Canada, Eh!

[LC]

5 hours ago, shru said:

Seems like a good primer of what has happened till now. Hope better times will be coming:

 

My god, is there a written article or something? That guy has the charisma of a corpse, after 8 minutes I couldn't take it anymore.

 

I'd say based on what I saw: Canada making the (conscious or unconscious) choice to not squeeze every last drop of blood from its people and land in the name of GDP growth does not make it somehow worse. I'll admit that Canada's industry protectionism looks particularly heavy handed after years of global bull markets, but that's a tradeoff for when the tide inevitably goes out. 

 

In the interim? More equitable wealth distribution and better relative outcomes for those living in the bottom 50% of the wealth&income distributions.

 

[RichardGibbons]

2 hours ago, LC said:

More equitable wealth distribution and better relative outcomes for those living in the bottom 50% of the wealth&income distributions.

 

Yeah, for sure, if you consider relative outcomes the key goal. Driving everyone into poverty is certainly much superior on such criteria than having different economic classes in society.

 

Like, if we look at incomes and compare the horrible income inequality country from the chart--USA--to Canada, you find that the average after-tax income for those "bottom 50%" Canadians is about $17K, while the "bottom 50%" Americans is around $22K.

 

So, you've certainly increased income equality, but you've also managed to get rid of about 30% of the income that Canadians otherwise would have, absolutely crushing their standard of living.

[Marco Van Basten]

1 hour ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Yeah, for sure, if you consider relative outcomes the key goal. Driving everyone into poverty is certainly much superior on such criteria than having different economic classes in society.

 

Like, if we look at incomes and compare the horrible income inequality country from the chart--USA--to Canada, you find that the average after-tax income for those "bottom 50%" Canadians is about $17K, while the "bottom 50%" Americans is around $22K.

 

So, you've certainly increased income equality, but you've also managed to get rid of about 30% of the income that Canadians otherwise would have, absolutely crushing their standard of living.

I would be really careful with the statistics here.  I cannot speak for Canadian data, but the US date regarding the bottom 50% strikes me as absurdly incorrect.  I think a great deal of people in the bottom half of the income distribution in the US get paid in cash and hide a very large % of their income from the tax authorities.  I live in NYC, and we have hundreds of thousands of workers where their cash income = 20-50% of their reported income, and probably tens of thousands if not more where cash income is in excess of 100% of their reported income.  In the suburbs of NYC, numerous tradesmen get paid in cash - plumbers, carpenters, landscapers, roofers, electricians, and the list goes on.  

[RichardGibbons]

2 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

I would be really careful with the statistics here.  I cannot speak for Canadian data, but the US date regarding the bottom 50% strikes me as absurdly incorrect.  I think a great deal of people in the bottom half of the income distribution in the US get paid in cash and hide a very large % of their income from the tax authorities.  I live in NYC, and we have hundreds of thousands of workers where their cash income = 20-50% of their reported income, and probably tens of thousands if not more where cash income is in excess of 100% of their reported income.  In the suburbs of NYC, numerous tradesmen get paid in cash - plumbers, carpenters, landscapers, roofers, electricians, and the list goes on.  

 

Yeah, fair point. I didn't drill into the numbers at all, because the evidence for the underlying point is so overwhelming, that many ostensibly progressive programs over the long term actually hurt the outcomes for the most vulnerable.

[LC]

1 minute ago, RichardGibbons said:

that many ostensibly progressive programs over the long term actually hurt the outcomes for the most vulnerable.

 

Canada has a significantly smaller percentage of its population in poverty, and a higher transition rate (~2x better odds iirc) from poverty into the middle class. 

 

Your point on absolute wealth is a fair one, that is the cost which Canadian society pays to provide better outcomes for its poorest.

 

As to which approach is preferable, everyone has their own opinion. 

[Marco Van Basten]

1 hour ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Yeah, fair point. I didn't drill into the numbers at all, because the evidence for the underlying point is so overwhelming, that many ostensibly progressive programs over the long term actually hurt the outcomes for the most vulnerable.

Oh, I agree, the worst damage to the poor are done by progressive agenda.  I would vote for a negative income tax credit in a heartbeat.  

[Red Lion]

1 hour ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Oh, I agree, the worst damage to the poor are done by progressive agenda.  I would vote for a negative income tax credit in a heartbeat.  

 

Other than cutting spending, how would the government raise revenue? VAT, Tariffs, royalties? 

[Parsad]

6 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

I would be really careful with the statistics here.  I cannot speak for Canadian data, but the US date regarding the bottom 50% strikes me as absurdly incorrect.  I think a great deal of people in the bottom half of the income distribution in the US get paid in cash and hide a very large % of their income from the tax authorities.  I live in NYC, and we have hundreds of thousands of workers where their cash income = 20-50% of their reported income, and probably tens of thousands if not more where cash income is in excess of 100% of their reported income.  In the suburbs of NYC, numerous tradesmen get paid in cash - plumbers, carpenters, landscapers, roofers, electricians, and the list goes on.  

 

It still wouldn't even come remotely close to the total wealth accumulated by the top 10% and especially the top 1%.  This type of disparity hasn't existed in the U.S. since the early 1900's when you had the robber barons ruling and owning huge swathes of land, resources and business assets.  

 

If you assume the bottom 50% own the entire...I'm talking the ENTIRE underground economy in the U.S...that is about $2T.  The top 10% own nearly 65% or about $60T+! 

 

So no need to be careful with statistics...they aren't lying here!  Cheers!

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Oh, I agree, the worst damage to the poor are done by progressive agenda.  I would vote for a negative income tax credit in a heartbeat.  

 

Not true at all!  Again, you cannot say one specific agenda is the root cause.  

 

Corporate tax rates have decreased steadily in the U.S. since the 1980's...they are near the lowest they've been in 80 years:

 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-corporate-tax-rates-brackets/

 

Somewhat similar with Canadian corporate rates as well...but the reductions weren't quite as huge:

 

https://hillnotes.ca/2021/11/02/corporate-income-taxes-in-canada-revenue-rates-and-rationale-2/

 

One of the other biggest contributors to the disparity in wealth has also been lower income citizens inability to maximize available tax shelters against their income...like RRSPs, RESPs, TFSAs, etc.  If you have limited disposable income, how do you maximize these tax shelters?

 

Lastly, the change in demographics has been a huge contributor to the disparity in wealth.  Fewer people paying into the tax coffers as the number of younger taxpayers supporting the system drops over the last 50 years.  This occurring as even more and more women joined the work force!

 

If both spouses are working, costs for childcare, transportation, clothes, food, etc all rise.  Combined with rising housing costs due to immigration and you have more and more people falling behind.  

 

So yes, some progressive policies like increased immigration, increased social programs, etc have something to do with the wealth disparity, but they aren't the sole cause.  The greatest contributing factor is probably the reduction in corporate tax rates.  But then the question arises, if the U.S. is reducing rates, how does Canada not follow suit to stay competitive?  Thus you have the problem you have!  

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, Red Lion said:

 

Other than cutting spending, how would the government raise revenue? VAT, Tariffs, royalties? 

 

The Chretien/Martin governments were an excellent example.  They cut spending enough to keep it flat and balance the budget, and also reduced corporate and personal tax rates enough to spur investment and grow the economy.  That allowed GDP to catch up to debt nominally, and over time reduced Canada's debt to GDP to the lowest in the G7 when Martin was finished.  Balancing the budget goes a long ways.  I'm hoping that Carney is slowly guiding Canada down a similar path!  Cheers!

[Marco Van Basten]

8 hours ago, Red Lion said:

 

Other than cutting spending, how would the government raise revenue? VAT, Tariffs, royalties? 

I wasn't clear.  I would be for negative income tax on the first say 20-50K of a person's income.  Above that, I agree that we need an actual income.  In terms of government, yes we need to cut spending, and VAT is probably a much better way than income tax.  

[Marco Van Basten]

6 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Not true at all!  Again, you cannot say one specific agenda is the root cause.  

 

Corporate tax rates have decreased steadily in the U.S. since the 1980's...they are near the lowest they've been in 80 years:

 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-corporate-tax-rates-brackets/

 

Somewhat similar with Canadian corporate rates as well...but the reductions weren't quite as huge:

 

https://hillnotes.ca/2021/11/02/corporate-income-taxes-in-canada-revenue-rates-and-rationale-2/

 

One of the other biggest contributors to the disparity in wealth has also been lower income citizens inability to maximize available tax shelters against their income...like RRSPs, RESPs, TFSAs, etc.  If you have limited disposable income, how do you maximize these tax shelters?

 

Lastly, the change in demographics has been a huge contributor to the disparity in wealth.  Fewer people paying into the tax coffers as the number of younger taxpayers supporting the system drops over the last 50 years.  This occurring as even more and more women joined the work force!

 

If both spouses are working, costs for childcare, transportation, clothes, food, etc all rise.  Combined with rising housing costs due to immigration and you have more and more people falling behind.  

 

So yes, some progressive policies like increased immigration, increased social programs, etc have something to do with the wealth disparity, but they aren't the sole cause.  The greatest contributing factor is probably the reduction in corporate tax rates.  But then the question arises, if the U.S. is reducing rates, how does Canada not follow suit to stay competitive?  Thus you have the problem you have!  

 

Cheers!

 

 

Lousy schools that don't teach anything, abolition of trade/vocational school, disdain for manual labor - everyone should go to college at taxpayer's expense to get a degree in cultural preservation rather than acquire useful skills (plumbing, electric, carpentry, masonry, etc...) government waste that leads to higher taxes, allowing criminals not to be punished, welfare that allows women to have kids out of wedlock - kids grow up without fathers and role models, not seeing anyone who works for a living.  

[Red Lion]

1 hour ago, Marco Van Basten said:

I wasn't clear.  I would be for negative income tax on the first say 20-50K of a person's income.  Above that, I agree that we need an actual income.  In terms of government, yes we need to cut spending, and VAT is probably a much better way than income tax.  

 

This makes total sense. 

[Red Lion]

8 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

The Chretien/Martin governments were an excellent example.  They cut spending enough to keep it flat and balance the budget, and also reduced corporate and personal tax rates enough to spur investment and grow the economy.  That allowed GDP to catch up to debt nominally, and over time reduced Canada's debt to GDP to the lowest in the G7 when Martin was finished.  Balancing the budget goes a long ways.  I'm hoping that Carney is slowly guiding Canada down a similar path!  Cheers!

This seems like the holy grail! 

[Parsad]

12 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

This seems like the holy grail! 

 

For governments these days with their fiscal irresponsibility...yes, it virtually is the holy grail to them.  But this is just common sense and it seems as though politicians can't help themselves and spend, spend, spend. 

 

Blame it on everything from the pandemic, inflation fighting, demographics, health, education, support for the citizens, tariffs, war, etc.  But never, "hey, maybe we need to get our fiscal house in order TODAY!"  Cheers!

[Hoodlum]

17 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

For governments these days with their fiscal irresponsibility...yes, it virtually is the holy grail to them.  But this is just common sense and it seems as though politicians can't help themselves and spend, spend, spend. 

 

Blame it on everything from the pandemic, inflation fighting, demographics, health, education, support for the citizens, tariffs, war, etc.  But never, "hey, maybe we need to get our fiscal house in order TODAY!"  Cheers!

In Canada we were still in good shape with our debt until the 2008 Financial crisis where there was the perceived need to pump the system.  I still question if Canada needed to do that as our banks were in good shape. 
 

This was when spending went to another level and became more the norm. 
 

Edited April 8 by Hoodlum

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, Hoodlum said:

In Canada we were still in good shape with our debt until the 2008 Financial crisis where there was the perceived need to pump the system.  I still question if Canada needed to do that as our banks were in good shape. 
 

This was when spending went to another level and became more the norm. 
 

 

Yup.  We were still in pretty good shape until the pandemic.  I think everything went to hell globally in the last 5 years in terms of fiscal responsibility.  Some of it necessary, a lot of it overkill and recklessness by governments.  Now everyone has to find a way to pay for it for the next couple of decades!  Cheers!

[Parsad]

Anyone using TD today in Canada?  They are having major problems with their trading desk on like the biggest day of the year.  

 

I've been on hold for 2 hours trying to find out if my online trades went through or not, as they are not updating properly.  Have no idea what has happened today with the account!

 

Cheers!

[Hoodlum]

13 minutes ago, Parsad said:

Anyone using TD today in Canada?  They are having major problems with their trading desk on like the biggest day of the year.  

 

I've been on hold for 2 hours trying to find out if my online trades went through or not, as they are not updating properly.  Have no idea what has happened today with the account!

 

Cheers!

 

I have only one small account now with TD, after moving to WS last year.  I haven't done anything with TD but see multiple thread on Reddit today for this.  Cancelling order only makes it worse as it goes into "Cancel Pending" status and funds are held.  One guy was told byTD rep that it was an exchange issue and not specific to TD.  
 

 

 

 

Edited April 8 by Hoodlum

[Parsad]

35 minutes ago, Hoodlum said:

 

I have only one small account now with TD, after moving to WS last year.  I haven't done anything with TD but see multiple thread on Reddit today for this.  Cancelling order only makes it worse as it goes into "Cancel Pending" status and funds are held.  One guy was told byTD rep that it was an exchange issue and not specific to TD.  
 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Hoodlum!  No, it's definitely TD.  I had no problem with my other accounts at RBC.  

 

Pretty much gave up on TD today.  Will see what happened later tonight or tomorrow.  

 

How do you like WS?  In terms of the trade platform...transfers...speed...account options?  Other banking if you do any there?

 

I've stayed at RBC and TD mainly because of all of the other services I use at both banks.  I'm trying to keep everything at just two banks, so if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, it's easy for my family to find everything and deal with it.

 

Cheers!

[Hoodlum]

4 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Thanks Hoodlum!  No, it's definitely TD.  I had no problem with my other accounts at RBC.  

 

Pretty much gave up on TD today.  Will see what happened later tonight or tomorrow.  

 

How do you like WS?  In terms of the trade platform...transfers...speed...account options?  Other banking if you do any there?

 

I've stayed at RBC and TD mainly because of all of the other services I use at both banks.  I'm trying to keep everything at just two banks, so if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, it's easy for my family to find everything and deal with it.

 

Cheers!

 

I only do basic stock trading with WS and it has been fine for that purpose.  I mainly switched to take advantage of their 2% account bonus last year for transferring from TD.  I also happen to have a small account with RBC and I find them to have the worst experience for online trading through their App.  TD is much better from my experience. 

I noticed the below alert in my TD account through a browser.   It looks like this is impacting the early trades from today.

Edited April 8 by Hoodlum

[Parsad]

9 minutes ago, Hoodlum said:

 

I only do basic stock trading with WS and it has been fine for that purpose.  I mainly switched to take advantage of their 2% account bonus last year for transferring from TD.  I also happen to have a small account with RBC and I find them to have the worst experience for online trading through their App.  TD is much better from my experience. 

I noticed the below alert in my TD account through a browser.   It looks like this is impacting the early trades from today.

 

Yeah, RBC's platform is horrible!  I don't keep any trading accounts there...just corporate holding company, RRSP and TFSA...as well as credit products, checking accounts, etc.  The trading accounts are at TD...I actually like their platform a lot. 

 

First time I had a major problem like this with them in 9 years...so I'm just wondering if it will happen again on a big day...whether it's a sell off or huge up market.  Cheers!

[Hoodlum]

8 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Thanks Hoodlum!  No, it's definitely TD.  I had no problem with my other accounts at RBC.  

 

Pretty much gave up on TD today.  Will see what happened later tonight or tomorrow.  

 

How do you like WS?  In terms of the trade platform...transfers...speed...account options?  Other banking if you do any there?

 

I've stayed at RBC and TD mainly because of all of the other services I use at both banks.  I'm trying to keep everything at just two banks, so if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, it's easy for my family to find everything and deal with it.

 

Cheers!

 

There are a couple of things with WS that would be difficult to replicate with someone else.  I have their no cost Visa Infinite card that provides 2% cash reward on all purchases and includes no cost Fx fees and all the basic protection and travel insurance you would expect for a premium card.  The Cash rewards are calculated daily and can be transferred to another account at any time.

WS also allows me to use my TFSA account as collateral for borrowing or investing in my margin account.   You basically just need to link your margin account to the TFSA.  I have done this but you need to of course be aware of risks for margin call on TFSA so I would never go anywhere near the limit.  Cost to borrow is only 3.95% and fluctuates based on prime.  My Savings account gets me 2.25% at WS, so quite a narrow spread.  This is a great way to access funds for short term borrowing if you don't have access to or want to setup a line of credit on a home.  Just treat it as something to pay off quickly like any other loan.  

[RichardGibbons]

17 minutes ago, Parsad said:

How do you like WS?  In terms of the trade platform...transfers...speed...account options?  Other banking if you do any there?

 

I'm on WS, and like it, particularly since they seem keen to add the pieces they were missing, like options trading.

 

There are a couple major provisos--their reliability is clearly worse than TD's. I feel like there's been at least 3 or 4 times in the past year where they went down during the day, maybe more. It hasn't hurt me yet. But it's certainly a bigger risk than TD.

 

Second, their currency exchange stuff sucks still.  They don't even allow Norbert's Gambit generally, though there's been discussions about enabling it for frequent traders (and maybe they've already done it.)  I'd imagine Norbert's Gambit will eventually be more broadly supported, but not so far.

 

Also, if you do decide to move money there, you should try to get a bonus for moving. Historically, they've offered up to 2% bonuses for keeping assets there for a year, and 3% for five years.  I think 1% for a year is pretty common. Those deals tend to show up over the summer.

 

Finally, you should also get referred by someone because the referral bonuses can be sizable too, depending on the account size. Hopefully someone in your family has an account, but I'll refer you--and pocket some money--if you don't have anyone better.

[Hoodlum]

8 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Yeah, RBC's platform is horrible!  I don't keep any trading accounts there...just corporate holding company, RRSP and TFSA...as well as credit products, checking accounts, etc.  The trading accounts are at TD...I actually like their platform a lot. 

 

First time I had a major problem like this with them in 9 years...so I'm just wondering if it will happen again on a big day...whether it's a sell off or huge up market.  Cheers!

 

I only have a FHSA account with RBC as no one else offered a self directed account at the time.  I looked at moving that to TD recently but was told that for FHSA accounts the transfer needs to be handled manually and so only cash transfers, and it could take up to a month.   I didn't want to be out of the market for a month due to the sale of my investments, so for now have left it with RBC.  It sounds like the FHSA requirement is not specific to TD but is a requirement for any institution transfer.