Canadian Money Forum banner

61 - 80 of 87 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,513 Posts
Discussion Starter #61
Many posters on CMF don't appear jealous of wealthy people at all.

They actually appear jealous and resentful of those people who piss all their money away on electronics, cars, homes, vacations, and good times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Many posters on CMF don't appear jealous of wealthy people at all.

They actually appear jealous and resentful of those people who piss all their money away on electronics, cars, homes, vacations, and good times.
No one is jealous of people who piss their money away but I can see being resentful for having to bail irresponsible people out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Why on earth would we be jealous of those who piss all their money away and then are left with a retirement that they did not envisage? Not resentful at all since it has zero impact on us. We certainly would not have any sympathy for them but I have no doubt that they would not be looking for sympathy in any event.

We would only bail out once and only bail out someone who has respect for money. Not someone who would start to fritter it away once they got bailed out. There would be no point to that.

Speak to a banker about Helocs. Not uncommon for people to go the heloc route in order to covert lots of high interest consumer credit card debt to low interest heloc. Makes sense....only many of them do not learn a lessen. They go right out and max the cards out again. Then back to the heloc. Eventually even their home equity has been eaten away by needless consumer debt. I doubt whether forgiving their debt would change their spending habits so why on earth even bother to think about it.

The banks love this. And it is great for the stock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
Why on earth would we be jealous of those who piss all their money away and then are left with a retirement that they did not envisage? Not resentful at all since it has zero impact on us. We certainly would not have any sympathy for them but I have no doubt that they would not be looking for sympathy in any event.

We would only bail out once and only bail out someone who has respect for money. Not someone who would start to fritter it away once they got bailed out. There would be no point to that.

Speak to a banker about Helocs. Not uncommon for people to go the heloc route in order to covert lots of high interest consumer credit card debt to low interest heloc. Makes sense....only many of them do not learn a lessen. They go right out and max the cards out again. Then back to the heloc. Eventually even their home equity has been eaten away by needless consumer debt. I doubt whether forgiving their debt would change their spending habits so why on earth even bother to think about it.

The banks love this. And it is great for the stock.
I agree with all of that. My experience is that people who can't manage money, can't manage money. End of story. As you say, they consolidate debt and then just run up more debt again. A never ending cycle.

It does however tend to catch up with them and end when they get older. When they can no longer work and have to live on nothing but government pensions, the cycle ends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,513 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
Don't assume that "spenders" always end up broke. Maybe they have more money to spend than you do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
Don't assume that "spenders" always end up broke. Maybe they have more money to spend than you do.
I have no idea what you are trying to suggest sags. Anyone who spends more than they earn will end up broke when they can no longer generate an income.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Take a look at demographics of the consumer debt statistics in Canada. They tell a story. Especially about where some people will be in retirement based on their consumer credit stats in the mid to late fifties. Scary. We know a few people like this who are now into their retirement years. They have discovered, much to their chagrin, that it is too late to turn that ship around to another course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,971 Posts
Take a look at demographics of the consumer debt statistics in Canada. They tell a story. Especially about where some people will be in retirement based on their consumer credit stats in the mid to late fifties. Scary. We know a few people like this who are now into their retirement years. They have discovered, much to their chagrin, that it is too late to turn that ship around to another course.
Just curious on what is happening to these people on retirement? Are they facing any of the consequences of their lack of savings in their younger years.

We have always been savers for our retirement and despite a good income, feel we spend a lot less than many who make a fraction of what we do. With all the handouts and debt forgiveness, I sometimes question why we do the responsible thing if everyone ends up at the a similar place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
Just curious on what is happening to these people on retirement? Are they facing any of the consequences of their lack of savings in their younger years.

We have always been savers for our retirement and despite a good income, feel we spend a lot less than many who make a fraction of what we do. With all the handouts and debt forgiveness, I sometimes question why we do the responsible thing if everyone ends up at the a similar place.
Nope, no consequences to face PA.

As you point out, the indolent get rewarded. What? You saved little for retirement? Okay, we'll give you OAS, funded by those who were diligent. What, you did an even crappier job at saving? No problem! We'll give you GIS to boot. The savers don't mind funding that one either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
Nope, no consequences to face PA.

As you point out, the indolent get rewarded. What? You saved little for retirement? Okay, we'll give you OAS, funded by those who were diligent. What, you did an even crappier job at saving? No problem! We'll give you GIS to boot. The savers don't mind funding that one either.
I think that is a bit simplistic and unrealistic Mukhang pera. Would you really want to live on just OAS and GIS? Would you feel it afforded you a reasonable quality of life?

Being poor sucks and being poor when you are elderly sucks even more. Those who failed to plan for their retirement and end up with a very basic income in their old age suffer for it without a doubt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
I think that is a bit simplistic and unrealistic Mukhang pera. Would you really want to live on just OAS and GIS? Would you feel it afforded you a reasonable quality of life?

Being poor sucks and being poor when you are elderly sucks even more. Those who failed to plan for their retirement and end up with a very basic income in their old age suffer for it without a doubt.
No, of course it would not afford me what I would find an acceptable quality of life. But for many, it's just fine.

Here's an example. I know a man who is now closing in on age 60. When he was in his 30s. he worked at a union job, quite well paid, in an aspect of construction. Worked on a lot of large projects. Fairly well paid.

When he wanted to go further, he was told he would have to take some courses. So he signed up. He soon found that he struggled with course work, with reading and reading comprehension. His instructors noticed right away and arranged for him to be tested. The result of the testing was that he was told that he should forget about book learning. It would always be beyond him. He was told that he was "disabled" and that he could get government money. They told him "You deserve it", so he took it. He's on a BC program called "Persons With Multiple Barriers to Employment" or something like that. So, more than 20 years ago he downed tools and went on the public tit. He gets, today, about $1,100 a month, plus some benefits.

He showed me some of his tests and results of same from when he was labelled as "disabled". I was a bit surprised. For quite a few of the tests the grading system was something of a comparison to others. The rating was along the lines of "average, below average, well below average, somewhat above average and superior" Those are not all the correct terms, and not a full list, but you get the idea. I was surprised at the number of items in which he was rated above average or superior. Those were in areas of manual dexterity, etc. But still, he got the government allowance. He accepted with alacrity and never worked again. He scoffs at those of us who trade our time for money. I mean it. He thinks he has the world by the tail. He is more than content with his lot. He stretches his allowance with work under the table (I think he can earn up to $500 a month with no deduction...he often earns more). He can do a lot of things. He can paint houses, don diving gear and clean boat hulls, work at seafood processing; he can drive any machine. But he's disabled.

He is also astute about finding women to live with who supply room and board. Then they'll take off to places like Vietnam for 4 -6 months most winters. His allowance is supposed to stop if he's out of province for more than 30 days, but no one checks or cares. He has his bases covered. He has someone check his mail, the same person who is willing to say he receives $450 in rent every month from our poor disabled guy (who, in fact, seldom pays rent).

This man is "disabled" the way about 70% of the population is "disabled". He lacks the ability to become a doctor, lawyer, engineer, leader of business, etc. He is more than content to accept the disabled label. It is bestowed by university-trained social workers and those working with them, who think that anyone who cannot do as they have done must be labouring under some sort of disability.

So I would say it is you, LTA, who is being unrealistic and simplistic here. To be denied the ability to hike in the Swiss Alps, to own a bar in Greece, to be spared the ignominy of having to fly cattle class, would all be anathema to you. You cannot imagine a life without a fair amount of creature comfort and indulgences. You apparently find it inconceivable that some are content to get by on a pittance. You must see them as wallowing in a world of envy and self-pity and regretting their misspent youth. Well, that is just not so.

I doubt very much the fellow of whom I speak is some kind of one-off curiosity. I think there are many, many like him. I know that beyond peradventure. If they can be supported from the public purse and have unlimited free time from an early age, they are content. When this guy gets to age 65, I expect his present allowance will terminate, or be reduced, and OAP and GIS will take over and his lifestyle will change not a whit. You may see him as "suffering". He sees all the worker bees as those who suffer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,513 Posts
Discussion Starter #72
You are seriously hurt at work and you collect WSIB. Your right to sue the employer was eliminated in exchange.

Here is what happens to you..........deeming. These people end up on CPP Disability ($1000 a month) or Ontario Works (welfare ....$700 a month)

I doubt many people are enjoying the lifestyle. Average rent for a one bedroom apartment in our city is more than that.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,513 Posts
Discussion Starter #73
One of the reasons Canada is such a great country is our social programs.

In every poll ever taken, Canadians have clearly said they would rather pay more taxes than cut social programs.

Politicians who didn't get the message got the heave ho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,863 Posts
Canadians have clearly said they would rather pay more taxes than cut social programs.
Socialist drivel.

Sensible working people do not think that. We pay enough in taxes.

Taking money from those that earn it and giving it to those that don't is the socialist mantra.

Stop trying to get everything for free.

ltr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,850 Posts
You are seriously hurt at work and you collect WSIB. Your right to sue the employer was eliminated in exchange.
I would say a better course would be to rescind the 'historic tradeoff' now so widely lamented by worker groups. Get government out of it altogether and restore the right to sue. More work for lawyers and no cost to society. Now, the cost of WCB programs is borne, initially, by employers, who pay a percentage of payroll to in WCB assessments. In turn, it gets passed on to the rest of us. In BC, the cost to employers is according to rate class and individual employer "experience rating" within that class. For example, logging has a higher rate of expensive claims the business of running a daycare. The logging corporation pays a higher percentage of payroll. I say let them pay nothing, and see if they get sued.

In BC, the WCB came in in 1917, a little bit before I became a lawyer, so I am not familiar with the jurisprudence of the day. But I wonder how easy it was to sue. For many actions to prevail, it must have been seen by the courts as some kind of a sui generis endeavour, with principles of near absolute liability applied. I would doubt that, but I don't know. As my granny would have said: "Was ya' there Charlie?".

Ordinarily, to sue anyone for personal injury, we are looking at the application of ordinary principles of negligence law. Concepts of foreseeability, of duty and standard or care, breach of duty, causation, contributory negligence, remoteness of damage, all come into play. So take our gyppo logger for example. He has a few guys out there in the woods falling. So, one of them is felling a nice old growth Douglas fir. As he is near completion of his felling cut, the thing barber chairs on him and he has not yet followed his escape route to a place of safety. He is grievously injured as the log rolls off the stump. Or the cut is otherwise unremarkable, but he gets clobbered by a widow maker. I have a difficult time in either scenario laying blame at the feet of the employer. How was the employer negligent? In what duty did he fail, that produced the injury?

Another scenario. In BC, for some years, so-called RSIs (repetitive strain injuries) have been in vogue. Not much heard of in 1917 I would guess. They take a variety of forms - tendonitis, tenosynovitis, epicondylitis, bursitis, etc. A popular one is the dreaded CTS (carpal tunnel syndrome) seen in those who spend a lot of time at keyboards.

I have spent a fair amount of time in offices, working with people who do a lot of keyboarding. A few get CTS. The incidence, in my experience, is fairly low. The fact is, some workers are prone to CTS and some not. You can have two typists, sitting side by side, each using identical equipment, each making the same number of keystrokes per hour and one might be afflicted and the other not al all. In days of old, the prone would have accepted that they were simply not physically compatible with the job and they would have moved on. In sags' world, there is no moving on. Those people should be allowed to say "I hurt and I have to be allowed to retire on an allowance equivalent to what I was earning."

Again, I say let 'em sue, which is what they are whining about being injuncted from doing. Where lies the employer fault? Is the employer to be held liable because the bulk of the employer's workforce has no problem with keyboarding, while the employee with a weak constitution (at least in RSI terms) cannot manage the job? Does that employee get to say: "I cannot or will not change jobs and the world owes me a living?"

I'll vote for the immediate winding up of all WCB programs in Canada. Put an end to the moaning about mean old government. Get government the heck out of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Here is the thing. Canadians are willing to pay more taxes.....as long as it is someone else's taxes and not theirs. And they always assume that is the case when asked if raising taxes is good.


Sags...would you be willing to pay another pay another 5-10 percent of your net income to the CRA? I suspect not, but you would have no problem if I had to pay another ten percent would you?

It reminds me of the unions asking their members to boycott Walmart. As if that would happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,513 Posts
Discussion Starter #77
Socialist drivel.

Sensible working people do not think that. We pay enough in taxes.

Taking money from those that earn it and giving it to those that don't is the socialist mantra.

Stop trying to get everything for free.

ltr
Don't worry. Our income in retirement isn't what it used to be, but it is still 6 figures a year. We won't be needing any of your money..........LOL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
.
In 1970 I was living in Yellowknife and was bidding on contracts in Frobisher Bay.

They always made sure that you needed to work a minimum of 40 hours per week.
Why would anybody work more than 40 hours per week if you could live on 30 hours?
I was renting my 2 bedroom house for 650 bucks per month. (1971)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,513 Posts
Discussion Starter #79
Here is the thing. Canadians are willing to pay more taxes.....as long as it is someone else's taxes and not theirs. And they always assume that is the case when asked if raising taxes is good.


Sags...would you be willing to pay another pay another 5-10 percent of your net income to the CRA? I suspect not, but you would have no problem if I had to pay another ten percent would you?

It reminds me of the unions asking their members to boycott Walmart. As if that would happen.
Since many are concerned about the "spenders", I would be okay with raising the HST to pay the bills

At it's current rate, the HST revenue is about the same as the cost of the OAS/GIS benefits. An increase should be directed to paying down the national debt.

I am a "spender" so I would be paying more, but that is my choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Either way sags....forgiving debt is a dead end solution that simply spreads that debt, in a similar way to a sales tax, among others who do repay their debts. Moreover, it only serves to encourage those who have had their debt forgiven to run out and buy more products and services that they cannot afford.

A new car salesman once told me that he loved selling new cars to people who could obviously not afford them. Why? In his experience those where the people who purchased all the high margin, high commission options on their vehicles. Easy sales to make. Price never seemed to be an inhibitor to them. I have seen this a number of times in my own extended family.
 
61 - 80 of 87 Posts
Top