguing for government interference in that choice.


No my intention was just to point out that the economic system needs some corrections. And the common cliches of hard work and letting the market decide don’t add up in reality.

In the case of farm labour, it’s actually the farm owners who made the government interfere and import cheap labour because they are unable or unwilling to pay what the demanding work is worth.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

5Lgreenback said:


> Again with the straw man. I'm not going to discuss a position I don't even hold with you.


Keep yelling straw man all you want the truth is you want something from someone who worked for it and you did nothing to earn...would you prefer the term theft? When it starts getting into reality instead of pie in the sky liberals ideas, you don’t want to discuss, shocking Master.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> Boomers, gen-X, millennials: How living costs compare then and now - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> It's official: Boomers are the lucky generation.
> ...




when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....there are more ways to make money than a job, if you can’t see that it’s your problem not ours. If I want a raise, I make a raise for myself, if I don’t like a task, I don’t do it or hire someone else...I don’t whine about how unfair life is, I grew up a long time ago.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

5Lgreenback said:


> No my intention was just to point out that the economic system needs some corrections. And the common cliches of hard work and letting the market decide don’t add up in reality.
> 
> In the case of farm labour, it’s actually the farm owners who made the government interfere and import cheap labour because they are unable or unwilling to pay what the demanding work is worth.


if someone is willing to work for the wages offfered than it’s a fair wage, no one is forcing them at gunpoint to do the work. If no one is willing to do the work, you are forced to increase wages until someone is willing to do it...of course you guys prefer to take from people with the money in terms o fairness, you’d probably be happy rioting and looting like in the states, it’s fair after all they have something you want, it’s not fair you want it, they have it...fair is you get whatever you want for nothing.

I know plenty of philipinos who come here and do jobs Canadians refuse, they pay and survive for things just fine , even send money back. They don’t have penthouse apartments overlooking water bodies all to themselves, but they figure out a way to do it profitably And don’t complain. They are grateful not entitled. You can’t always get your cake and eat it too.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Just a Guy said:


> Keep yelling straw man all you want the truth is you want something from someone who worked for it and you did nothing to earn...would you prefer the term theft? When it starts getting into reality instead of pie in the sky liberals ideas, you don’t want to discuss, shocking Master.


i never stated I want anything I haven’t earned. Straw man.

Not sure where you got that or if you’ve just bought into the “they don’t agree with me so they must be some preconceived category of people” you created. Seems to be the case since you’ve labelled me a liberal. 

But since you brought up this theft nonsense, do you honestly believe there's not all kinds of exploitation and theft behind many of the wealthy fortunes made in our current economic system?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

5Lgreenback said:


> No my intention was just to point out that the economic system needs some corrections. And the common cliches of hard work and letting the market decide don’t add up in reality.
> 
> In the case of farm labour, it’s actually the farm owners who made the government interfere and import cheap labour because they are unable or unwilling to pay what the demanding work is worth.


1. Yes the current system needs some more tweaks/changes, but lets limit ourselves to improvements, instead of harmful changes, ok?
2. Hard work isn't a guarantee of success, but almost nobody is successful without working hard.
I don't know many people who work hard who haven't had at least moderate success.

I know a lot of people who aren't willing to work hard, are having a hard time.

Yes, I understand you're a protectionist.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

This is pointless. Maybe be I’m not being clear enough, or maybe people see what they want to see. But I’m not going to keep debating viewpoints put on me that I don’t even hold.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe it’s the way you express yourself... if one person misinterpreted you that may be their issue, when multiple people do, that is probably your issue.

oh wait, with you it’s always somebody else’s problem.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This argument is kind of pointless though, isn't it? We live in a democracy, not a centrally planned economy. Distribution of wealth is not decreed by a king or aristocracy.

A democracy means that people vote. If we get to a situation where the _majority_ of people believe they are too poor and disadvantaged, and believe the rich aren't paying enough tax, then the citizens will raise the taxes on the wealthy - guaranteed.

I personally think we have a good balance in Canada, but in the US, public mood is shifting in that direction due recent massive tax cuts which disproportionately helped the rich. This is what Dalio and many others are warning about.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

5Lgreenback said:


> I gave a couple places to start in my above post. Sorry if they don't fall into the 3 minutes of reading link your looking for, but those are out there as well I'm sure.
> 
> The very article you posted yourself, mentions the growing problems that come with growing inequality. Your splitting hairs or being disingenuous if you need to see the words "dramatic" in an article because I used that word. The point is it's large problem.
> 
> ...


1] I think you are confused. You seem to believe that the purchasing power of income has dramatically declined since the 1970's but I'm not convinced partly because you can not offer me a reference, and partly because of my own experience. I think you gathered a vague impression from some podcasts, but you can't quite put your finger on what it was that made you draw your conclusion. 
2] I didn't say there was no inequality or that inequality wasn't "growing". I do believe the playing field isn't level. Even so, I'm not into making up claims about purchasing power as you appear to be doing. 
3] When I was 35 I was renting too. I think you have mistaken beliefs about the 1970's. Most young people of any era, unless they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, face similar financial issues. Under 40's seem to think that baby boomers got out of high school, got a job, and bought a car and a house with their first pay cheque. It wasn't like that. Too, with people my parents age, I recall it was a major financial decision just to buy one television. they had to scrape and save for the thing. These days, with all this poor purchasing power, there are televisions in just about every room of the home, not to mention some type of computer and expensive smart phone. Hey, and air conditioners, if not central, then one in every bedroom window. That's now, with all this crappy purchasing power. Way back, no one had air conditioning. I could go on and on. And that reminds me, the average house then was much smaller than houses today. Lots of families had 1000 sq ft houses, and 600 sq ft apartments. Today its probably illegal to give such small places to welfare families with 4 kids. Way back when, one car was the norm. How many cars do families have now? Two? three? These days, money is spent on a lot of unneeded stuff that is taken for granted that back in the 70's was financially unreachable, yet supposedly, things were so much better back then. Trust me, you are exaggerating the wonderful '60''s and 70's. Things are different now, and financially, its better than it used to be.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I wasn't around in the 70's, but in 1986 you could get an acre of land with a house in Langley, BC (just a 45 minute drive from Vancouver) for under 150K. The cheapest I could find there now is about 1.2M.

If all you want to do is rent an apartment, then maybe purchasing power is similar... I don't know. In actual fact, many NEW apartments are 400-600 sqft nowadays, whereas 600-800 sqft used to be the norm in the 1980's.

Could go on... not much point though.

Maybe there's a problem, maybe there isn't. It's like James says -- If enough people think it's a problem, then changes will be made.

It might be instructive to try and understand why people believe there's a problem, whether you think it's true or not. It seems to me that this has been brewing for a long time.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

nathan79 said:


> I wasn't around in the 70's, but in 1986 you could get an acre of land with a house in Langley, BC (just a 45 minute drive from Vancouver) for under 150K. The cheapest I could find there now is about 1.2M.


There are plenty of places in Canada where you can buy an acre for $350k (2020 equivalent of $150k in 1986). But you chose one of the most expensive places to live.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

5Lgreenback said:


> This is pointless. Maybe be I’m not being clear enough, or maybe people see what they want to see. But I’m not going to keep debating viewpoints put on me that I don’t even hold.


Pretty rich statement considering that's literally your strategy.



5Lgreenback said:


> MrMatt is arguing that Canadians should do back breaking hard labour for well below poverty wages.


I never argued for that.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> This argument is kind of pointless though, isn't it? We live in a democracy, not a centrally planned economy. Distribution of wealth is not decreed by a king or aristocracy.
> 
> A democracy means that people vote. If we get to a situation where the _majority_ of people believe they are too poor and disadvantaged, and believe the rich aren't paying enough tax, then the citizens will raise the taxes on the wealthy - guaranteed.
> 
> I personally think we have a good balance in Canada, but in the US, public mood is shifting in that direction due recent massive tax cuts which disproportionately helped the rich. This is what Dalio and many others are warning about.


Okay, so if the majority of people think that women shouldn't have rights, or that blacks should be slaves, that's OK?

Sorry buddy, but we realized LONG ago that just letting the majority do whatever they want isn't a good idea.

Just because 2 people vote to steal from the third doesn't mean it's suddenly "ok", that's why democracies require strong institutions to protect peoples rights.

But we've seen this playbook before, several times, some even in our lives. 

They'll give money to make some voters happy, they'll raise taxes, and still run out of money, then they'll start seizing assets (not just income) and still run out of money. 
Then having destroyed the wealth generation ability of the country, we can all live in a populist/socialist paradise like Venezuela.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

sags said:


> Continue to shrink the ability of consumers to spend and see what happens to the economy.
> 
> Fortunately, economists already know the answer. The economy shrinks and dies.
> 
> ...


Consumers largest expense is taxes. So I agree, we should lower taxes


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

james4beach said:


> You think the poor are greedy?
> 
> The rich have to pay their fair share, as they did in America between 1930 and 1980. The current regime of ultra-low taxes for the rich is a very modern phenomenon, and quite honestly it's destroying America.
> 
> The rich got greedy, they had a good run. It was lots of fun and we all had a lot of laughs, but now the party is over. Time to equalize things and go back to traditional American values.


The rich have to pay their fair share? Ultra low taxes for the rich? You realize the top 10% pay 50% of the taxes right?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> There are plenty of places in Canada where you can buy an acre for $350k (2020 equivalent of $150k in 1986).


Seems like you used the inflation to calculate the equivalent, which is absolutely false and totally wrong. Post the statistics about the value of that $350k acre in the exact same region in 1986.

What's your source? Here's mine using farm land values since we are talking about value per acre : FCC Farmland Values Report | FCC

In the last 35 years, land value has increased on average by 4.67% in Canada,4.27% in BC, 4.83% in Alberta, 3.80% in Saskatchewan, 4.81% in Manitoba, 6.4% in Ontario, 7.29% in Quebec, 4.66% in NB, 3.16% in NS and 3.14% in PEI.

So an acre of land at $150k will most likely cost more than $700k today.

But if you add the overall value of farm land & buildings, it has increase on average about 6% based on this source : Value per acre of farm land and buildings at July 1

But that's for farming.

Anyways, that still mean a land with a house on it have certainly seen its value increase by about 6% a year on average and that fits perfectly @nathan79 's observation.

In urban regions like where I live, the value of properties has increased by more than 7% a year on average in the last 17 years.



Prairie Guy said:


> But you chose one of the most expensive places to live.


And if you've read just a little bit here : 


MrBlackhill said:


> > So why don’t millennials and young gen-Xers just leave for more affordable pastures?
> >
> > For one, today’s generation is “more constrained to a bigger urban environment for jobs than previous generations were,” argued Kershaw.
> >
> ...


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

james4beach said:


> When I was working in the US, being a high income earner, my taxes kept declining every time Trump cut taxes. In the last few years, Trump helped make me "rich".
> 
> As I walked to the office, sometimes stepping over the bodies of the homeless collapsed on the streets (I am only exaggerating slightly here) I often thought to myself: I would happily pay more taxes to help these people. Maybe the government could fund services for mental health, provide more shelter, pay them money, or other resources. I don't know ... I'm not a social worker or public policy expert.
> 
> ...


Why does the government have to donate money on your behalf? The government doesnt have to raise taxes for you to give to the homeless, you are free to do it yourself.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Karlhungus said:


> Why does the government have to donate money on your behalf? The government doesnt have to raise taxes for you to give to the homeless, you are free to do it yourself.


Because they honestly believe that you don't have a right to your own labour. 
They also don't believe individuals are capable of making their own decisions.

They're arrogant elites "who know best", it's that arrogant paternalistic attitude that breeds populism.
It's why some people find Trudeaus patronizing tone so offensive.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Karlhungus said:


> Why does the government have to donate money on your behalf? The government doesnt have to raise taxes for you to give to the homeless, you are free to do it yourself.


I think James realizes how bad an idea this really is, how morally wrong it is. That’s why he wants the government to do it for him, no guilt then. “I didn’t steal the money from someone to give it to someone else, the government just increased taxes in the name of fairness”. Let’s him sleep at night if the government does it as opposed to himself.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> This argument is kind of pointless though, isn't it? We live in a democracy, not a centrally planned economy. Distribution of wealth is not decreed by a king or aristocracy.
> 
> A democracy means that people vote. If we get to a situation where the _majority_ of people believe they are too poor and disadvantaged, and believe the rich aren't paying enough tax, then the citizens will raise the taxes on the wealthy - guaranteed.


Exactly ... want more taxes and distribution to areas that interest you? Then vote for the party that will do those things for you!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Exactly ... want more taxes and distribution to areas that interest you? Then vote for the party that will do those things for you!


That's actually the problem.
They're taking other peoples money to spend it in those areas.

They want to fund those initiatives, they just don't want to do it with their own money.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> They want to fund those initiatives, they just don't want to do it with their own money.


Yeah, watch for code words like, "_paying their fair share"_.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, watch for code words like, "_paying their fair share"_.
> 
> ltr


Yeah, they never say what "fair share" is, they already pay 5x what the average person does.

For those of you who want to know my math.
Lets say the average person pays $1 in tax.

For 100 people that is $100 in tax.
The top 10% pay $50, (that's 50%)
That's $5/person, vs the average of $1.

It gets even better if you look at the average tax paid by the bottom 90%.
$50/90 =$0.56.

The average 10%er pays almost 10x what the average lower 90%er pays.

But still, being taxed at nearly 10x the rate of everyone else, you want more?
No wonder when France hiked their taxes, everyone fled.

When a group is paying 10x or more than the rest of the population, it's time for the rest to step up and pay THEIR fair share.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> When a group is paying 10x or more than the rest of the population, it's time for the rest to step up and pay THEIR fair share.


Quite true Mr. Matt, but unfortunately these decisions are made by the government in power. If they're socialists (as is the case today), then they want to re-distribute the wealth. We've seen over and over how that works out, but there it is.

ltr


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> For 100 people that is $100 in tax.
> The top 10% pay $50, (that's 50%)
> That's $5/person, vs the average of $1.
> 
> ...


That's a start, let's continue.

Say the 10% is paying 50% tax. That means they do 10$ and pay 5$. They have 5$ left.

The 90% pay only 20%. That means they do 2.8$ and pay 0.56$. They have 2.24$ left.

Say the essential needs cost 2$.

After paying essential needs, the 10% have 3$ left, while the 90% have 0.24$.

Conclusion : The 10% have 12.5x more money left in their pockets even if they pay 50% taxes vs 20% and even if that represents 9x more taxes. Also note that in this example the 10% only make 3.6x more money pre-tax (10$ vs 2.8$) and yet have 12.5x more money left in their pockets, even if they pay much more taxes.

Tell me, who's losing?

The argument about the 10% paying half of the taxes is worthless. We can make maths say whatever we want.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> That's a start, let's continue.
> 
> Say the 10% is paying 50% tax. That means they do 10$ and pay 5$. They have 5$ left.
> 
> ...


I think I understand your point.

If $2 is the level of basic necessities, then the first $2 should be tax free as the basic personal deduction.
I'm very strongly for raising this as quickly as possible, ideally at least at 2x the rate of inflation

In your example the lower income people get to keep 80% of their work product and the rich get to keep 50%.
And you think that's unfair?
I understand where you're coming from, but I simply disagree that it's fair for someone to to pay much more tax in both dollars and as a percentage of what they earn.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

We could have flat income tax but then do you think someone making $500k is truly bringing 10x more value to the society than someone making $50k? Hard to tell. We could have flat income taxes and adjust the unfair wage gap. In the end, the rich will always say that are losing.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

That's the problem. When someone is paying 50% taxes while the other is paying 20%, it's easy to quantify and call it unfair.

But then try to justify that someone paid $500k vs someone paid $50k is fair because he's bringing 10x more value. Good luck on proving a point. Try to quantify that.

I'm all in with flat income taxes if we raise the pre-tax income of the poor or decrease the pre-tax income of the rich.

That's what this thread is about. I don't care about how much taxes we pay. Flat or progressive. 0% or 30% or 50%.

In the end, how fair is the difference between what's left in the pockets of the poor vs the rich base on what they're bringing to the society. But nobody can truly quantify that.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Let’s put it in reverse, say the guys paying 50% leave the country, the wage gap is much “fairer” but you can’t meet the bills you want to pay. If I work harder, provide jobs and shelter to people then leave, all that probably leaves too, but I’ll have more money left in my pocket and your pocket will be empty because you’re all a bunch of greedy bastards who got left with what you deserve. Nothing. Of course, it will be a fair distribution of it.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

I’ll start with I’m not rich. 

In my 20s I worked and went to school. I did not tour the world in my summer breaks (I saved for the next tuition) and I drove an old pickup. When school was over I started working and quickly bought a house. I didn’t like the mortgage and got 2 more jobs. I also rented out parts of the house. After 5 years I had paid off 1/2 of my mortgage. My house appreciated - lucky timing. I had small savings and my rrsp.

I ended up getting married & as luck would have it my wife was as ambitious. Together, we merged everything and bought a house for ourselves. Now, after a few kids, we have NO debts and about 1.75 million in assets + our house (750k).

It drives me crazy to hear people say my family should be paying more in taxes... 

This is a free country, anyone can go to school starting next month - chase down a new career, anyone can sacrifice a summer trip, at some point people should hold themselves to account and realize they have made repeatedly bad choices that they get to wear!

I have sacrificed, and I am now ahead for it. As it turns out I have made better choices than others. I should not be penalized for being accountable !


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

I will add, there are others in this world that have worked harder and sacrificed more and thus have more. I am happy for them, and what they have is theirs.

Govts over time have proven, despite great intentions they cannot fix the disparity in our society. More taxes is not the answer, our tax rates are through the roof.

I will add that my family donates a fair dollar every year to charities that we believe in.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> That's the problem. When someone is paying 50% taxes while the other is paying 20%, it's easy to quantify and call it unfair.
> 
> But then try to justify that someone paid $500k vs someone paid $50k is fair because he's bringing 10x more value. Good luck on proving a point. Try to quantify that.
> 
> ...


You raise some insightful and erasonable points.
1. Yes 20% vs 50% is potentially unfair, at an obvious level.
2. Vast income disparities seem hard to justify. But they're really not.
Lets say you pay someone $50 to clear the snow from your driveway, or mow your lawn or some other service.
One person clears 4 Driveways a day, one clears 40 driveways a day. Is it justifiable that the second person made 10x.
Lets say you break your leg.
Some guy sitting beside you says he'll set and splint it for $100, the orthopedic surgeon says he'll X ray it, set it, pin it, and put a cast on it, but he'll charge $5k. Is his service worth 50x?
Lets say you're hiring a hockey player for your hockey team.
The 24 year old down the street says he'll play for $500k/yr. Leon Draisaitl says he'll play for $11 million a year. Can you justify that 20x rate?
What about a lawyer who gets you off charges, vs one who lets you go to jail?


My real problem is that you seem to think everyone should be getting pretty much the same pay, irregardless of how much value they create. That's really the problem.
Why should 2 people, doing the same job get different pay, ideally they shouldn't.
However if they're doing different jobs, and creating different amounts of value, why should they get the same compensation?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

My daughter has a job in landscaping for the summer, she did twice as many lawns as anyone else in the company in the same time. She was promoted several times and her coworkers were fired. Guess she should supplement their wages since they aren’t earning anything right?

I also noticed that you compared money in your pocket as a determination of fairness, everyone should have the same money in their pockets after taxes, even thought their expenses may be different. For example a rich person probably has a bigger, more expensive house (mortgage) than a poor person, but you expect him to pay for it out of the same money a poor person would have making the rich guy poorer than the poor guy despite paying for the poor guy as well. does anyone ever think these thing through?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> That's actually the problem.
> They're taking other peoples money to spend it in those areas.
> 
> They want to fund those initiatives, they just don't want to do it with their own money.


Right ... so you vote differently.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It would be nice if there were real alternatives...they all spend like drunken soldiers..


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> My real problem is that you seem to think everyone should be getting pretty much the same pay, irregardless of how much value they create. That's really the problem.
> Why should 2 people, doing the same job get different pay, ideally they shouldn't.
> However if they're doing different jobs, and creating different amounts of value, why should they get the same compensation?


When or where did I say people should have the same pay?

Obviously not.

I'm questioning if a some job X truly worth 10x some job Y. Maybe it's worth 4x, maybe 6x. But how would you quantify that? And how can you quantify that some job is worth 50x?

I'm questioning the same thing you said in #2 about vast income disparity. Is a hockey player worth 20 physicians?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

its called market driven, if people weren’t willing to pay that much, people couldn’t demand that much. Hockey players weren’t paid a lot only a couple decades ago, but people are willing to pay more todsy to go watch them. Are they better than players a few decades ago? Probably not. What changed, was what people are now willing to pay to watch them.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

It's ok to have different opinions. I have a friend making nearly 7 figures a year and he agrees that is ridiculous and he's be ok with being more taxed. He's part of the 1% and it seems fair to him that the top 1% should be more taxed.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Since when does one opinion make it a majority decision?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> It's ok to have different opinions. I have a friend making nearly 7 figures a year and he agrees that is ridiculous and he's be ok with being more taxed. He's part of the 1% and it seems fair to him that the top 1% should be more taxed.


Okay
He's free to pay more tax if he wants.
There is a box on the tax form to do it.
I'd bet he doesn't voluntarily pay a dollar more than he needs to.

Words are cheap.
I'm part of the 20%, I think we're massively overtaxed, with much of it going to waste.


As for the question is a hockey player worth 20 doctors?
I don't think so, so I don't pay hockey players any money at all.

However the people who DO pay hockey players think so, and it's their choice to spend their money that way. I don't think Pokemon cards are worth the paper they're printed on, my kids do, and if that's how they choose to spend their money, that's their choice.


That's the point your missing, you seem to have this view that there should be some authority that "does what's right", then everything would be better. 
It doesn't work that way, and every attempt to implement it has caused death and suffering.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

As someone who has paid taxes in multiple countries at times, I actually think we get very good value for the taxes we pay in Canada.

We have a reasonable taxation level and the government services (and quality of government) is very good overall. Very few people in the world are as lucky as we are -- I am thankful for this, as a Canadian.

I've experienced difference tax levels myself, for example income levels of 50K, and 90K, and 200K. The corresponding tax levels all seemed reasonable to me. I never experienced the kind of irritation or agony that some of you are voicing.

Do you know what I say in a year where I earn 200K and pay 76K of taxes? I say, "gosh I'm very thankful and lucky to make such great money and keep so much of it". You won't ever hear me whining about paying taxes when I make a lot of money. I think I'd be ashamed to do that.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Since when does one opinion make it a majority decision?


Since never. That's why we are a population with multiple opinions and we vote for what we - as a society - think is best.



MrMatt said:


> That's the point your missing, you seem to have this view that there should be some authority that "does what's right", then everything would be better.


Yes, that "authority" is elected by the voice of the population and is called the government.

Again, yes, it's pretty inefficient and it's wasting money, but I'm sure it's doing better than no government. And it's doing better than other governments in many other countries.



MrMatt said:


> I'm part of the 20%, I think we're massively overtaxed, with much of it going to waste.


Yes, because as you are part of the 20%, you may find you have not that much money left after being taxed, while those who are part of the 1% still have plenty of money even after their huge taxes. That's why we have a progressive tax system and that's why even some people from the 1% think it's ok to tax them more or even to increase their taxes. Other think otherwise and it's also ok, we all have the right to have different opinions and collectively vote for what we think is best.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Karlhungus said:


> The rich have to pay their fair share? Ultra low taxes for the rich? You realize the top 10% pay 50% of the taxes right?


They may pay 50% of income taxes, but they certainly wouldn't pay 50% of ALL taxes.

What about sales taxes, gas taxes, municipal taxes, health taxes, capital gains taxes, licensing fees...etc.etc.

Also, the spending of the 1% certainly doesn't keep all the factories running, the mechanics working, the garbage collectors employed, construction busy, the retail sales force employed, vehicle licensing fees, home sales continuing, landlords renting, stock markets rising,.....etc.etc.

What do they pay as a % of ALL the different taxes and fees that provides revenue at all levels of government ?

I think that if government revenues depended solely on the taxes paid by the 1%, Canada would look a lot different than it does today.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

An interesting economic concept on taxes is an automated payment transaction tax (APT).

It has been calculated that a 2% fee on ALL transactions (1% each split for both buyer and seller), could replace the need for most taxes.

There would be many benefits from such a system, including eliminating tax avoidance and offshoring, and the cost of administrative tax collection.

_The net efficiency of the APT tax proposal must be evaluated by comparing its relative benefits and costs. Ballard, Shoven and Whalley (1985) employing computational general equilibrium models to determine the welfare effects of all major taxes in the United States, estimated that marginal deadweight costs amount to from 17 to 56 percent of revenue raised. Jorgenson and Yun (1991) estimated that the post 1986 tax reform system imposed a marginal efficiency cost of 38 percent of tax revenue and an average efficiency cost of 18 percent of tax revenue. The greatest efficiency benefit of a revenue neutral APT tax is the elimination of distortions imposed by the current tax system that the APT tax is intended to replace. Further gains are the substantial cost savings assured by the improved efficiency of the APT assessment, collection and enforcement mechanisms that reduce administrative and compliance costs _



http://www.chpc.biz/uploads/9/7/9/5/9795010/taxation_for_the_21st_century.pdf


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> An interesting economic concept on taxes is an automated payment transaction tax (APT).
> 
> It has been calculated that a 2% fee on ALL transactions (1% each split for both buyer and seller), would eliminate the need for all other taxes.
> 
> ...


Good excuse to track every transaction you do ever.
Adding this much friction to the economy would cause things to grind to a halt.

Lets say I gave you a loan to buy a car, I'd have to charge 4%, just to cover the taxes.
Buy a GIC, if it payed 4%, it would all be eaten up by fees.
It would kill capital markets, would you move from one stock to another if there was going to be a 4% charge?

Liquidity would plummet, market efficiency would be impaired, access to capital would fall.


It would also kill small business, and be a boon to the massive vertically integrated companies.

It would also cause massive capital flight, and lots of fee avoidance schemes.
Myself I'd move as much as I can out of country, and buy my stuff offshore.
No, my Panamanian subsiduary handles those bills..

Yeah, great scheme to collapse the economy.

Talk about making the rich richer.


It's time for private crypto currencies.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> An interesting economic concept on taxes is an automated payment transaction tax (APT).
> 
> It has been calculated that a 2% fee on ALL transactions (1% each split for both buyer and seller), could replace the need for most taxes.


And some people stupidly think we should go cashless.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The suggestion is 2%.....1% paid by each party to the transaction.

The fee would only apply to purchases and sales of stocks, GICs etc. It would not be an ongoing expense for those transactions.

All your objections were addressed in the research paper.

As for a "cashless" society, many of us are already there.

With online banking, debit cards, credit cards, email transfers, we have no need to carry any cash.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_It would also cause massive capital flight, and lots of fee avoidance schemes.
Myself I'd move as much as I can out of country, and buy my stuff offshore.
No, my Panamanian subsiduary handles those bills.. _

Except you would pay the fee to transfer all that capital out of the country, and still pay the fee for any transactions within the country.

People could pay cash for transactions, but they have to get the cash from the bank or somewhere, so they would pay the fee at that time.

Your only hope would be to move to Panama or some other low tax third world country. Some people do that but not many stay there for very long.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Change is difficult for people, but it is inevitable as the world moves forward.

In the last years in my workplace there were wholesale changes that took 5 years to implement fully.

Many people resisted but management told people to accept it was coming or plan to move on to somewhere else.

I still remember when GM called all their management to a huge mandatory conference in Michigan.

When they returned they looked shell shocked by what they were told. Some didn't leave their offices for days.

Our supervisor told us we wouldn't recognize the workplace in 5 years.

The changes were completed incrementally over time and people adjusted to the new environment. That is how it goes in life.

The financial system is broken and governments and economists are struggling to find the necessary solutions.

If not "this" solution it will be "that" solution........but there will be change. The status quo is no longer viable.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

Every time this debate comes up I'm reminded of the story..."The cost of dinner"...

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Or....the 10th guy was a wealthy businessman and decided to call it a "business meeting".

He collected $8 each from the other nine, paid the bill with his business credit card, collected loyalty points, and deducted it from his taxes.

The taxpayers ended up paying the bill and the 10th guy collected $72 cash and loyalty points.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxpayers-covid-19-largesse-1.5571519 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/pittis-taxes-new-jersey-1.5730028 

The first article is from back in May and talks about conditions that have resulted in significant tax changes and how they are received. The second from today discusses to a similar extent the politics of taxation. I am not sure who, when or how the covid tab will be paid or if it will just be added to the rest of the debt which at some point we will just equate to a number we all owe but will never pay back.

IMO, since 2008 QE has seem to be the fix for any looming financial crisis. We can inflate and print money which will help reduce the cost of debt especially if interest rates remain low. What we can't do is make it go away. I am still stunned how everyone thinks what happens on wall street happens on main street at the same time. All of us(more likely our children and their children) are going to have to pay the tab at some point.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Or....the 10th guy was a wealthy businessman and decided to call it a "business meeting".
> 
> He collected $8 each from the other nine, paid the bill with his business credit card, collected loyalty points, and deducted it from his taxes.
> 
> The taxpayers ended up paying the bill and the 10th guy collected $72 cash and loyalty points.


The bottom 4 felt they were not treated fairly so they vandalized the restaurant and lit it on fire. The next day they had nowhere to eat so they blamed white supremacy. CNN called it a mostly peaceful protest and blamed Trump's policies for creating a food desert.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> The bottom 4 felt they were not treated fairly so they vandalized the restaurant and lit it on fire. The next day they had nowhere to eat so they blamed white supremacy. CNN called it a mostly peaceful protest and blamed Trump's policies for creating a food desert.


The restaurant was in Florida where the 4 people were arrested along with an innocent passerby.

The Florida Anti-Riot law removes the presumption of innocence and bail and the arrested sit in jail awaiting their trial.

The guilty 4 properly go to prison, and the innocent 5th man is found not guilty, whereupon the judge says "sorry about the inconvenience".


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Leave it to sags to try and rewrite history so he can blame the wealthy. The “business guy” couldn’t collect $8 from the others because they refused to pay their “fair share”. They felt entitled to everything they got. But keep rewriting the facts to prove your point. It just reenforced how clueless you really are.

Even if he did write it off, so what the ratio he pays is the same as the bar bill, missed that point obviously, so what if he writes off $80 he already spent stimulating the economy. Be glad he’s covering the tax bill along with the bar bill. He doesn’t pocket the write offs the money is still spent and consumed by people who made no contribution and don’t pay taxes either. They just take the benefits and feel entitled to more.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Always leaping to the defense of the downtrodden wealthy JAG.........good for you ️🏆

Someday, if one of your schemes works out you might join their ranks with a 🔑 to the country club.

One thing is for certain though. They aren't spending their time worrying about you ⛵ .


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

One, two, three, four, one two)

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

(If you drive a car car) I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk walk) I'll tax your feet

Taxman!

'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for
(Ah, ah, Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more
(Ah, ah, Mr. Heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman 


Apparently, assuming the lyrics are literal, he paid 95% on his top earnings. 
I don't feel super bad for him, but the Labour party did apparently waste a lot of money appeasing unions. Took Thatcher to straighten out their mess. 

I am concerned about extreme individualism in the tax issue. Suppose an individual has good pricing power for their product or service and leverages it to the max to amass a fortune. The individual says its mine, all mine. A more balanced approach would see that the individual could not have amassed the fortune with out the work of modestly paid minions, and with out the context of a country and that country's infrastructure that other people paid for. 

Where does this individualistic idea that it's mine all mine come from? If the rich individual benefits more from the infrastructure than a minion, why should the rich one not pay more % in tax?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> ...Where does this individualistic idea that it's mine all mine come from? If the rich individual benefits more from the infrastructure than a minion, why should the rich one not pay more % in tax?


I think it would make it too difficult for the government to demonstrate that its programs actually contributed to the creation of the wealth. The major direct contributors are healthcare, CPP and EI but they are already funded by the corporations. The roads are funded by a gas tax (and so on).

It seems to me that wealth is created by taking above average business risk and managing it properly or getting lucky.

If they go down the windfall tax road, then lottery winnings are first.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The wealthy have been richly rewarded.

_As a result, Canada’s wealthiest 87 families now have 4,448 times more wealth than the average Canadian family, and they collectively own the same amount as the lowest-earning 12 million Canadians. At present, the wealthiest 87 families have a net worth of $259 billion, which is about what everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick collectively owns ($269 billion). 

That sum would include all houses, cottages and other properties, all cars, every savings account in the region, RRSPs, pensions, etc., minus all liabilities such as mortgages and loans._


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

kcowan said:


> It seems to me that wealth is created by taking above average business risk and managing it properly or getting lucky.


That is the individualistic thinking. It is true in so far as it goes, but it abstracts out all the other things and people that are needed. I suppose it abstracts it out in order to avoid any responsibility.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> That is the individualistic thinking. It is true in so far as it goes, but it abstracts out all the other things and people that are needed. I suppose it abstracts it out in order to avoid any responsibility.


I was trying to simplify to the essence. Plus I do not beleive that a particular management style leads to success, for example. While there are a lot of narcississts, there are also good people managers and autocrats both of whom have been successful.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

kcowan said:


> I was trying to simplify to the essence. Plus I do not beleive that a particular management style leads to success, for example. While there are a lot of narcississts, there are also good people managers and autocrats both of whom have been successful.


If the individual needs people to achieve success, then people are part of the essence. 

Extreme socialists think that the group rights trump individual rights, while extreme individualistic thinking assumes individual rights trump the group {that the individual relies on to achieve goals}. 
Its this extreme individualism that draws the false conclusion that taxes are theft of their money {but over charging for products or services isn't theft of consumers money - that's just the individual being successful}. 
Extreme socialism assumes incorrectly that profit is evil. Wrong. Profit is what makes providing the product or service possible. the purpose of profit should not be to become excessively rich, but to make a living and to be able to continue delivering the product/service. 

For lack of a better word, its balance. Balance between group needs and rights and individual needs and rights. I don't see 90% marginal tax rates of the 1950's to pay off the war debt as tromping on the rights of the rich. Bad things happen from time to time and I don't like it when the rich whine about taxes while others don't even have a job.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

A little word (video) of wisdom to all the "hard workers" who forget how luck has shaped their reality.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> A little word (video) of wisdom to all the "hard workers" who forget how luck has shaped their reality.


This is really important, but sadly, is something that many so-called "successful business people" and successful investors don't understand. The same point is made in Taleb's book, Fooled by Randomness. The topic also shows up in one of the videos from Ben Felix: How to Evaluate Your Investment Decisions.

You might call this market or business philosophy.

Ben Felix makes the point: You cannot evaluate an investment decision _based on its outcome._ This is one instance of the broader point about the role of randomness in outcomes. Some business people make *bad* decisions but happen to have good outcomes, sometimes purely by random chance or the luck of time & place. Or you can take two equivalent investors, or business people, who have comparable skills and comparable ideas, but have radically different outcomes -- due to luck.

You can also be a good business person (or good investor), and make all the right decisions and take the right risks, but still have a bad outcome.

My own little example of this is the dot com bubble. I started a small computer-based business in 1997, which peaked in 2002 and then trailed off in the following years. Lets say the total cumulative earnings were 300K. But... I was just a teenager when I started! I had very little business experience, had no credentials, no degree, and no connections. By the time I finished school and went to university, the bubble had collapsed and the party was over.

However if I was just a couple years older, I could have had a university education and connections at the right time. *Just by random luck of timing*, a slight time shift, I'm sure that I could have made several multiples x 300K and likely ... with the SAME fundamental skills and exact same "hard work" ... could have become a millionaire at a young age.

I had some crazy opportunities at the time which I had to turn down. At one point, an offer came to me from a major electronics firm to provide design expertise for a technology that I had unique expertise with. This was insane ... I was 16 years old at the time and worried about pimples and doing my homework. If I was older and had a degree, that offer ALONE could have been 500K+ worth of consulting fees. Keep in mind that this industry in the late 90s was gangbusters and money was being thrown around like crazy. Relatively few people had expertise in computers & the internet.

A similar example would be the insane oil boom in Alberta from 2002-2008. For people who were in the right time & place, fortunes were created (and some of them are here at CMF). Oil well technology, tooling, and services for example. Or perhaps O&G consultants. But the same skills today? Shift the time.... and nope, no fortune. The same person could struggle today, try just as hard, but won't get the same spectacular results.

A lot of this is luck. For me, just a 5 year shift in timing could have made me extremely wealthy.

Having good ideas and "working hard" is important. But being in the right time & place, finding yourself in a boom/mania, and also being lucky enough to have the right connections (sometimes through family) is extremely important.

~~~

By the way... what bootstrapped Buffett into riches was actually his aggressive investment and speculation in the 1950s, _which happened to be_ an extremely strong period in stocks and the highest return of any decade. This isn't talked about much. His "success" is, to a large part, due to the timing and building enormous wealth during an incredible, post-depression market boom. With the capital he built at that early point, everything else became quite easy, especially with his significant insider connections. It wasn't the 1970s or 1980s that made Buffett super rich. It's the fact he was already a multi millionaire at age 26, way back in 1956.

So although Buffett is certainly a sharp guy, and above average, there is still a major element of luck in his story. He was a 20 year old who was lucky to start investing during the 1950s market. And after some initial, extremely risky speculation, he found himself with millions (in present day value) at age 26. And on top of that ... he now had capital very early in the greatest economic boom seen in any country in world history, plus Wall Street experience.

Just think of the potency of having millions in capital at a time when other wealthy people had just been wiped out by the Depression. By pure luck, Buffett skipped over the Depression and spent most of those days sucking on a pacifier and pooping himself.

Those are not conditions that one creates through hard work.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sure, luck may have played a role, but if people never attempted to do the things you said in the first place, no amount of luck would have made them rich. Sitting in your parents basement isn’t the key to success.

you’ll note, you weren’t extremely rich because you passed on opportunities, no luck involved, just a choice not to do something.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

You actually allude to it. Timing is as important as luck. You can take action when the timing is right. Then you will not need as much luck.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Let’s not forget that luck is also the main excuse for people making bad choices. For example. I passed on a 500k contract because I decided not to take the contract. Bad luck. Imagine if bill gates and mark zuccerberg said “we haven’t graduated, so we won’t found our companies” just bad luck.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> A little word (video) of wisdom to all the "hard workers" who forget how luck has shaped their reality.


Yep. Good insight in that video. There are always circumstances beyond our control that play a role is where one ends up. (Buffett's father was a stock broker. Had his parents been farmers in Oklahoma, and in the depression transient fruit pickers in California he would have likely ended up in a different occupation and place. Its similar for every one. )


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Pluto said:


> Yep. Good insight in that video. There are always circumstances beyond our control that play a role is where one ends up. (Buffett's father was a stock broker. Had his parents been farmers in Oklahoma, and in the depression transient fruit pickers in California he would have likely ended up in a different occupation and place. Its similar for every one. )


Right. His dad was a Wall Street guy, with connections, and so Buffett developed inside knowledge of the whole thing starting from age 20, maybe even younger. And this happened:

He _first_ deployed money in the 1950s, a decade of incredible returns
Right after competitors were wiped out by the Depression
And kept investing during the greatest economic expansion in world history
The timing, and circumstances, are really very unique. Now think of the people who think they can read some books, play with stocks at home, and become the next Buffett. I doubt that even Buffett himself could replicate his success if he was born in, say, 1980.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Truly successful people tend to always be successful. Yes, he was born into investing, so are my kids, thats not luck that’s parents educating their kids on more than dogma. A choice, maybe not theirs but it was a choice b his parents. Was it bad luck you chose not to take your opportunity or was it a bad choice?


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Just a Guy said:


> Truly successful people tend to always be successful. Yes, he was born into investing, so are my kids, thats not luck that’s parents educating their kids on more than dogma. A choice, maybe not theirs but it was a choice b his parents. Was it bad luck you chose not to take your opportunity or was it a bad choice?


I didn't realize Warren Buffett had his Masters in Economics and did further studies in finance and that must have helped further his success as well. He worked hard. Still i think people need to acknowledge luck plays a role.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> Truly successful people tend to always be successful. Yes, he was born into investing, so are my kids, thats not luck that’s parents educating their kids on more than dogma. A choice, maybe not theirs but it was a choice b his parents. Was it bad luck you chose not to take your opportunity or was it a bad choice?


Obviously you did not choose your parents, and your kids did not choose you.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Now think of the people who think they can read some books, play with stocks at home, and become the next Buffett. I doubt that even Buffett himself could replicate his success if he was born in, say, 1980.


You seem cynical. I wonder where that comes from.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Truly successful people tend to always be successful.


Starts with a bit of luck, then a bit of hot-hand fallacy, then a bit of Pygmalion effect leading to a virtuous circle, then a bit of Matthews effect, then a bit of outcome bias with illusory superiority bias and ends with a bit of illusion of control and validity, egocentric bias, just-world bias, actor-observer bias, puritanical bias and self-serving bias.



Just a Guy said:


> Was it bad luck you chose not to take your opportunity or was it a bad choice?


There's no such thing as good luck or bad luck, good choice or bad choice until we see the outcome, and the outcome is just a succession of uncontrollable events which shape a part of our destiny.



> There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.
> 
> “Maybe,” the farmer replied.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> The timing, and circumstances, are really very unique. Now think of the people who think they can read some books, play with stocks at home, and become the next Buffett. I doubt that even Buffett himself could replicate his success if he was born in, say, 1980.


Maybe he wouldn't be as rich but he'd probably be successful. You're ignoring the fact that people born in 1980 have been successful too.

It's not all about luck. Haven't you heard of lottery winners that are broke 2 years later? Haven't you heard about people raised in the ghetto becoming successful?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> There's no such thing as good luck or bad luck, good choice or bad choice until we see the outcome, and the outcome is just a succession of uncontrollable events which shape a part of our destiny.


This is complete bull. I controls lot of the events that happen to me. I choose to look for cheap properties, I set up systems to find and run them. No luck involved, completely under my control and it works in all markets. I’ve made adjustments to my system over the years to allow for changing conditions. I also study stocks and wait for them to hit my price points. Other people don’t, nor even believe it’s possible to do, even though other people ive helped can duplicate my results (luck, by definition canard be duplicated at will). Those are the people not in control, hoping for a good outcome in the end. Meanwhile, my system cranks on and I continue on the path to more and more wealth, because I chose todo something and not hoped it would happen to me. 

it is usually a bad choice to sit around hoping things will get better, it’s usually a good choice to seize an opportunity that presents itself. It’s definitely a bad choice to blow all your money on drugs and alcohol, I don’t need to seee the outcome personally to know this to be true, I’ve seen it in others too often.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I'm surprised no one has talked about real estate when we talk about luck. Definitely there are better years and decades to buy then others which builds a lot of wealth. Incidentally Just a Guy the difference between you and other poor people when you had your crisis is you had a real estate asset to work with. I'm not negating what you did but i think you need to recognize a lot of people don't have these assets to build wealth.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> This is complete bull. I controls lot of the events that happen to me. I choose to look for cheap properties, I set up systems to find and run them. No luck involved, completely under my control and it works in all markets. I’ve made adjustments to my system over the years to allow for changing conditions. I also study stocks and wait for them to hit my price points. Other people don’t, nor even believe it’s possible to do, even though other people ive helped can duplicate my results (luck, by definition canard be duplicated at will). Those are the people not in control, hoping for a good outcome in the end. Meanwhile, my system cranks on and I continue on the path to more and more wealth, because I chose todo something and not hoped it would happen to me.
> 
> it is usually a bad choice to sit around hoping things will get better, it’s usually a good choice to seize an opportunity that presents itself. It’s definitely a bad choice to blow all your money on drugs and alcohol, I don’t need to seee the outcome personally to know this to be true, I’ve seen it in others too often.


It is not black or white. It's obvious we cannot sit around hoping things will get better. I'm just saying you underestimate the great power of luck as a driver of your destiny. Take two copies of yourself with the same personality and skill set. Now change only one little but very important uncontrolled event in the life of one of them and the final outcome may be drastically different. You know, the butterfly effect, the chaos theory...

Your reply combines perfect examples of illusion of control, puritanical bias, actor-observer bias, self-serving bias and outcome bias. The fact that you underestimate the power of luck is actually healthy for you, because if you believed that luck was the major reason of your success, then you wouldn't put as much effort.

I understand you are investing in properties and investing in stocks, which is part of your success. But what got you into deciding to do that? Out of all the things you could've done, all the decisions you could've made, all the other options you could've discovered? Why aren't you multi-billionaire like Bezos? Amazon was simply a bookstore 25 years ago. All the self-made multi-billionaires are more skilled, more clever, more hard-working than you and they are taking better decisions than you, that's the only differences between you and them?

There's a quote saying: _Luck is when preparation meets opportunity._
Interestingly, there's an alternative quote saying: _Success is when preparation meets opportunity._
But what is "an opportunity"? An opportunity is a situation in which it is possible for you to do something that you want to do. Synonym: *chance*.
So the quote should read: _Success is when preparation meets luck. "Opportunity"_ is just a word which is more precise and appropriate for such a quote, but the roots of an opportunity is luck.
*Preparation* is the part that *you control*.
*Opportunity (luck/chance)* is the part that *you don't control*.
You need both to be successful.

Your reply explains all the preparation you do. That's good. You are doing your part to grasp the opportunities for success. But what if the opportunities never comes? What if the stocks or properties are never cheap enough? What if you buy them at your price points, but then they continue to go down? What if they don't grow as you expect? You control what you are doing in the present, but you certainly don't control what happens in the future. There are also so many opportunities you are currently missing simply because you are either not prepared for them or not even aware of them. And "an opportunity" is subjective because you don't truly know if it's favourable until you see its outcome. For instance, if someone has the opportunity to change job which seems a good idea to build a successful career. Should he do it or not? It's a risky decision. What does "risky" mean? That the outcome can be very good or very bad, but you don't know it beforehand. The decision becomes either a good or a bad decision *after* you see its outcome.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sounds like a person typical of using “luck” as an excuse as to why they aren’t successful...I’ll grant that my injuries did motivate me to get into investin, however i wasnt unsuccessful before that. I got laid off in a time when there were no jobs, so I started my own company which was doing very well. I had started inves at that time, and probably would have continue,, but I didn’t have the same reason or urgency at the time. I developed and modified my sys to meet my abilities and resources at the time. I didn’t just pick one and hope “luck“ would prevail and rescue me. Everything I did had a reason and was part of a plan. 

my system is designed in such a way that, after purchase, I don’t care about the value of the property. When I buy, I make sure the property cash flows at at double digit interest rate, special assessments and huge condo fees. For your information properties have decreased in value over the years, I’m buying at 45k This year, in past years I paid 65k for similar places...as I said, I adjust the plan.cheaper places just means more profits. I know the decision to buy will be a good idea before I make my purchases or I don’t make the purchased. that comes from experience and the use of math, not luck.

could I have started Amazon or Facebook? Sure I could have,I have the skills required, but I didn’t and others chose to. Was that luck? Nope. It was a choice or a lack of vision. They saw a need and filled it. Plain and simple. Now they are rewarded for it. Ask yourself what risks you’ve taken in your life or have you always taken the safe route?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I know I cannot argue with you as you cannot acknowledge your cognitive biases.

So I'll just assume you are successful only due to your hard work and none of that is due to external & uncontrolled situations.

Meanwhile I'm successful due to my hard work combined with so many external & uncontrolled situations which got me where I am now.

I'll call myself grateful for my success and I'll let you call yourself worthy of your success.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Ironic that you use luck as your cognitive bias and don’t even see it...you’ll note above, that I did acknowledge luck plays a role, I just don’t believe it’s the main driver of success.

i also know my kids will be successful because of their knowledg, experience and work ethic. Of course, you’ll probably try to stretch your bias and say they were just lucky to be born into my household. It’s the only explanation of course

I suppose the people I mentor are just lucky they know me, not like they sought out someone in order To change their life. Theres no such thing as personal responsibility only luck.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> I did acknowledge luck plays a role, I just don’t believe it’s the main driver of success.


That's just a matter of perspective.

Someone as skilled & hard working as me born in an Indonesian family of farmers will have much less opportunities of success than me, born in an Canadian family of farmers. From that perspective, luck plays a huge role.
On the other side, my twin brother having as many opportunities as me, but not working hard will most likely have less success than me. From that perspective, hard work plays a huge role.



Just a Guy said:


> Of course, you’ll probably try to stretch your bias and say they were just lucky to be born into my household. It’s the only explanation of course


No I won't, because what I'm trying to explain, is that for people with the same skills, same level of hard work and in the same average initial situation (in this case, the average Canadian family), the differentiator will be the external & uncontrolled events they face throughout their lives.

As you said, you faced many difficult situations throughout your life and you got over them with hard work. Were you unlucky to face those situations so you had to work even harder than other people to get over those situations? Or were you lucky to face those situations which helped you shape your hard-working personality to become highly successful? Both sentences prove the role of luck.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Don’t tell that to people like Robert herjavec. Or all the rich immigrants I know who came here with nothing. My uncles came over as peasant farmers and died wealthy (no, I didn’t inherit anything but a work ethic). Pure luck I’m sure. I’m saying that a lack of effort plays a bigger role than a lack of luck.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> Don’t tell that to people like Robert herjavec. Or all the rich immigrants I know who came here with nothing. My uncles came over as peasant farmers and died wealthy (no, I didn’t inherit anything but a work ethic). Pure luck I’m sure. I’m saying that a lack of effort plays a bigger role than a lack of luck.


Nobody said that big success was entirely luck. The point was that luck is part of the outcome.

You can take two people who are equivalent, have the same intelligence, same business ideas, same effort and drive ... and get two wildly different results. This happens all the time in business.



Just a Guy said:


> i also know my kids will be successful because of their knowledg, experience and work ethic.


That's certainly a good starting point and the odds are on their side, but you can't know for certain whether your kids will be successful purely based on this. It's not enough to just be smart and hard working.

What if your kid has a serious injury at some point, struggles with a medical problem? Or something like depression? That's quite the wildcard, and people's outcomes can vary. You can't just "will yourself" into healing or recovering from serious injuries or medical conditions. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes not.

What if your kid goes through marriage difficulties or an ugly divorce? Again, this can ruin lives, through no fault of one's own.

What if your kid develops business expertise in a certain area, but the timing is unfortunate and that particular industry collapses and disintegrates during their critical years? This can also set back a person tremendously, through no fault of their own.

Your kids will probably do fine, because the odds are on their side, but there are wildcards and random things along the way.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Nobody said that big success was entirely luck. The point was that luck is part of the outcome.
> 
> You can take two people who are equivalent, have the same intelligence, same business ideas, same effort and drive ... and get two wildly different results. This happens all the time in business.


The people that consider luck to be a much a larger factor than it really is also think socialism will "even things up".

Those who believe that the majority of success comes from hard work, dedication, and personal responsibility understand why socialism always fails.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> MrBlackhill said:
> 
> 
> > There's no such thing as good luck or bad luck, good choice or bad choice until we see the outcome, and the outcome is just a succession of uncontrollable events which shape a part of our destiny.
> ...


Ok, let's just say you're the farmer from that Taoist story I posted. It started with the uncontrolled event of the horse escaping and ended with his son not going to war. Let's say that if his son went to war, he would've died. Now, you are that farmer and you are in control of your life. First thing, you don't want your horse to escape because you need it for your business. You've seen your neighbours losing their horse and then losing their business. That won't happen to you, you're smarter, you'll control everything. You manage that your horse doesn't escape. Then the story ends up that your son goes to war and dies. That's called the butterfly effect.

I know you said you controls "lot of the events" and not _all _of the events. I'm just saying your are under-estimating the outcome of all of the uncontrolled events that happened to you and had a huge impact on the outcome of your life.

Guess what? This debate will have no end, because it's a matter of perception in the debate about fate vs free will. Are we in control of our destiny? The answer is... yes and no. As I said previously using a quote, we need both (fate ~ opportunity, free will ~ preparation). From your perspective and construction of your reality, you say that you have control. And you are right. From my perspective and construction of my reality, I may say I don't have control. And I would be right. But then we both know it's not black and white, there's a bit of control and a bit of luck. So, from your perspective and construction of your reality, you focus on your hard work, so you say that even though there's luck, hard work is the most important part. And from my perspective and construction of my reality, I focus on all the uncontrolled situations that happened to me and I say that luck is a huge part.

We cannot end this debate due to a simple paradox. Are you lucky to be born as a hard working person? As you said, I can stretch the impact of luck as being the root case, because, after all, the starting point of your life is when you were born, where you were born and with what kind of genes shaping your initial yourself.

If you believe that two identical humans living the exact same identical situations will react the exact same way, then you believe that humans are acting in a deterministic manner. And that would lead the luck of the randomness of the uncontrolled events to be the differentiator - destiny.

If you believe that two identical humans living the exact same identical situations will react differently, then you believe that humans are acting in a stochastic manner. And that would lead the luck of the randomness of your reactions as being the differentiator - destiny.

It is healthy to know that hard work is needed to achieve success. And it is healthy to be grateful for the chances we had throughout our life.

Which one is the most important? That's an endless debate due to our own perceptions and our own subjective understanding of the extent of luck.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I amazed at how much effort goes into downplaying the success of people or trivializing it by saying it’s just luck. i suppose it’s really a balm for those less successful as they don’t have to face the fact that others are successful around them while they aren’t.

james, you talk about injuries inhibiting people, however, I developed my system of making money after being injured, it will continue to work for me and my kids regardless of our health. Things like divorce came up early with my lawyers who advised things to prevent that being an issue for my kids. It’s a little thing called planning And foresight. It allows you to avoid such perils. Again, just because you fail to do such things doesn’t mean it’s luck, but that’s probably easier for you to swallow than the truth now isn’t it?

two people with the same skill set, won’t wind up the same because one may think and use their brains more than the other, it’s not luck it’s choice.

blackhill, your parable example is really meaningless, as you seem to think the outcome will be the same no matter what. With all the chain of events you still insist it would result in the son going to war or not at the end of the line. This is rather simplistic and a moronic argument designed just to promote your ideals. Again, a lot of effort to downplay the success of others around you in your own mind.

ironically, I own horses and spend a lot of effort to ensure they don’t escape...yet all my kids are alive. They are more likely going to be killed by the horses, yet I also work to prevent that from happening....that whole forethought thing again...I don’t sit around hoping luck will save them.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> I amazed at how much effort goes into downplaying the success of people or trivializing it by saying it’s just luck. i suppose it’s really a balm for those less successful as they don’t have to face the fact that others are successful around them while they aren’t.


I'm personally amazed how you seem to assume I'm unsuccessful because I'm talking about the role of luck in our success.

On your side, I'm amazed by how much effort you put into validating how your hard work was the main factor of your success.

I just said it's both and it's an endless debate.

I'm definitely successful and I know how my hard work and my luck played into that success. That's called wisdom.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Success is relative...maybe you need to compensate for people like bezos. You do seem uncomfortable with people like him. Either that or maybe you feel you don’t deserve your success and feel lucky to have achieved it, whereas others around you are confident that’s they could achieve it again if they somehow had it taken away.

the ability to reproduce success, belies luck. As people can’t produce luck. I was successful before I got injured and lost everything and was able to come back even more successful than before. Many successful people do more than one thing which they are good at....because of who they are not because they are repeatedly lucky. Of course, you can keep telling yourself I’m wrong about that as it obviously makes you feel more successful .


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Success is relative...maybe you need to compensate for people like bezos. You do seem uncomfortable with people like him.


Definitely not, because I said previously in this thread that I don't measure success by how much wealth one has.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

People like bezos are successful in more ways than wealth, a wise person can see that, an insecure person won’t admit that because it hurts them. I know many people who tear down others or downplay them to feel successful....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How many hard working people have lost businesses because of the COVID ?

How many people are going to lose their homes because of COVID ?

If anything, the COVID proves how much luck can shape reality.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is well established the single most important factor in success..........is opportunity.

I would think the second most important factor is luck. 

Hard work and dedication, combined with luck and opportunity is the recipe for success.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Just a Guy said:


> Success is relative...maybe you need to compensate for people like bezos. You do seem uncomfortable with people like him. Either that or maybe you feel you don’t deserve your success and feel lucky to have achieved it, whereas others around you are confident that’s they could achieve it again if they somehow had it taken away.


My understanding is that you are paying for your kids tuition. This gives them a huge leg up for success -why? - they'll graduate with no student loans which has huge value. Wealth begets wealth. It also sounds (to your credit) that you have been a very engaged parent. A lot of kids don't have that and are dealing with detached parents who don't carr. Another boost for success not all kids have. Your kids will probably be successful but not all because of their hard work.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

JAG talks like a "Dare to be Great" seminar. All you have to do is believe in yourself and just go do it.

If only it were that easy........all those seminar salesmen wouldn't have to be peddling useless courses, books and CDs.

Reminds me of Trump University actually.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

again, an efffort to downplay reality.

No they will be successful because of choices they and their parents made...again choice, not luck. Forethought and personal responsibility, not luck. That being said, my kids have friends who came from a vastly different backgrounds, no wealth, no paid education, no two parent, engaged family, who chose to seek me out as a mentor to them.

they are learning to be successful because they chose to...not luck, but choice. I also have pupils who are adults, a single mother of three, living paycheque to paycheque who wanted to change (shes a property manager for one of my places) she saw the opportunity to change and chose to have me teach her. She just bought her first rental property this month. My banker, saw my portfolio and had me mentor him. All these less successful people, not coming from a privileged background, making a choice to change...lots of “luck” out there...no personal choice or responsibility at all...

btw, research has shown that post secondary education can actually be detrimental to the success of people, especially second generation wealth. This is because the techniques used by the first generation who created the wealth usually didn’t depend on the post secondary education, so by attending school, they are actually held back from making money. Read things like the millionaire next door or the millionaire mind. Funny neither book mentions luck in their research...

also, my kids have jobs while in school...my son wanted to go out of town for his program and bought a rental to help pay for his expenses. They get scholarship, and have a student loan, because they aren’t raised as entitled kids, again a choice, not luck. Sure I could pay their entire way, but that would be detrimental to their success, so I choose not to. I’m teaching them personal responsibility.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> People like bezos are successful in more ways than wealth, a wise person can see that, an insecure person won’t admit that because it hurts them. I know many people who tear down others or downplay them to feel successful....


You used the Bezos example and I also used the Bezos example. Why Bezos in particular? Because almost everybody knows that it's the wealthiest person on Earth. And that makes him known for his success. I'm sure he is very successful in many other ways, I have absolutely no doubt on that.

I personally never tear down others. In fact, the only one person that I criticise harshly is myself. Otherwise, people around me call me too modest.

You feel that I'm trying to downplay successful people (or tearing them down) because I'm talking about the role of luck, while I'm actually talking about luck as an ingredient of success, not the whole recipe by itself. Meanwhile, you are tearing down all the other unsuccessful people by saying it's because they aren't working hard enough.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> No they will be successful because of choices they and their parents made...again choice, not luck.


I haven't read more of your post yet, but right on the first sentence. You said the choices _they_ and *their parents made*. Then you said it's choice, not luck.

What's their control on the choice their parents made? Did they choose their parents? No, they were *lucky* of having these parents who made these choices.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You seem to ignore the whole “personal responsibility“ aspect of life...as a parent I feel I have a personal responsibility if I decide to have kids...if I choose not to, that’s still not luck, that is a choice, a bad one for my kids, but still not luck. Does it affect their chances for success? Definitely, but it’s still not luck, it’s still a choice. If you could read past the first line, you’d have seen examples of kids who took personal responsibility into heir own hands and overcame their parents bad choices...but again that would probably hurt your notion that it’s all just blind luck.

oh and if I’m unsuccessful and decide not to try and change that, it’s also a choice and I don’t believe you have a right to complain about it then. There are no laws in Canada that are holding you back, you are not experiencing more bad luck than people around you, you are making a choice. Sorry I don’t give you sympathy. I’m willing to mentor you, thats the most I can do, I can’t stop you from making excuses or not putting in effort, you need to take personal responsibility for your life and decisions.

imagine where you could be if you spent the same effort you do on attributing reasons for your relative lack of success into overcoming the obstacles you see preventing you from that success...


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> If you could read past the first line, you’d have seen examples of kids who took personal responsibility into heir own hands and overcame their parents bad choices...but again that would probably hurt your notion that it’s all just blind luck.


Yup, they had the opportunity to meet you, that's for the uncontrolled part (the opportunity, the chance, the luck). Then, yes, they made a choice, that's the part they had control.

That's why we need both.

Yes, we make decisions, meaning we make choices. In *some* cases, making a choice is a reaction to an opportunity. Opportunities are uncontrolled events.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

A wise person would realize that there are always opportunities, they aren’t rationed out by luck. The person has to realize there is opportunities out there, that again is a choice. My kids friends saw an opportunity and took it. If I wasn’t around they would have found someone else because they went looking for it. Choice, not luck. Again, you downplay personal responsibility by saying they need luck to achieve it...probably why you didn’t have a mentor to teach you. You were just unlucky. Bezos was just lucky to see a need, sucker berg was just lucky to have an idea, gates was just lucky to develop software for an emerging industry, they couldn’t possibly have seen the opportunities...otherwise people like you would have done it and you didn’t. Has to be luck, not the person.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> If I wasn’t around they would have found someone else because they went looking for it. Choice, not luck.


Yes, but the information they would've had from someone else would've been different and the final outcome would've been different.

They made the choice to go looking for it and they found you. Then they made the choice to select you instead of someone else.

We don't know yet if it was a good choice to select you, maybe they would've been better off selecting someone else and they would've had better advices and would've been more successful and happier.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

For a self proclaimed “wise” person you certainly have a negative view on life. Also make up your mind. With your parable you said fate was inevitable yet with the kids I mentor you say things could turn vastly different...sounds like someone trying to justify their situation no matter what.

Successful people see opportunities and act on them, unsuccessful people can’t and don’t. Not only that they say it’s impossible and try to write it off as luck or something similar


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> imagine where you could be if you spent the same effort you do on attributing reasons for your relative lack of success into overcoming the obstacles you see preventing you from that success...


The irony is that you are spending the same effort replying me.

I guess the so unsuccessful me is currently successfully wasting the precious time of the so successful you.

I guess we're not so different. If we keep answering each other, it's because this debate is bringing something to our ego, more valuable than any other thing we could be doing. (And before you do that kind of reply, I'm currently multitasking, obliviously I'm not just sitting there waiting to answer you, this debate is just entertaining me while I'm doing other things.)


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrBlackhill said:


> We don't know yet if it was a good choice to select you, maybe they would've been better off selecting someone else and they would've had better advices and would've been more successful and happier.


And maybe if they had been raised by you they would have been failures as you would have told them that it's all about luck.

Unless you tell your kids something other than what you preach here?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> And maybe if they had been raised by you they would have been failures as you would have told them that it's all about luck.


Please quote where I said that hard work was useless.

Meanwhile I'll count all the places where I repeated that success is a combination of both : preparation (hard work) & opportunity (luck, chance, circumstances, coincidences).

I also said we give a subjective extend to luck and that's why people have different perspectives about the role of luck.


----------



## JackJac (Mar 13, 2017)

Prairie Guy said:


> And maybe if they had been raised by you they would have been failures as you would have told them that it's all about luck.
> 
> Unless you tell your kids something other than what you preach here?


For the second or third time, no one has claimed that success is "all about luck". The claim is that "luck is a factor in success." 

Furthermore, just because someone argues that "luck is a factor in success" does not entail that such a person is a failure trying to justify themselves. They could be wildly successful, yet they recognize that "luck was a factor" in their success -- there were certain things out of their control that they benefited from, which contributed to their success. 

JAG and yourself seem to be kicking against the goads here -- well, good luck -- you'll need it.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Funny how you guys believe it's black and white. As if I thought that hard work was useless just because I'm talking about luck.

I've been raised on an farm where the first and biggest value I've learned during my childhood was hard work as my stepfather was working 85h/week, 365 days a year and taking one week of vacation every 8 years.

I started helping on the farm doing 20h/week when I was 12 while other kids were living their childhood. At 14 I was working 80-100h/week during summers. And at 16 I was also working 40h/week during school time.

I'll repeat it again, I definitely know the importance of hard work. But I'm also very grateful for all the luck and all the opportunities that I had throughout my life.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When the story someone repeats of their success keeps changing every time flaws in their story are pointed out,....I gotta think it is all made up nonsense.

It is good to bear that in mind with certain posters Mr. Blackhill..........


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Funny, I never said hard work was a factor in success. I hardly work these days and have become more successful. My ideas of success is being able to live life by your own rules, not someone else‘s. The goal I had as a father was that my kids would learn the skills needed so that they’d never have to work. I expected them to work and have a good work ethic, but not have to work. if they wanted to become artists, they wouldn’t have to be a starving artist. mr I could have been bezos if only I’d been luckyer hill, I’m at the point where I can waste my time, it doesn’t cost me anything because my systems make money without me being involved. Note it’s a reproducible system, not luck. You on the other hand, are probably costing yourself money because you aren’t as lucky.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

JackJac said:


> -- well, good luck -- you'll need it.


I don’t need it, I don‘t need to make up excuses For not using my brains.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

This thread


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

For someone who claims to not be afraid of hard work, you’ve certainly started a lot of threads looking for people to hand you the answers...ever read the passage give a man a fish and tyou feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. You seem to want people to hand you your investment ideas...


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Prairie Guy said:


> The people that consider luck to be a much a larger factor than it really is also think socialism will "even things up".
> 
> Those who believe that the majority of success comes from hard work, dedication, and personal responsibility understand why socialism always fails.





Just a Guy said:


> ...but again that would probably hurt your notion that it’s all just blind luck.


He didn't say that. You are making it up.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Another factor besides good fortune and extensive preparation is perceived need. Nothing drives an entrepreneur in the early days as much as the wolf at the door.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I agree for the most part, it sure was a driver for me however, my buddy who houses the homeless would say it’s non-existent with them...they just sit a all day waiting for the next government cheque to save them.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> I agree for the most part, it sure was a driver for me however, my buddy who houses the homeless would say it’s non-existent with them...they just sit a all day waiting for the next government cheque to save them.


I'm not sure if that's a good generalization. I knew two women who were borderline homeless, both around my age.

The first woman was in fact homeless at first and was living out of her car, but transitioned to living out of a larger mobile home. Not a great existence. She kept trying to find parking lots and places to park and it was a very difficult lifestyle. I wondered if she was crazy or something, but eventually I learned what was happening: her ex husband was violent and dangerous. He was 'on the loose' and she was afraid for her life.

I think that's a great example of a circumstance beyond your control. She didn't ask for that kind of trouble and fearing for one's life changes everything. In fact I was in touch with her a year ago and heard she was living in a regular home near her mom. What changed? The ex husband was convicted and jailed.

The second woman has a few problems. She's very sweet but I think has very low intelligence and an addiction. She actually does like working and enjoys her jobs. But she makes very low income and is bad at managing her life in general. She landed a spot in government-sponsored housing, highly subsidized rent.

JAG is saying that people like her would just sit around and be lazy. Absolutely not the case with this woman. In fact having a comfortable, stable home has made her very happy and she's been finding better jobs. She actually had a good retail job just before COVID but I saw her doing better with her stable housing.

There are undoubtedly some lazy homeless people but then there are people like this woman, who *really want* a normal life. Having her own apartment gives her some structure and ability to shape other normal things around it that she WANTS. She wants a job because she wants money, and welfare pays the absolute minimum. Nobody on welfare leads a good or comfortable life.

So I only know 2 homeless people (actual in-depth friendship) and they are not lazy people who just want to sit around getting welfare. One had circumstances beyond her control to deal with, and the second just needed some assistance. The subsidized housing helped get her to a spot where she can live more comfortably and find better jobs.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good fortune is beyond our control, but for many of us it shaped our lives. Count your blessings not someone else's sorrows.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

At the Hubert Humphrey Building dedication, Nov. 1, 1977, in Washington, D.C., former vice president Humphrey spoke about the treatment of the weakest members of society as a reflection of a government: *“The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”*


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I didn’t say anything about the homeless I’m relating information from a guy who houses about 20-30 formerly homeless people at a time (much better sample size than your two I’d say). One is moving out this month after a year of support (free rent and benefits for a year) because his program ends and he won’t get his rent paid anymore after a year of not doing anything. Many of his tenants last less than a year. 

To be fair, it’s not 100% of his tenants, he’s had a handful that have lasted longer and made their own way, but they are, by far, a minority. He has a lot of turnover.

I will say I spend a lot of time working with the homeless and poor and do see many who rotate back to the shelters on a regular basis. The idea of give them a home and they will reintegrate into society is very pie in the sky from what I’ve seen personally. The stories my buddy shares are very revealing, especially to the left wingers he knows.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> I will say I spend a lot of time working with the homeless and poor and do see many who rotate back to the shelters on a regular basis. The idea of give them a home and they will reintegrate into society is very pie in the sky from what I’ve seen personally. The stories my buddy shares are very revealing, especially to the left wingers he knows.


What do you suggest as a better solution for dealing with homeless people?

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I don’t know the solution, but long term handouts isn’t it. There’s nothing to encourage them to seek a change. When I was broke, and didn’t get any support, I can say it was great motivation for me to change my thinking and seek new ways to support myself and my family. right now the system is designed to encourage them not to change or their benefits get clawed back. Wean them off the free ride instead, force them to replace the money they are given with money they earn. Drug testing and consequences to their actions would probably also help.

Another thing that would help is teaching them about money and basic life skills like cooking. Most don’t have a clue, handing them money is like handing a chainsaw to a child, they are just set up to hurt themselves. The problem with trying to educate them is many have a bad attitude about being taught. Many feel they know everything and are entitled to live by their own rules, they don’t want to learn. Any poor people complain that I eat steak while they eat cheap McDonald’s. What they dont realize, because they don’t know how money works is mcdonalds is far from cheap and that I can feed my family steak for the same amount. I buy a vacuum packed uncut piece of tenderloin and clean it myself...add potatoes and veggies for two days and I paid the same price as McDonald’s. Of course, I tell people this and they react the same way as people who hear I buy places for 45k that rent for $850...”it’s impossible”. Yet somehow I do it.

one thing I have learned over the years is you can’t change people, they have to want to change themselves and act upon it. It’s the same for everyone, not just the homeless, they have to want to reintegrate into society...most want to live by their own rules which is why they fail.

If you make life comfortable, there is no incentive to change, you have to make life uncomfortable to inspire change. 

I may not have the solution, but I know giving money isn’t it. It doesn’t work now, adding more won’t change that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The public discourse has moved well past the question of "if" income/wealth needs to be redistributed to return to a healthy balance, and on to "how best" to implement the changes that are needed. The data is clear and the problem will have to be addressed by government.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> The public discourse has moved well past the question of "if" income/wealth needs to be redistributed to return to a healthy balance, and on to "how best" to implement the changes that are needed. The data is clear and the problem will have to be addressed by government.


Another "the debate is closed" comment. Anyone who says that is too scared to debate the facts.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> The public discourse has moved well past the question of "if" income/wealth needs to be redistributed to return to a healthy balance, and on to "how best" to implement the changes that are needed. The data is clear and the problem will have to be addressed by government.


Yes comrade. The only people who believe the debate on that is closed were Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Why would anyone even bother to pretend to be productive if they re-distributed the wealth. As the old Soviet saying goes, workers had the attitude that “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay.”

ltr


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Why does wealth need to be redistributed? There is no law holding back people from generating their own wealth, whereas there are laws that make it difficult to hold onto once you generate it. 

Why not encourage and educate people to generate their own wealth? I’m living proof that any idiot can do it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mr. Poor, Mr. Middleclass and Mr. Wealthy are talking together about the need to raise some money.

Mr. Poor says, "I have no money at all to give."

Mr. Middleclass says, "I can't afford to pay anymore than I already do" .

Mr. Wealthy says, "I could pay a lot more but don't want to and don't think I should have to".

They decide to be democratic and take a vote on it. The results were 2-1 that Mr. Wealthy pays.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Mr. Poor, Mr. Middleclass and Mr. Wealthy are talking together about the need to raise some money.
> Mr. Poor says, "I have no money at all to give."
> Mr. Middleclass says, "I can't afford to pay anymore than I already do" .
> Mr. Wealthy says, "I could pay a lot more but don't want to and don't think I should have to".
> They decide to be democratic and take a vote on it. The results were 2-1 that Mr. Wealthy pays.


Sure, take money from those that earn it and give it to those that don't. Welcome to communism.

ltr


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Sure, when Mr. Poor works 80h/week at 15$/h, he deserves to be poor, while Mr. Wealthy works 40h/week at 50$/h, he deserves to be wealthy, he totally earned it, much more than Mr. Poor. After all, Mr. Poor just had to find a better job paying more. And if all the Mr. Poor left their jobs for a better paying job, the world would still go round, right? The world only needs entrepreneurs, physicians, architects, dentists, actuaries, etc. We don't need people working in service-related jobs. They should all quit their low-paying jobs. We don't need hairstylists, barbers, waitresses, bartenders, customer service, cashiers, babysitters, designers, teachers, cooks, farm workers, retail salespersons, garbage collectors, greenhouse workers, etc. And once they all disappear, don't ask me why the remaining barbers are now able to charge $150 for a 15-minute haircut.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Well, if fewer people chose to cut hair, the prices would rise (or people would cut their own).


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

How come all of the people that complain about low wages never open up a business and pay their employees more?

Oh that's right...YOU don't want to pay people more. You want other people to pay people more. It's always easier to spend someone else's money, isn't it?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> How come all of the people that complain about low wages never open up a business and pay their employees more?


But who are the "employees" if everybody wants to start a business to become wealthy? The employees are the poor, even if you pay them more.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrBlackhill said:


> But who are the "employees" if everybody wants to start a business to become wealthy? The employees are the poor, even if you pay them more.


Why everyone? Why not just a few people like you who are demanding a higher wage? Put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I'm not asking a higher wage. I'm saying I'm glad that the money I earn is redistributed to some extent. Because I don't get why I - as an engineer - make two times more money than that hardworking teacher educating the kids, for instance.

I earn it, so does that teacher, yet that teacher is getting half of what I'm getting.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Or wait, better than this. I don't get why a teacher in Ontario earns twice as much as a teacher in Quebec.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm not asking a higher wage. I'm saying I'm glad that the money I earn is redistributed to some extent. Because I don't get why I - as an engineer - make two times more money than that hardworking teacher educating the kids, for instance.
> 
> I earn it, so does that teacher, yet that teacher is getting half of what I'm getting.


Teachers go into the profession knowing what the job pays. The teachers I know love their work and they also LOVE all the time off which was a big factor in choosing that career path. That along with the generous government benefits makes up for less pay. It's not always all about the money.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> It's not always all about the money.


Exactly!

And that's why we pay taxes because - at least here in Quebec - some teachers struggle financially while working hard on a career they love and so they can get benefits.

And there are many examples of jobs paying much lower but where people are hard working and loving their job.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Teachers are public workers. they have unrealistic job security, can’t usually be fired at all, even when totally incompetent. Ever been in a school lately? Kids aren‘t being taught anything useful. They graduate high school unable to read, write or do math without a calculator but are taught they deserve a 60k salary...

the education system is broken. Incompetent teachers don’t need to continue to teach. Don’t even get me started on how cushy their pension is...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

If you guys are going to pick on people for getting government freebies, lay off the teachers and public servants. These people don't make much money and they have hard jobs (especially teachers).

Pick on the bankers. All the employees of the giant banks basically have pseudo government jobs, backed by Canada. They take risks while pretending they're a private company, then come begging to the taxpayer when they screw up and lose money. Their executives make millions of dollars in salaries and they are completely uncompetitive monopolies which get all the benefit of government support, while still making outlandishly high incomes and profits from private markets. So they are driving *other* small businesses, credit unions and banks out of business all while benefiting from government support.

And they know it. They deliberately take risks that no real business would take if they actually faced the risk of ruin. They did it in 2007 and they're doing it again now.

We should probably nationalize the big banks and get it over with. They are government entities and should be Crown corps. Either that, or we should force all their investment banking sides to separate out as completely distinct entities.

There are other sectors which are enriched directly by the government. Defence contractors come to mind ... all they do is insert themselves into government spending programs, *deliberately over-charge the government*, and make easy money that they have just about no accountability for. It's bigger in the US but exists in Canada too, and people get very rich off this. They aren't innovating, aren't conducting real business, so it's basically just cash hand-outs.

I hate hearing people pick on teachers and middle class workers in government jobs, because those jobs are actually useful (services we all need) and these people don't get paid very much anyway. These are good quality middle class jobs.

What you should set your sights on are the people making HUGE money off the backs of the taxpayer: those (big 6) banking executives, defense contractors, and other large corporations that get steady streams of massive contracts with the government, such as IBM (Phoenix payroll disaster) and IT multionationals which have absolutely garbage products and constantly rip off the taxpayer.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Oh yes, we desperately need teachers to maintain their jobs producing illiterat, entitled victims who can hold out their hands for government handouts collected from all those people James criticizes, but actually make money that gets put into the system, teachers just tent to recycle government dollars. James, teachers make all their money off the backs of taxpayers...like all public employees.

as for doing their job, ask an honour student graduate for their autograph..,they cant do it because they were never taught to write. Ask them to add a 10% tip without using a calculator...they can’t. Ask them to write an essay to get a scholarship...nope, no grammar or spelling taught either. Ask them how to make money without a job...no clue. What exactly are they being taught? How hard is it to teach them nothing?

bankers, defence contractors, etc. All employ people who pay taxes, that’s new money to pay for useless government employees who only know how to ask for more money. The other big difference is, many teachers would be unemployed for not being able to produce in the private sector, the public sector hides and protects the incompetent.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> Oh yes, we desperately need teachers to maintain their jobs producing illiterat, entitled victims who can hold out their hands for government handouts collected from all those people James criticizes, but actually make money that gets put into the system, teachers just tent to recycle government dollars. James, teachers make all their money off the backs of taxpayers...like all public employees.


This is the second time in this thread you've criticized people for being illiterate/uneducated while simultaneously making spelling and grammatical mistakes.

Teachers _should_ be taxpayer-funded. Every successful country in the world has a public school system, and these are public employees.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Autocorrect and auto type keeps kicking in, and screwing things up...yes, I too am a product of public education (maybe I can sue and get compensation like every other group). Thanks for proving my point. it’s what you get when you rely on technology to think for you. Every successful country the world also has alternative systems, yet people like you advocate against choice. Fortunately for my kids, I was able to put them in a different program.
of course the public education system teaches you not to think for yourself and keep the status quo. Don’t look for alternatives, get a job, be poor and ask the government for wealth redistribution from people who didn’t follow that path...punish those who don’t follow the status quo.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Just to return to the topic, I think some of the targeting of the wealthy is jealousy. People don't like it when others make more money than them. I have a friend who can go on more trips than me as she makes more and I don't like it but i recognize she has 2 graduate degrees and earned the money. I think what Blackhill points out in his original thread is that canadians should be grateful as we are better off then a lot of countries. The 2 teachers I know aren't grateful. They don't recognize total compensation, the pension, the holidays. However I have to ask myself if I'd like to be stuck in a classroom for 30-40 years of my life.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Since I can't sleep another concern I have with taxing the wealthy is how wealthy is defined and will there be a trickle down effect where tax rates are eventually raised at lower rates as well. I'm concerned the threshold to get old age security will be lower too. All these goodies Justin gives out costs money. Let's face it the only reason he would tax the rich more is he doesn't want to jeopardize his middle class voting base and he wants to pander to the ndp. I'll bet no one here wants higher taxes and that's why they want to tax the wealthy.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> Since I can't sleep another concern I have with taxing the wealthy is how wealthy is defined and will there be a trickle down effect where tax rates are eventually raised at lower rates as well.


I realize you're concerned about paying more tax, yourself. But I see it differently than what you describe. I would extend this same advice to the ultra-rich themselves: *make some concessions now, before it's too late*.

Consider what happens if you _don't_ correct these imbalances. By that I mean, if we continue with extremely low corporate tax rates and all the freebies that give the ultra-rich unfair advantages, including powerful central bank stimulus of asset prices. That's what the US has been doing, both under Obama and Trump (on steroids, under Trump). As this rich/poor divide widens, which is what's happening, anger and resentment grows. Eventually, society turns against the rich and there is an over-correction.

If you're afraid of getting swept up in taxing the wealthy, then you really don't want society to finally turn against the rich with extreme frustration.

So I'm on board with what you say. There is the danger that we upper middle class people can get wrapped up in all of this. But the way to prevent that from happening is to act early, and nip it in the bud. The public is already turning against the ultra-rich. We live in a democracy and the public will, eventually, get what they want. There are three choices:

(1) start taxing the rich more, now, and alleviate the public's growing resentment - or
(2) keep ignoring the writing on the wall, and eventually get a severe backlash and over correction
(3) dismantle democracy so that the angry majority can't actually stop the rich

I am arguing for (1) because the public anger is justified, and the rich/poor divide should be addressed. I think many conservatives think they can just deny this public sentiment, but they aren't thinking ahead to when it finally blows up in their face.

Trump and the Republicans are toying with (3)


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Interesting graph showing the top getting real income increases while the bottom is pretty flat over many decades. Given this data it is difficult to justify the idea that the top has it bad and should not pay higher marginal tax rate.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Actually, the bottom has moved up more during Trump's time in office than the previous couple decades.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Don’t confuse the issue with facts prairie guy, people like James will never be satisfied until they are the ultra rich....they hold their hands out in the name of fairness but never put it down, unless someone comes for their money. He’s a sags jr,


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Prairie Guy said:


> Actually, the bottom has moved up more during Trump's time in office than the previous couple decades.


Obviously the bottom is not benefiting in a proportional way.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Pluto said:


> Obviously the bottom is not benefiting in a proportional way.


Why would some people want the majority suffer if it prevents a few people from getting richer?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Consider what happens if you _don't_ correct these imbalances. By that I mean, if we continue with extremely low corporate tax rates


What's the beef with low corporate tax rates? If you raise corp taxes they just raise prices for products and services. That means they become even more unafordable for the lowest paid. Raising corp taxes is just a way to get consumers to pay the taxes via higher prices.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Prairie Guy said:


> Why would some people want the majority suffer if it prevents a few people from getting richer?


Not sure what you are talking about. Majority suffering? how so?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Pluto said:


> Not sure what you are talking about. Majority suffering? how so?


When the rich get richer the poor also get richer. Look at that graph....everyone improved. Your comment was that it wasn't proportional. My point it that it's better for everyone at the bottom to improve than for it to be perfectly proportional.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> When the rich get richer the poor also get richer. Look at that graph....everyone improved. Your comment was that it wasn't proportional. My point it that it's better for everyone at the bottom to improve than for it to be perfectly proportional.


I'd add this table fund in the same source provided by @Pluto 










(That's inflation adjusted)

That means the middle quintile saw its real income grow on average 0.7% more than inflation. That was even less for the 4th & bottom quintiles.

Meanwhile, the top 5% saw its real income grow on average 1.66% more than inflation.

That also means that the difference between the top 5% real income and the bottom quintile is now more than 50% wider than 53 years ago.

Back in 1967, the top 5% was doing about $188k in today's dollars. The bottom was doing about $10.7k, which is about 18x less. In 2019, the top 5% was doing about $451k while the bottom was doing about $15.2k, which is about 30x less.

And yet we say the rich are being stolen?


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Prairie Guy said:


> When the rich get richer the poor also get richer.


As the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Richer






ltr


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So the people actually doing something to earn money don’t deserve to get the benefits. The people living in their parent’s basement deserve the same amount of growth???


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> So the people actually doing something to earn money don’t deserve to get the benefits. The people living in their parent’s basement deserve the same amount of growth???


That's the progressive definition of "fairness".


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

What is the best move for me?


I have an incorporated business which generates about 200K. I give myself a salary to fill out 27K allowable RRSP. My wife is employed in a good company with $110 K salary. I’m 61, she is 55. My RRSP is full, she has a lot ( more than 100k) unused contribution.I have a TFSA with 60K. She...




www.canadianmoneyforum.com


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

We haven't even talked about how the wealthy CEOs treat their employees. My niece works at no frills and they deliberately give a 6 hour shift so they only have to give a 15 minute break. If they worked 8 hours they'd get 1/2 hour and 2 15 minute breaks. Don't even get me started on amazon. No wonder people get mad.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

How many jobs does your niece provide? How many hours would she work without the ceo of no frills? If life is so bad at no frills, why does she continue to work there? Someone holding a gun to her head? Blackmail? Does she also get an employee discount?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

like_to_retire said:


> As the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Richer
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seems like he's confusing the evolution of mankind and the difference between the rich and the poor. The evolution of mankind has led to better living conditions, that's true, but that doesn't mean the poor are getting richer faster than the rich.

As seen in the table below, the poor are definitely not getting richer faster than the rich.










The argument that the poor are now living better than Louis XIV is totally wrong. I don't come home with 40 dishes ready to taste made by my servants. No, I have to go and buy something to cook. Which means, I have to work to pay for that food, those kitchen appliances, that house. Grocery stores and the wide variety of choices is just due to the evolution of mankind. That's like saying the poor are now richer simply because back in 5000 BC you had to go hunt for your own food and you had to build your own shelter and now you can buy a shelter and food. Therefore, the poor have better living conditions, therefore they are richer?

The TV example is also totally wrong. Again, that's just the evolution of technology and society, but it has nothing to do with the poor getting richer. My parents bought a computer in the 90s for $3k ($5k+ in today's dollars) and now we can buy a computer for $500 (10x less). A few decades ago, the man would go to work while the woman stayed are home with the 8 kids and they would all get food. Now, the man and the woman both go to work and they are struggling to pay for their two kids. Sure, you'll tell me they surely aren't struggling to bring food on the plate, but the desire for more has become a huge burden. We want to give so much to our kids, so we subscribe them to do many activities. Actually, materialism and greed are a burden to make the poor spend even more money and all that money goes to the profits of the rich. The rich are just tricking the poor. What do you think is happening with social media, that new addictive drug stealing the time of the young generation so that they desire more due to the targeted ads and content? And then young girls wants to look prettier, buy more cloths and makeup, and young boys wants to drive the cool cars. Sure, that was also true 50 years ago, but now there's even more things to desire and everything you do on the internet has an AI algorithm learning from you and then working on selling you more and more.

The evolution of mankind is driving that gap between the rich and the poor also because the rich also wants more. We can now buy a jet, super-cars, super-boats, super-bikes, we can go in the space, we can travel all around the world in a matter of hours, etc. That was not possible in the 1800s. That's still not possible for the poor in 2020. That's possible for the rich. The gap is increasing.

And greed being part of the human condition? Materialism being part of the human condition? In our DNA?! People want more stuff? That's what capitalism wants from you. As a minimalist, I almost choked on that. Sorry, I don't want more stuff, I want more time. More time to hike in the mountains, to gather with friends, to help others, to learn new things, to talk with strangers. As a wink to the video, I don't even own a TV and never did for the past 10 years.

The top 5% are making 139% more after 50 years, while the bottom are making 42% more. That represents $450k vs $15k. That's a 30:1 ratio. At that same rate, in 200 years, the top 5% will make $14.7M while the bottom while make $61k. That would be a 240:1 ratio. In 1967, that ratio was about 20:1. When does it have to stop before we understand the impact of the difference between the rich and the poor? Haven't you seen movies depicting a futuristic apocalyptic world with ultra-rich and ultra-poor? I know it's just movies, but it's happening right now. In the US the ultra-rich can pay for all of the healthcare they want. That's not the case for the poor.

*I'm not against capitalism*, but I'm against the increasing gap between the rich and the poor.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Not against capitalism. Just noticing that the playing field is not level. Its more level when the rate of income increases is similar for everyone. Plus when governments amass huge debt to address a crisis, such as WW2 and now covid 19, higher marginal tax rates for the rich are warranted.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> So the people actually doing something to earn money don’t deserve to get the benefits. The people living in their parent’s basement deserve the same amount of growth???


Apparently you are trying to claim the poor are lazy. Its not true. the poor work like dogs.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Gee, I should be allowed to perform brain surgery on you because I want to. I should be allowed to be an astronaut because I want to. I’m just as entitled to that as the poor are to be rich. In the name of fairness I shouldn’t be prevented from doing whatever I want. Why are only certain people allowed to do those things? There are ways I can become a brain surgeon or an astronaut, but being one just because I want to isn’t the way. You have to make the right choices, sitting in your parent’s basement doing drugs isn’t the path to riches, sorry. Get off your butt and go through the right steps and anyone can become rich, not everyone can become a brain surgeon no matter what they do. Is that unfair, yes it is...welcome to reality.

there is a disparity because of choices one makes, I chose never to work at no frills and to teach myself how to make money without working. Shockingly, I know, I’m more successful and complain less about my income than latebuyer’s niece. Can latebuyer’s niece copy me and become wealthier? Probably, but she’d have to make a change in her thinking. She thinks like an employee and thus will probably remain one and a low end one at that. Not my fault, her choice. I can’t fix that, and I’m unwilling to pay her for being that way.

ironically, there are actual laws preventing me from practicing surgery, but there are no laws preventing anyone from becoming rich. That’s doubly unfair, yet no one complains.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Reportedly, most people doing the work pictured here don't live past 50 years. And they are not in their mothers basement doing drugs. You just make stuff up to justify your self centered perspective.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Pluto, you are normally on my ignore list, but I saw your picture...ever been on a farm? Know any farmers personally? My uncles were farmers...they paid their harvesters big bucks (usually cash every two weeks) and, guess what, many of the workers did drugs while living at home. There was one family where the father did die before 50, suicide though. He had seven kids, all farm workers. None of them amounted to anything, just got married several times, had a bunch of kids, and moved back home after the divorce, only to repeat the process several times. All while doing drugs. Last I heard they had over 50 half siblings running around, my uncle wound up buying an entire block of houses in the local town and gave them free rent...no signs of the other parent. Reality, not made up because you want it to be true.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Pluto, you are normally on my ignore list, but I saw your picture...ever been on a farm? Know any farmers personally? My uncles were farmers...they paid their harvesters big bucks (usually cash every two weeks) and, guess what, many of the workers did drugs while living at home. There was one family where the father did die before 50, suicide though. He had seven kids, all farm workers. None of them amounted to anything, just got married several times, had a bunch of kids, and moved back home after the divorce, only to repeat the process several times. All while doing drugs. Last I heard they had over 50 half siblings running around, my uncle wound up buying an entire block of houses in the local town and gave them free rent...no signs of the other parent. Reality, not made up because you want it to be true.


I was personally raised on a farm. My parents were farmers. My neighbours were farmers. My whole village of 1000 people were farmers. You are doing a complete generalisation to confirm your point of view. You are viewing only what you wish to view. It comforts you in your beliefs.

Confirmation bias.


> Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.


And Pluto's example is one out of many. But any example we'll throw at you, you'll either say they are also drug addicts, not working hard, not worthy, etc.

Tell me, can you name just one job currently paid below the average income and you believe it is a worthy job and not paid enough? Obviously not, because otherwise that would prove my point of inequities in this world. You believe there are absolutely no inequities in this world, right?


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

So my niece is 16 and she's supposed to be developing passive income? Good grief you really are out to lunch and completely unrealistic.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Nothing that can’t be overcome. Did your parents exploit their workers? Are you saying none of the workers did drugs? Did the entire town die before turning 50?

Can you tell me one job, paid below the average income, where people are forced to take it and work? Don’t like the pay, don’t do it. There are many ways to make money that don’t even require a job. There are also higher paying jobs. The fact that certain people can’t do that is not because they can’t, it’s because of choices they made.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> So my niece is 16 and she's supposed to be developing passive income? Good grief you really are out to lunch and completely unrealistic.



Why not my kids started earlier than that. Then again, she’ll be the one holding out her hand to my kids in the name of “fairness”. Your niece is being taught to be a victim, my kids are being taught to be successful. Unfortunately they will pay the price of your education.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Increase taxes on the rich and relieve them of the burden that too much excess money always brings with it.

Nobody should have to endure the levels of stress that the rich face as the money pours in faster than they can spend it.

All those phone calls, appointments and meetings......with the bankers, the tax lawyers, the accountants, the CRA......who needs that headache.

We can shoulder some of their burden. It would be the Christian thing to do. They will thank us later when they understand the gift we unselfishly gave them.

_“For what shall it *profit a man*, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?"_ -Mark 8:36”


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

More inequality? Less years of schooling.









More inequality? Decrease in numeracy.









More inequality? Decrease in literacy.













__





Trends in Income Inequality and its Impact on Economic Growth


In most OECD countries, the gap between rich and poor is at its highest level since 30 years. Today, the richest 10 per cent of the population in the OECD area earn 9.5 times the income of the poorest 10 per cent; in the 1980s this ratio stood at 7:1...




www.oecd-ilibrary.org


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Many self made millionaires don’t have great formal educations. Of course they didn’t drop out of high school because of teen pregnancy, drugs, or they didn’t like it either.

It’s not like the costs of public education is limiting people. It’s choices again.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

How rising inequality hurts everyone, even the rich


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/how-rising-inequality-hurts-everyone-even-the-rich/



When talking about the US:


> In 2014 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a collective of the world's 35 wealthiest countries including the United States, found that rising inequality in the United States from 1990 to 2010 knocked about five percentage points off cumulative GDP per capita over that period. Similar effects were seen in other rich countries.
> 
> “The main mechanism through which inequality affects growth is by undermining education opportunities for children from poor socio-economic backgrounds, lowering social mobility and hampering skills development,” the OECD found. Children from the bottom 40 percent of households (a huge chunk of the population) are missing out on pricey educational opportunities. That makes them less productive employees, which means lower wages, which means lower overall participation in the economy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> Pluto, you are normally on my ignore list, but I saw your picture...ever been on a farm? Know any farmers personally? My uncles were farmers...they paid their harvesters big bucks (usually cash every two weeks) and, guess what, many of the workers did drugs while living at home. There was one family where the father did die before 50, suicide though. He had seven kids, all farm workers. None of them amounted to anything, just got married several times, had a bunch of kids, and moved back home after the divorce, only to repeat the process several times. All while doing drugs. Last I heard they had over 50 half siblings running around, my uncle wound up buying an entire block of houses in the local town and gave them free rent...no signs of the other parent. Reality, not made up because you want it to be true.


the best part is you didn't try to claim they were in their mother's basement at the same time as they were picking lettuce. 
Like I said, and this document confirms, average lifespan is 49: -








Case Report: The migrant worker: visible, yet invisible


Immigrant workers are a vulnerable and underserved population. The average life expectancy of the migrant worker is 49 years, compared to 77.2 years for most Americans. Immigrant workers have a higher disease burden than other ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov




So who cares about your anecdotes of farmers? doesn't prove anything except you overgeneralize from your biased unratified stories.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrBlackhill said:


> How rising inequality hurts everyone, even the rich
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/how-rising-inequality-hurts-everyone-even-the-rich/
> ...


Now that's funny...the Washington Post is owned by the richest man in the world who has a history of underpaying his workers. Maybe he should read that article.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe me blackhill should have read it...it’s full of self contradiction. “Inequality leads to violent crime, except in the USA where it didn’t”, “I’m trying to make a point, but there are so many other factors involved, that I just can’t support it”.

then again, his family wealth came from exploiting seasonal workers who all died before turning 50...


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

My niece is no victim. She quit McDonalds due to abuse by customers so for her this is a step up. I still disagree with how they give their breaks. So who is going to teach her how to do real estate investing. Should she read on the internet? To return to the topic, maybe this has been covered but isn't the wealth gap better here then in the US?


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

The billionaire who most annoys me is Jeff Bezos, not only does he treat his amazon warehouse workers like crap, he has not signed the giving pledge started by Gates and Buffett to give away a majority of his fortune. His ex wife has and so has Mark Zuckerberg (facebook) and Elon Musk. So billionaires can do some good.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Latebuyer, did you sign the giving pledge or are you again trying to give away someone else’s money? You can feed someone for less than $2, something you’d know if you ever spent time at a shelter with the poor, which you obviously don’t. I’m guessing you don’t pay your employees well either as you don’t have any and that you price shop to get the lowest prices...

as for where your niece can learn, they invented something called books centuries ago, it’s where I learned. There are good internet sites too, but you need to be able to think for yourself to tell the good information from the bad. I’m guessing thinking for herself isn’t a strong point judging by our edu system and her job selections. There are better books today than when I started out. Or, you could do what my son’s friends did and find a mentor...probably have some excuse as to why that’s not possible too...put the same effort into finding solutions as you do finding problems and you probably will succeed.

btw, there are millions of ways to make money thr don’t involve a job or real estate...mind blowing concept I know. My kids started out at about 8 running a vending machine at one of my companies. Made a lot more than any allowance and learned a lot about running a business, probably beyond a 16 year olds abilities in your mind.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> To return to the topic, maybe this has been covered but isn't the wealth gap better here then in the US?


Yes the gap is narrower in Canada, and wider in the US.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

You refuse to believe your teaching as their dad had anything to do with how your kids approach things Your kids are privileged and would behave the same way as any other kid if you weren't their dad. Still i'll stop here. Everyone on this board except you knows everyone can't do real estate investing.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So, why do you refuse to teach the younger generation? I guess if they fail, your failure won’t look abnormal? There are still stocks, businesses and many other options, but keep refusing to try anything, that will turn things around for you.

I suppose it’s easier to teach your niece to take it away from my kids than earn it herself.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Let me spell it out for you. My nieces parents are teachers and she would have no idea to look up real estate investing or be an entrepreneur. I don't want to negate what your kids did, but they did have a helping hand. Your upbringing shapes what you do. Can you change that? You are right, you can, but it is more difficult.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

As I said, easier to demand wealth redistribution than learn to be self reliant...yet, you give no credit to the work done by others to earn the money you want to take, you still feel entitled to it.

btw, her parents must be excellent teachers if they don’t know how to learn something new...

btw, no one taught me, nor did I have a mentor...and real estate only represents about 1/3 of my wealth, I also did well in stocks and business. Also self taught. Sure my kids have an advan because I chose to teach them what I learned, why don’t you teach the next generation what you learned...oh wait you are, that’s why they’ll have their hands out.

You’re part of the problem and your only solution it to take from those who are actually part of the solution. You can bet none of the kids of gays, bezos, etc will be demanding handouts because they’ll know how to make money and weren’t too lazy to learn.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Just a Guy said:


> As I said, easier to demand wealth redistribution than learn to be self reliant...yet, you give no credit to the work done by others to earn the money you want to take, you still feel entitled to it.
> 
> btw, her parents must be excellent teachers if they don’t know how to learn something new...
> 
> ...


If you actually read what i wrote, i never asked for wealth redistribution. Apparently you can't read and like to make blanket statements.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

latebuyer said:


> If you actually read what i wrote, i never asked for wealth redistribution. Apparently you can't read and like to make blanket statements.


You know what i'll say though? I've rethought this. If the attitude of people like jeff bezos and yourself is i don't give a damn about people then i say tax the hell out of them.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You’re the one saying you won’t teach the next generation to be self reliant, especially because it’s hard....maybe you’re the one who should give up your money. Bezos employs a lot of people. Way more beneficial to society than you are.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Please feel free to attack my arguments and ideas. I like to learn from alternate perspectives but please refrain from attacking me personally.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

latebuyer said:


> Please feel free to attack my arguments and ideas. I like to learn from alternate perspectives but please refrain from attacking me personally.


Here's an editorial on amazon









The Guardian view on Amazon's dominance: we have to make different choices | Editorial


Editorial: Amazon has helped many in lockdown, and reaped soaring profits. But the company must be held to account




www.theguardian.com





I've never heard any stats on how many jobs they create. I know they are trying to automate their warehouses to reduce workers and use drones instead of delivery people.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You also want cheaper prices I bet, make up you mind. Higher paying jobs making robots than moving boxes. Either way, people like your niece are screwed because they want it easy. Sorry, life doesn’t work that way.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump was "mentoring" people at Trump University..... JAG says he mentors people.

Trump helps the poor by giving tax breaks to the rich.....JAG helps the poor by donating to the food bank.

Trump is in court trying to help the poor by cutting off their healthcare..... JAG doesn't want to give social benefits to people on welfare.

Trump and JAG both brag about their own accomplishments.

JAG defends people like Trump because they are alike, except JAG doesn't have any money.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

JAG posts_.........You can bet none of the kids of gays, bezos, etc will be demanding handouts because they’ll know how to make money and weren’t too lazy to learn._

Who knew that "the kids of gays" have an advantage in life of knowing how to make money ? I think some documentation is required here.

JAG teaches his kids that jobs and honest work are for "suckas" ........


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I saw this interesting scene today. This elderly man was begging for loose change beside someone's parked Audi R8 sport car, which sells for $200,000 to $250,000

Of course the real horror is that someone would drive their quarter million $ racing car when running basic errands. Everyone knows that you should use your plain old BMW or Mercedes for daily errands. You wouldn't want a peasant to lean their filthy body against your beautiful car.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> You refuse to believe your teaching as their dad had anything to do with how your kids approach things Your kids are privileged and would behave the same way as any other kid if you weren't their dad. Still i'll stop here. Everyone on this board except you knows everyone can't do real estate investing.


My father was an electrician and my mother was a housewife and I almost graduated high school so you can see I have been privileged all my life.
It was real easy for me to get into real estate investing, all I had to do was go to work in a factory for $3.20 an hour when I was 19, spend money on nothing but the bare necessities of life for 5 years and presto, I saved up enough for a down payment on my first property. After that all I had to do was sit on my *** with my feet up on the desk and watch the money roll in.
Too bad about your relatives, I guess everyone can't be born lucky.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Why is the widenIng of the gap bad? It’s not like they are taking money from the poor to become rich, it’s that they are creating new wealth to add to the pool from which they get more overall. It’s like mining gold, the more you mine, the more there is, it doesn’t mean less for the people who already have it. Should the miners hand it over to the poor who did nothing for it just to be “fair”?

rusty, I grew up with a single mom of three, no investing skills whatsoever...so it’s silver spoon all the way for me too. I taught myself investing after being injured and unable to work for several years. It’s a shame the daughter of two teachers is still unable to learn anything new...maybe her parents should consider a new profession since they obviously can’t teach Their own child. I, of course, used that old, pre internet technology, called books and a skill called reading and critical thinking to change. Probably things they don’t teach anymore. Replaced with video games, playing the victim and holding your handout to others.

Everyone knows, except him, that everyone can’t do anything unless they are willing to try at least. Must be nice to have the “privilege” to grow up pretending to be a victim. My kids, on the other hand, were expected to make something out of their lives. They never got the “privilege“ to say “I can’t“.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Everyone knows, except him, that everyone can’t do anything unless they are willing to try at least. Must be nice to have the “privilege” to grow up pretending to be a victim. My kids, on the other hand, were expected to make something out of their lives. They never got the “privilege“ to say “I can’t“.


The victim mindset has to be one of the most stunting forms of permitted psychological abuse today.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

james4beach said:


> I saw this interesting scene today. This elderly man was begging for loose change beside someone's parked Audi R8 sport car, which sells for $200,000 to $250,000
> 
> Of course the real horror is that someone would drive their quarter million $ racing car when running basic errands. Everyone knows that you should use your plain old BMW or Mercedes for daily errands. You wouldn't want a peasant to lean their filthy body against your beautiful car.
> 
> View attachment 20933


James, what do you consider elderly? My bet is this guy is in his 20’s by the look of him. In my city, there is a well known group of middle class kids who routinely beg for money on the street because they make more ”slumming” than if they got a job. Probably what latebuyer’s niece is being taught to do...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> James, what do you consider elderly? My bet is this guy is in his 20’s by the look of him. In my city, there is a well known group of middle class kids who routinely beg for money on the street because they make more ”slumming” than if they got a job. Probably what latebuyer’s niece is being taught to do...


The guy begging was not in his 20s. I had a good look at him, he's an older Asian man who has a lean frame. At least 60 years old by the looks of it. And he's a regular in this area.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Why is the widenIng of the gap bad? It’s not like they are taking money from the poor to become rich, it’s that they are creating new wealth to add to the pool from which they get more overall. It’s like mining gold, the more you mine, the more there is, it doesn’t mean less for the people who already have it. Should the miners hand it over to the poor who did nothing for it just to be “fair”?
> 
> rusty, I grew up with a single mom of three, no investing skills whatsoever...so it’s silver spoon all the way for me too. I taught myself investing after being injured and unable to work for several years. It’s a shame the daughter of two teachers is still unable to learn anything new...maybe her parents should consider a new profession since they obviously can’t teach Their own child. I, of course, used that old, pre internet technology, called books and a skill called reading and critical thinking to change. Probably things they don’t teach anymore. Replaced with video games, playing the victim and holding your handout to others.
> 
> Everyone knows, except him, that everyone can’t do anything unless they are willing to try at least. Must be nice to have the “privilege” to grow up pretending to be a victim. My kids, on the other hand, were expected to make something out of their lives. They never got the “privilege“ to say “I can’t“.


Why was serfdom bad?


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Why was serfdom bad?


Serfdom is not the same thing.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Andrewf,

I don’t know of any serfs to ask, do you? Serfs had no choice or ability to change, unlike all the “exploited” ex-McDonald’s employees who’s teacher parents can’t figure out a way to make money types we have here.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the teacher parents have figured out how to make a good living and retire with nice pensions.

It is their kids who are struggling in a world that assigns a low value on work. The capitalist system is failing and requires restructuring.

All things get old, including economic concepts. It is time for the "reset" that global financial leaders have been discussing for some time already.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> It is their kids who are struggling in a world that assigns a low value on work. The capitalist system is failing and requires restructuring.


Capitalist system is not failing, its people's expectations. Make your own work and charge what you like. My neighbour's son started a crown moulding business from nothing and is making 500K+ per year in just a few short years-no education required. The neighbour across the street got his son to lay underground sprinkler systems and runs a snow blow in the winter. Get a PMP certificate and project manage to your heart's content. Works not the problem motivation is.....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Capitalism is going to be restructured to better benefit society. The role of capitalism will be different than is today.

Capitalism is a means to an end. It provides the financial resources to create a socially progressive society.......no more and no less.









Now is the time for a 'great reset'


The changes we have already seen in response to COVID-19 prove that a reset of our economic model is possible. Professor Klaus Schwab outlines how to achieve it.




www.weforum.org


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I just talked to my niece and she is enjoying her work at no frills and looking forward to working more for the holidays. At the age of 16, to me thats the main thing, they have a flexible job that doesn't interfere with their schoolwork and they do something they enjoy. Its not all about making money. Maybe she's discovered about this job she likes working with people. Its about finding what you like. She's only 16 for goodness sake. But i know for men its different and money is the only thing important. Just a reminder i don't want any personal attacks.

I saw on the west block liberals is introducing some sort of affordable drug plan that will curtail the introduction of experimental drugs. I'm concerned because my sister is taking a super duper expensive experimental migraine medication. I couldn't find anthing on the internet so if you can find anything please post. Maybe it should go in general discussion but it seems relevant to this discussion.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> Capitalism is going to be restructured to better benefit society. The role of capitalism will be different than is today.
> 
> Capitalism is a means to an end. It provides the financial resources to create a socially progressive society.......no more and no less.
> 
> ...


No I don't think so. It's already working extremely well, since most assets (business, property, etc) are own and controlled by individuals. Individuals are the key factor. Those with drive make something of themself, those that don't waste way thinking someone owe them. Fact, the world has significantly less less poverty than it did last year, even last minute. Capitalisms is raising the boat for everyone. It's just the greedy who think they can take it away. 

The worst result will come, the minute the government steps into any type of ownership role of what was individual assets--society will go tits up. No amount of virtual signalling will cover up the nonsense that some-think is progressive...


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Since it hasn't been discussed, i'd also like to add wealth for who? There is still a lot of gender inequality when it comes to wages and there is probably racial inequality as well. Should a woman be penalized because she wants to be a child care worker or long term care worker in particular? I'm female and I became a technician to escape the clerical ghetto but that doesn't mean i don't empathize with other people or recognize a problem exists. That's the difference here as some people have completely no empathy with those from different circumstances.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I agree we should restructure capitalism... normalize interest rates, stop propping up real estate, no more corporate welfare, no more backstopping the banks.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

nathan79 said:


> normalize interest rates, stop propping up real estate, no more corporate welfare, no more backstopping the banks.


Yes. These are all government interventions. I would be glad to see them go......


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> Since it hasn't been discussed, i'd also like to add wealth for who? There is still a lot of gender inequality when it comes to wages and there is probably racial inequality as well. Should a woman be penalized because she wants to be a child care worker or long term care worker in particular? I'm female and I became a technician to escape the clerical ghetto but that doesn't mean i don't empathize with other people or recognize a problem exists. That's the difference here as some people have completely no empathy with those from different circumstances.


This is such pathetic thinking. How many excuses can you continue to come up with and teach to your niece? Know how much “inequality“ there is for someone who owns and runs a company? None. My daughters have all stated and run companies in their early teens. You know how they compared to their brother? Exactly the same. Their success came out of their effort, not their sex, race, age, or whatever else you want to blame. They could take time off whenever they wanted to, they made the rules, they also accepted the consequences of their choices.

the real problem, as I see it, is you are afraid of risk, you want your cake and be able to eat it too. You want a guaranteed income from a job, you want to live by your own rules (time off whenever you want, even if it’s years for raising a child), and you want an equal share. Not that you’re willing to do what is required to achieve these freedoms, like starting your own company or developing passive income streams because that is ”risky”. You just want the benefits, feel entitled to them actually, but don’t want to do what’s required...instead, you want to take it from those who are willing.

wonder how you’d feel if some homeless drug addict came and demanded all your stuff in the name of “fairness”. I doubt your handing over anything to them right now. How do you explain your hypocrisy? They obviously can’t even get a job at no frills. Why not set the example and hand over your wealth to those who are not as privileged as you. Ironically, I’m willing to bet you don’t even know where the shelters are located in your town...so much for ”compassion“ and “empathy”. Of course, lip service is easier than coming down and helping out like I actually do. 

i think this shows the real problem with capitalism, there is always someone lower on the totem pole, who is unwilling to do the work required that would lead to success, then they get jealous of those who succeed and turn to playing the victim of society, blaming everyone but themselves for their poor choices which lead to their failure.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

sags said:


> Capitalism is going to be restructured to better benefit society. The role of capitalism will be different than is today.
> 
> Capitalism is a means to an end. It provides the financial resources to create a socially progressive society.......no more and no less.
> 
> ...


Sags we have not had a capitalist system for a long, long time if ever. What we have is a mixed economy, half socialist and half capitalist with the socialist half growing larger and stronger every year. Some 54% of the GDP goes to taxes already and the public sector is more than half our economy. And that does not tell all the story - government is a partner in every business, and they are the senior partner since what they say goes no matter what the other partner, or so called owner, thinks. The government takes the lion's share of the profits in taxes and they take it off the top leaving whatever is left over for the owners, if anything is left over.
Like a typical socialist you are big on redistributing income - that is, other people's income - and ignore the problem of earning the income in the first place. In other words socialism is based on stealing money not on earning it. The problem is, you only get to nationalize something once. Having done that you have the problem of running the business you just stole and this is where socialists always fall down. Running a business is hard, you have to get up in the morning and do actual work. Sitting around running your mouth about how everyone else's money should be spent is easy. There has never been a socialist state yet that did not run their economy into the ground, sooner or later. With far worse consequences in terms of pollution, social injustice, oppression, and wealth disparity than any capitalist country.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> Since it hasn't been discussed, i'd also like to add wealth for who? There is still a lot of gender inequality when it comes to wages and there is probably racial inequality as well. Should a woman be penalized because she wants to be a child care worker or long term care worker in particular? I'm female and I became a technician to escape the clerical ghetto but that doesn't mean i don't empathize with other people or recognize a problem exists. That's the difference here as some people have completely no empathy with those from different circumstances.


If you live in Canada you are already in the top 5% of the world's wealthiest people. There are places in the world where the income of a Canadian welfare recipient would put you in the middle class. Does that mean you should have half your income taken away to help some poor person in India, Venezuela or Guatemala? Why should it always go your way? Why do you always look with envy at anyone you fancy is better off than you are and want to drag them down to your level? I know that is what they teach in school and what you get off the corporate media but it is kind of ridiculous.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Not once did I ever say I was interested in being rich or envious of them. This is about giving everyone a living wage. But who cares? As long as you are making your riches, that's all that matters. I'm tuning out again because I'm tired of the personal attacks


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> Not once did I ever say I was interested in being rich or envious of them. This is about giving everyone a living wage. But who cares? As long as you are making your riches, that's all that matters. I'm tuning out again because I'm tired of the personal attacks


i notice you avoid telling us what you do to help those below you on the totem pole, as long as you are making your living wage...then again it’s easier to”tune out” than deal with problems...

you‘re not even willing to use your own money to provide your own niece with a “living wage”, yet you’re more than willing to have me do it for her. As long as it’s not your money, there is a solution right? I can guarantee you my kids won’t be coming to you or your relatives for money...

btw, if you’re not interested in being rich, why are you asking for more money, and if you’re not envious, why do you want what others have for yourself? Finally, how much money does a 16 year old need for a living wage, especially one with two teachers for parents?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> Not once did I ever say I was interested in being rich or envious of them. This is about giving everyone a living wage. But who cares? As long as you are making your riches, that's all that matters. I'm tuning out again because I'm tired of the personal attacks


You're not the only one. It is people like you in and out of government that convinced me to stop being productive, stop trying to help people by offering a good product at a price they could afford, and become a pure speculator who contributes nothing to the economy. I hate to admit it but my life is now far easier, and more profitable, and I am more respected than when I was contributing to society. At least I never sank to the level of thinking the world owed me a living.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here's part of an interview between Larry King (wealthy elite) and Danny Pudi, a 41 year old actor. Pudi has done a few TV shows, including the kids show DuckTales.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Why does this actor have to be poor? Because his job won’t provide for him, but is that really his limiting factor? I raised my kids to understand investing and passive income, they are worth well over a million now on paper. They could be an artist, or anything they want without having to worry about income. We live in a society where this option is available to anyone who wants to do the work. Even if you are on duck tales.

I resided my kids together a good education, an excellent work ethic, a desire to follow their dreams...my goal however was that they would never “have” to work or could do whatever they wanted to. They could be a “starving artist” if they wanted to be, just without the “starving” part. I full expected them to get jobs, which they did, but they also developed passive incomes so they could do anything they wanted and reach their own potentials. Btw, they don’t have private jets either, because they were also taught to respect money.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this.

The world population is about 7.8B.
There is a bit over 2200 billionaires in the world.
In 2020, there was over $6T money printed.
The billionaires added about $2T to their wealth. (+20%)
Elon Musk alone added more than $140B to his wealth.
Musk and Bezos combined added more than $200B to their wealth.

That means the wealth increase of the billionaires is the equivalent of 1/3 of the money printed for economic stimulus...









The World’s Billionaires Have Gotten $1.9 Trillion Richer In 2020


Despite the pandemic, it’s been a good year to get rich—especially if you already were.




www.forbes.com


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Your confusing printed money with creation of wealth. There is a big difference. Printed money devalues wealth. Elon and bezos create wealth.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Your confusing printed money with creation of wealth. There is a big difference. Printed money devalues wealth. Elon and bezos create wealth.


It was just to put into perspective.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

To put in into perspective they actually made more because the currency was devalued by printing money.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What currency was devalued ?

The US dollar went up against a basket of other currencies.









USD/CAD Daily Forecast - U.S. Dollar Rebounds Ahead Of The Weekend


USD/CAD failed to settle below 1.2625 and rebounded back above 1.2700.



www.fxempire.com


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> What currency was devalued ?
> 
> The US dollar went up against a basket of other currencies.


Yeah for several years now, the US Dollar has been quite strong.

I think the wealth gap has a lot to do with central bank activity ever since the 2008 crisis. Ever since then, central banks have been aggressively stimulating markets and injecting huge amounts of money into assets. That means that the money goes to boosting prices of things like stocks and real estate... but not wages.

So poorer people (those who don't own assets) don't benefit much, other than some boost to employment. That's still good of course.

But the rich are the real winners. Their portfolios of stocks, bonds, real estate all rise in value. And the central banks only increased this activity after COVID, so the rich asset owners get even richer... stocks, real estate, etc all soaring. It's now been 12 years of huge central bank support for asset classes, meaning that anyone with large investment portfolios has seen their wealth increase substantially.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

What exactly is your issue? elon musk, Jeff bezos, etc. Didn‘t get rich by taking money away from anyone, they got rich by creating new wealth. In the process, they managed to create a lot of jobs and allowed many people to make money for themselves. As a contrast, what did you do? Funny how, from those who do nothing, it’s never enough what others do.

if I’m concerned about affordable housing, I go out, buy places, and set prices so they are affordable. If I make a profit, I’m vilified, however those profits allow me to go out an buy more properties. Take the money away from me, how many affordable housing units are created by governments? If they did a good job, there wouldn’t be an issue. I’m good at what I do, I have to be to create money. The government doesn’t have to be good because they can just grab more.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> What exactly is your issue? elon musk, Jeff bezos, etc. Didn‘t get rich by taking money away from anyone, they got rich by creating new wealth. In the process, they managed to create a lot of jobs and allowed many people to make money for themselves. As a contrast, what did you do?


Kings and slaves.

Tell me, what are the working conditions at Amazon warehouses? What are the working conditions for Apple workers in China? How safe is it to work in Tesla factories?

Sure, what we needed the most in 2020 was Tesla. Yup, that wealth increase of more than $100B was totally justified. Care workers amid the pandemic? Nah. Let them work 100h saving lives and making difficult choices every single day and be underpaid. My neighbor was a physician working in emergencies. All those months amid the pandemic where she had to decide which life she should save has led her developing mental issues and then she decided to take her own life. She hanged herself. Her little 7-year boy found her.

Oh yeah, but, hey, as you say, all what matters is just creating jobs and more jobs, that's why business owners deserve their stratospheric wealth. Employee salaries, working conditions, mental health, nah, that's not important.

What do I do? My job is to go in big companies and help them change their bad culture environment. You know, when business owners and CxO are putting a lot of stress on their underpaid employees, leading to burnout and injuries? Yup, those high paid CxO creating jobs. Those heroes of capitalism.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Mr black hill,

you may want to reconsider your job, you’re obviously not very good at it Since the problems still exist. Why not start an Amazon or Tesla and run your own factories instead, you know the way you want to run them. If your neighbours are so underpaid, and you knew about it, why didn’t you give them your money, or do you only give away the money of others?

I’ll let you in on a little secret, life isn’t fair. Never has been, never will be.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Mr black hill,
> 
> you may want to reconsider your job, you’re obviously not very good at it Since the problems still exist. Why not start an Amazon or Tesla and run your own factories instead, you know the way you want to run them. If your neighbours are so underpaid, and you knew about it, why didn’t you give them your money, or do you only give away the money of others?


That's the best reply you could come up with? What's the added value of your comment other than trying to put me down? It's useless, it won't work. But if it makes you feel better in your ego.



Just a Guy said:


> I’ll let you in on a little secret, life isn’t fair. Never has been, never will be.


We agree on that. What we don't agree is that it's becoming *more and more unfair* whereas we could work on making it at least *a bit* more fair, even if we all know it can't be 100% fair.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I too have neighbors and people I know who were upset and didn’t feel they could cope. Unlike you I took time to teach them about investing and passive income. Unlike you, I helped them find a rental property, unlike you I even financed the property for them. Guess what, they are still alive and are productive members of society. They are looking for more investment opportunities out there and are teaching their friends and family to do the same thing. 

Teach a man to fish...

Sit around complaining about how unfair life is...

The best you can come up with is take from others. Maybe you feel insulted because your actions are insulting. But, if it makes you feel better...


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> I too have neighbors and people I know who were upset and didn’t feel they could cope. Unlike you I took time to teach them about investing and passive income. Unlike you, I helped them find a rental property, unlike you I even financed the property for them. Guess what, they are still alive and are productive members of society. They are looking for more investment opportunities out there and are teaching their friends and family to do the same thing.
> 
> Teach a man to fish...
> 
> ...


Good thing, you've thought your neighbors to make money.

I'm teaching CxO to become better leaders of their organizations. Guess what? Money is not part of the equation, not part of the solution. I never teach how to make more money, yet they end up making more money as a side effect of their change of behaviour.

When people focus on making more money, the side effect is unhealthy management, stressed out employees, burnouts, etc.

When people focus on a healthy environment, the side effect is happy employees, engaged employees, loyal employees, motivated employees, more productive employees and then... more money.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Make up your mind. If money isn’t the problem or solution why are you complaining about the wage gap? My teaching closes the wage gap, your sitting around singing kumbiya and complaining how other people have money doesn’t. The people I taught are empowered, and don’t complain about the wage gap because they realize they are in control of their lives. They like their jobs because they have the freedom to quit it if they don’t. 

I gather you don’t want anyone to have any money. Then everything will be perfect.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The solution is obviously to expand the JAG financial independence plan of purchasing $40,000 properties that rent for $1200 a month.

The banks can loan people $400,000 to buy 10 properties and they can pay back the debt from their $12,000 a month rental income.

Win....win........problem solved.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Only thing I don't fully understand is that we pay $1144 a month for a 3 bedroom townhouse in a nice area that would sell for $300,000.

Wherefore art though.........$40,000 properties ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Elon Musk was born to a wealthy family and is a genius. He was afforded a very expensive top level education.









Elon Musk


South African entrepreneur Elon Musk is known for founding Tesla Motors and SpaceX, which launched a landmark commercial spacecraft in 2012.




www.biography.com





Jeff Bezos was born to a medium wealthy family and is a genius. He was afforded a very expensive top level education.









Jeff Bezos


American entrepreneur Jeff Bezos is the founder and executive chairman of Amazon.com and owner of 'The Washington Post.' His successful business ventures have made him one of the richest people in the world.




www.biography.com





They are probably not the best examples of people lifting themselves out of poverty through sheer willpower.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This news item isn't exactly about the "rich" but still shows just how rough the current situation is for lower income earners.

Bloomberg: Income Gap in Canada Widening at Dramatic Pace, CIBC Says



> Canada has seen a “dramatic” widening of the income gap due to Covid-19, according one of the country’s largest banks.
> ...
> *All the jobs lost in 2020 were among workers that earned below average wages*, Tal said. Workers who earned less than C$13.91 ($10.91) an hour saw employment decline by more than 20%, while employment among those earning at least C$41.73 increased by more than 9%.
> 
> He says there’s “little doubt” the numbers will get worse in the coming months


This is really incredible.


----------



## kcowan2000 (Mar 24, 2020)

james4beach said:


> This news item isn't exactly about the "rich" but still shows just how rough the current situation is for lower income earners.
> 
> Bloomberg: Income Gap in Canada Widening at Dramatic Pace, CIBC Says
> 
> ...


Did anyone think that closing bars, personal service outlets, stores and restaurants would not affect low wage earners?


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> Elon Musk was born to a wealthy family and is a genius. He was afforded a very expensive top level education.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So the argument is that you only get rich if your born rich? So what about these Canadians who have lifted themselves up by their own bootstraps? Just off the top of my head we have: 

Jim Pattison ---- Jim Pattison - Wikipedia (used Car salesman) 
Robert Herjavec --- Robert Herjavec - Wikipedia (out of work-started a compay) 
Jim Treliving ---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Treliving (worked for the RCMP)
Britton Smith ----https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Britton_Smith


There are plenty more. It takes hard work, some failures and the guts to starve ----if necessary.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Gee, iff you own a company, you tend to not get fired from it as if you’re an employee...good thing we have news outlets to tell us this kind of stuff. Don’t want to get fired, start your own company.

everyone wants the benefits, but don’t want to do the work.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Don’t want to get fired, start your own company.


Bar owners don't get fired, they are the owners. Not because you are the "boss" that you can't get into financial problems.

Not because you start a company that you won't end bankrupt.

Considering that about 1 out of 1000 businesses end up insolvent every year in Canada, there's certainly a chunk in a bad financial position.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> Bar owners don't get fired, they are the owners. Not because you are the "boss" that you can't get into financial problems.
> 
> Not because you start a company that you won't end bankrupt.
> 
> Considering that about 1 out of 1000 businesses end up insolvent every year in Canada, there's certainly a chunk in a bad financial position.


So? It took me 4 times to get the ball rolling. I had a brother who try at least 7 businesses before he finally got on going in his mid-50s. It wasn't easy, he could never get money and always had to bootstrap himself, but that is the nature of the beast. You can make all the right decisions and end up in a bad financial position, or you could make all the bad decision and still hit a home run. 

The point JaG is making is that it take work and learning to make a successful company. If you live by tax handouts, or expecting others to support your lifestyle, you are not a learn nothing.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

afulldeck said:


> You can make all the right decisions and end up in a bad financial position, or you could make all the bad decision and still hit a home run.


Yup, that's the part where luck gets involved. Success is when preparation meets opportunity (luck).

But @Just a Guy doesn't like the part where luck gets involved.

He also doesn't like the fact that there's lot of very hard workers that never end up successful.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Mr blackhill,

you don’t seem to care that the owner can get into financial difficulty, only the lowly employee. You don’t think there is any pressure to keep your employees, or that there are mental issues associated with having your business fail. we only exist to screw the poor after all.

of course the employees only have to show up and do the work, they don’t need to ensure that there is money there each month to pay them. If the money Is there, then we complain about wage gaps, if the money isn’t there, it’s the poor employees...

instead of complaining step up and start your own business. You can pay your employees anything you want, give them any benefits you want...unfortunately reality will set in and you’ll soon discover there’s a reason why all these companies pay in a similar manner and it’s not greedy owners...easier to sit around with your handout and pretend to be the victim though.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> you don’t seem to care that the owner can get into financial difficulty, only the lowly employee. You don’t think there is any pressure to keep your employees, or that there are mental issues associated with having your business fail. we only exist to screw the poor after all.


I do care. There's a difference between the small business owner working hard and getting a fair salary vs the mega business owner swimming in a pool of cash.

My parents were business owners. A business called "a farm". Working 85h/week, 7 days/week, taking 1 week off every 8 years. Living on a $30,000 salary, until they sold in their 60s.

Not the same kind of business owner as what I've seen elsewhere where the owner retired in his 30s after a homerun with his business.

Once you become the next Musk or the next Bezos, does it make sense to be 1,000,000 times wealthier than their employees? Sure, they can be wealthier, they can be 1,000 times wealthier if you like, but 1,000,000 times?

The employees need Musk and Bezos, but the inverse is also true. Musk and Bezos need their employees. Threat them well.

Why you keep telling me to start my own business? I don't even need that to be successful and wealthy. I'm already making easy money, without even the effort. See how unfair that is.

You telling me to start a business is like me telling you to become a singer.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

If you started your own business you’d understand what it’s like to run one. Maybe then you’d be able to talk with knowledge over opinion. Business owners don’t “qualify” for things like cerb or crb. I know plenty of former union employees who moved into management. Once they did, their opinions of unions changed dramatically, because they saw the other side.

you seem to want to preach to other business owners on how to run their companies, never having run one yourself. Why not lead by example if you think your ideas are so good? You won’t because it’s a lot harder to do than you think, subconsciously you know that. Hence the reason you preach to others instead of doing it yourself.

im not telling you to start a business for your own success, I’m telling you to put up or shut up. If you really believe what you preach it should be a cakewalk and you’d be an example to everyone...of course, we both know what is more likely to happen.

btw, there is no law in this country which stopped employees from investing in these companies and making a fortune along with elon and bezos. The only thing that stopped them is they wouldn’t take the risk. They chose safety over wealth. It was their choice, they reaped what they sowed. The world doesn't allow you to sit around in your parents basement and get things handed to you equally. It does, however, give you the opportunity to take some risks and benefit from them if you do.

reminds me of an old blond joke...

a blond prayed every day to god asking to win the lottery...finally, after years of prayer and no succes, she got angry and called out to god, claiming he was a fake, he didn’t care, that she was a fool to believe in him...

then god spoke directly to her and said...”could you meet me halfway and at least buy a ticket?”

btw, with all your wealth and success, how much of it are you giving to the poor or, more likely, are you just keeping it for yourself as you preach how others should give their money away? Do you lead by example?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> you seem to want to preach to other business owners on how to run their companies, never having run one yourself


Then I'm wondering how I'm making a living from businesses seeking advice on how to improve their organization.

And why those businesses are paying millions every year to get such advice from... non-business owners.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Gee, not like anyone ever made money selling bs to people now has there been? Since your complaining that things are getting worse, you don’t seem to be very successful...

there’s the old saying those who can do, those who can’t teach.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> there’s the old saying those who can do, those who can’t teach


And those who don't listen.

So many "leaders" paying for an "organizational transformation" because they want to change their employees behaviour, but not their own behaviours, because... obviously... they certainly aren't part of the problem. They want others to change, but not themselves.

I'll take their money, sure.

That's like those people paying for a gym subscription to lose weight and then never going to the gym.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Don’t you want others to change but not yourself? Obviously I was wrong, you are an expert in this area.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Until you have had to make payroll from a personal loan to your company, you can never understand the financial risks of being an entrepreneur. Bezos and Musk were lucky to have used investor money. Jobs and Gates bootstrapped.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Musk also had a track record. Tesla wasn’t his first kick at the cat (PayPal, spaceX, boring, hyper loop). Again, anyone who wants to criticize these people is free to start their own company and lead by example...

these people changed the world, they didn’t beg the world for change.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A fella could get whiplash in here.......one post it is easy for people to create jobs for themselves and the next it is too hard for most people.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Just a Guy said:


> Again, anyone who wants to criticize these people is free to start their own company and lead by example...


There exists already great examples. Those examples speak by themselves as critics to all the other businesses.

Patagonia
The Morning Star Company
Nucor (when Ken Iverson was CEO)
Buutzorg Netherland
Varkey Foundation









The Patagonia Model: CEOs Redefine Shareholder Value


The standard for corporate responsibility has changed — and now demands that companies benefit all stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, and communities.




www.forbes.com









__





First, Let’s Fire All the Managers


Morning Star, a leading food processor, demonstrates how to create an organization that combines managerial discipline and market-centric flexibility—without bosses, titles, or promotions.




hbr.org













Culture Eats Strategy: Nucor's Ken Iverson on Building a Different Kind of Company - Farnam Street


What made Nucor different and great under Kenneth Iverson?




fs.blog













Home Care by Self-Governing Nursing Teams: The Netherlands' Buurtzorg Model


The Dutch home-care provider Buurtzorg Nederland has attracted widespread interest for its innovative use of self-governing nurse teams, has earned high patient and employee ratings, and appears to provide high-quality home care at lower cost than other organizations. This case study reviews...




www.commonwealthfund.org


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

They were so good, no one emulated them. Excellent examples. Maybe there were unintended consequences. Was recently watching a show about entrepreneurs in Africa. They hated companies like Tom’s shoes which gave away a pair to Africans for every pair sold. The issue? Local shoe producers, who often employed an entire village, couldn’t compete with “free” shoes. Basically keeping africans in poverty while pretending to ”solve” the problem.


----------

