[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

They are attracting a room of unlikely people because everyone sees the writing on the wall.   

Probably very true.

[Jacob]

As for adverse tax policy, I suppose you're right. But if, as you say, the writing is one the wall, we'll see one way or the other. I guess if things turn out as dire as you predict, the silver lining for you is that you'll be right

[crazy canuck]

As for adverse tax policy, I suppose you're right. But if, as you say, the writing is one the wall, we'll see one way or the other. I guess if things turn out as dire as you predict, the silver lining for you is that you'll be right

The silver lining is we will be able to go another couple decades before people forget again.

[crazy canuck]

You are welcome.  Next time you guys are paying for the beer!

The top 1 per cent of earners in Canada paid 21.2 per cent of federal and provincial income taxes in 2010, while earning just 10.6 per cent of the country's income. They are a net benefit to Canada. Occupy that.

The Occupy movement in Canada never really took off, for many reasons. Its goals were unclear and its methods grated, especially on neighbours of occupied spaces. But maybe, just maybe, there was another reason: The top 1 per cent of earners is not really a problem in Canada.

And why should it be? There is no wall around it. Over a five-year period, nearly half of the 1 per cent dropped out, to be replaced by others, according to a Statistics Canada paper released this week.

And the 1 per cent is not some distant speck of light in some far-off universe. The lowest earner in the group earned $201,400 (the figure includes job earnings, investment income and pensions) in 2010. And like many a despised group before them, they defy stereotyping. Forty-two per cent of the 1 per cent don't even have a university degree. Not many are investment bankers. A good number are doctors, dentists and veterinarians, and others are managers, according to a separate paper from the University of British Columbia, based on the 2005 census. (Presumably, some are entrepreneurs.)

The top echelon of earners in Canada has nowhere near the share of national income of the 16.8 per cent controlled by their counterparts in the United States. In fact, the 1 per cent in Canada has lost a little ground from its top mark of 12.1 per cent in 2006. (Yes, we know; we'll take up a collection.) And what is the "right" level for the 1 per cent? One per cent? In Sweden, which some consider a model of equality, the top 1 per cent of earners in 2007 had 7 per cent of the income. At 10.6 per cent, Canada is closer to egalitarian Sweden than to the unequal U.S.

Even in Sweden, though, people say that making lots of money is an incentive to work. With globalization of everything – business, education, labour – the higher end will move higher. We still need to do our best as a society to ensure equality of opportunity, to reduce child poverty, to create good schools for everyone. The Statistics Canada paper suggests the 1 per cent are doing their part to pay for that.

[Jacob]

Source?

[garbon]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/the-1-per-cent-get-a-bad-rap/article7969542/

[Jacob]

Thanks

Yeah, I think Canada is in the ballpark of getting it right.

[Josephus]

there's no doubt that Canada's nothing like the US.

That said, I still think we should shoot the one percent. I mean, why not?

[Jacob]

there's no doubt that Canada's nothing like the US.

That said, I still think we should shoot the one percent. I mean, why not?

For two reasons that go together:

1) You shoot the 1% you get rid of a fair amount of socially useful knowledge and skills. This will set your society back.

2) The dead 1% will be replaced by a new 1%. They may be a different flavour, but they won't be any better - in fact, they'll likely be worse by dint of the fact they're the new 1% because they're good at navigating bloody purges.

[Josephus]

Good point. Let's shoot the top...say, 20 per cent. One big, gigantic purge.

[sarcasm]

[Ed Anger]

 

[Neil]

Yeah, the only people who raise the issue of the 1% in Canada are retards and douchebags.  It's just not a serious issue.

[crazy canuck]

And here I thought I was going to get praise for paying more than my fair share of taxes.

[Josephus]

Seriously are you in the top 1 per cent?

I dig that you're a lawyer and all, but I thought that class was reserved for bank ceos and insurance company honchos.

Malthus insists he's middle class.

PS: Im not doubting or questioning you. I'm just curious. Top 1 per cent is a pretty exclusive class. And there's a fuck of a lot of lawyers around.

[Barrister]

Seriously are you in the top 1 per cent?

I dig that you're a lawyer and all, but I thought that class was reserved for bank ceos and insurance company honchos.

Malthus insists he's middle class.

PS: Im not doubting or questioning you. I'm just curious. Top 1 per cent is a pretty exclusive class. And there's a fuck of a lot of lawyers around.

Depends how you define top 1%.

If it is by income then I have no doubt Malthus and CC are amongst the top 1% of income earners.

If it is by net worth... then I don't know.  I have no idea what kind of investments etc. they have.