December 12th, 2011 | |
Posted in Economy
A couple of stories that continue to fan the flames of envy in Canada…in their subtle way.
Shaw paid $25.5-million to retired CEO
The Globe and Mail story is about the retirement plan of recently retired Jim Shaw.. None of the shareholders were asked what they think..
The comments that follow here are 100% against the family that built one of Canada’s most successful businesses. It’s an expected response, and the Globe and Mail uses these types of stories to get people upset. It’s none of their business… if they don’t like Shaw’s rates, cancel. (I am mad at the CBC, but how do I get it off of my TV?)
On a different note, we’re constantly told of how bad off we are.. and how our poverty continues to increase.
Vancouver, the world’s #1 and most livable city, is now #22 in Canada for family income. We’ve fallen behind my home province, Saskatchewan. Oh, dear.
Real earnings show decades of decline in livable Vancouver
Finlayson joins the Occupy movement and social policy activists in arguing that we should be paying a lot more attention to incomes and employment in addition to the more usually cited measurement of gross domestic product (GDP) as an indicator of the health of our economy. Read more:
Some key points:
Why should we pay attention? My parents taught me that income is no one’s business. It’s a private matter and up to each person to make their own.
The creative among us have found a way to keep their income up:
B.C.’s rates may be skewed somewhat by a larger-than-average underground economy and the thousands of British Columbians involved in the production and distribution of illegal drugs, a source of income that few likely declare.
Drugs and Real Estate are the drivers of Vancouver’s wealth and economy… income that isn’t being accounted for. Let’s not talk about that. These folks are making a fortune. That’s what really keeps Vancouver going.
Blame the tax rate:
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives calculates that the cut in provincial taxes between the turn of the century and 2010 is the equivalent of a $3.4 billion annual cut in government program spending. Since most of the benefit of tax cuts goes to the highest income earners, the diminished capacity of the government to provide services is, relatively speaking, a double whammy for the poor.
Because they cut taxes so income-earners could keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY, we now are in decline. No mention of the HST, Carbon Tax, and the other numerous taxes they’ve created to offset all of this..
You’d think that our generous social programs would actually be propping up our standard of living.. lord knows we spend enough.
- Poverty in BC represents a direct cost to government alone of $2.2 to $2.3 billion annually, or close to 6% of the provincial budget.
- The cost to society overall is considerably higher — conservatively estimated at $8.1 to $9.2 billion per year, or between 4.1% and 4.7% of BC’s GDP.
How poverty costs us (me) is something I am not really clear on. Aren’t we spending this money to help lift people out of poverty? If so, why does it keep costing me more?
Shouldn’t we be encouraging business growth, trying to attract high-paying jobs to BC?
Instead, we keep finding new ways to take from the “haves”, skim a chunk off for expanding our gov’t, and give away the rest to the “have nots”.
Encouraging the “poor” or “99%’ers” to blame the rich is the socialists way of extracting more money from all working Canadians.
Let’s call it what it really is – a wealth transfer. And a lousy one that keeps us all down. The game has been going on for far too long.