how-to block ads
|reply to dirtyjeffer |
Re: To be 1% in Canada is to make $201,000
said by dirtyjeffer:That is called inflation. said by Last Parade:
I'm making as much now as it took my dad to make in 25 years at his job.
i make more in a day than my parents made a week in the mid 60s.
A "basket" of goods and services that cost: $100 in 1965
...would cost: $708.77 in 2012
I frequently make more in 1 day in the stock market now than I made in a whole year when I started out after college in the 70's.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
|reply to Dones |
They got the stats from...
that is the stats from all tax payers...so from about 16 years until after death AND YES you owe taxes after death.
dirtyjefferAnons on ignore, but not due to fear.Premium
|reply to FFH |
i know that, hence my winky and tongue stuck out smiley.
Wolfie00My dog is an elitistPremium
|reply to FFH |
As with many things that are hard to quantify and subject to a wide array of variables like cultural factors, its not always going to be an ironclad or perfect correlation -- but it's there...
digitalfuturSees More Than ShownPremium
|reply to Dones |
A less classicist analysis of the Statscan numbers reveals the usual omissions designed to present a particular point of view, a bias that an ostensibly impartial statistics agency should not in the business of.
Among Canadas 1%-ers, senior managers and CEOs, the ritual target of Occupy, are overrepresented relative to their share of the population at large but account for only 14% of the group. Who else is there? Yes, other financial professionals and executives, for whom the 1990s and early 2000s were pretty good, but physicians, dentists and veterinarians accounted for a full tenth of the 1%-ers, and they represent rather less than 10% of the population. Taken together, those with medical, dental or veterinary or other post-grad degrees account for almost a third of the high earners.
And, from an industry perspective, Prof. Fortin and co-authors observe also that 16% of the top group are professional, scientific and technical employees. They rather dryly note, too, that recent policy measures, such as a targeted tax on the rich, would mostly target people who are neither top executives nor financial professionals.
...The income shares, over three decades (in fact, since the early 1950s) have hardly budged, and the figure could almost be drawn with a ruler. Because I have used a broad income measure income after tax [not measured by StatsCan], including capital gains we can see a pop in the 95-99% share reported in 1994. That is because the federal government of the day rolled back, except for farmers and some others the lifetime capital gains exemption that had existed since the last half of the 1980s. Those who had gains reported them then, because it was their last chance to get a healthy break on taxes on the taxable share of their wealth.
Another factor pushing down the reported earnings among the bottom 50%, is a sharp rise, a 10-percentage point rise since the 1980s, in the portion of the population turning up on the tax-filer database. This is because of the growth in refundable federal and provincial tax credits, eligibility for which requires low-income earners to file returns.
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.