# Are you a contrarian? How does your point of view vary from the CMF conversation



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

I find myself not aligning with the vast majority of philosophy shared on CMF. Almost all of it, actually.

Every once in a while, a subdued poster will write something that resonates with my philosophy but it's rare. In fact, I think my philosophy aligns almost 100% with two fairly reserved posters.

I'd like to hear the feeling others have regarding their alignment with CMF group think. Do other folks feel they mostly find themselves sharing the group philosophy or does everyone feel they are unique?

Responses appreciated.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I find I am too much of a contrarian and rarely follow the group. I am like this in my personal life as well and have always followed my own path. I am different then most people as well and I hardly trust anyone and take responsibility for all my decisions. If someone gives me stock advise or whatever then it is up to me to act on it or not and I would never blame someone because I went with their advise.

On CMF as you have seen my views are definitely my own and I don't really follow anyone here.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> I find myself not aligning with the vast majority of philosophy shared on CMF. Almost all of it, actually.
> 
> Responses appreciated.


But Tom, you haven't told us how you differ from everyone else?

ltr


----------



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

I have a weakness for looking at all sides of a question and thinking for myself. Consequently I have a lot of opinions that are bat **** crazy and would get me in trouble if I even mentioned them. I'm practically a pariah on this board for mentioning some of the mildest and most obvious of them. But then this crowd has to be the squarest most conventional on the net.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

It would be interesting for sure to read some of that stuff Rusty.

As far as a pariah goes I don't see that at all. But then again I am probably one of the outsiders as well on here.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Give some examples of "CMF groupthink" -- I'm not even sure it exists. There seems to be more disagreement in various threads than not.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Many on here have a very simplistic MSM globalist view of the world from what I can see. However Rusty might see something different.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't know, there seems to be a lot of Tuck Buckford types as well.


----------



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

new dog said:


> It would be interesting for sure to read some of that stuff Rusty.
> 
> As far as a pariah goes I don't see that at all. But then again I am probably one of the outsiders as well on here.


All right, let's start with something simple. What if climate change or global warming is a serious problem? Then wouldn't it make sense to study it from every angle?

If you look around you may run into the work of Henrik Svensmark a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute in Copenhagen.

For more than 25 years he has been working on the idea that the sun and cosmic rays have a significant influence on the earth's climate and that the variation in these rays is a better predictor of climate change than co2.

Obviously, pointing this out makes me a "climate change denier" who deserves to be condemned by all right thinking people.

One of Professor Svensmark's papers https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/48/1/1.18/220765

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgA8zSSC0zI

His book https://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Cosmic-Climate-Change/dp/1840468661

It seems to me that anything that throws light on such an important subject is worth serious consideration.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

To be fair, there are only about 5 climate change extremists on this board, the problem is they are very vocal and claim to speak for the majority. I find the same group tends to do a lot of attention seeking behaviour. They tend to start a lot of hot button discussions, or threads in general, they also tend to make controversial comments just for the reactions they get or attack others without actually conferring any real information, especially when it comes to the main topic of the forum.


----------



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

Ok


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

TomB19 said:


> I find myself not aligning with the vast majority of philosophy shared on CMF. Almost all of it, actually.
> 
> Every once in a while, a subdued poster will write something that resonates with my philosophy but it's rare. In fact, I think my philosophy aligns almost 100% with two fairly reserved posters.
> 
> ...


i'm having trouble identifying your "philosophy" and the "group philosophy" at CMF, mostly because, as usual, you are too vague. 
I'm also having trouble identfying how, and on what subject, you would be a contrarian. 

For one thing you are a real estate investor and I'm at a loss to recall any contrarian strategies you have written about in real estate investing. You seem pretty much inside the norm for me. 
On climate change you have thrown your lot in with those who claim 97% majority perspective, so that seems pretty non-contrarian. 

Also there is a contradiction in terms in your post relative to other posts. For example, in the realm of knowledge you have claimed "objectivity", which is the avowed enemy of philosophy. But now you claim you have a philosophy. 

All in all, I'm at a loss as to what you are talking about. 

Here is a philosophy:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I have a weakness for looking at all sides of a question and thinking for myself.


That's not a weakness! Although we may all have our own personal biases, we should try to look at things objectively, and weight the pros and cons of everyone's opinions in forming our own.

As for being a 'contrarian', I haven't kept score, so to speak, with the percentage of CMF posts that I agree or disagree with. I do find myself sometimes reading something from 'certain members' that I believe to be completely untrue. I start to compose a reply with irrefutable references, then just think "why bother", and close the browser.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Pluto said:


> Here is a philosophy:
> 
> Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
> That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
> ...


O.M.G. I had to memorize that speech in High School over 50 years ago, and will still be able to recite it to the last syllable of recorded time.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Just a Guy said:


> To be fair, there are only about 5 climate change extremists on this board, the problem is they are very vocal and claim to speak for the majority.


I wonder how many people are surprised to find themselves agreeing with this statement but have five completely different people in mind?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Probably the people that don't even bother to read what's being posted, yet claims to know what's being said.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Pluto said:


> All in all, I'm at a loss as to what you are talking about.


The question of how your point of view aligns with the general conversation is not a particularly difficult one.

Are you really unable to follow this grade school level question or is your morosity rooted in a disagreement in the Trump and/or climate thread?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you and JAG to work on having better lives than to follow me around posting biting responses? Life is not so bad. You both have my sincere best wishes.

Perhaps you two are just the ultimate contrarians. lol!


----------



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

I get a kick out of Lonewolf's contributions even though I don't see any value in them as investment advice and I don't think he invests, certainly not using the ideas he posts here.

He is probably the most contrary of the regular posters.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Totally agree Lonewolf is entertaining.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

TomB19 said:


> The question of how your point of view aligns with the general conversation is not a particularly difficult one.
> 
> Are you really unable to follow this grade school level question or is your morosity rooted in a disagreement in the Trump and/or climate thread?
> 
> ...


Morosity? That's funny. don't you find your climate predictions morose? 

In the meantime, you didn't clarify what you meant by your contrarian philosophy, so I'm still at a loss as to what you are taliking about.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Pluto said:


> Morosity? That's funny. don't you find your climate predictions morose?
> 
> In the meantime, you didn't clarify what you meant by your contrarian philosophy, so I'm still at a loss as to what you are taliking about.


I don't think there is such a thing as "the CMF conversation". there are particular conversations, but not "the conversation".


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

CMF is a relatively small group and I don't think one can label themselves a contrarian based on disagreements in certain threads. I find myself having natural contrarian tendencies when the public at large appears involved in a certain "group think". That doesn't mean I'm always in disagreement with popular "consensus" but I'm almost always suspicious. For example, from an investing perspective, when markets are in the dumper is when I am most interested in investing and I have had more trepidation in recent markets where the consensus has been mostly positive. (Although there appear some contrarian stances that could be taken recently on certain Canadian equities.) I'm also suspicious of the "consensus" regarding a host of social issues - particularly, I'm finding that this current government's approach encourages a sense of victimization among many sectors of the population. Personal growth is generally not possible from a state of victimization. And of course, I'm suspicious of the purported consensus on global warming being mostly or entirely due to human activity. That we can spend billions without anyone appearing to be able to provide a reliable plus/minus accuracy number for the proxy data this premise is based on appears reckless.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" mentality first requires the person has boots.

Providing help to someone in need isn't making them a victim. It is giving them boots.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Assuming they are incapable of getting themselves a pair of boots is making them into victims. Also, if you give people boots, why not give them a house, a limo, beach vacations...no need for them to expend any effort.

Personally, I don't know anyone incapable of getting themselves a pair of boots...this includes disabled people and the homeless, people I work with often. I do know many who choose to use their resources in questionable ways however, for example choosing a bottle over boots.

I've also seen many who've sold their gift boots for a bottle. People who had to earn their boots tend to value them a lot more in my experience.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Worry no more JAGS........a solution is coming soon.

Guaranteed Income.........the solution for the future.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Where does the money come from? Feds are already spending 18B more than they take in. That's more than $500 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Lots of boots there, all on credit that can't be repaid already.

Or is the goal for every Canadian to not have money? Don't forget, those few who still have money can afford to go elsewhere, out of the reach of the greedy who want money for nothing.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> Worry no more JAGS........a solution is coming soon.
> 
> Guaranteed Income.........the solution for the future.


Sags, you're confused. This is the start to worry- for all those who have to pay for it, the people who will exploit it, the costs to administer it, and the diminished personal responsibility costs. Better hope your corporate pension, OAS and CPP holds out to pay for it. 

Guaranteed Income.........the anchor for the future.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Just a Guy said:


> Don't forget, those few who still have money can afford to go elsewhere, out of the reach of the greedy who want money for nothing.


You are obviously plenty successful to go elsewhere. Where are you going?

In our case, we can go pretty much anywhere also. We've excruciated over the decision and now we're pretty confident we'll stay in Canada.

I see what you see and share much of your view but the problem is finding a better place. It's not easy.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

You should walk a mile in another persons shoes...

... Then, when they realize you've stolen their shoes, you're a mile away, and they have no shoes!


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The place won't be better if there is no money left...

As for where to go, as I point out in Canadian real estate, Canada is a big place, there's more to it than GTA and GVA...likewise, the world is a big place, a lot more than Canada and the USA.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The money doesn't leave. It circulates and returns to the treasury. 

They just have to make sure to give the money to people who will spend it. I promise I will spend it.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

There's not enough money now, where does the new money come from? I have no doubt you'll spend other people's money, you have no respect for what it takes to actually make it.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

OK, so you're suggesting Canada but not Toronto or Vancouver, or a country other than Canada or the USA.

That narrows it down to... everywhere else. How about a little detail?

We've considered several places in Europe. Croatia, for example, seems like a pretty nice place. I've never been but my wife has and we need to go check it out. Mexico is a great place, in many ways, but it falls far short of Canada in some ways, also. I would consider Asia; my wife wouldn't. We are starting to consider South America; specifically, Uruguay. My wife's family is from Uruguay so she has tons of relatives there. We could easily go and have a pretty nice life on the beach but it's also a little primitive, compared to Canadian life.

For someone who likes doing stuff, it's tough to beat Canada.

What I believe I'm seeing is that it's tough to change from a life I've made for myself. If I liked laying on the beach, eating, and being drunk 50% of the time, I'd have moved to Mexico 10 years ago.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Try rereading what I said. Never said other parts of Canada, also never said I was leaving. You really do only read about 40% at most don't you...

My next question would be why do you care where I'd consider going? I do my own research, I don't usually follow the opinions of others. Aren't you supposed to be the contrarian, not looking to follow the herd?


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Maybe give this a read. If you tried reading what you write, you might have a better idea of what you are talking about.



Just a Guy said:


> As for where to go, as I point out in Canadian real estate, Canada is a big place, there's more to it than GTA and GVA...likewise, the world is a big place, a lot more than Canada and the USA.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes, I used an example as an analogy. I do know what I wrote, thank you.

As a "contrarian", why not give your money to the government to redistribute to sags?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Paying taxes is paying your rent to Canada for living here. JAG sounds like one of those free landers, free earthers, free loaders or whatever they are called.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm sure I pay a lot more taxes than you do sags, so which of us is the freeloader?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I'm not sure that you do pay more. Why would you ?

After all, you are a wealthy real estate person with a following of lawyers and accountants and lots of tax deductions at your disposal. 

It is possible that someone in your position pays no taxes at all.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

The top 10% pay for everything basically. 55% of all taxes, yet only get 35% of all income. 40% of people are freeloaders who pay no or little tax . This all comes to the Liberal economically challenged later in life

http://torontosun.com/2017/03/14/it...nada/wcm/1b660054-e168-4090-a695-cde17858eccb


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Just a Guy said:


> I'm sure I pay a lot more taxes than you do sags, so which of us is the freeloader?


You seem to think you have one of the highest net worth and ability to generate income on the site. I would be surprised if you are the highest in either, even just in this thread.

No offence but when everyone has their cards at their chest and someone tells you he has the winning hand, he's the last guy I'd bet on.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Since sags rents, I'm pretty sure I pay a lot more property taxes than they do. Since sags is always complaining about the rich and how they need to be taxed, I'm pretty sure I pay more income tax. I also have a couple of companies which pay business taxes. 

Never said anything about anyone else on the board, nor did I ever claim to have the highest net worth. Maybe try reading my footer, since you don't read much else and then stop make things up.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> I'm not sure that you do pay more. Why would you ?
> 
> After all, you are a wealthy real estate person with a following of lawyers and accountants and lots of tax deductions at your disposal.
> 
> It is possible that someone in your position pays no taxes at all.


Well spoken like someone with no clue about how the tax system works. 

First off, not a lot of deductions for property taxes. You can appeal and get them lowered, but that only works to a point. 

As for deductions, you don't get to keep the money. For every dollar you deduct, you actually had to spend it. He difference between a deduction and paying taxes is you get some control over where the money is spent, but it all goes to supporting society. For example, if you hire a lawyer or an accountant, say a contractor, you've provided income for someone else (they may have to pay taxes on that income, so it does tend to go to the government in the end). When I buy supplies, it stimulates the economy directly and guess what, it doesn't wind up in my pocket. Same with charitable donations. I know 100% of my donations to the poor actually goes to helping the poor as opposed to maybe 10 cents on the dollar after all levels of government take their share. 

Also, while you can minimize taxes, most people still wind up paying something to the government. There are many taxes out there that you probably will never even see. Small business taxes, HST, not to mention all the hidden taxes government has on businesses. 

If one didn't have deductions, it would be up to the government as to where the money is spent, and their track record is less than stellar.

Oh yeah, another little fact about taxes, not all deductions are credited at a 1 to 1 ratio. Some you need to donate more than $2 to get $1 of tax credits.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> I'm not sure that you do pay more. Why would you ?
> 
> After all, you are a wealthy real estate person with a following of lawyers and accountants and lots of tax deductions at your disposal.
> 
> It is possible that someone in your position pays no taxes at all.


That's a myth Sags. Politicians and the poor will always point to this but it is a myth. Perhaps the rich do not pay some particular marginal tax rate, that some politician thought they should pay, when they were giving their money away to someone else, but the rich do pay the majority of the freight in this country and just about every other country. Don't kid yourself.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The wealthy pay most of the "income" taxes because they earn most of the income, but they pay on average nowhere near the marginal rate of taxes.

They also don't pay anywhere close to the majority of a multitude of other taxes........sales tax, vehicle and license taxes, tariffs on goods, gasoline taxes...........etc.

Those taxes are paid by the mass of consumers, not a handful of rich people.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

JAGS....You said you support the economy by spending your money. That is no different than other people spending government benefits. They also support the economy.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> The wealthy pay most of the "income" taxes because they earn most of the income, but they pay on average nowhere near the marginal rate of taxes.
> 
> They also don't pay anywhere close to the majority of a multitude of other taxes........sales tax, vehicle and license taxes, tariffs on goods, gasoline taxes...........etc.
> 
> Those taxes are paid by the mass of consumers, not a handful of rich people.


They pay the majority of taxes. Let's not nitpik to justify your version of the story. Paying more is paying more. Thank them and move on.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> JAGS....You said you support the economy by spending your money. That is no different than other people spending government benefits. They also support the economy.


One minor difference, I have to actually earn the money before I can spend it. Which means I created value. Spending money is easy, earning it is the more difficult part. Government handouts doesn’t create value any more than you giving money to someone else and them spending it. 

As for the wealthy not paying all those other taxes, since the wealthy tend to purchase more expensive and more items on a per person basis, they wind up paying more of all those taxes, just like they pay more income taxes.

BTW, adding an “S” to the initials of my name makes no sense from an English point of view.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

sags said:


> The wealthy pay most of the "income" taxes because they earn most of the income, but they pay on average nowhere near the marginal rate of taxes.
> 
> They also don't pay anywhere close to the majority of a multitude of other taxes........sales tax, vehicle and license taxes, tariffs on goods, gasoline taxes...........etc.
> 
> Those taxes are paid by the mass of consumers, not a handful of rich people.


No they don't. Again, the top 10% earn 35% of income yet pay 55% of income taxes. The lefty SJW wont be happy until they get a completely free ride off the backs of the makers in society.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If the taxes collected rate is 30% after deductions, and the wealthy paid 55% of that amount...........they paid less than an 18% tax rate.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You can try to get creative with your math but, at the end of the day, the cash going out is much more than any “poor” person. Not only that, but they made the money, didn’t take it from someone else. 

If we had two people and treated one differently because of the colour of their skin, where they live, etc. We call it discrimination. However, if we have two people standing side by side and one worked hard to make money, then we call it “fair” to treat them differently and demand they give more.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> They pay the majority of taxes. Let's not nitpik to justify your version of the story. Paying more is paying more. Thank them and move on.


Correct. Well stated. 



Just a Guy said:


> One minor difference, I have to actually earn the money before I can spend it. Which means I created value. Spending money is easy, earning it is the more difficult part. Government handouts doesn’t create value any more than you giving money to someone else and them spending it.
> 
> As for the wealthy not paying all those other taxes, since the wealthy tend to purchase more expensive and more items on a per person basis, they wind up paying more of all those taxes, just like they pay more income taxes.
> 
> BTW, adding an “S” to the initials of my name makes no sense from an English point of view.


^game, set, match.



Its so peculiar to me to read such extreme socialist ideas and myths perpetuated on a financial forum. I guess some folks will try anything to further their cause.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sags, I have a cousin with a similar world view. He worked at GM out of high school, did very well on his his union-negotiated benefits, has all the 'boy toys', got out before the car-maker went bankrupt (not nearly as lucrative for current employees), lives at his cottage on a nice pension & benefits, will vote NDP till death, slams 'the wealthy' as not paying their share, supports a basic income, but still feels the government owes him lower taxes, gasoline prices and utilities, better health care, etc. 
An interesting guy to talk politics and economy with once he has a few beers in him.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The "trickle down economists" have landed.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Sags, I have a cousin with a similar world view. He worked at GM out of high school, did very well on his his union-negotiated benefits, has all the 'boy toys', got out before the car-maker went bankrupt (not nearly as lucrative for current employees), lives at his cottage on a nice pension & benefits, will vote NDP till death, slams 'the wealthy' as not paying their share, supports a basic income, but still feels the government owes him lower taxes, gasoline prices and utilities, better health care, etc.
> An interesting guy to talk politics and economy with once he has a few beers in him.


 "Interesting" indeed. 

I don't think you missed any part of it other than being on the union negotiating team. Sure he doesn't frequent CMF? 

Thanks for the great chuckle OMO. Much appreciated.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

sags said:


> If the taxes collected rate is 30% after deductions, and the wealthy paid 55% of that amount...........they paid less than an 18% tax rate.


Despite your leftist obfuscations, they still pay a 30% 'effective' rate and a disproportionate amount of tax no matter how much socialist spin you put on it.

Meanwhile 40% of people pay ~ 0% tax. That is what you should be whining about.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The GM guy shows why union membership is so important. 

Unions faded away when the corporations convinced workers they didn't need them anymore. We can see how big a mistake that was.

Don't count on an employer looking after you. They are trying to figure out ways of getting rid of you instead.

Blood, sweat and sacrifice was spent to form unions but it lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Don't count on an employer looking after you. They are trying to figure out ways of getting rid of you instead.


If an employee provides competent labour that an employer requires, why would they be trying to figure out ways of getting rid of you?

In that light, if you aren't providing competent labour, or the employers business has no further need of your services, why is it the employers job to look after you?

ltr


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

like_to_retire said:


> If an employee provides competent labour that an employer requires, why would they be trying to figure out ways of getting rid of you?


It doesn't make a lot of sense but I've seen it first hand a large number of times.

In my case, myself and about 40 others were laid off and replaced by non-Canadian contractors at a higher cost. A few of the folks being laid off were dead weight but most of them were pretty decent resources. The off-shoring idea was flushed several years later, along with the executives who did it, and it's all back in-house now.

I recall when the field services department was terminated and replaced with a service contract. These guys had set up a service agreement with a major bank to provide field service to them. The department was literally cash flowing. All were whacked and replaced with an expensive contract. At the information session, the executives were asked about how a cash flowing department could be replaced by a service contract in a cost effective manner and they presented a graph that showed a saving of a couple of mil.

A bunch of us ended up being laid off, replaced with non-Canadian workers, and given substantial severance. A few of the folks they cut were hired back on contract. It was unreal.

It is not reasonable to assume executives are any smarter than worker bees. It's reasonable to assume executives are more alpha but not smarter.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> sags said:
> 
> 
> > ... Don't count on an employer looking after you. They are trying to figure out ways of getting rid of you instead.
> ...


I've seen a range of reasons over the years.

The most recent was because the bean counters said the quarterly numbers were too low, which meant two employees had to be terminated, at the choice of the manager. It was pointed out that this required calling in staff from money making contracts. Added that was that to avoid breach of contract, replacements would have to be found. 

The response from the bean counters/upper management was "Nice to know ... now which two employees have you decided to fire?"
Firing skilled labour that had shown their worth from money making contacts to take a crap shoot with replacements made no sense to me but was what happened.


Cheers


*PS*

In one case, where the firing was politically motivated - the employee was fired on Friday, was hired over the weekend by the software vendor for the software he specilised in. He was then assigned to the same company, at a much higher billing rate than what was paid as an employee.

The HR folks and manager were puzzled then upset to see the fired employee sitting at the consultant's desk on Monday morning. :biggrin:


Bottom line is just because some companies/managers make rational decisions does not change that it can be a wild and wacky business world out there. :wink:


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

TomB19 said:


> I find myself not aligning with the vast majority of philosophy shared on CMF ...


Isn't the point of a forum such as this to hear other sides to agree, disagree or decide it is irrelevant?
For that matter - I don't recall much of a group philosophy as just about every thread I have read have some for, some against, some asking questions etc.



TomB19 said:


> ... I'd like to hear the feeling others have regarding their alignment with CMF group think. Do other folks feel they mostly find themselves sharing the group philosophy or does everyone feel they are unique?


Agree with some, disagree with some, don't care about some and am surprised at some.




TomB19 said:


> ... Responses appreciated.


You are welcome.


Cheers


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

sags said:


> The "trickle down economists" have landed.


Agreed. There are some pretty stark points of view in here. In my case, I'm a contrarian. 

The idea that business owners are heroes and employees are parasites is moronic. I haven't heard that specific thought but it is trending in that direction.

As for wealthy people paying less tax, that's just a fact. A millionaire investor in most provinces can earn $50K/year in dividends and pay zero tax. Surely, someone who is living exclusively on distributions is bringing less to the world than someone earning $50K/year providing a service.

As a business owner, my life is structured to minimize tax. I expect this is pretty much ubiquitous. It's the only thing that makes sense. If you can pull a salary from your business or a dividend, you're probably going to pull a dividend and pay your immediate family members a small salary.

I was an employee for a couple of decades. Those were not my highest earning years but they were certainly my highest tax years.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

One of the reasons a company can lay off an employee and then hire them as a consultant for more money is it can, in fact, save money. 

Contractors don’t get CPP, EI, vacation pay, insurance and other benefits. These can add up quickly and cost can be as much as 50% over the base pay. Also, if a contractor doesn’t show up, maybe sick, they don’t get paid.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Where logic prevails ... sure.

For the political firing from my PS in post # 60, the vendor was paid the employee's old annual salary in a bit under two months so even if the employee's benefits doubled their salary - the company still lost out financially. 

Similar to the company the new management preferring contractors for computer network wiring ... despite the contractors being electricians at more than double the employee that would have done it, never mind the proposal to have the bulk of the work done by co-ops students to get the job over with more quickly/cheaply. 


Either way - my point is YMMV dramatically.


Cheers


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

I think many of the people making these decisions cling to political philosophy like a religion. If they believe in outsourcing, they will out source, even at a multiple of the cost.

I've seen it go the other way, also. I've seen managers set up departments where there just isn't any justification to do so. They would have been better off to continue contracting out the work and pay the premium than to insource. These instances are more rare, these days, but both sides of this coin are represented.

The idea that someone has to be reasonable to become a manager is ridiculous. Many are reasonable and smart. Some are pretty far out there and many are grumpy as hell.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

TomB19 said:


> ... As for wealthy people paying less tax, that's just a fact. A millionaire investor in most provinces can earn $50K/year in dividends and pay zero tax. Surely, someone who is living exclusively on distributions is bringing less to the world than someone earning $50K/year providing a service.
> 
> As a business owner, my life is structured to minimize tax. I expect this is pretty much ubiquitous. It's the only thing that makes sense. If you can pull a salary from your business or a dividend, you're probably going to pull a dividend and pay your immediate family members a small salary.


Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like paragraph 1 is distainful of those who pay low taxes on dividend income, but proud of those in paragraph 2 who structure their business to pay low taxes and spread it around efficiently among family members?

I place myself into paragraph 1, but I reached that point by paying taxes and saving after-tax income to establish the portfolio that provides my dividend stream - dividends that are paid by companies with their own tax obligations before they hand any to me. 

You seem to be taking a 'snapshot in time' and rolling out an old cliche about how peope with millions can pay almost no tax. I suppose there are a few lucky inheritances or lottery ticket winners, but I think it is worth considering that the rest of those people have taken chances and/or paid millions in taxes over their career (hint - add up line 435 of the T1 over 40 years), while materially helping less fortunate folks along the way. 
Are you expressing distain for those people?

Everyone doesn't make the same career and living choices, or exercise financial prudence in their life. That does mean that we don't all end up at the same place. I don't distain anyone across that spectrum who is hard-working and honest. I save my distain for dishonest people, or those who are capable but think the world owes them a living.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Hard to justify a position of middle management if you’ve got no one to manage. Funny thing is, you present them as if they are the top of the food chain. In many cases managers are a necessary evil, they don’t produce a lot, are mainly focused on office politics and keeping their jobs. The funny thing is you seem to think this is a position of intelligence. Government is full of middle managers, I think that speaks for itself.

I gather, from your comments, that you own a holding company more so than an active company.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

TomB19 said:


> Agreed. There are some pretty stark points of view in here. In my case, I'm a contrarian.
> 
> As for wealthy people paying less tax, that's just a fact. A millionaire investor in most provinces can earn $50K/year in dividends and pay zero tax. Surely, someone who is living exclusively on distributions is bringing less to the world than someone earning $50K/year providing a service.


That is because the company has already paid tax 1 x on their earnings and 2x if it was from investment income held in the company. Then the dividend is paid to the millionaires you have a disdain for and guess what? It is taxed again for maybe the 3rd time.

It is called the concept of 'tax parity'. So a $ earned through a company is taxed at the same rate in total as a $ earned from employment. Something the CRA has strived to achieve . Hope that clears it up.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Tom is accurate. There is a substantial difference in how taxes are calculated on working people and the wealthy.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It doesn’t change the fact that the wealthy still pay more.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Taxpayers subsidize the rich........

_*Every year, the richest 10 per cent get tax breaks of almost $58 billion*. Those breaks have an impact on our capacity to deliver the services that make Canada a great place to live: health care, child care and education._

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/06/05/why-is-canadas-tax-system-subsidizing-the-very-rich/

_The federal Liberal Party's recent election promise to create a new tax bracket for rich Canadians has been quickly decried by - well, rich Canadians. But is it an appropriate and sensible approach to fiscal policy? The answer is unequivocal: yes._

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/should-we-be-taxing-the-rich-1-more-1.3069170

_A recent U.S Congressional Budget Office study found that *Canadian corporations, on average, paid an effective tax rate of 8.5 per cent* — a lot lower than the statutory combined federal and provincial corporate tax rate of 26 per cent.

And if that isn’t bad enough, our bilateral tax treaties have encouraged well-known Canadian multinationals to set up subsidiaries in tax havens. The current language in many of those treaties makes it possible to shift corporate money to an offshore subsidiary where tax rates are low or non-existent. Eventually, that untaxed money finds its way home again — and *never encounters the tax collector.*_

Since the Panama Papers and other investigative journalism into offshore accounts, we now know that many wealthy Canadians and corporations make full use of offshore accounts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Sorry..........but I don't spill any tears for the wealthy.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Corporations should be mostly pass through organizations. The government isn’t supposed to tax taxes, or double/triple tax people. 

Therefore, the money paid to an employee, or supplier, or contractors, etc. Shouldn’t be taxed as the end user ultimately pays the taxes.

The only taxes a corporation should pay is on profits it retains because then it’s the end user.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

> In Ontario, once you factor in personal and federal taxes, the top combined PIT (personal Income tax) rate stands at 53.5%, the second-highest rate in North America, and one of the highest rates in the developed world.
> 
> This tax burden puts us at a competitive disadvantage in attracting high income earners (and therefore major contributors to provincial tax revenue) relative to neighbouring jurisdictions. Ontario’s top combined personal income tax rate is approximately five percentage points higher than our famously high-tax neighbour New York state (although New York City residents pay a municipal income tax as well).



Top top 10% again are already overtaxed by any measure. The left also don't understand simple economics. High taxes kills jobs and growth but the left wont be happy until someones else pays their way entirely.



> How badly do these high personal income taxes hurt the provincial economy? New research suggests the answer is “quite badly”. University of Calgary economist Bev Dahlby recently showed that raising one dollar of revenue in Ontario through the provincial PIT costs $7 in lost economic activity.


http://torontosun.com/2017/04/18/ou...jobs/wcm/be705f1f-5e29-43f3-8781-34ce38ecb3cf


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Harper lowered corporate taxes. It failed to create jobs.

Harper is now milking cows in Calgary and Trudeau is the PM.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Harper created 1M jobs after the recession try.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Well, Canada is in a recession, real estate prices are tumbling, unemployment is high, taxes are higher, interest rates are rising, debt is growing, the pipelines he promised are sitting and Justin plays mr. Dressup. At least he cows are producing something.


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

How am I different?

I generally don't purchase in interest bearing investments.
I don't think market volatility is the same thing as risk.
I don't think debt is necessarily bad.
I watch what I spend, but I am not super frugal.
Politically, I am somewhere to the right of Darth Vader.


----------

