The "LOLCANADA" thread...again
So what's new?
I've noticed the Liberals are now ahead in all major polls and Trudeau hasn't even started to campaign yet...i'd be shocked if they lost the election now.
Just shows just how incompetent Conservatives are.
But that isn’t how the financial works .
U.S. states do have debts (which the video says they don’t) and it isn’t included in the national debts .
And I suspect it’s the same with all the countries the video showed .
we were still ahead of the states with the adjusted numbers. his formula was including all total debt and not excluding the provincial and city debts. He said the other g7 states have way less debt% at the state level sometimes none. I tried finding france/gb "province " debt and I couldn't find any leaving me to believe they don't take much debt at the "province" level
I also looking into the us state debt numbers because they were available. They were about 300% lower on average (per gdp).
but once again were still ahead of the states in both equations so it does not matter. also it doesn't matter because they have an economic hegemony we don't
who cares i was just doing it to trigger you as a low tier jab 😃 that was my point . and you focused on that for some reason and used the little joke to go on some tyrade. nvm lol use the jab/joke as a reason to dodge the losing issue wp wp
Well if your going to start off your posts with a stupid low tier “trigger” you can’t be surprised when people either ignore you or point out how silly your low tier joke was first. But hold on - you’re a bit of a noob ITT, but you didn’t think this was the first time someone mentioned that canada has provincial debt was it? Or the difference between net and gross debt (for example CPP being fully funded with massive assets as compared to many other entitlement programs in other countries)? The google search term you are looking for with France is “unitary government”, hope that helps.
funny enough when you google "unitary state debt per gdp" is about canadas debt being misleading this isprobably what chang sourced from.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commenta...
"Desjardins Economics does offer a comparative analysis of net debt excluding pension assets among G7 countries. By this measure, Canada has the second lowest net debt-to-GDP in the G7. However, this is again flawed. Desjardins only looks at net central government debt. In other words, it compares the indebtedness of Canada’s federal government to the indebtedness of central governments in other countries. But while the U.K., France, Japan and Italy are all “unitary” states, Canada is a federal country where provinces have many constitutional powers (i.e. health care and education) and spend a lot and have accumulated significant debt. Comparing the net debt of Canada’s federal government to that of central governments in G7 countries is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
So, a better measure of Canada’s comparative indebtedness is to compare “gross general government debt” to GDP. Gross debt, according to the IMF, includes “all liabilities that require future payment of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor” while general government includes all levels of government."
and when you do that middle of the pack
Well I'm certainly glad you've learned something. That Canada has a fully funded pension system (expanded under the Liberals! Great job Trudeau!) with huge assets relative to other systems seems like an important part of our fiscal picture so I haven't typically agreed with the libertarian fraser institute that ignoring this is a better measure. But I've certainly agreed several of the provinces are debt basket cases.
lol? if only we could take the boomers pensions to pay off the debt that would be wonderful. but the pension is not something you can count as being against the debt.
"Why does this matter? The assets of the CPP and QPP are required to meet the obligations for existing and future retirees, so they couldn’t be used to offset government debt without compromising the two plans’ ability to provide benefits to retirees."
Its like you don't even read and nit pick what you want from it. Obviously the cpp cannot be used to pay off future debt but it is being used in statistics to lower are debt%
lol? if only we could take the boomers pensions to pay off the debt that would be wonderful. but the pension is not something you can count as being against the debt.
"Why does this matter? The assets of the CPP and QPP are required to meet the obligations for existing and future retirees, so they couldn’t be used to offset government debt without compromising the two plans’ ability to provide benefits to retirees."
Its like you don't even read and nit pick what you want from it. Obvio
Lol, yes, obviously indeed, which makes it a bit odd that you took the stupidest possible interpretation of my comment and presumed I meant that. Canada's enviable position of having future pension liabilities fully funded with a half trillion in assets that MAKE interest is - as I said - an important part of our fiscal picture which is why I think net debt to gdp is a helpful stat (among many) when comparing countries. Nobody thinks that literally means you are going to pay off debt with pensioners wtf. But if you compare only gross debt between two countries and ignore this feature then one country can look a lot better than it really is. Of course the better answer, now that you have recently become aware of the existence of multiple measures of debt, is to look at multiple measures and not just one.
By the way, Trudeau's expansion of the CPP program is one of those things that is actually really good long term for Canada, but the type of thing that isn't immediately helpful to him politically what with the increased in deductions from paychecks happening to correspond with the spike in inflation. A good example of a prudent technocratic policy that doesn't get the attention in the limelight it deserves.
debatable i am in the middle if the cpp its even good tbh. obv biased as a poker player who won't reap any benefits. It takes money out of their paychecks and by extension the economy but most people are horrible with money so it helps them. but an above average person could use that money better. And our generation has to pay an unfair share due to demographics without mass immigration which is almost certainly why your boy pushed it. and then after putting our share in we have to hope the next generation keeps it going to get our turn because it can't keep up with inflation without them. Dumb people who can't save money get to retire who would otherwise be broke so that's nice.
Protect the people who are bad with money yadadada social services. Im on the fence mostly positive but its 11% out of the economy it should at least have an opt out clause since a lot of people can get better returns or would rather use the money now but you gotta baby the stupid can't let nature take its course
.
Do you understand at least that 2019 grocery prices is something of the past like the prices of the 1970s ?
Regardless of which PM comes forward ?
That is what worldwide inflation means …..
We’re did I say that my point was Justin pledged to lower grocery prices and if the large grocery retailers didn’t he would punish them
Tell me how that is working out ?
Don’t get me wrong the man had charisma and speaks well but rarely delivers on his pledges or promises which is lying . Though folks like Uke call it misspeak when a liberal does it
debatable i am in the middle if the cpp its even good tbh. obv biased as a poker player who won't reap any benefits.
Huh? Can you explain? If you're a professional poker player who makes their primary income from poker, then you should be contributing to CPP just like any other self-employed person and you absolutely WILL reap the benefits at retirement/disability/survivor benefits. Do you mean you avoid paying income taxes as a poker player and thus aren't contributing to CPP right now? You should pay your taxes.
It takes money out of their paychecks and by extension the economy but most people are horrible with money so it helps them.
People should be saving. If they did that, that money would be taken out of their disposable incomes "and by extension the economy". So in the debate between individuals saving and government savings plans it has nearly the identical economic effect all else equal. But as you say, people are HORRIBLE with money and so increased savings (which is overwhelmingly economically good) is much much better.
but an above average person could use that money better.
This is false. There might be outliers out there who say went hard into crypto or tesla options or whatever who do better, but in study after study it is very hard for individuals to consistently beat the market. So the "Average person" no they can not do better.
And our generation has to pay an unfair share due to demographics without mass immigration which is almost certainly why your boy pushed it.
Um you realize that the amount you get back depends on what you personally put in, right? There is a nuanced debate to be had about generational issues in the CPP but it affects CPP much much less than other programs because it is pro-rated. And saying Trudeau pushed mass immigration for the purpose of something about demographics and the CPP is just conspiratorial nonsense.
and then after putting our share in we have to hope the next generation keeps it going to get our turn because it can't keep up with inflation without them.
Um it's fully funded for the next 75 years or so based on current projections. That's the whole point, other pension systems in other countries can be bad and grossly underfunded but you shouldn't conflate that with Canada's system.
Dumb people who can't save money get to retire who would otherwise be broke so that's nice.
I guess it is fine to accuse such people of being dumb, but that is MOST people. Humans in general are bad at savings, which are very important. I don't see how this undermines CPP, doing something good for most people is a good thing, just saying they are dumb seems superfluous.
Im on the fence mostly positive but its 11% out of the economy it should at least have an opt out clause since a lot of people can get better returns or would rather use the money now but you gotta baby the stupid can't let nature take its course
.
An opt out clause would really undermine the entire point. The "dumb" people you deride would likely blow all the money now, or gamble it away on speculative BS that underperforms the market, and then we'd be stuck with cohorts of very impoverished seniors which costs the economy and the country one way or another.
You don't seem very well informed.
An opt-out clause would be ideal for CPP and EI or it could be an option if your employer already has a retirement benefit package. For the current Canadian economy families would be much better off with the extra 3500$ rather than buying groceries on the credit card.
Lol, yes, obviously indeed, which makes it a bit odd that you took the stupidest possible interpretation of my comment and presumed I meant that. Canada's enviable position of having future pension liabilities fully funded with a half trillion in assets that MAKE interest is - as I said - an important part of our fiscal picture which is why I think net debt to gdp is a helpful stat (among many) when comparing countries. Nobody thinks that literally means you are going to pay off debt with pensio
An opt-out clause would be ideal for CPP and EI or it could be an option if your employer already has a retirement benefit package. For the current Canadian economy families would be much better off with the extra 3500$ rather than buying groceries on the credit card.
Id rather see benefits non taxable
Don’t get me wrong the man had charisma and speaks well but rarely delivers on his pledges or promises which is lying . Though folks like Uke call it misspeak when a liberal does it
Actually, it's not, unless he never intended to follow through in the first place, and the same goes for anyone else that broke a promise, regardless of their political stripe. Nor would it usually be "misspeak", unless they actually, you know, misspoke.
Actually, it's not, unless he never intended to follow through in the first place, and the same goes for anyone else that broke a promise, regardless of their political stripe. Nor would it usually be "misspeak", unless they actually, you know, misspoke.
Do you actually believe he intended to follow through on the grocery giants?
I have no idea, and neither do you, but of course you're free to have an opinion on whether he did or not. I thought it was a stupid exercise in the first place.
But that wasn't my point. I replied to a very specific part of your post, because you routinely misuse the word in exactly this way: "but rarely delivers on his pledges or promises which is lying".
[/B]
Please the CPP was doing just fine before Justin Trudeau arrived and we should be shocked he didn't screw it over as well . No ones messing with the seniors CPP not even Pierre
Base CPP was doing fine. Under Trudeau, CPP was expanded to the CPP2 program. Now there is a higher level of contributions (and higher level of benefits) from those who make enough. This is a great move, expanding savings rates is fantastic for future stability. So no, he didn't screw it up nor did he leave it alone. He made it better.
An opt-out clause would be ideal for CPP and EI or it could be an option if your employer already has a retirement benefit package. For the current Canadian economy families would be much better off with the extra 3500$ rather than buying groceries on the credit card.
An "opt out" clause for CPP is bad - but an opt out clause for EI is terrible. If you dramatically increase the rate at which people end up in dire financial straights, losing their homes, ending up on the streets etc well society is going to pay the consequences of that one way or the other. EI creates a stability in the market, and allowing opt-outs avoids precisely that stability.
As someone with a tenure track job, I'll pay into EI for my entire life and will get back a grand total of about $1000 (when I had my kids, but because of side hustle income it was dramatically reduced). If anyone should opt out based on job security, it would be me. But if people like me opted out, those that most need it are going to have less when they need it, and those most on the margins are the most likely to get nothing.
This is bad. Let's assume you do it in a deficit neutral way, i.e. you give less benefits but since you don't tax them it works out to the same amount of money. So the first order approximation is that it is a wash. But at the second order level of detail, you get situations like person A who has substantial additional income on top of CPP and person B who relies only on CPP. If you believe in progressive taxation at all and that people with higher incomes should pay a higher proportion of taxes, then it makes sense that person A is taxed more - they have more income!
This is bad. Let's assume you do it in a deficit neutral way, i.e. you give less benefits but since you don't tax them it works out to the same amount of money. So the first order approximation is that it is a wash. But at the second order level of detail, you get situations like person A who has substantial additional income on top of CPP and person B who relies only on CPP. If you believe in progressive taxation at all and that people with higher incomes should pay a higher proportion of taxes
I am just saying that as i inch closer to retirement. Heck I thought you had tenure already
What specific policy actions do you think Trudeau should implement but didn't? Are you aware of the details of Bills 56 and 59 which do a range of tweaks on the competition act etc broadly speaking making it easier to track and enforce competition issues in grocery stores? I'm not actually sure if there is a specific action Trudeau promised that he "lied" about, if you have a detailed quote claiming a specific policy that was then retracked that woudln't really be a "lie" but do you even have that?
If you are taking about just vague platitudes well the grocery market has vaguely stabilized so if that is the only depth that you are looking at the issues let's give this one a GREAT JOB RIGHT HONORABLE JUSTIN TRUDEAU.
I am just saying that as i inch closer to retirement. Heck I thought you had tenure already
Ok. So you are a fan of Big Government spending a lot more money on retirees who not only have CPP but lots of other retirement income because that would personally benefit you?
I'm actually about 3 months away! Well, uh, 99.9% sure I'm 3 months away, I suppose it is possible I'm denied😃
We’re did I say that my point was Justin pledged to lower grocery prices and if the large grocery retailers didn’t he would punish them
Tell me how that is working out ?
Don’t get me wrong the man had charisma and speaks well but rarely delivers on his pledges or promises which is lying . Though folks like Uke call it misspeak when a liberal does it
You complains about this for years putting it on Justin ….
Why bring it out then if nothing could be done about it and with an inflation rate at what it’s supposed to be you still complain about it as if the problems wasn’t solved ?
You complains about this for years putting it on Justin ….
Why bring it out then if nothing could be done about it and with an inflation rate at what it’s supposed to be you still complain about it as if the problems wasn’t solved ?
You fail to read or comprehend the post I made was that Justin Trudeau pledged to lower grocery prices and threatened the large grocery retailers if they did not than he would take action against them. I asked how that was going and if that was a lie ?
Yes I realize inflation is the major cause of grocery prices rising as well as the carbon tax both items caused by Trudeau. You may argue his spending was warranted fine but it still does not change the fact he did nothing
Ok. So you are a fan of Big Government spending a lot more money on retirees who not only have CPP but lots of other retirement income because that would personally benefit you?
I'm actually about 3 months away! Well, uh, 99.9% sure I'm 3 months away, I suppose it is possible I'm denied😃
Pretty much id like one policy to benefit me . Though I did buy a bag of Dorito's that I did not have to pay the GST on
That will be a milestone for sure to hit
I remember you saying as a family you spend $700 a month on groceries after seeing my yearly spend I am baffled on how you do that or your wife
You don't pay taxes for poker winnings in Canada even as a pro. surprised you don't know that as a Canadian on a poker forum. I mean its not a negative to cpp but it has shown me I can invest that money better then they can (yes crypto) Some people also want to take higher risk investments or start businesses with that money instead . thats 11% they can't use to start a business hurting the capitalist spirit
But yes the cpp is better at investing then the average person but its only real advantage seems to be the ability for new investments to help them keep up with inflation (they pay out to match inflation) . But if that stops in the future it does not have that
Its probably 75 years based without inflation but that assumes you get to live to see it and the government is still around and the population didn't increase
But I think the main point against it is some people want to live their lives now their should be an opt out clause.
Like I said its almost certainly a small plus but I don't think its a huge deal
