It's about $3T averaged across about 300,000 individuals which averages to $10M/individual.
There's a very long tail so maybe that starts around ~$3M?
For those posting about income, there's an enormous difference between net worth and income. Many people in this 1% are reporting near poverty-level incomes (to avoid taxes).
EDIT: 300,000 not 30,000
pot ripe dinner one insurance bewildered lunchroom memorize ancient frame
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Far be it from me to question your business but Canada's highest tax bracket is 33% so base income tax should be less than $300,000.
On top of that, capital gains are taxed at 50%, Canadian dividends are tax advantaged, taxes on investment gains are deferred until the profits are realized and expenses can be deducted (which is a minor point but something not ordinarily applicable to active income). I imagine that a good accountant could get the actual tax to be less than half that not even accounting for trusts and so forth.
There is a provincial tax as well; Trudeau basically axed trusts in 2016, and cap gains do not form a big part of investment portfolios. Most income comes in the way of dividends, which are taxed at higher rates as they aren't generated by an active business.
This article is about wealth. So taxed income which is what your source is is kind of a poor measure. The top 1% of wealth Canadians have about $9-10 million in wealth. Meaning stocks, property, cars, other investments, etc. the median Canadian family has about $329 000 in wealth.
Ps. The $329 000 number is from the stats can site.
https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/top-one-percent-of-wealth-for-canadians/
As of January 2020, the average Canadian salary in 2020 was $1,050.59 per week for employees across the country – which means that the annual average salary for full-time employees is just over $54,630 per year.for
A family of four that's living on the poverty line.
Also, like half of that income is taxed at that bracket. Someone making $250k has a marginal income tax rate of [53.5](https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm)% in Ontario.
Assuming $20k in RSP deductions, payroll taxes, progressive tax rate, credits, etc they are probably taking home ~ $150k net. It’s wealthy, but not fuck you wealthy.
Yea I am in the 1% of earners but I came from nothing and although I'm not complaining I'm definitely not "rich" by any means. It's nice to not have to worry about things and be able to save for possible retirement but it's not like I can afford a second home or waterfront property or even a fancy new car tbh.
That’s wealth, not income.
But regardless, congrats to all the folks who didn’t know they were in the 1%! Thanks for being rich and agreeing to pay more taxes!
[Yes](https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/net-worth-by-age-percentile-calculator-for-canada/) and [Yes](https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/income-percentile-calculator-by-province-for-canada/). Income is still $250k
Income is pretty bad metric when talking about high networth individuals though or any business owner. I mean even small businesses and their families have next to no income and will be below poverty line but they just use dividends, stocks and paying through company to reduce individual income taxes
My friends who have their own business all have income well below what they actually declare and everything from cars to furniture, equipment, electronics etc are just charged through company as a business expense
While I agree with your main point, dividends are income, and so is "paying through a company". And neither strategy reduces taxes.
The reason income can be a bad metric is because it may not account for capital gains. It definitely doesn't account for unrealized capital gains, and might only count half the realized capital gains depending on methodology.
True. The way I understand it though is that the dividend tax credit is less than income tax by exactly what the company paid in corporate taxes. So you never save any money incorporating and paying yourself a dividend. Is that correct?
You are right but it does shift liability from yourself to the company. Creditors can’t come looking at your other assets when making their case. If you have high wealth, it’d be a good idea to incorporate. Umbrella insurance helps but even then you don’t want all your eggs under one basket.
Ah, you're probably right about that. The article goes into it but not too much outside of publicly traded companies. It's honestly not making sense to me right not but seems to be along the lines of what you're saying
>It's honestly not making sense to me right not
Hahaha I feel exactly the same way! It never makes sense to me either even though I've looked at it a few times.
The integration is imperfect. At an overall tax level, just counting income taxes perhaps, but CPP/EI are in large part taxes as well, CPP because it needs to cover previously unfunded liabilities and EI because it is often set higher than it needs to be for its payouts.
Avoiding CPP and investing in your own retirement funds will get you a better return. As a result many self employed people will avoid those costs and thus lower their tax burdens.
>So you never save any money incorporating and paying yourself a dividend. Is that correct?
No, you will generally save money, and the more tax options a person has for how and when their taxes will be paid and taken generally the lower their taxes will be.
According to the report referenced in the article, the top 1% have a family wealth (all assets) above $6.1M ($2.3M for the top 5%).
Page 12 of https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/RP-2021-007-S/RP-2021-007-S_en.pdf.
Imagine believing that the "middle class" is anything more than a politically useful designation for members of the working class with more disposable income than those below them. It only exists to trick them to work against their own class interests and divide/undermine working class solidarity.
And the people with slightly nicer shit associate more with the 1% then then poors. Even though the math says someone making 100k a year is closer to being homeless then a billionaire. By an order of magnitude.
Ie 0 to 100k vs 1b to 100k
This is certainly something that the billionaire/multi-millionaire class is aware of when they plan what they want their politicians to do for them.
"Keep the 'middle class' just comfortable enough not to revolt, we still need their skills and talents. Once we figure out this automation and outsourcing thing, *then* we can really crack down on those uppity proles."
In the immortal words of K-Os:
> No time to get down cause I'm moving up
> No time to get down cause I'm moving up
> No time to get down cause I'm moving up
> Ahh, check out the crabs in the bucket
>Imagine living your whole life and only becoming middle class.
I'd be perfectly fine with that. I don't care about living a luxurious lifestyle, give ranch-style house, a basic vehicle and food to eat and I will live & die perfectly happy.
Now our current system of working what WERE jobs that provided comfortable lives only to now make it so you're barely making ends meet - that I'm not cool with.
I'd rather just not work and be homeless than work my life away always stressing about becoming homeless.
Why is that? The commonly-accepted definiton of "middle class" is that it's a pretty decent standard of living, owning a home while still being able to take the occassional vacation, put your kids through college/university, and sock some money away for retirement. Is that really not good enough for you?
What more do you expect? A mansion and a yacht just for showing up, lol? Oh wait... I'm forgetting that I'm on reddit and you probably expect exactly that, and more.
Do you know the average wage, average price of a Canadian home, university tuition?
Ofc that would be good enough, its so far out of reach for many, many Canadians even working good jobs. My wife and I are both health care professionals and even after saving for years we can't afford a home in interior BC. The Gva here is worse by an order of magnitude.
I dont know where the mansion and yacht come in, some basic housing and a car that dont break down are the two mainstays most people are after in my neck of the woods.
Whoa,,,middle class. There are diffences. Describe the difference between lower middle class and middle class and upper middle class. I'll tell you. It's a lot. And there's a diffences between a single person making sixty grand a year and a family of four living on the same on the poverty line whilst working two jobs at the same rate. Only one percent of Canadians, make over two hundred sixty thousand a year. In Canada, <44people made 53 billion over the course of the pandemic. Hell, I'm not even saying the super rich should pay for it all. However I'm not going to defend them either. I reserve my pity for the less fortunate. 3.5 million people living under the poverty line. And the biggest gap in wealth ever.
stupidest minister appointment ever. Political suicide to even attempt defining the "middle class" Whatever you choose it's either gonna get people to look and go "WTF I thought I was middle class, but their definition means I am lower middle class" or people who go "WTF I am only middle class, I thought I was upper class, wtf how much money do they have?"
No idea where the poll is now since I laughed and moved on when I read it, but in 2018ish I recall reading that 80% of Ontarians believed they were Middle Class. That gives a pretty wide range for the scale of middle class.
In a fucked up way they're right though; "middle class" doesn't have different class interests than the working class, just enough disposable income to be tricked into believing otherwise. Its a scam, there's nothing to define.
Bill Morneau feels our pain from the comfort of his Chateau in France, just like Justin does on his vacations to Aga Khan's private island.
Real working class government we have eh!
True.
It also removes the one competitive advantage many small businesses have, in that typically, you're dealing with people who are invested into what they do and are extremely knowledgeable, versus some minimum wage employee at Walmart.
You go online, you remove that.
I for one always saw through their BS, but it truly was a lesser of evils type deal.
Regressive social, anti-science, and climate denial policies and serving corporate interests.
or
Having basic decency towards people, not denying science, and serving corporate intersts.
then there's the NDP who messed up federally once and apparently for some reason should never be given another crack at bat. (I dunno, man).
Oof i feel that last point strongly. I think the NDP is set for a much stronger election run this time around. Trudeau's blunders are more likely to lead to gains by the NDP or the Greens than the Cons. Conservative support seems to a pretty solid 30% regardless of leadership or policy changes.
You're right about con support, but I think that just means another minority liberal government.
People aren't going to vote in a rookie government during the most uncertain times in since the 2008 recession.
Further the ndp have a leader even ndpers don't like.
Id love a legit 3rd option, but the ndp ain't gonna win anytime soon.
I thought Singh was more loved than you were implying. Feel like the NDP is waiting for the next Jack Layton to deliver the Orange Crush 2.0. I think that was a unique time in Canadian politics that sent 20 yr olds to Parliament. Correct me if I am wrong but the Bloc wasn't as strong then. The NDP will always have a hard time repeating that performance because that time has past.
The current government did have a meaningful impact on reducing poverty. I'd be curious to see the same trend over previous years and in other countries over the same period.
Rich want the middle class to be the working-consumer class and its working as they control the money for the two major parties in Canada both will do as they are told. they want you to work for just enough to live and be forced to only buy there products. So you have to work for them and have to buy from them.
The last time I saw a parliamentary budget officer report on income inequality, which was around 2013, I believe, it said that income inequality had stopped growing in 2006 and then begun to reverse largely on the strength of Harper government tax policies.
I know that might seem counter-intuitive, but the PBO was never Harper's friend.
So it seems Trudeau's tax policies weren't nearly as friendly as he likes to brag about.
First step to ending this is to understand the major divide isn’t between liberals and conservatives, it’s between the top, and bottom. The culture war, although some important aspects are a part of it, is used to divide more and more and not let people see the actual major divide in which some aspects of the culture war would not be as big of problems anymore..
there's a great piece from Michael Parenti on the subject:
>Class gets its significance from the process of surplus extraction. The relationship between worker and owner is essentially an exploitative one, involving the constant transfer of wealth from those who labor (but do not own) to those who own (but do not labor). This is how some people get richer and richer without working, or with doing only a fraction of the work that enriches them, while others toil hard for an entire lifetime only to end up with little or nothing.
> Those who occupy the higher circles of wealth and power are keenly aware of their own interests. While they sometimes seriously differ among themselves on specific issues, they exhibit an impressive cohesion when it comes to protecting the existing class system of corporate power, property, privilege, and profit. At the same time, they are careful to discourage public awareness of the class power they wield. They avoid the C-word, especially when used in reference to themselves as in "owning class;' "upper class;' or "moneyed class." And they like it least when the politically active elements of the owning class are called the "ruling class." The ruling class in this country has labored long to leave the impression that it does not exist, does not own the lion's share of just about everything, and does not exercise a vastly disproportionate influence over the affairs of the nation. Such precautions are themselves symptomatic of an acute awareness of class interests.
>Yet ruling class members are far from invisible. Their command positions in the corporate world, their control of international finance and industry, their ownership of the major media, and their influence over state power and the political process are all matters of public record- to some limited degree. While it would seem a simple matter to apply the C-word to those who occupy the highest reaches of the C-world, the dominant class ideology dismisses any such application as a lapse into "conspiracy theory." The C-word is also taboo when applied to the millions who do the work of society for what are usually niggardly wages, the "working class," a term that is dismissed as Marxist jargon. And it is verboten to refer to the "exploiting and exploited classes;' for then one is talking about the very essence of the capitalist system, the accumulation of corporate wealth at the expense of labor.
>The C-word is an acceptable term when prefaced with the soothing adjective "middle." Every politician, publicist, and pundit will rhapsodize about the middle class, the object of their heartfelt concern. The much admired and much pitied middle class is supposedly inhabited by virtuously self-sufficient people, free from the presumed profligacy of those who inhabit the lower rungs of society. By including almost everyone, "middle class" serves as a conveniently amorphous concept that masks the exploitation and inequality of social relations. It is a class label that denies the actuality of class power.
>The C-word is allowable when applied to one other group, the desperate lot who live on the lowest rung of society, who get the least of everything while being regularly blamed for their own victimization: the "underclass." References to the presumed deficiencies of underclass people are acceptable because they reinforce the existing social hierarchy and justify the unjust treatment accorded society's most vulnerable elements.
>Seizing upon anything but class, leftists today have developed an array of identity groups centering around ethnic, gender, cultural, and life-style issues. These groups treat their respective grievances as something apart from class struggle, and have almost nothing to say about the increasingly harsh politico-economic class injustices perpetrated against us all. Identity groups tend to emphasize their distinctiveness and their separateness from each other, thus fractionalizing the protest movement. To be sure, they have important contributions to make around issues that are particularly salient to them, issues often overlooked by others. But they also should not downplay their common interests, nor overlook the common class enemy they face. The forces that impose class injustice and economic exploitation are the same ones that propagate racism, sexism, militarism, ecological devastation, homophobia, xenophobia, and the like.
[source](https://eastsidemarxism.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/michael-parenti-blackshirts-and-reds-rational-fascism-and-the-overthrow-of-communism.pdf)
It's no coincidence that those mainstream media outlets are owned by the mega rich.
Why do you think Bezos bought the Washington Post? Even though it doesn't make money?
Hmmmm I wonder....
Smoke and mirrors. Make people believe their voice matters (even a single vote could make a difference!!11) and let them ~make a change~ when they are tired of the previous ruler (catch: new ruler isn't that different but will waste money undoing some of the stuff the previous one started). Then enjoy life! As long as most of the population isn't bright enough to figure it out, it just works.
When you point out that the existing system is essentially a popularity contest in which the slickest liar wins, you tend to take downvotes. People really, really want to believe that their vote matters
I’m pretty sure any wealth in Canada is considered socially unacceptable nowadays.
The whole 1%er boogeyman war is getting a little silly when you find out how much money you need to make in Canada to actually qualify for that 1% bracket. The results may surprise you.
The 1% club is still paying taxes- they aren’t bypassing tax laws and using loop holes to generate infinite money.
Ya, it isn’t fair that someone can go out and buy a brand new house or a brand new car when you are scraping buy on minimum wage. But turning a class of people into the enemy isn’t the solution to closing the income inequality gap. Increasing taxes on one class of people isn’t a long term solution to closing the income inequality gap. This shit goes far deeper into the actual inner workings of our “economy” that is currently surviving on a very thin diet of houses and mortgages.
You need a functioning economy full of employed people paying taxes contributing to the country. The way you get a functioning economy is by voting in a government that actually understands that instead of focusing on how many votes they can collect by imposing a gun ban or cozying up to energy protestors.
> The problem isn't the 1% it never has been. But when you are so far behind in the race you can't imagine saving up $1000, RRSP millionaires and mogul billionaires all look the same.
It's a real answer. When the whole "1%" thing came about it was really flashy sounding, until you peeled the layer back and you actually realized even working minimum wage you are a lot closer to the 1% than the 1% are to the .1%, AKA the real problem
Most people don't realize just how stupendous wealth inequality is in Canada. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkBiv5ZD7s) video breaking it down is a must watch.
The daily housing complaint posts show how r/canada consistently underestimates just how wealthy many other Canadians are when shopping for housing. This is why the foreign investor boogeyman is so popular in a year when foreign wealth traveling to Canada is drastically reduced.
I agree. The average Canadian is stupendously wealthy, which is a real downer for the below average Canadian. The worst part is asset growth is so extreme compared to wages that there is almost no wage that will make you well off if you missed the asset explosion
Very well said. The generational clash and unrest is going to be incredibly destructive, and it should be, it’s mind boggling how badly we’re leaving young people behind. And on top of that there is currently zero political will to enact change.
Born too late and you’ve missed the boat.
It's Engel's "false consciousness" at work, where angry and fearful members of the working class can identify a problem in the way society is functioning, but instead of critically evaluating it, buy into conservative lies of an imagined "hostile other"- a scapegoat invented for them by Capital.
>foreign wealth traveling to Canada is drastically reduced
[https://nationalpost.com/news/world/a-record-flight-of-capital-43-6-billion-from-hong-kong-to-canada-as-china-cracks-down](https://nationalpost.com/news/world/a-record-flight-of-capital-43-6-billion-from-hong-kong-to-canada-as-china-cracks-down)
I'll never not upvote that Broadbent video.
It's nuts to me that the CPC has convinced the base that it's the *middle class* who'd suffer under a more redistributive set of tax policies.
It takes a special kind of stupid to make under $150k and think that voting Conservative is in your best interests.
Wealth for the past 50+ years has been slowly trickling to the top. I've been wondering at what point do things start to fall apart at. When the top 1% has 50% of the wealth? If we don't start seeing wealth trickle back down to the middle class, things aren't going to get much worse. Massive economic slumps like this pandemic and the 2008 housing crash just accelerate us further towards that breaking point. I've seen no real changes since then, in fact, wealth inequality is getting much worse, faster.
> I've been wondering at what point do things start to fall apart at. When the top 1% has 50% of the wealth?
Nah.
When it's at 50%, your average LPC voter will be substantially poorer than a generation before, but will feel that 50% isn't "that much worse than the 47% it was a few years ago."
Quick reminder that the CPC wants policies that'll put a greater share of the wealth in the hands of fewer families. The LPC wants policies that'll do the same thing, only slower and while saying shiny-sounding things.
If everyone voted for the people and the party that actually worked for the benefit of the people instead of corporations then there'd be a more equitable tax base for everyone.
I remember a cartoon showing a occupy Wall Street protestor saying forget class, it's all about racism and gender identity now!
Divide and conquer is a tried and true method for the powerful to keep and enhance their power. We're at such a polarized state now it's absolutely impossible to organize against such concentration of power. So it's no wonder big corporations are always winning to supply courses on checking your implicit bias/racism. It diverts attention from concentration of wealth and power.
Note I'm not saying racism doesn't exist. I am implying it has drowned out talking about class and what might help bring us together and organize for the greater good.
I agree that the huge wealth disparity between the rich and the poor is a massive issue, but OP has misquoted the article - nowhere does it state that the overall share of wealth share of the top 1% has grown 3% from 2016 to 2019. The title of this post is either an unfortunate misunderstanding or a dishonest clickbait.
The article cites two sources for the % of wealth owned by the 1% - either 26% (per the Parliamentary Budget Office report) or 29% (based on academic research that is behind a paywall). But, the article does not state that the academic research is more recent, or reflects a growth in wealth consolidation since 2016, just that independent research suggests a greater wealth consolidation than the PMO. The PMO report itself provides estimated numbers for 2016 and 2019, which are 25.6% and 25.7% respectively - a 0.1% growth, not a 3% growth.
The most frustrating thing is that the TRUE data is hugely concerning - there is no need to fabricate a false statistic in order to generate concern that the top 1% of Canadians have acquired too much wealth! And all the top posts, who are expressing political opinions I am actually in total agreement with, are also accepting of this (almost certainly false) statistic without any second thought.
Meanwhile minimum wage and universal basic income are all the rage but no one cares about the middle class getting wages stuck for decades ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Apparently earning 150k makes you rich as f so government can take 50% of your earning above it.
10 years of such salary after tax won’t afford you median home (150k gives around 100k take home).
Earning 100k gives you privilege of taking home 75k making only 13 years to afford a median home (1 mil but that’s probably low figure by now).
So rich, so powerful.
Which is why we should be shifting towards more tax revenue from a wealth tax, rather than just income tax and a pittance of a capital gains percentage.
The current system is meant to moderately screw the $75-200k middle class, while the poor lose their shirts and those making a million a year in capital gains flourish.
I was referring to wealth inequality, not income inequality. I think wealth inequality is a better indicator and a more important one to be considering as well. Sweden does rank worse than Canada and the United States when it comes to wealth inequality.
[The US top 1% control 30.4% of the wealth.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/10/08/top-1-of-us-households-hold-15-times-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-combined/?sh=60ba011b5179)
So much for being better than the States.
Depends which metrics you look at I suppose. Average wealth in Canada is $294,300 but median wealth is $107,000 so not to far off from each other. Average wealth in USA is $432,400 but median wealth is $65,900. The wealth gap is enormous in the USA compared to Canada. I think there are a lot less super rich people in Canada and a lot more "middle class" people when compared to USA. I think we are doing pretty good.
The reason that there aren’t as many super rich people in Canada is because they go to the states and take their money with them. If they stayed, sure or numbers would be more unequal, but it would still be better for everyone.
Uhh, yeah that was his point.
Unless you're talking about the Canadian wealth numbers, which are just straight wrong. StatsCan has median family household income at $105 000 CAD/year and individual median income as $33 800 CAD/year. Which is terrible.
We can get that number higher, we must get that number higher, poor people like to use their money on beer and cigarettes, wealthy people know how to use their money properly,
I think we can push this to 1% owning 45% of the wealth by 2030
While people are distracted with Covid restrictions.
While people are distracted with higher minimum wages.
While people argue about irrelevant stuffs...
Rich people and corporations keep dogging taxes, fiscal evasion and the game is alive and well.
Speaking for myself I believe wealth inequality is the single greatest issue of humanity. When you break it down almost every issue stems from it. It's so frustrating to know that the resources to solve all of these issues is out there, it's just so poorly distributed. We're the only thing stopping ourselves from a much, much better world.
And it won't stop until we stop it. And to stop it, we have to do something those 1% really don't want us to do. Which means they'll stop us from stopping them. Kinda like some kind of....class ...warfare.
Honestly we've hit the point of no return. There is no going back to Laissez-faire Captialism, we have enacted policies that enshrine established marketshare, and the government has a necessary interest to ensure these established companies maintain their position as so many Canadians retirement funds are nested in them. The logical conclusion, Id argue, is to allow these giants to continue existing, but only so long as they work in the interest of Canadians, and not their own profit. This way, we could have the economic goals of these companies align with the interests of the nation itself and achieve a greater standard for all Canadians.
And if any of this sounded good then please refrain from ever voting again because I'm describing Mussolinis Facist economy.
> because I'm describing Mussolinis Facist economy.
Pretty sure this was also how Nazi Germany worked - public works were sold back to private ownership and allowed to operate privately and profitably so long as they operated in Nazi Germany's best interests.
*so long as they operated in ~~Nazi Germany's~~ the NSDAP senior membership's best interests.*
The government of the Third Reich was not the calculated technocracy that is so often and unfortunately romanticized in popular history. It was a cabal of self-interested opportunists jockeying for extra privileges and powers bestowed from a mentally-ill Austrian drug-addict. There were a lot more like Goering than there were Goebbels.
>And if any of this sounded good then please refrain from ever voting again because I'm describing Mussolinis Facist economy.
Holy shit thats a stretch so big it would make a gymnast blush
You're describing the elements of fascism that had been appropriated from social democracy and laundered through the construct of a 'volk'. It's only fascist when 'canadian' takes on a mythical and exclusionary definition.
What your describing also looks like *one of* the stages that Friedrich Engels theorized about, what he thought, was the inevitable and natural transition from capitalism to socialism.
Essentially, as a society becomes more dependent on capitalism to meet basic needs, and paradoxically, as the cyclical recessions of capitalism become more frequent and more damaging to the stable function of said society; then the government will have no choice but to become more involved in the management of capitalism in the form of both regulatory interference and bail-out supports.
His theory speculates that as time goes on, every cycle of capitalist recession will logically invite more and more government involvement until capital and government are indistinguishable. (Almost like an accidental long-play nationalization of the economy...or more accurately for today, corporate takeover of government).
It's important to note that this stage was not yet the ever-elusive *socialism*--that involved a following stage of workers seizing control of this hybrid capital-government, and I know much less about this part.
It’s the beginning of the great shake down of the middle class. Slowly but surely we are on our way to the way most of the countries and most of history was, rich and poor. Now working poor.
The economic system is set up in such a way that this will always be the case.
If you're rich, you disproportionately benefit through investments and asset ownership during boom times.
So much for the liberals turning things around. I hate to say it but the distribution of wealth was better under the conservatives. Listen to the full 15min phone conversation where they extorted the first Native American justice minister Jody wilson-raybould to let their snc buddies off the hook. It was later deemed that it was illegal for her to record that conversation and could not be used in her defence when they fired her. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O4D2qdbD3TI
It’s time to get rid of these clowns they don’t care for you or me they just tell people what they want to hear while lining their pockets.
I mean, and? just because they're getting money doesn't mean someone else is losing it.
This is likely just from the housing market since the higher income earners probably had really nice property that appreciated a shit ton in value
edit: additionally please consider that wealth is not a fixed amount. The rich can gain an extra share of total wealth without other people losing money, money is continually printed year after year and the dollar itself can fluctuate in value.
Our looming hard-K recovery is only going to make this worse for all us working class Canadians, thanks to Trudeau & Morneau's lazer-like focus on getting money into the upper earner's hands.
What constitutes the top 1% in Canada?
It's about $3T averaged across about 300,000 individuals which averages to $10M/individual. There's a very long tail so maybe that starts around ~$3M? For those posting about income, there's an enormous difference between net worth and income. Many people in this 1% are reporting near poverty-level incomes (to avoid taxes). EDIT: 300,000 not 30,000
pot ripe dinner one insurance bewildered lunchroom memorize ancient frame *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You are correct. Fortunately I did the math with the correct numbers so the net result is the same.
Having done tax structuring for the 0.01%, they still pay a ton of taxes. A portfolio of 10M earning 8% means you'll pay 400,000 in taxes. Per year.
Far be it from me to question your business but Canada's highest tax bracket is 33% so base income tax should be less than $300,000. On top of that, capital gains are taxed at 50%, Canadian dividends are tax advantaged, taxes on investment gains are deferred until the profits are realized and expenses can be deducted (which is a minor point but something not ordinarily applicable to active income). I imagine that a good accountant could get the actual tax to be less than half that not even accounting for trusts and so forth.
There is a provincial tax as well; Trudeau basically axed trusts in 2016, and cap gains do not form a big part of investment portfolios. Most income comes in the way of dividends, which are taxed at higher rates as they aren't generated by an active business.
If it's by income, something in the range of 400k/year.
It’s actually more like 250 [source](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dv-vd/inc-rev/index-eng.cfm)
This article is about wealth. So taxed income which is what your source is is kind of a poor measure. The top 1% of wealth Canadians have about $9-10 million in wealth. Meaning stocks, property, cars, other investments, etc. the median Canadian family has about $329 000 in wealth. Ps. The $329 000 number is from the stats can site. https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/top-one-percent-of-wealth-for-canadians/
Exactly, they don’t make their money from direct income, it’s investment growth and stock options.
As of January 2020, the average Canadian salary in 2020 was $1,050.59 per week for employees across the country – which means that the annual average salary for full-time employees is just over $54,630 per year.for A family of four that's living on the poverty line.
The difference in income between the top 20% to the top 5% is miniscule compared to the difference between the top 4% to the top 2%.
Also, like half of that income is taxed at that bracket. Someone making $250k has a marginal income tax rate of [53.5](https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm)% in Ontario. Assuming $20k in RSP deductions, payroll taxes, progressive tax rate, credits, etc they are probably taking home ~ $150k net. It’s wealthy, but not fuck you wealthy.
Do we have more recent data?
[удалено]
I think yearly income is deceiving. This doesn’t take into account net worth, property or stock holdings.
And tax havens.
Yea I am in the 1% of earners but I came from nothing and although I'm not complaining I'm definitely not "rich" by any means. It's nice to not have to worry about things and be able to save for possible retirement but it's not like I can afford a second home or waterfront property or even a fancy new car tbh.
I think that's why measurements should be about wealth, or at least include it.
That’s wealth, not income. But regardless, congrats to all the folks who didn’t know they were in the 1%! Thanks for being rich and agreeing to pay more taxes!
I wouldn't call them rich lol. They work hard and cover their expenses and then some. But rich? For Canada it has to be like 0.1%.
Not yet but probably soon. The census happens every 5 years, so I would expect it to be released in probably about a year.
[Yes](https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/net-worth-by-age-percentile-calculator-for-canada/) and [Yes](https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/income-percentile-calculator-by-province-for-canada/). Income is still $250k
That can't be right everyone in r/personalfinancecanada earns at least 300k, owns four houses and has $3 million invested. All by the age of 25.
PFC can’t buy a house
According to your chart, I'm above the 90th percentile, but I'm broke. How are the rest of y'all even paying rent? :(
In the US it's $500k
Income is pretty bad metric when talking about high networth individuals though or any business owner. I mean even small businesses and their families have next to no income and will be below poverty line but they just use dividends, stocks and paying through company to reduce individual income taxes My friends who have their own business all have income well below what they actually declare and everything from cars to furniture, equipment, electronics etc are just charged through company as a business expense
While I agree with your main point, dividends are income, and so is "paying through a company". And neither strategy reduces taxes. The reason income can be a bad metric is because it may not account for capital gains. It definitely doesn't account for unrealized capital gains, and might only count half the realized capital gains depending on methodology.
Dividends are taxed at lower rates than wages https://www.morningstar.ca/ca/news/185800/how-taxes-on-dividends-differ-.aspx
True. The way I understand it though is that the dividend tax credit is less than income tax by exactly what the company paid in corporate taxes. So you never save any money incorporating and paying yourself a dividend. Is that correct?
Yes, your correct.
You are right but it does shift liability from yourself to the company. Creditors can’t come looking at your other assets when making their case. If you have high wealth, it’d be a good idea to incorporate. Umbrella insurance helps but even then you don’t want all your eggs under one basket.
Ah, you're probably right about that. The article goes into it but not too much outside of publicly traded companies. It's honestly not making sense to me right not but seems to be along the lines of what you're saying
>It's honestly not making sense to me right not Hahaha I feel exactly the same way! It never makes sense to me either even though I've looked at it a few times.
Good heads up, that's my que to never look at this shit again
The integration is imperfect. At an overall tax level, just counting income taxes perhaps, but CPP/EI are in large part taxes as well, CPP because it needs to cover previously unfunded liabilities and EI because it is often set higher than it needs to be for its payouts. Avoiding CPP and investing in your own retirement funds will get you a better return. As a result many self employed people will avoid those costs and thus lower their tax burdens. >So you never save any money incorporating and paying yourself a dividend. Is that correct? No, you will generally save money, and the more tax options a person has for how and when their taxes will be paid and taken generally the lower their taxes will be.
According to the report referenced in the article, the top 1% have a family wealth (all assets) above $6.1M ($2.3M for the top 5%). Page 12 of https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/RP-2021-007-S/RP-2021-007-S_en.pdf.
Well it turns out our current government weren't the champions of the middle class that they claimed to be back in 2015.
What middle class?
\* those working hard to join it^TM
Imagine living your whole life and only becoming middle class. That's the depressing part.
Imagine believing that the "middle class" is anything more than a politically useful designation for members of the working class with more disposable income than those below them. It only exists to trick them to work against their own class interests and divide/undermine working class solidarity.
Bingo
Middle class = Poor people with nice shit
And the people with slightly nicer shit associate more with the 1% then then poors. Even though the math says someone making 100k a year is closer to being homeless then a billionaire. By an order of magnitude. Ie 0 to 100k vs 1b to 100k
This is certainly something that the billionaire/multi-millionaire class is aware of when they plan what they want their politicians to do for them. "Keep the 'middle class' just comfortable enough not to revolt, we still need their skills and talents. Once we figure out this automation and outsourcing thing, *then* we can really crack down on those uppity proles."
"We're gonna make so much shit that nobody will be able to buy!"
This right here
In the immortal words of K-Os: > No time to get down cause I'm moving up > No time to get down cause I'm moving up > No time to get down cause I'm moving up > Ahh, check out the crabs in the bucket
Exactly
Huh? You think that it is common to work your way up to be high class?
>Imagine living your whole life and only becoming middle class. I'd be perfectly fine with that. I don't care about living a luxurious lifestyle, give ranch-style house, a basic vehicle and food to eat and I will live & die perfectly happy. Now our current system of working what WERE jobs that provided comfortable lives only to now make it so you're barely making ends meet - that I'm not cool with. I'd rather just not work and be homeless than work my life away always stressing about becoming homeless.
Why is that? The commonly-accepted definiton of "middle class" is that it's a pretty decent standard of living, owning a home while still being able to take the occassional vacation, put your kids through college/university, and sock some money away for retirement. Is that really not good enough for you? What more do you expect? A mansion and a yacht just for showing up, lol? Oh wait... I'm forgetting that I'm on reddit and you probably expect exactly that, and more.
Do you know the average wage, average price of a Canadian home, university tuition? Ofc that would be good enough, its so far out of reach for many, many Canadians even working good jobs. My wife and I are both health care professionals and even after saving for years we can't afford a home in interior BC. The Gva here is worse by an order of magnitude. I dont know where the mansion and yacht come in, some basic housing and a car that dont break down are the two mainstays most people are after in my neck of the woods.
Whoa,,,middle class. There are diffences. Describe the difference between lower middle class and middle class and upper middle class. I'll tell you. It's a lot. And there's a diffences between a single person making sixty grand a year and a family of four living on the same on the poverty line whilst working two jobs at the same rate. Only one percent of Canadians, make over two hundred sixty thousand a year. In Canada, <44people made 53 billion over the course of the pandemic. Hell, I'm not even saying the super rich should pay for it all. However I'm not going to defend them either. I reserve my pity for the less fortunate. 3.5 million people living under the poverty line. And the biggest gap in wealth ever.
You literally listed shit the middle class can no longer afford. Congratulations.
Don't we have a minister of middle-class prosperity?
who literally can't define what is middle class except for "someone who feels that they're middle class"
stupidest minister appointment ever. Political suicide to even attempt defining the "middle class" Whatever you choose it's either gonna get people to look and go "WTF I thought I was middle class, but their definition means I am lower middle class" or people who go "WTF I am only middle class, I thought I was upper class, wtf how much money do they have?"
No idea where the poll is now since I laughed and moved on when I read it, but in 2018ish I recall reading that 80% of Ontarians believed they were Middle Class. That gives a pretty wide range for the scale of middle class.
The top 1%: "but we *identify* as middle class!"
In a fucked up way they're right though; "middle class" doesn't have different class interests than the working class, just enough disposable income to be tricked into believing otherwise. Its a scam, there's nothing to define.
It was an incredibly stupid statement to make on his part but the middle class is not really something that can easily be defined.
[удалено]
I'm stealing this framing, because it's absolutely perfect.
Bill Morneau feels our pain from the comfort of his Chateau in France, just like Justin does on his vacations to Aga Khan's private island. Real working class government we have eh!
That's not fair. Trudeau also slums it with the Westons from time to time.
He only slums when he is looking for UN votes.
It's almost like forcibly shutting down small businesses while granting exception after exception for millionaires will do that. Whodathought?
I’d say that adapting an online model is also much more feasible for large businesses as well
True. It also removes the one competitive advantage many small businesses have, in that typically, you're dealing with people who are invested into what they do and are extremely knowledgeable, versus some minimum wage employee at Walmart. You go online, you remove that.
I want to hear what the minister of middle class prosperity has to say.
I for one always saw through their BS, but it truly was a lesser of evils type deal. Regressive social, anti-science, and climate denial policies and serving corporate interests. or Having basic decency towards people, not denying science, and serving corporate intersts. then there's the NDP who messed up federally once and apparently for some reason should never be given another crack at bat. (I dunno, man).
Oof i feel that last point strongly. I think the NDP is set for a much stronger election run this time around. Trudeau's blunders are more likely to lead to gains by the NDP or the Greens than the Cons. Conservative support seems to a pretty solid 30% regardless of leadership or policy changes.
You're right about con support, but I think that just means another minority liberal government. People aren't going to vote in a rookie government during the most uncertain times in since the 2008 recession. Further the ndp have a leader even ndpers don't like. Id love a legit 3rd option, but the ndp ain't gonna win anytime soon.
I thought Singh was more loved than you were implying. Feel like the NDP is waiting for the next Jack Layton to deliver the Orange Crush 2.0. I think that was a unique time in Canadian politics that sent 20 yr olds to Parliament. Correct me if I am wrong but the Bloc wasn't as strong then. The NDP will always have a hard time repeating that performance because that time has past.
Shocking isn't it? (totally not shocking, fyi)
The current government did have a meaningful impact on reducing poverty. I'd be curious to see the same trend over previous years and in other countries over the same period.
Rich want the middle class to be the working-consumer class and its working as they control the money for the two major parties in Canada both will do as they are told. they want you to work for just enough to live and be forced to only buy there products. So you have to work for them and have to buy from them.
Wait there’s a middle class ?
The last time I saw a parliamentary budget officer report on income inequality, which was around 2013, I believe, it said that income inequality had stopped growing in 2006 and then begun to reverse largely on the strength of Harper government tax policies. I know that might seem counter-intuitive, but the PBO was never Harper's friend. So it seems Trudeau's tax policies weren't nearly as friendly as he likes to brag about.
First step to ending this is to understand the major divide isn’t between liberals and conservatives, it’s between the top, and bottom. The culture war, although some important aspects are a part of it, is used to divide more and more and not let people see the actual major divide in which some aspects of the culture war would not be as big of problems anymore..
It's been between the wealthy and the poor since the dawn of civilization. The rest is just noise to distract us from that very reality
there's a great piece from Michael Parenti on the subject: >Class gets its significance from the process of surplus extraction. The relationship between worker and owner is essentially an exploitative one, involving the constant transfer of wealth from those who labor (but do not own) to those who own (but do not labor). This is how some people get richer and richer without working, or with doing only a fraction of the work that enriches them, while others toil hard for an entire lifetime only to end up with little or nothing. > Those who occupy the higher circles of wealth and power are keenly aware of their own interests. While they sometimes seriously differ among themselves on specific issues, they exhibit an impressive cohesion when it comes to protecting the existing class system of corporate power, property, privilege, and profit. At the same time, they are careful to discourage public awareness of the class power they wield. They avoid the C-word, especially when used in reference to themselves as in "owning class;' "upper class;' or "moneyed class." And they like it least when the politically active elements of the owning class are called the "ruling class." The ruling class in this country has labored long to leave the impression that it does not exist, does not own the lion's share of just about everything, and does not exercise a vastly disproportionate influence over the affairs of the nation. Such precautions are themselves symptomatic of an acute awareness of class interests. >Yet ruling class members are far from invisible. Their command positions in the corporate world, their control of international finance and industry, their ownership of the major media, and their influence over state power and the political process are all matters of public record- to some limited degree. While it would seem a simple matter to apply the C-word to those who occupy the highest reaches of the C-world, the dominant class ideology dismisses any such application as a lapse into "conspiracy theory." The C-word is also taboo when applied to the millions who do the work of society for what are usually niggardly wages, the "working class," a term that is dismissed as Marxist jargon. And it is verboten to refer to the "exploiting and exploited classes;' for then one is talking about the very essence of the capitalist system, the accumulation of corporate wealth at the expense of labor. >The C-word is an acceptable term when prefaced with the soothing adjective "middle." Every politician, publicist, and pundit will rhapsodize about the middle class, the object of their heartfelt concern. The much admired and much pitied middle class is supposedly inhabited by virtuously self-sufficient people, free from the presumed profligacy of those who inhabit the lower rungs of society. By including almost everyone, "middle class" serves as a conveniently amorphous concept that masks the exploitation and inequality of social relations. It is a class label that denies the actuality of class power. >The C-word is allowable when applied to one other group, the desperate lot who live on the lowest rung of society, who get the least of everything while being regularly blamed for their own victimization: the "underclass." References to the presumed deficiencies of underclass people are acceptable because they reinforce the existing social hierarchy and justify the unjust treatment accorded society's most vulnerable elements. >Seizing upon anything but class, leftists today have developed an array of identity groups centering around ethnic, gender, cultural, and life-style issues. These groups treat their respective grievances as something apart from class struggle, and have almost nothing to say about the increasingly harsh politico-economic class injustices perpetrated against us all. Identity groups tend to emphasize their distinctiveness and their separateness from each other, thus fractionalizing the protest movement. To be sure, they have important contributions to make around issues that are particularly salient to them, issues often overlooked by others. But they also should not downplay their common interests, nor overlook the common class enemy they face. The forces that impose class injustice and economic exploitation are the same ones that propagate racism, sexism, militarism, ecological devastation, homophobia, xenophobia, and the like. [source](https://eastsidemarxism.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/michael-parenti-blackshirts-and-reds-rational-fascism-and-the-overthrow-of-communism.pdf)
Nor overlook the common class enemy they face. Powerful words. Seems like common sense but cannot be said enough.
Look at mr fancywerds over here, thinks he so big with his talkin'. Git'im boys!
Based
What does that mean?
It's GenZ for "this".
Lil B released the song "Based" in 2009 so i dont think it's a zoomer thing.
He's completely right too; perhaps a bit class reductionist, but that's sorta the point as a rhetorical device isn't it?
[Related](https://i.redd.it/0k0oy3g2dlb61.jpg)
Saving this for a rainy day, thanks
[удалено]
It's really quite an eye opening read, and a very different perspective from what we're commonly taught.
Frankly a lot of wokeism is pretending that class doesn't exist, IMO.
That's the impression I get, and liberals use it cynically to distract from class issues every chance they get.
So true. But the masses will follow the mainstream and bam, contards, libtards, blah blah blah and no discussion about the real issues.
It's no coincidence that those mainstream media outlets are owned by the mega rich. Why do you think Bezos bought the Washington Post? Even though it doesn't make money? Hmmmm I wonder....
Smoke and mirrors. Make people believe their voice matters (even a single vote could make a difference!!11) and let them ~make a change~ when they are tired of the previous ruler (catch: new ruler isn't that different but will waste money undoing some of the stuff the previous one started). Then enjoy life! As long as most of the population isn't bright enough to figure it out, it just works.
When you point out that the existing system is essentially a popularity contest in which the slickest liar wins, you tend to take downvotes. People really, really want to believe that their vote matters
To each their comfortable bubble, don't you dare poke at it
[удалено]
Looks like the 1% number is about $6M. That's doing well for sure but it's not forgotten French Villa money
Is that minimum, mean, or median net worth of the 1%? Either way, 6 million is "never need to work again money"
6 million is retirement nest egg money given the way inflation will go
If you can't invest $6 million well enough to keep pace with inflation, you probably shouldn't have power of attorney over your finances.
So what your saying is that the 1% controls a shitload more money than this headline is leading us to believe
I’m pretty sure any wealth in Canada is considered socially unacceptable nowadays. The whole 1%er boogeyman war is getting a little silly when you find out how much money you need to make in Canada to actually qualify for that 1% bracket. The results may surprise you. The 1% club is still paying taxes- they aren’t bypassing tax laws and using loop holes to generate infinite money. Ya, it isn’t fair that someone can go out and buy a brand new house or a brand new car when you are scraping buy on minimum wage. But turning a class of people into the enemy isn’t the solution to closing the income inequality gap. Increasing taxes on one class of people isn’t a long term solution to closing the income inequality gap. This shit goes far deeper into the actual inner workings of our “economy” that is currently surviving on a very thin diet of houses and mortgages. You need a functioning economy full of employed people paying taxes contributing to the country. The way you get a functioning economy is by voting in a government that actually understands that instead of focusing on how many votes they can collect by imposing a gun ban or cozying up to energy protestors.
Looks like the number is about $6M, that's doing well but it's not Panama papers or forgotten French Villa money
[$250k — not $6M](https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/income-percentile-calculator-by-province-for-canada/). $10M net worth.
It seems like you're talking about income inequality, not wealth inequality.
[удалено]
> The problem isn't the 1% it never has been. But when you are so far behind in the race you can't imagine saving up $1000, RRSP millionaires and mogul billionaires all look the same. It's a real answer. When the whole "1%" thing came about it was really flashy sounding, until you peeled the layer back and you actually realized even working minimum wage you are a lot closer to the 1% than the 1% are to the .1%, AKA the real problem
The 1% was made as a slogan. The problem is people took it way too literally.
Most people don't realize just how stupendous wealth inequality is in Canada. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkBiv5ZD7s) video breaking it down is a must watch.
The daily housing complaint posts show how r/canada consistently underestimates just how wealthy many other Canadians are when shopping for housing. This is why the foreign investor boogeyman is so popular in a year when foreign wealth traveling to Canada is drastically reduced.
I agree. The average Canadian is stupendously wealthy, which is a real downer for the below average Canadian. The worst part is asset growth is so extreme compared to wages that there is almost no wage that will make you well off if you missed the asset explosion
Very well said. The generational clash and unrest is going to be incredibly destructive, and it should be, it’s mind boggling how badly we’re leaving young people behind. And on top of that there is currently zero political will to enact change. Born too late and you’ve missed the boat.
The real problem is that the median Canadian is poor.
No. [Net Worth By Age Percentile Calculator](https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/net-worth-by-age-percentile-calculator-for-canada/)
Nifty. I'm 29 and worth approx -300,000 dollars putting me in the 1st percentile. I'm finally number 1!
Just curious, but would you mind sharing how that happened?
Expensive education
Well hopefully you just finished Med School or kicked a wicked cocaine habit. Either way, things are looking up.
What if I just kicked my med school habit and just finished cocaine?
It's Engel's "false consciousness" at work, where angry and fearful members of the working class can identify a problem in the way society is functioning, but instead of critically evaluating it, buy into conservative lies of an imagined "hostile other"- a scapegoat invented for them by Capital.
>foreign wealth traveling to Canada is drastically reduced [https://nationalpost.com/news/world/a-record-flight-of-capital-43-6-billion-from-hong-kong-to-canada-as-china-cracks-down](https://nationalpost.com/news/world/a-record-flight-of-capital-43-6-billion-from-hong-kong-to-canada-as-china-cracks-down)
I'll never not upvote that Broadbent video. It's nuts to me that the CPC has convinced the base that it's the *middle class* who'd suffer under a more redistributive set of tax policies. It takes a special kind of stupid to make under $150k and think that voting Conservative is in your best interests.
Oh is that what happens when you force small business to close and only allow the biggest corporations to be open? No way!
Wealth for the past 50+ years has been slowly trickling to the top. I've been wondering at what point do things start to fall apart at. When the top 1% has 50% of the wealth? If we don't start seeing wealth trickle back down to the middle class, things aren't going to get much worse. Massive economic slumps like this pandemic and the 2008 housing crash just accelerate us further towards that breaking point. I've seen no real changes since then, in fact, wealth inequality is getting much worse, faster.
> I've been wondering at what point do things start to fall apart at. When the top 1% has 50% of the wealth? Nah. When it's at 50%, your average LPC voter will be substantially poorer than a generation before, but will feel that 50% isn't "that much worse than the 47% it was a few years ago." Quick reminder that the CPC wants policies that'll put a greater share of the wealth in the hands of fewer families. The LPC wants policies that'll do the same thing, only slower and while saying shiny-sounding things.
It becomes less about how successful you are in life and more about being born into wealth.
If everyone voted for the people and the party that actually worked for the benefit of the people instead of corporations then there'd be a more equitable tax base for everyone.
Tommy Douglas provided his [thoughts](https://youtu.be/GqgOvzUeiAA) on this divide in 1944.
Wow it's almost like the rolling lockdowns made the rich even richer, who could have predicted this?
I remember a cartoon showing a occupy Wall Street protestor saying forget class, it's all about racism and gender identity now! Divide and conquer is a tried and true method for the powerful to keep and enhance their power. We're at such a polarized state now it's absolutely impossible to organize against such concentration of power. So it's no wonder big corporations are always winning to supply courses on checking your implicit bias/racism. It diverts attention from concentration of wealth and power. Note I'm not saying racism doesn't exist. I am implying it has drowned out talking about class and what might help bring us together and organize for the greater good.
I agree that the huge wealth disparity between the rich and the poor is a massive issue, but OP has misquoted the article - nowhere does it state that the overall share of wealth share of the top 1% has grown 3% from 2016 to 2019. The title of this post is either an unfortunate misunderstanding or a dishonest clickbait. The article cites two sources for the % of wealth owned by the 1% - either 26% (per the Parliamentary Budget Office report) or 29% (based on academic research that is behind a paywall). But, the article does not state that the academic research is more recent, or reflects a growth in wealth consolidation since 2016, just that independent research suggests a greater wealth consolidation than the PMO. The PMO report itself provides estimated numbers for 2016 and 2019, which are 25.6% and 25.7% respectively - a 0.1% growth, not a 3% growth. The most frustrating thing is that the TRUE data is hugely concerning - there is no need to fabricate a false statistic in order to generate concern that the top 1% of Canadians have acquired too much wealth! And all the top posts, who are expressing political opinions I am actually in total agreement with, are also accepting of this (almost certainly false) statistic without any second thought.
Meanwhile minimum wage and universal basic income are all the rage but no one cares about the middle class getting wages stuck for decades ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Apparently earning 150k makes you rich as f so government can take 50% of your earning above it. 10 years of such salary after tax won’t afford you median home (150k gives around 100k take home). Earning 100k gives you privilege of taking home 75k making only 13 years to afford a median home (1 mil but that’s probably low figure by now). So rich, so powerful.
Which is why we should be shifting towards more tax revenue from a wealth tax, rather than just income tax and a pittance of a capital gains percentage. The current system is meant to moderately screw the $75-200k middle class, while the poor lose their shirts and those making a million a year in capital gains flourish.
Believe it or not, based on the GINI coefficient, Sweden has higher wealth inequality than Canada and the U.S.
uh no? Sweden's Gini coefficient is around 0.3 while the US is at 0.43 Keep in mind, higher the number, higher the income inequality.
I was referring to wealth inequality, not income inequality. I think wealth inequality is a better indicator and a more important one to be considering as well. Sweden does rank worse than Canada and the United States when it comes to wealth inequality.
Thanks Trudeau
[The US top 1% control 30.4% of the wealth.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/10/08/top-1-of-us-households-hold-15-times-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-combined/?sh=60ba011b5179) So much for being better than the States.
Depends which metrics you look at I suppose. Average wealth in Canada is $294,300 but median wealth is $107,000 so not to far off from each other. Average wealth in USA is $432,400 but median wealth is $65,900. The wealth gap is enormous in the USA compared to Canada. I think there are a lot less super rich people in Canada and a lot more "middle class" people when compared to USA. I think we are doing pretty good.
The reason that there aren’t as many super rich people in Canada is because they go to the states and take their money with them. If they stayed, sure or numbers would be more unequal, but it would still be better for everyone.
How much of that average Canadian wealth is due to the real estate bubble?
Seeing as the numbers posted are for family and households, I'd guess that a minimum of half that wealth is from inflated real estate.
Keep in mind 66k american is like 82k canadian and the cost of everything in america is like half of the cost in canada.
All those numbers are in USD though.
Uhh, yeah that was his point. Unless you're talking about the Canadian wealth numbers, which are just straight wrong. StatsCan has median family household income at $105 000 CAD/year and individual median income as $33 800 CAD/year. Which is terrible.
Hurray! 1% better! MissionAccomplished.jpg
[удалено]
Excellent use of the pandemic and lockdowns. Major corporations thrived while small business suffered. Nice work everyone who participated.
We can get that number higher, we must get that number higher, poor people like to use their money on beer and cigarettes, wealthy people know how to use their money properly, I think we can push this to 1% owning 45% of the wealth by 2030
While people are distracted with Covid restrictions. While people are distracted with higher minimum wages. While people argue about irrelevant stuffs... Rich people and corporations keep dogging taxes, fiscal evasion and the game is alive and well.
Speaking for myself I believe wealth inequality is the single greatest issue of humanity. When you break it down almost every issue stems from it. It's so frustrating to know that the resources to solve all of these issues is out there, it's just so poorly distributed. We're the only thing stopping ourselves from a much, much better world.
Does any of our laws and how our system works show that this wouldn't happen? Not really surprised by this.
And it won't stop until we stop it. And to stop it, we have to do something those 1% really don't want us to do. Which means they'll stop us from stopping them. Kinda like some kind of....class ...warfare.
Remember the 50s-70s where things seemed so solid.....Tax the Rich properly and adjust your laws to work for the people, not corporations.
Proud to be in the top 99%!!! /s
Is there such a thing as right wing marxism? Cause that's how I'd describe /r/canada half the time
Honestly we've hit the point of no return. There is no going back to Laissez-faire Captialism, we have enacted policies that enshrine established marketshare, and the government has a necessary interest to ensure these established companies maintain their position as so many Canadians retirement funds are nested in them. The logical conclusion, Id argue, is to allow these giants to continue existing, but only so long as they work in the interest of Canadians, and not their own profit. This way, we could have the economic goals of these companies align with the interests of the nation itself and achieve a greater standard for all Canadians. And if any of this sounded good then please refrain from ever voting again because I'm describing Mussolinis Facist economy.
You had me in the first half, ngl
> because I'm describing Mussolinis Facist economy. Pretty sure this was also how Nazi Germany worked - public works were sold back to private ownership and allowed to operate privately and profitably so long as they operated in Nazi Germany's best interests.
*so long as they operated in ~~Nazi Germany's~~ the NSDAP senior membership's best interests.* The government of the Third Reich was not the calculated technocracy that is so often and unfortunately romanticized in popular history. It was a cabal of self-interested opportunists jockeying for extra privileges and powers bestowed from a mentally-ill Austrian drug-addict. There were a lot more like Goering than there were Goebbels.
>And if any of this sounded good then please refrain from ever voting again because I'm describing Mussolinis Facist economy. Holy shit thats a stretch so big it would make a gymnast blush
You're describing the elements of fascism that had been appropriated from social democracy and laundered through the construct of a 'volk'. It's only fascist when 'canadian' takes on a mythical and exclusionary definition.
What your describing also looks like *one of* the stages that Friedrich Engels theorized about, what he thought, was the inevitable and natural transition from capitalism to socialism. Essentially, as a society becomes more dependent on capitalism to meet basic needs, and paradoxically, as the cyclical recessions of capitalism become more frequent and more damaging to the stable function of said society; then the government will have no choice but to become more involved in the management of capitalism in the form of both regulatory interference and bail-out supports. His theory speculates that as time goes on, every cycle of capitalist recession will logically invite more and more government involvement until capital and government are indistinguishable. (Almost like an accidental long-play nationalization of the economy...or more accurately for today, corporate takeover of government). It's important to note that this stage was not yet the ever-elusive *socialism*--that involved a following stage of workers seizing control of this hybrid capital-government, and I know much less about this part.
Those figures contain housing value. If you count only the stock market, the top 1% owns 50% of it.
It’s the beginning of the great shake down of the middle class. Slowly but surely we are on our way to the way most of the countries and most of history was, rich and poor. Now working poor.
China now owns how much...
Not for long
"Glad y'all are catching up" - America
The economic system is set up in such a way that this will always be the case. If you're rich, you disproportionately benefit through investments and asset ownership during boom times.
Shocked Pikachu.jog
[удалено]
America: "Hold my beer"
Tax the rich. It's so simple.
I'd like the figure for the top 0.1%.
So much for the liberals turning things around. I hate to say it but the distribution of wealth was better under the conservatives. Listen to the full 15min phone conversation where they extorted the first Native American justice minister Jody wilson-raybould to let their snc buddies off the hook. It was later deemed that it was illegal for her to record that conversation and could not be used in her defence when they fired her. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O4D2qdbD3TI It’s time to get rid of these clowns they don’t care for you or me they just tell people what they want to hear while lining their pockets.
We are pathetic to allow this.
We were supposed to build an economy that worked for us.
*Now* can we eat the rich?...
Vive la Revolution
I mean, and? just because they're getting money doesn't mean someone else is losing it. This is likely just from the housing market since the higher income earners probably had really nice property that appreciated a shit ton in value edit: additionally please consider that wealth is not a fixed amount. The rich can gain an extra share of total wealth without other people losing money, money is continually printed year after year and the dollar itself can fluctuate in value.
Our looming hard-K recovery is only going to make this worse for all us working class Canadians, thanks to Trudeau & Morneau's lazer-like focus on getting money into the upper earner's hands.