[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't know vets could make that kind of bank.

[Malthus]

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.

Upper middle class. And that definition is a functional one, doesn't go by income. "Upper class" people tend not to work on salary. I'm basically a well-paid office worker.

It depends on how you define it. If it is by individual earned income, anyone in Canada making over $200,000 is in the "1%".

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng.htm

The net worth tables are fir family net worth and they go up to the $1 million and over table (that accounts for 8%)

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil111a-eng.htm

[crazy canuck]

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.

You should go back and read the article.  The point it was making is that the 1% in Canada isnt the big bad bank exec the occupy folks would have you think.  To be the top 1% in Canada isnt really that big a deal given how low the threshold is in terms of annual income.

[Josephus]

Ok, sorry.

I didn't realize the treshhold in Canada was that low.

[Josephus]

To be the top 1% in Canada isnt really that big a deal given how low the threshold is in terms of annual income.

See, wait, confused again. If it's "No big deal", how come there's only one percent?

Ok, looking at Malthus's tables, I see there's a big divide between >100k and 250K

[Jacob]

To be the top 1% in Canada isnt really that big a deal given how low the threshold is in terms of annual income.

See, wait, confused again. If it's "No big deal", how come there's only one percent?

It means the spread isn't that big, until you get into the top .1% or .001%

[Josephus]

So the anarchists and rabble rousers should change their signs to "Down with the .01 percenters!" 

[crazy canuck]

It is kind of sad actually that people like me and Malthus are in the 1%.  What it really means is that Canada has very few corporations and investors which can drive economic growth and job creation.

[Jacob]

It is kind of sad actually that people like me and Malthus are in the 1%.  What it really means is that Canada has very few corporations and investors which can drive economic growth and job creation.

So you think greater wealth disparity would be better for economy and society in general?

Personally I'd think that increasing wealth in other parts of the income continuum would drive economic growth and job creation more efficiently. I.e. if we're allocating, say, $ 3 billion of extra income amongst Canadians it would have a greater impact on the overall economy if it was distributed to the bottom 50% or the middle 50% than the top 1%.

... but I'm not economic expert, so I may well be wrong

[Neil]

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

Why would you think that?  You're paying your fair share, everything is good.

Mind you, you're a lawyer and so you're a thief, a scam artist and a cultist, but at least you're doing your duty.

[Neil]

Personally I'd think that increasing wealth in other parts of the income continuum would drive economic growth and job creation more efficiently. I.e. if we're allocating, say, $ 3 billion of extra income amongst Canadians it would have a greater impact on the overall economy if it was distributed to the bottom 50% or the middle 50% than the top 1%.

Worthlss Indian trash already gets enough free money.

[Jacob]

Worthlss Indian trash already gets enough free money.

I think its a bit of a stretch to characterize 50% of Canadians like that, be they the bottom or middle income earners.

[Grey Fox]

But Indians trash does get too much money!

Abolish the Reserves! Repeal the Savage Act!

[Neil]

Worthlss Indian trash already gets enough free money.

I think its a bit of a stretch to characterize 50% of Canadians like that, be thy the bottom or middle income earners.

No, but I think it's worthless to cut cheques to poor people.  That was the mistake of the Alberta Tories, wasting money by cutting everybody a $300 cheque every year.  The money is better spent on improvements and dreadnought battleships, things that only the government can provide.

Also, Indians are bad.

[Admiral Yi]

So you think greater wealth disparity would be better for economy and society in general?

Personally I'd think that increasing wealth in other parts of the income continuum would drive economic growth and job creation more efficiently. I.e. if we're allocating, say, $ 3 billion of extra income amongst Canadians it would have a greater impact on the overall economy if it was distributed to the bottom 50% or the middle 50% than the top 1%.

... but I'm not economic expert, so I may well be wrong

In real life you don't get $3 billion of extra income to allocate as you wish.  Which is why, as CC suggests, you need a dynamic entepeneurial class and/or dynamic, expanding corporations to create jobs and extra income.