# The Wealth Paradox



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A series on the growing inequality in wealth, and how it does and will affect Canadians, has started in the Globe and Mail newspaper.

Some interesting facts and commentary in the first article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...uture-generations/article15350903/?cmpid=rss1


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

> Now, that divide is threatening to erode a cherished Canadian value: equality of opportunity for all.


What evidence is there of this? Who is being denied OPPORTUNITY in this country?



> Compared to my parents, I’m way further ahead from a job point of view, I’m better educated and I’m probably in a higher income bracket. But my standard of living is a lot lower than theirs was,” he says.



What evidence is there of this? Show me the growing cohort of 30-40 somethings who made reasonable life choices that are trapped living in a 600sqr foot apartment with 2 kids and being crushed by debt. I don't know many... (Just because you chose to take on loads of debt for a useless degree, have a baby when you're 20 without a husband, or refuse to work hard or relocate for work, doesn't mean that society or the economy or the government has screwed anything up.



> Today’s twenty and thirtysomethings are likely to find it much harder to get ahead than their parents did, he warns. For them, even a middle-class life is increasingly elusive.


Perhaps middle class today is not middle class 30 years ago?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

peterk said:


> Perhaps middle class today is not middle class 30 years ago?


Ummm.. yeah, that's the point of the article :/


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Sorry none I hadn't fiinished my point when I clicked send.

I'm arguing that middle class today is actually better and easier than it was 30 years ago! Show me the evidence of a suffering lifestyle? YOu can't compare the 20 year olds of today with the 30 year olds of yesteryear. 20 year olds back in the 70 and 80s were living in the same shitty apartments and driving the same broken down cars that 20 year olds today are...


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

I think middle class today is more luxurious than it was 30 years ago. When I was a child, my parents shared a single car, we had one TV for the whole house (which got 13 channels), and we lived in a 3-bedroom bungalow. Nowadays, someone in my parents' financial position would have 2 cars, at least 2 TV's with 100+ channels, smartphones/tablets, and live in a 2000+ sq ft home. That's how it seems to me, anyways.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

The problem is the housing market.My parents house in 1987(they built)was around 300k(2400 sq ft)if I wanted to buy that house today I would have to lay down prob 800k(good neighborhood,but still middle class)the housing bubble seems to be a huge problem!i know it is for me.than you start realizing 1 mil won't be enough in 20s for a middle class lifestyle,so how do you allocate?(forget it if you have a couple kids you need to put through school,that use to be something a avg middle class family could do but now you need to save like 2 large just for that)it's the cost of everything!atleast that is how I feel.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

buying a house is not a right. Who cares if you 'own a house' most people don't own their house but simply rent it from the bank. Even those that do 'own' their house they still have to pay property taxes and the house can always be taken away if a freeways is going to put in. Owning is overblown.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

none said:


> buying a house is not a right. Who cares if you 'own a house' most people don't own their house but simply rent it from the bank. Even those that do 'own' their house they still have to pay property taxes and the house can always be taken away if a freeways is going to put in. Owning is overblown.


I don't think that owning houses is overblown, but I do think that _buying_ one currently is.

Obviously, someone has to own your house in order for you to rent it. Is it better to have the middle class owning their houses, or the 1% owning them and renting back to us? 

I definitely think the decision to buy should be weighed carefully, but I'd almost always view renting as a compromise/temporary solution. Either because you plan to move around, or because buying isn't financially viable. I suppose it could be a good lifestyle choice if you're the type who travels/moves a lot.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Compared to my parents, I’m way further ahead from a job point of view, I’m better educated and I’m probably in a higher income bracket. But my standard of living is a lot lower than theirs was,” he says. 

I feel the opposite, I think my standard of living is far higher than that of my parents.

Almost every room in every house has a tv, when my dad was a kid he jokes that he watched the street, as there was nothing else.

Air travel is far cheaper now too all things considered.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

nathan79 said:


> I don't think that owning houses is overblown, but I do think that _buying_ one currently is.
> 
> Obviously, someone has to own your house in order for you to rent it. Is it better to have the middle class owning their houses, or the 1% owning them and renting back to us?
> 
> I definitely think the decision to buy should be weighed carefully, but I'd almost always view renting as a compromise/temporary solution. Either because you plan to move around, or because buying isn't financially viable. I suppose it could be a good lifestyle choice if you're the type who travels/moves a lot.


The owning culture is not as fierce is europe and it works pretty well. I rent because I like it, I could buy but I'd rather spend time with my kid rather than doing renos. Anyway, my cash is doing much more in the market right now compared to the housing market here in Victoria.

To each his/her own though. I do get the feeling from some people that I'm something of a 'lower class' person because I rent. I just roll my eyes because it's a ridiculous belief based on nothing but herd mentality.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The first house I ever bought was a 900 sq.ft. Bungalow built in the 50's. It was originally owned by a family do three kids, it had three bedrooms and an unfinished basement. 

The second house I bought was built in 1970, was 1500sq ft, later expanded to 2200. Had 4 bedrooms, later expanded to 6 and housed a family with 2 kids

My third house was built in the late 80's was a 2200sq.ft. Bungalow will a full basement and 1000sq ft shop built for a family with no kids.

I originally went back and saw my parent's first house, 1500 sq.ft raised 3 kids...

Now I'm not even talking about the number of cars people own, the number of phones, computers, toys, etc.

I was better educated, but worked a hell of a lot less than my parents because I discovered how to make money work for me.

The author sounds like many people who want everything now...but forget how little they had back when they were young. The expectations aren't to have the same house our parents had, but the same house as we "deserve" and that the jones have.

My kids have way more than I ever had at their age.

And then I think of the food choices and options I now have...


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I think the big thing that has changed with the middle class is education!
My dad generation a lot of them(half)did not have extensive education!(mind you most got married in early 20s and before 25 had kids)not a lot of people past 25 it seemed were in university!?
I know a lot of my friends dads were middle class earners
Hydro
Police
Mail men
Cnr/cp rail
Sales
Construction(without a ticket)
I skirted this(thank god)but how many youth could pull of a middle class income with on high school?maybe I just grew up in a more blue collar environment(but my neighborhood was far from poor!)I dunno.


----------



## swoop_ds (Mar 2, 2010)

I think the article saying that there is inequality of opportunity is bogus. Anyone with a pulse and half a brain can get a job in some places in this country. I'm sorry but if you've been looking for a job for more than 6 months, swallow your pride and move to a more prosperous region. Maybe this is harsh and makes me sound bad, but sometimes 'opportunity' doesn't knock, you have to actually go find it.

Here in Saskatchewan, the unemployment is really low, but we still have people saying that they can't get a job. I've worked a couple joe jobs and I know that they will basically take anyone at this point because no one wants to work for cheap.

/rant over

Sorry about that, but our local news is like 50% people crying about jobs/life/money but we live in such a prosperous time here that I just don't get it.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

"There cannot be wealth, without the poor". This is a basic law of capitalism and it will never be broken, even though no one but me ever seems to recognize it. 

In any event, no matter how much better off a certain class or group of people are, they cannot be well off unless there is another, much larger group of people who are not doing nearly as well. If one wants to write an article, all they need to do is decide if they want to show prosperity or despondency, and then go find the corresponding group of people to profile.

This will never change. In my simple guesstimate, the larger the spread between the rich and the poor, the larger the overall economic pie can get. The larger the economic pie, the larger the slice the so call "poor" can have, therefore, only when the rich get richer, do the poor have a chance of getting richer. Since I think the rich have got much richer, I do believe the poor are much better off today then they were when my parents were my age.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If the % of the total economic pie split between the wealthy and everyone else remained constant, it might be true.

But, the wealth disparity is growing because the wealthy are getting a larger % of the wealth........and the poor a smaller %.

In other words, the fewer numbers of wealthy split a bigger slice of the pie..........while the much larger numbers of pool split a shrinking pie.

It isn't the wealthy who drive the economy. They couldn't buy enough homes to keep the housing industry employed, store shelves stocked, or new car manufacturing in business.

The group with the shrinking % of the pie, will have less to spend........and the negative effects would be felt throughout the economy.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When doing comparisons between the middle class of past generations and today, it is worth noting that a middle class standard of living was largely achieved with one parent working in the past. For most families today, it requires 2 people working full time.


----------



## KrissyFair (Jul 8, 2013)

swoop_ds said:


> Anyone with a pulse and half a brain can get a job in some places in this country. I'm sorry but if you've been looking for a job for more than 6 months, swallow your pride and move to a more prosperous region. Maybe this is harsh and makes me sound bad, but sometimes 'opportunity' doesn't knock, you have to actually go find it.


You know what. No. When I finished school with a BSc, a very viable pulse and an above-agerage brain, it took me 8 months to find a job in booming Calgary. Yes, I worked during that time, but not at anything that would allow me to actually pay the bills. Moving would mean giving up my husband's job, which was what was actually putting the roof over our heads, so do the math on that option. Now we have kids in school and own a home. If we were in a similar scenario today, it would be even a million times harder to 'go find opportunity'.

Also, in terms of inequality of opportunity, I now live in a part of Toronto that is predominantly low income and is poorly serviced by transit. We choose to live here because the housing is affordable and we have cars, but many people *must* live here because the housing is affordable even though they can't afford cars. The crummy transit means that many areas of the city are simply unavailable to them for work. Sure, they could move to 'go find opportunity', but that would likely involve very unsafe housing, so the choice is not as simple as it seems to those of us with privilege.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> In other words, the fewer numbers of wealthy split a bigger slice of the pie..........while the much larger numbers of pool split a shrinking pie.
> 
> It isn't the wealthy who drive the economy. They couldn't buy enough homes to keep the housing industry employed, store shelves stocked, or new car manufacturing in business.
> 
> The group with the shrinking % of the pie, will have less to spend........and the negative effects would be felt throughout the economy.


Unfortuneatly, you couldn't be more wrong on this one Sags. 

The wealthy will always drive the economy. It is their corporations, land, buildings, machines and other possessions that provide the jobs and prosperity for the entire economy. The more corporations, land, buildings and machines the wealthy can obtain and provide, the bigger the economic pie can get. The poor may get a smaller percentage of this larger pie, but at least their piece will be much bigger.

Very few will be able to buy a house, a consumer good or a car, if they don't have a job ...provided by a corporation that is very likely owned by a wealthy person (at least the majority of corporations are).


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I think if the Canadian poor complain, have them take a look at real poverty in places like Asia and Africa. There are government programs that provide food and shelter, medical, dental, education....

Those complaining about it taking two incomes, look at all the "necessities" you have compared to your parents.

No matter how good people seem to have it, they always think they are hard done by. Appreciate what you've got, maybe go see what the rest of the world is like.


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

It's a misconception that all wealthy people exist on the backs of the poor. Most first generation wealthy people became wealthy because they took risks, e.g. they started a new business (or three) and had success with one, or they studied for years to get into a high paying profession, or both. They were willing to get off their butts and move across countries or abroad to get the right experience. If they are successful entrepreneurs they employ other people. They contribute more than their share to the economy and to philanthropy.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I agree with that ^ haven't talked to him awhile but i was friends with a guy who lives in spanish-town jamica,(he has metal bars around his windows)likely similar to south central LA but worse!(if your a white tourist in those parts,good luck)A normal day around his parts is drive by's.
I actually think of him if i start complaining,we are all lucky to live in canada!


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

""There cannot be wealth, without the poor". This is a basic law of capitalism and it will never be broken, even though no one but me ever seems to recognize it. "

Who said that? Whoever it was, was an idiot. There was an explosion of wealth between the mid 19th and mid 20th century that made so many people rich, that there was hardly a poor person left by the standards of 1850. Certainly in the fifties in North America, Japan and Europe starvation and homelessness were practically unknown except for pathological cases and many "working class" families had middle class lifestyles.

All thanks to capitalism and all due to the efforts of the working class themselves. 

Queen Victoria even commented in 1867 in a private letter, that the working class had so improved themselves since she took the throne in 1832 that you hardly ever saw an old fashioned yokel anymore and the most successful ones were a definite threat to the aristocracy in wealth and in politics, and if the young generation of her class did not smarten up they would be pushed aside. In this she proved to be a true prophet.

Henry Ford was one of the first to recognize that a richer working class was the key to wealth for businessmen like himself. He noted that every time he cut the price of a Ford by $1 he got 10000 new customers, and when he raised the pay of his workers he got better more conscientious workers who had money to spend on Fords and all kinds of other things that kept the mass production economy moving.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If the top 1% are gaining on the rest, while the middle class is losing ground, look to the effects of CRIME.

Read Thieves Of Bay Street by Bruce Livesey to see how the richest are getting richer by swindling and robbing the middle class and working class. Who doesn't know someone whose pension disappeared the minute they reached for it, or lost their life's savings to some smooth swindler who never did a day in jail? How many thriving companies have been torn apart and wrecked by modern day pirates?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think much of the middle class "trappings" has been accumulated by the steady increase of personal debt.

This is debt that must be paid off from future earnings. As debt payments increase, it has the same affect as an equal reduction in wages.

If it wasn't for debt, there would be a lot fewer homes, cars, furniture and electronic gadgets for people to offer as signs of their middle class success.

Maybe that is the difference between the "old" middle class and the "new" one.

The old one managed to save money from their current wages, while the new one is built on using tomorrow's wages to pay for today.


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> "There cannot be wealth, without the poor". This is a basic law of capitalism and it will never be broken, even though no one but me ever seems to recognize it.
> 
> In any event, no matter how much better off a certain class or group of people are, they cannot be well off unless there is another, much larger group of people who are not doing nearly as well. If one wants to write an article, all they need to do is decide if they want to show prosperity or despondency, and then go find the corresponding group of people to profile.
> 
> This will never change. In my simple guesstimate, the larger the spread between the rich and the poor, the larger the overall economic pie can get. The larger the economic pie, the larger the slice the so call "poor" can have, therefore, only when the rich get richer, do the poor have a chance of getting richer. Since I think the rich have got much richer, I do believe the poor are much better off today then they were when my parents were my age.


Maybe no one else recognizes it because it's bunk? Capitalism is not a zero sum game and that you think so just demonstrates that you don't understand capitalism. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. The better that other people and corporations do, the better you do. Think of your pension, savings, investments, taxes etc. when your neighbour does well don't be envious, be happy for them because you are a decent human being and because their success will be indirectly shared by you as well.

Most of these "growing income gaps" studies are bogus anyways. Want to know why? It's because every one of them assumes that the same people occupy the same groups over the years when that is not the case. Where we should be concentrating our efforts, policy wise is to make sure there is opportunity for those who are ambitious. I also think there is a large education mismatch going on. More trades people are needed. We don't need more arts degrees, sorry.
I went from the lowest income group to upper middle income in 15 years and I am not particularly ambitious. People who grow up in Canada are so lucky, most of us are completely oblivious to how lucky we are. 

I think the new generation is a little spoiled to be honest.
Too many "participation medals"

/rant


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Henry Ford was one of the first to recognize that a richer working class was the key to wealth for businessmen like himself. He noted that every time he cut the price of a Ford by $1 he got 10000 new customers, and when he raised the pay of his workers he got better more conscientious workers who had money to spend on Fords and all kinds of other things that kept the mass production economy moving.


If you really look into reasons for the $5 pay, you'll find it had more to do with lowering expensive staff turnover than anything else. Ironically, even though he paid more than double the salary, it was only after implementing such high pay that he started experiencing more labour strife. The more pie you give to people, the more pie they want...of maybe I should say feel they deserve. They don't want to work anymore, they just want more.

I watched the same thing with nurses in health care...in the early 80's we had lots of nurses, but they went on strike for more money. The government at the time said "we don't have any more money, we'll have to reduce staff to give you more". Senior nurses agreed to that because they outnumbered the junior ones and it wouldn't mean layoffs for them... Only problem was they had more work to do because there were less nurses...

Next round of labour disputes, nurses went on strike, we're working harder, we need more money...government said, we have no money, we need to lay off some...cycle repeated. Early 90's government wanted to hire cheaper NA's the relieve some of the work...union said no, it has to be done with RN's...cycle repeated...long term result, overworked nurses, and a pay scale that makes healthcare the largest budget expense. 

Teachers, similar thing...we had a strike a few years back, teachers didn't ask for much of a raise, wanted smaller classrooms...we're offered a 14% raise! forgot all about classrooms...one even called the radio saying we really were all about classrooms (which they were still complaining about publicly) when asked by the host to give back the 14%, she replied "why would I do that?"...the idea that it could go to reducing classroom size kinda went over her head I guess...

I'm not picking on nurses or teachers...pick a program, whenever the government announces funding, unions, companies, etc. all line up salivating at the trough demanding their share. When the government announced rebates for furnaces, the price of furnaces went up more than the grants...

The problem with any equation is the people involved...every system will fail, especially things like communism, because not everyone is willing to put in the same effort, or has the same expectations of fairness. 

I've talked to many people about how I made and make my money, I try to teach them how, but they can't be bothered...but if I'd do it for them, they'd be very thankful....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Another article in the Wealth Paradox series.........

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-the-middle-class/article15372581/?cmpid=rss1

We pay 1000 a month rent for a 3 bed/3 bath town home in a nice area. All utilities are included, except hydro.

I would suppose the cost of a similar unit in Calgary would be much higher, given the average of all rentals is over 1400 a month.

It would appear that people at the top at prospering........senior IT techs and executives, while others are having a tough time.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

While I don't disagree that Calgary has huge disparity, the article really only scratches the surface of the real situation, and it hardly offers any real insight to affordability.

First, mean value are useless. The mean price of a single detached house might be over $500,000, but that is becuase in some neighborhoods, nothing is less than $1,000,000, and in others, no higher than $350,000. The communities that cost less aren't necessarily crime- riddled, just porr accesibility to the downtown, near the airport, and with few 'features' like Aspen forest built into the community.

Regarding rent, same problem. No doubt rent downtown is ridiculously expensive, and the flooding did not help one but. But look for something outside in these less desirable communities and 3 bedroom, 1200-1500 sqrt ft houses can be rented for $1200. The cost of apartments is also biased on the high end because there isn't a tonne of multi-family housing outside the inner core of the sprawled city.

Again, income disparity is very present. When young 30 year professional couples have household incomes over $200,000, then a couple who work in the service industry are very far away. But the article really does itself disservice by giving the most superficial analysis. Come-on, highest CPI in the country therefore expensive to live in? a loaf of store brand bread costs $2, is this going to break the bank and make the city unaffordable? Come-on, the transit is unreliable? Look at affordibilty index of the city overall, the same stats show it is a very affordible city to live in (cuz average incomes are so high ).

Lastly, if anything this city shows that one CAN move up in the wealth scale. An engineer in training coming out f the UofC vs. out of guelph or any other Canadian school has equal access to that $75,000 per year salary.

I don't deny the disparity, but that article is a bunch of hogwash.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Strange how in some cities there is a bigger price tag to live in the downtown core........and in other cities there is a reduction in values.

It must have something to do with the size of the cities and the commute distance.

Most people I know would laugh if suggested they live "downtown".

They all live in suburbia with Ozzie and Harriet.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> If you really look into reasons for the $5 pay, you'll find it had more to do with lowering expensive staff turnover than anything else. Ironically, even though he paid more than double the salary, it was only after implementing such high pay that he started experiencing more labour strife. The more pie you give to people, the more pie they want...of maybe I should say feel they deserve. They don't want to work anymore, they just want more.
> 
> I watched the same thing with nurses in health care...in the early 80's we had lots of nurses, but they went on strike for more money. The government at the time said "we don't have any more money, we'll have to reduce staff to give you more". Senior nurses agreed to that because they outnumbered the junior ones and it wouldn't mean layoffs for them... Only problem was they had more work to do because there were less nurses...
> 
> ...


What has all this to do with capitalism? I would say quite the opposite. Hospitals and nurses are not in a capitalist system, they are in a socialist system completely controlled by the government.

Ford's $5 per day pay scale originated from research done by his Sociology Department. They determined that $5 a day was the amount a man needed to earn to live in Detroit and raise a family. Ford adopted the $5 day while reducing the work day to 8 hours, which allowed running 3 shifts every 24 hours.

The labor troubles came 20 years later and were more the doing of Harry Bennet than of Ford. That and the generally anti business pro union tenor of the times.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

sags said:


> Strange how in some cities there is a bigger price tag to live in the downtown core........and in other cities there is a reduction in values.
> 
> It must have something to do with the size of the cities and the commute distance.
> 
> ...


Think of Manhanttan, or Hong Kong Island, or Central Tokyo, London.... list goes on and on. Canada ain't unique to this. Vancouver proper? vs Burnaby or Surrey?

I think it is a commuting issue. And high end condos are built downtown close to restaurants, theatre, and other culture.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Rusty...

I never said it had anything to do with capitalism, in fact I state that ANY system is bound to fail because people are involved.

"More than 15,000 would-be workers showed up to claim the $5-a-day jobs, though only about 3,000 were needed. Those left outside were angry, and eventually fire hoses were turned on to disperse the crowd. The increased wage plan led to a stable workforce. "

As for labour issues there was a march demanding "bread not crumbs" as early as 1932...the middle of the depression when ford employees were still highly paid.


----------



## YYC (Nov 12, 2012)

sags said:


> When doing comparisons between the middle class of past generations and today, it is worth noting that a middle class standard of living was largely achieved with one parent working in the past. For most families today, it requires 2 people working full time.


This, so totally this. Since real wages haven't grown in a couple of decades relative to inflation, it's hard to think how the standard of living could be better today that it was in the past. Comparing how many TV's we have in each room to the past is irrelevant, as electronics weren't as prevalent in the past. There will always be people who do better anecdotally, but on average I think the middle class is worse off today than it was in the past.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

If you want to get another shock then take a look at the budget deficits that Ontario (especially the latest budget) and Quebec are running, and at their total debt, as a percentage of GDP. And with no substantial published plans to either reduce the annual deficits or the total Provincial debt.

What is even more shocking is that taxpayers in those jurisdictions do not seem to mind or care.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it typical in the 60's and 70's and maybe even into the 80's for a guy to graduate high school, find a job, and make enough money to buy a house and support a stay-at-home wife and kids on his average salary? Doesn't the fact that it's impossible to do this today prove that the middle class is worse off today than decades ago?


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

Sherlock said:


> Doesn't the fact that it's impossible to do this today prove that the middle class is worse off today than decades ago?


Housing prices are whacked, but that may be a temporary thing.

Devils advocate Q: What kind of car does the "average joe" drive? Does he have two cars? Any other recreational vehicles? Where does he go on vacations? Where does he buy his groceries? Where does he buy his morning/afternoon coffee?

Is it really middle-class to have a $30K+ sedan and SUV in the driveway, Starbucks coffee on the way to work, eat out for lunch everyday in the food court, dinner at restaurants 3-4 times a week, a week in the Mayan Riviera every 6 months, designer labels for every member of the family, iPhone 5S in the pocket, while the 4, 4S, 5 and iPods collect dust at the bottom of some shelf, 1200-channel package, his and hers Sirius XM subscription, blah blah blah.

Maybe I'm seeing too small of a demographic, but the "necessities of the middle-class in 2013" look suspiciously like the luxuries for someone growing up in the 70s/80s. 

Or maybe I grew up in poverty...


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I don't think ''middle'' class does these things??
If i look @ a real world example(a employee of mine)I pay him 45k a yr/his wife has a min wage job,maybe 25k yr=70k gross(2 adults,2 children they have)Would 70k a yr gross be middle class in canada?
He drives a 1995 mini van.
@ home coffee
bag lunch
ordering pizza is what is a ''treat'' for him and his family
camping 2 hrs away is his ''vacation''
and i know for a fact he has basic cable.
I'm not sure what ''middle'' class income/lifestyle is but i dont think it incl:mayan riviera/designer labels/sirus/a buick enclave and i-phones for every family member....does it?
I would love to be able to pay him more but can't(matches skill/market wage ect)I'm confused if his family is the ''working'' poor or is in fact middle class.
He also rents a side x side(he can qualify for home ownership but does not want to because things are tight)
*maybe he has some stashed away but i don't think so*and i'm pretty sure the family is not investing in a tfsa ect(he does have a small amt,few grand or something a year towards rrsp)
What is middle class?


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

lightcycle said:


> Housing prices are whacked, but that may be a temporary thing.
> 
> Devils advocate Q: What kind of car does the "average joe" drive? Does he have two cars? Any other recreational vehicles? Where does he go on vacations? Where does he buy his groceries? Where does he buy his morning/afternoon coffee?
> 
> ...


Not middle class... unless all that is being put on credit/financed. Even then, the payments to carry that kind of debt would necessitate a pretty high income.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I like donald's example. I always figured about 50K/yr to be entry level middle class for a single income... for a couple I think 75K is pretty middle class. When you look at what the average household in Canada really makes it's about 65-70K in most places (correct me if I'm wrong).

Edit: found some data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Median_household_income_of_cities_in_Canada

So if you're in Vancouver or Toronto, the median family income is just under 70K.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Yeah the family in lightcycle's example is probably earning at least 150k/yr or about twice the average household income. Either that or they have some wealthy parents who are generous with gifts.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

That truly is not much to play with 70k(family 4)
Net 16k a yr rent(shelter)
Net(guessing)12k a yr(food,2 adults/2 teens)
gas/insurance ect on 1 or 2 cars-net prob 10k
38k net,just to meet the basic.(what is net income on 70k?)
I'm being rough here but prob pretty accurate,and that is leaving out the tax man on 70k!Middle class people have a debt problem i would argue not because they are trying to live like rock star's but because the reality of life demands it.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

fraser said:


> If you want to get another shock then take a look at the budget deficits that Ontario (especially the latest budget) and Quebec are running, and at their total debt, as a percentage of GDP. And with no substantial published plans to either reduce the annual deficits or the total Provincial debt.
> 
> What is even more shocking is that taxpayers in those jurisdictions do not seem to mind or care.


The way you talk, you would think we had a choice. Nobody asked me, did anyone ask you?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The way you talk, you would think we had a choice. Nobody asked me, did anyone ask you?


Yes, Rusty, they did (ask us all).
We all - collectively - voted this administration in.

Not once, not twice, but _thrice_.

Anyone that chose to vote for this administration the second and the third time knew exactly what they stood for.
No one could have had any illusions that they are asking for a tax-and-spend, fiscally profligate administration.

Voters can be stumped once, but not three times consecutively.
The debt and the deficit you speak of - that is _exactly_ what the residents of Ontario voted for and ergo, we can conclude the majority want it, are okay with it, and/or do not care.


----------



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

Let me chime in.

Many people have a fixed wealth accumulation target, ex: i want to have 1M$.

What do you think happens once you reach that magical number ? 1M$ become 2M$, and then it become 5M$, etc.

Regarding the notion of "enjoying the money" being implicit of buying expensive things. People who are in the mid-up tier earning bracket will typically spend to impress and/or project a social status. (ex: buy a 60k mercedes/bmw). The real high income/high wealth, think 250k/year / 1M$+ net worth not including house, are usually under the radar and would never think about buying such wealth badge. For many people wealth accumulation is a "rat race" against their peer.

It is different for most people but i am a firm believer than happiness is not found in buying luxury (read overpriced) items. Once you pass a certain target, wealth become mostly irrelevant and its much more about doing what you love and being with people you appreciate.

Two excellent books that should be read by everyone on this forum:

http://www.amazon.com/Stop-Acting-Rich-Living-Millionaire/dp/1469236117
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206


----------



## the_apprentice (Jan 31, 2013)

^ I disagree larry. I think age will make someone change their mindset towards "enjoying their money", not necessarily their accumulation of wealth. I think it's a personal choice; I often seen wealthy people spend their money relentlessly, not just mid-up tier income earners to maintain that image. Everyone is different and I'm just speaking from what I've observed. After all I have yet to experience that, I'm still in the wealth accumulation stage.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

larry81 said:


> Two excellent books that should be read by everyone on this forum:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Stop-Acting-Rich-Living-Millionaire/dp/1469236117
> http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206


Apart from the small sample size, I often wonder about the author's selection bias in interviewing these millionaires. There are many paths to high net worth. Are we only seeing the journeymen in these books? If so, their methodology (frugalilty) in attaining these goals would differ immensely from the entrepreneurs, innovators, risk-takers, captains of industry, etc. And it's the second group not interviewed that would make up the ostentatious rich that we see in Conde Nast.

Just speculating, of course...


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

I agree with larry81. I think most people who have a lot of money don't like to show off their wealth with ostentatious displays of extravagance. Also it's mostly from a lifetime of living frugally that leads to wealth accumulation. I for example, am retired with $1.8m invested and a house worth $.5m and when I'm riding my bike I still always stop to pick up empty beer cans. I have $35 in loonies saved up for the car wash this winter that came from my empty beer can refunds. People driving by probably think I'm a bum but I never did care much what others thought of me.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

Sherlock said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it typical in the 60's and 70's and maybe even into the 80's for a guy to graduate high school, find a job, and make enough money to buy a house and support a stay-at-home wife and kids on his average salary? Doesn't the fact that it's impossible to do this today prove that the middle class is worse off today than decades ago?


Its not impossible, its quite simple actually. Its only impossible for someone not willing to travel to where the work is or get his hands dirty. 
For example, I was visiting family on the weekend and the boyfriend of a niece (he is 20) is 3 months into a job at a mine near Merritt.  He is making $32/hr as a janitor.
After 6 months they will train him to drive haul trucks in the pit for considerably more money.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

none said:


> buying a house is not a right. Who cares if you 'own a house' most people don't own their house but simply rent it from the bank. Even those that do 'own' their house they still have to pay property taxes and the house can always be taken away if a freeways is going to put in. Owning is overblown.


Lol, cause your rental house can never be taken away. 

Its not a right, for sure. But it depends a lot on the person's situation and where that person lives. I don't think you can say renting is perfect everywhere or buying is perfect everywhere.

One of the big differences for today's generation is digital advertising that is very effective, people are constantly being bombarded with advertising. Not sure this was as big a deal during my parents generation.
As technology advances it advances at an exponential rate, which increases people's wants.
its a different world today.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

pwm said:


> I agree with larry81. I think most people who have a lot of money don't like to show off their wealth with ostentatious displays of extravagance. Also it's mostly from a lifetime of living frugally that leads to wealth accumulation. I for example, am retired with $1.8m invested and a house worth $.5m and when I'm riding my bike I still always stop to pick up empty beer cans. I have $35 in loonies saved up for the car wash this winter that came from my empty beer can refunds. People driving by probably think I'm a bum but I never did care much what others thought of me.


Kudos, I pick up cans as well and still stare in amazement at people that throw out their beer cans at home.

But I often wonder this. 
Does the frugality become so engrained that a person is reluctant to spend their nest egg, to chip away at the master piece? Is there still an urge to see it grow?
or does a person set a goal of spending say 50% of that nest egg by the time they are 70?
Because there are people who save a big multi million nest egg but don't spend it, still live off the same frugal lifestyle they have had their whole life for their whole life.
I just wonder if its more of an obsession than necessity in some cases.
Obviously people don't need all the material things that are out but what about the life experiences.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Hawkdog said:


> ... But I often wonder this.
> 
> Does the frugality become so engrained that a person is reluctant to spend their nest egg, to chip away at the master piece? Is there still an urge to see it grow? ...


It can ... my dad used to say that his mother was so used to sacrificing to help him & his siblings so that when they had done well so that they were able to buy things for her, she had lost the capacity to enjoy them.

Then too, you read of people who are living with a bare minimum then die leaving a multi-million dollar estate.


IMO, just as it's bad to spend money one doesn't have, I see it as the opposite extreme to refuse to spend anything/help anyone else.


Each individual has to decide where the balance lies .... being aware of the extremes is the first step to avoiding them.


Cheers


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> Yes, Rusty, they did (ask us all).
> We all - collectively - voted this administration in.
> 
> Not once, not twice, but _thrice_.
> ...


Ha ha ha ha ha when did any politician state honestly in their election campaign, what they were going to do if elected, then stick to it? If I have seen one cut spending, balance the budget campaign I have seen them all. Never have I seen a politician promise to blow money like a drunken sailor on useless junk and run the country into ruin.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

This thread is gold. I am struggling with many of the issues mentioned in this thread. Much to think on here...


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

pwm said:


> when I'm riding my bike I still always stop to pick up empty beer cans. I have $35 in loonies saved up for the car wash this winter that came from my empty beer can refunds. People driving by probably think I'm a bum but I never did care much what others thought of me.


Haha...I still make the wife tear the bounce sheets in half! Old habits die hard.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

I don't know, seems like collecting beer can is way too extreme... sometimes people get into this zone with saving up which becomes like an addiction (in a bad way), then they save all their life and die with millions... to me, I understand value of saving but at the same time I spend $ on something that I want/like... you will never enjoy that latest bmw/audi in your 70's like you would in your 20's/30's (obviously if you have enough money to cover that)...



pwm said:


> I agree with larry81. I think most people who have a lot of money don't like to show off their wealth with ostentatious displays of extravagance. Also it's mostly from a lifetime of living frugally that leads to wealth accumulation. I for example, am retired with $1.8m invested and a house worth $.5m and when I'm riding my bike I still always stop to pick up empty beer cans. I have $35 in loonies saved up for the car wash this winter that came from my empty beer can refunds. People driving by probably think I'm a bum but I never did care much what others thought of me.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

Hawkdog said:


> *Kudos, I pick up cans as well and still stare in amazement at people that throw out their beer cans at home.*


whenever I drink beer I throw out cans.... collecting cans/loading into the car/driving it to the beer store/unloading is a waist of time for me... I just value my time more then getting few dollars... not to mention you don't know who touched that can before you, pretty disgusting


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

You're going to the beer store anyway, so why not take the cans with you and trade empty ones for full ones?


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

pwm said:


> You're going to the beer store anyway, so why not take the cans with you and trade empty ones for full ones?


out of convenience,( for me personally) it's a hassle to collect army of bottles in my garage and loading/unloading big boxes with cans from a car..... it does not worth the effort to me


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I enjoyed reading what pwm wrote. Those that have some money, don't always like to show it off. I suppose it's all in what you value and what's important to you.

I want to be wealthy, eventually, but I have no interest in showing it off with fancy cars, overly clothes or tons of toys around the house. I simply want the financial means to do what I want to do, when I want to do it, more often than not. 

If I had the >$2 in NW like pwm does, I'd probably take my beer cans to the store for a refund too, like I do now. I guess I'm too practical: take the money back, use money to buy more beer this week, repeat the cycle next week. I guess I like beer too much. Getting thirsty now. :eagerness:


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

My Own Advisor said:


> I want to be wealthy, eventually, but I have no interest in showing it off with fancy cars, overly clothes or tons of toys around the house. I simply want the financial means to do what I want to do, when I want to do it, more often than not.


let's say that you made it, you are wealthy and can do whatever you want, what are you going to do all day? collect beer bottles and keep saving more not buying anything for yourself? will keep driving that falling apart civic vs getting M3 ? if yes, then what is the point of being wealthy ? you can do that same thing on 20k/year walmart salary


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

larry81 said:


> The real high income/high wealth, think 250k/year / 1M$+ net worth not including house, are usually under the radar and would never think about buying such wealth badge.
> Two excellent books that should be read by everyone on this forum:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Stop-Acting-Rich-Living-Millionaire/dp/1469236117
> http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206


I would agree with someone downthread who mentioned selection bias in these books. I work with a lot of people making $500K-$1M+ and they mostly do not fly under the radar. 
$5K suits, $200K cars, $3M houses, 3 kids in private school at $30K/kid/year, vacation for two ~$30K
I think the millionaire next door really focused on people with decent jobs who saved/invested wisely.
A whole wack of others making big money may not be as rich on paper because they're spending so much of their cash flow, but if they were to stop and save for 2-5 years would quickly surpass the "millionaire next door" types


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The millionaire next door book did mention the high earners who spent it as fast as they make it but did not find them good role models. Of the millionaires who responded to their mailers or ads, most were of the down to earth hard working type.

One of the high earners they mentioned, was a doctor who contacted them hoping they could give him some tips on investing for retirement. He was 67 years old with a brand new mansion, mortgaged to the hilt. Range Rover, Lincoln Navigator and Jaguar in the driveway all leased. Vacations (plural) to exotic destinations every year. Basically NO savings or investments and no plan for his old age except to keep working as long as possible and hope for the best.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

The book is for the masses.A wall street MD would not buy the book(why would he)
My mom's boss owns a large private company(he is worth millions and spends money like it is water)
He is not reading peter lynch and or personal finance books/blogs,nor is he worried at all about $(the author did not write the book for him)
In his ''case'' its the millionaire neighborhood(you can't ''pretend'') not the unsuspecting guy next door in a average neighborhood.
They can't write the book about him because the public at large would not buy the book.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

blin10 said:


> let's say that you made it, you are wealthy and can do whatever you want, what are you going to do all day? collect beer bottles and keep saving more not buying anything for yourself? will keep driving that falling apart civic vs getting M3 ? if yes, then what is the point of being wealthy ? you can do that same thing on 20k/year walmart salary


It's an irony of life that when you are young you want everything, but don't have the money for it all. Then when you are older and can afford it, material things don't matter as much any more. Maybe that's the real "Wealth Paradox".


----------



## the_apprentice (Jan 31, 2013)




----------



## 6811 (Jan 1, 2013)

pwm said:


> It's an irony of life that when you are young you want everything, but don't have the money for it all. Then when you are older and can afford it, material things don't matter as much any more. Maybe that's the real "Wealth Paradox".


+1


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

blin10 said:


> let's say that you made it, you are wealthy and can do whatever you want, what are you going to do all day? collect beer bottles and keep saving more not buying anything for yourself? will keep driving that falling apart civic vs getting M3 ? if yes, then what is the point of being wealthy ? you can do that same thing on 20k/year walmart salary


Personally speaking, the point of being wealthy is not to work anymore - specifically not to exchange my time for money, but have my money work for me.

Being able to choose what I do with all that time (spend time with family+friends, work more, play more, collect beer bottles, drive my M3, etc) would be my indicator of success.

The tricky part is balancing the present value of time (youth specifically) with the future value of financial independence. I believe you don't enjoy life as much when you're older, but I don't think you should mortgage your future to live in the present.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

pwm said:


> It's an irony of life that when you are young you want everything, but don't have the money for it all. Then when you are older and can afford it, material things don't matter as much any more. Maybe that's the real "Wealth Paradox".


+2


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

pwm said:


> It's an irony of life that when you are young you want everything, but don't have the money for it all. Then when you are older and can afford it, material things don't matter as much any more. Maybe that's the real "Wealth Paradox".


:encouragement:
It is the unattainable that people yearn for. Plus I had my BMW convertible. I liked it. But I am over that stage. And DW does not even wear all her jewelry anymore. A few years ago we stopped insuring it.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

With all the talk about income inequality how about a discussion about income tax inequality. Here's a factoid from the G&M Report on Business:

*The top 1 per cent paid 21 per cent of all federal and provincial taxes in Canada in 2010. Their median tax bill was $90,100 in 2010, up from $32,300 in 1985.*


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

blin10 said:


> whenever I drink beer I throw out cans.... collecting cans/loading into the car/driving it to the beer store/unloading is a waist of time for me... I just value my time more then getting few dollars... not to mention you don't know who touched that can before you, pretty disgusting


Each to his own, its just part of our commitment to recycling. We have to take our recycling in anyway, and the bottle depot provides jobs, I generally donate half the return anyway, then we generally have enough left for a coffee.
Its just part of our Saturday routine, grocery shopping and recycling.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

pwm said:


> With all the talk about income inequality how about a discussion about income tax inequality. Here's a factoid from the G&M Report on Business:
> 
> *The top 1 per cent paid 21 per cent of all federal and provincial taxes in Canada in 2010. Their median tax bill was $90,100 in 2010, up from $32,300 in 1985.*


The filthy greedy rich! Hogging all the tax burden for themselves! How dare they!


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> The filthy greedy rich! Hogging all the tax burden for themselves! How dare they!


You'll excuse me if I don't feel sorry for them. On the contrary, I aspire to become one of them one day. I would gladly pay even 90% of my income in taxes if the remaining 10% was enough to let me live a life of luxury.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What was their tax rate? Maybe 15%........like Mitt Romney?

I wouldn't be surprised it they paid less % on taxes, than the average Joe............

And the write offs........., business "trips", business "vehicles", business "cell phone bills", business "gas and maintenance", business vehicle "insurance", business computers and office equipment, business "meals", tickets to business "sports events and concerts, and private golf and country clubs", and political contributions to keep the wheels greased.

It must really suck to have almost all the wealth.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^^ I didn't realize Warren Buffet frequented these forums :biggrin:


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

From the same article: 

_The threshold to reach the top 1 per cent in 2010 was $201,400, while the median income in the middle of the 1-per-cent pack was $283,400 and the average income of 1 per centers was $429,600_

Math quiz:

If the median tax paid was $90,100 and the median income was $283,400, what was the median tax rate?


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

sags said:


> What was their tax rate? Maybe 15%........like Mitt Romney?
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised it they paid less % on taxes, than the average Joe............
> 
> ...


For the most part their rates are probably in the 40-50% range. Anyone who is an "employee" is paying the full tax burden on their income.
Sure business owners, execs who receive stock-based comp, and wealthy investors catch some breaks, but most of the hated 1% pay their fair share of taxes, as well as the fair share of the next 20%.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I remember reading this a while back...

http://www.easysafemoney.com/taxes-explained/

There was also this one...

http://www.easysafemoney.com/why-raises-dont-work-explained-its-as-easy-as-pie/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would think to pay in the 40-50% tax rate range "overall".........they would have to be earning a lot more than the next highest category, given the progressive tax rates and all the tax deductions they could use.

Studies are all over the place on the subject, and the conclusions are usually biased.

Here is a study that claimed low income people paid a higher tax rate than the wealthy........when all forms of taxation are included.

The study was published in 2007.........and is probably more pronounced today.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2007/11/07/rich_taxed_less_study_finds.html


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

I think the 1% are not a monolithic group, as it includes people who make only about 200k (which is only upper-middle class) to people who make 8 figures a year. Putting these people in the same category makes no sense as they live vastly different lifestyles.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

sags said:


> I would think to pay in the 40-50% tax rate range "overall".........they would have to be earning a lot more than the next highest category, given the progressive tax rates and all the tax deductions they could use.
> 
> Studies are all over the place on the subject, and the conclusions are usually biased.
> 
> ...


I think the purest way of doing it is taking the total tax paid, and dividing by the total income. Also looking at average income vs. average tax burden is another way. These numbers are likely skewed by the 0.0000whatever% that receives all income from dividends or capital gains (though to be fair, you'd have to gross this tax up to account for corporate tax already paid).
I also think the impact of deductions is overblown. Those receiving employment income simply can't deduct all the things mentioned upthread (cars, meals, houses, clubs, equipment, entertainment). 
If I were to receive $210,000 of employment income (I think that's what someone said entry into the 1% would require), I would pay 38% of total income in income tax. (http://www.taxtips.ca/calculators/taxcalculator.htm)

Unfortunately you're never going to find a clear unbiased picture of the reality, because everyone has an agenda. Lefty think tanks will include implied property tax paid through rent, government user fees, VAT, sin taxes and a whole whack of other assumptions, while Righty think tanks will include the corporate tax paid before gains/dividends, significantly more property tax, VAT on much more substantial purchases, and a whole whack of other assumptions.

All told, why is % income paid in tax by the rich the holy grail that needs to be maximized. Clearly the rich pay more in absolute $$$ terms than anyone else, the rich pay a higher % of total taxes than they receive of total income. Isn't that enough?
What I would rather see, and I'm not sure if it is possible or practical, is to see just one round of taxation on any and all income. Tax all income equally on the same progressive scale, so no more dividend tax credit, no more stock options classified as capital gains on exercise, no more credits etc. Simplify the tax code and you'll see progressive taxation work the way it was designed.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Sherlock said:


> I think the 1% are not a monolithic group, as it includes people who make only about 200k (which is only upper-middle class) to people who make 8 figures a year. Putting these people in the same category makes no sense as they live vastly different lifestyles.


I really don't think $200K/year is upper middle class. That's firmly in the upper class in my opinion. It might not be private jets and Parisien penthouses, but it's definitely champagne and caviar money.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would agree a flat progressive tax should be examined closely.

Our current tax code.......as one Tax Court Judge put it........is too complicated for the average taxpayer to understand.

In that way...........I think the Republicans in the US are correct, if they are serious about eliminating tax loopholes.

Best to eliminate them first...........before worrying about raising or lowering tax rates themselves.

First........determine what everyone's "fair share" should be, and then ensure all of it is collected.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

sags said:


> Our current tax code.......as one Tax Court Judge put it........is too complicated for the average taxpayer to understand.


We agree wholeheartedly. It comes home to roost each year when we have to fork over another $40 or whatever for tax software because doing it manually is too onerous and at risk of errors, or of seeing family with simple tax situations go and pay a storefront service to have their taxes done. There is an entire industry in the middle with their hands out every tax season. Simplify please!


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...thanking-the-super-rich-not-bashing-them.html

By Boris Johnson.......Mayor of London, (England)



> The rich are resented, not so much for being rich, but for getting ever richer than the middle classes – and the trouble is that the gap is growing the whole time, and especially has done over the past 20 years. It is hard to say exactly why this is, but I will hazard a guess. Of all the self-made super-rich tycoons I have met, most belong to the following three fairly exclusive categories of human being:
> 
> (1) They tend to be well above average, if not outstanding, in their powers of mathematical, scientific or at least logical reasoning. (2) They have a great deal of energy, confidence, risk-taking instinct and a desire to make money. (3) They have had the good fortune – by luck or birth – to be able to exploit these talents.





> There is no point in wasting any more moral or mental energy in being jealous of the very rich. They are no happier than anyone else; they just have more money. We shouldn’t bother ourselves about why they want all this money, or why it is nicer to have a bath with gold taps. How does it hurt me, with my 20-year-old Toyota, if somebody else has a swish Mercedes? We both get stuck in the same traffic.
> 
> We should be helping all those who can to join the ranks of the super-rich, and we should stop any bashing or moaning or preaching or bitching and simply give thanks for the prodigious sums of money that they are contributing to the tax revenues of this country, and that enable us to look after our sick and our elderly and to build roads, railways and schools.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

For a person earning $20k a year, the idea of making an extra $50k sounds like a 250% increase. To the person making $1M it's barely inflation.


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

Nemo2 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...thanking-the-super-rich-not-bashing-them.html
> 
> By Boris Johnson.......Mayor of London, (England)


+1

Don't fall for the left of centre politics of envy.
We need to help people by enabling them not by telling them the game is stacked against them and the only solution is for the government to become robber barons on your behalf.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Longwinston said:


> Don't fall for the left of centre politics of envy.
> We need to help people by enabling them not by telling them the game is stacked against them and the only solution is for the government to become robber barons on your behalf.


It's a little late for that.
The boat of personal responsibility, fiscal prudence, and keeping the govt. out of personal business has long sailed.


----------

