I prefer walking over the The Red Roaster in Wortley Village and hearing a warm human voice.
"Gord, you're lookin' good this morning."
(I sure am.)
Photo from Nov. 17 London Free Press
***
Please click here for more Live Small
Showing posts with label pay down debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pay down debt. Show all posts
Friday, November 23, 2012
Live Small: I like 'Hello, Gord'
The $3,099 espresso machine is too rich for my blood and the fingerprint recognition technology seems a bit cold. ("Sure, I can make you an espresso but show me some ID first!")
I prefer walking over the The Red Roaster in Wortley Village and hearing a warm human voice.
"Gord, you're lookin' good this morning."
(I sure am.)
Photo from Nov. 17 London Free Press
***
Please click here for more Live Small
I prefer walking over the The Red Roaster in Wortley Village and hearing a warm human voice.
"Gord, you're lookin' good this morning."
(I sure am.)
Photo from Nov. 17 London Free Press
***
Please click here for more Live Small
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Live Small: “We’ll all scream” for different reasons
Who writes this stuff? “...We’ll all scream for this innovative ice cream compressor” that costs $549.95. (Nov. 17, London Free Press)
Really? As the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow, this type of tripe - empty-headed ads aimed at the richest among us - surely makes many want to scream.
About my “choice of consistency”: I choose to reduce spending, pay down debt and save money for tough times. And if I want an ice cream cone I’ll visit The Dugout in Wortley Village.
Photos by GH
***
Are you putting money away on a regular basis? Yes? Keep up the good work.
Please click here for more Live Small
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Climate Change Concerns PT 2: “Bet $100 on a worse climate”
It was 42 C in St. Louis.
41 C in Washington, D.C. And 46 Americans were already dead from the heat wave.
In Britain, there were more than 20 flood warnings and 100 flood alerts in effect.
Russia had its hottest summer ever in 2010 — over 5,000 excess deaths in Moscow in July alone.
Last Friday in southern Russia, flash floods killed 155 people.
Last January only 14.7% of the United States was covered by snow, compared to 61% at the same time in 2011. At least 300 people died in a cold wave in northern India in the previous January.
Above details from this recent news article by Gwynne Dyer (July 14, London Free Press)
Climate change? Our fault? A sure bet?
[Photos by G.Harrison]
***
Please click here for Climate Change Concerns PT 1
Friday, August 3, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Welcome to Harperville: “Smoke and fire, definitely, down your pants”
[“There is no Plan B, so if you feel the heat a-risin’ up your pant leg, a weak, short-sighted economic plan for 35 million people in a warming climate may be one reason.” GH, Jan. 13, Welcome to Harperville]
Please note: In Canada, the minority of people live in Harperville. And the minority is getting smaller.
“Once again Stephen Harper has overstepped his role as prime minister. He dreams up outlandish ideas about pension plans and doesn’t consult the MPs we elected to tell him what to do.” So begins a recent letter to the editor by Paul W. in the London Free Press (Feb. 6).
Paul neglects to mention that after Mr. Harper dreamt about making Canadians live a few more years before collecting their old age security cheque in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest of Canadians, he announced his intentions in Switzerland, i.e., thousands and thousands of miles away from any loyal subjects who also might have an opinion in the matter. Paul should add, "What a weaselly move!" However, he does go on to say that our PM should “throw in the towel” because he’s lost the respect of his party members and “those of us unfortunate enough to have voted for his party.”
I’d be happy to hear what you think about delaying the OAS. Perhaps you’re a senior who feels you’ll really need it when the time comes, i.e., at age 65, and can’t afford any delay. Perhaps you’re a Conservative Party member who is willing to sacrifice a few years of OAS so that Corporate Canada can get more tax breaks in order to do whatever corporations do with tax breaks. Explain to me what they do, if you can.
[“Been thinking about your pension? Save up - now”]
Personally, though I enjoy my lovely little pension now and will apply for OAS when the time comes, I know that public pensions are under pressure, are under funded, and lengthy discussions will be needed about how to maintain the future health of retirement supports. I also know that pensions are supported, in part, by government revenues (also under pressure), so that is likely where the PM’s dreams should first be directed.
Any PM who dreams about taking money from the elderly to support the wealthiest in Canada is just blowing smoke and fire up your pants.
***
Thank you to Paul W.
Please click here to read more “Welcome to Harperville”
.
Please note: In Canada, the minority of people live in Harperville. And the minority is getting smaller.
“Once again Stephen Harper has overstepped his role as prime minister. He dreams up outlandish ideas about pension plans and doesn’t consult the MPs we elected to tell him what to do.” So begins a recent letter to the editor by Paul W. in the London Free Press (Feb. 6).
Paul neglects to mention that after Mr. Harper dreamt about making Canadians live a few more years before collecting their old age security cheque in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest of Canadians, he announced his intentions in Switzerland, i.e., thousands and thousands of miles away from any loyal subjects who also might have an opinion in the matter. Paul should add, "What a weaselly move!" However, he does go on to say that our PM should “throw in the towel” because he’s lost the respect of his party members and “those of us unfortunate enough to have voted for his party.”
I’d be happy to hear what you think about delaying the OAS. Perhaps you’re a senior who feels you’ll really need it when the time comes, i.e., at age 65, and can’t afford any delay. Perhaps you’re a Conservative Party member who is willing to sacrifice a few years of OAS so that Corporate Canada can get more tax breaks in order to do whatever corporations do with tax breaks. Explain to me what they do, if you can.
[“Been thinking about your pension? Save up - now”]
Personally, though I enjoy my lovely little pension now and will apply for OAS when the time comes, I know that public pensions are under pressure, are under funded, and lengthy discussions will be needed about how to maintain the future health of retirement supports. I also know that pensions are supported, in part, by government revenues (also under pressure), so that is likely where the PM’s dreams should first be directed.
Any PM who dreams about taking money from the elderly to support the wealthiest in Canada is just blowing smoke and fire up your pants.
***
Thank you to Paul W.
Please click here to read more “Welcome to Harperville”
.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Climate Change Concerns: London, Ontario, January 12
There is some evidence that Canadians are cutting back on spending and reducing personal debt (which still sits at historic highs) because it has likely dawned on some that they are only one or two pay cheques away from the poor house.
Few realize, however, that we are only one or two bad crop years away from historically high food prices and shortages of some valuable commodities because of climate instability related to high carbon emissions, like those from our costly economic engine, the tar sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
["Climate instability outside my window": photo GH]
Look outside. Do you see typical January weather where you live? Here in London, we’re experiencing another mild, wet winter. Yes, there will be some snow in our future, perhaps near future, but global warming is having its way with us.
[Please click here for more climate change graphs]
Is climate change seen out your window? Take a photo. Let me know.
***
Please click here for more Climate Change Concerns.
.
Few realize, however, that we are only one or two bad crop years away from historically high food prices and shortages of some valuable commodities because of climate instability related to high carbon emissions, like those from our costly economic engine, the tar sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
["Climate instability outside my window": photo GH]
Look outside. Do you see typical January weather where you live? Here in London, we’re experiencing another mild, wet winter. Yes, there will be some snow in our future, perhaps near future, but global warming is having its way with us.
[Please click here for more climate change graphs]
Is climate change seen out your window? Take a photo. Let me know.
***
Please click here for more Climate Change Concerns.
.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
What does the future hold? “Le cose cattive”
Lessons from Italy: Non c'รจ problema a venire!
I think things look bad and there’s trouble ahead in North America, if recent events in Italy can teach us anything.
Italian PM Monti ‘unveiled a $40.3-billion package of austerity measures on Sunday... in a drive to stave off a crisis that threatens to overwhelm the euro zone.’ (Dec. 5, London Free Press) But if the euro zone weakens there will likely be many repercussions in tidy old North America, home of an excessive lifestyle that rests firmly on the back of cheap oil and an unsustainable free market economy.
The news article re austerity measures in Italy reveals what will likely occur on the N. American side of the Atlantic in the years ahead.
[Please click here for full article]
“Monti said... the package was painful but necessary.”
What our future holds: N. American austerity measures will be painful for many, but not all.
“We have had to share the sacrifices, but we have made great efforts to share them fairly.”
["Things look bad."]
What our future holds: The sacrifices will not be shared fairly.
“Welfare Minister Elsa Fornero broke down in tears as she announced an end to inflation indexing on some pension bands, a move that will mean an effective income cut for many retired people.”
What our future holds: There will be signs of sympathy from those in power toward the poorest in society but that will be about it.
“As well as an end to inflation indexing for many pensioners, the measures will see the minimum pension age for both men and women raised in stages to 66 by 2018 with incentives to keep workers in employment until 70.”
What our future holds: N. Americans will soon get used to hearing news about ‘Freedom 75,’ maybe ‘80.’
“Contrary to expectations before the announcement, there was no increase in income tax but a new property tax, expected to raise some 10-12 billion euros, will account for the bulk of the new revenues.”
What our future holds: N. American Income taxes will be slow to increase because corporations will effectively block the government at every turn. However, more families on tight budgets will have to seek smaller accommodations.
["There's trouble ahead."]
“The package also cut a number of local government functions in a bid to reduce the cost of public administration. Measures to boost growth include tax incentives for companies to employ workers and special measures to favour women and young people.”
What our future holds: The public sector will continue being under attack in Canada and the US but the private sector will get more tax incentives because of the short-sighted belief that corporations are job creators ahead of being profit takers and down-sizers.
“But Monti left for a later date the vexed question of reforming of contracts that hinder companies from laying off workers, a measure seen as key to overhauling the labour market, but which is bitterly opposed by unions.”
What our future holds: N. American governments will continue to suppress the powers of unions as they drive to depress wages and remove workers’ rights.
Some readers may believe that the Italian and N. American financial and economical situations are far removed from one another, and things that occur on one side of the Atlantic need not be repeated on the other side. They are partly correct.
The same types of unfair, short-sighted measures applied in Italy need not be applied here, but many already are as N. American corporations strive to increase wealth (at the expense of workers’ wealth and rights) with the assistance of government policy.
Things look bad. Le cose cattive.
There’s trouble ahead. Non c'รจ problema a venire!
***
Please click here for news about smaller lifestyles.
.
I think things look bad and there’s trouble ahead in North America, if recent events in Italy can teach us anything.
Italian PM Monti ‘unveiled a $40.3-billion package of austerity measures on Sunday... in a drive to stave off a crisis that threatens to overwhelm the euro zone.’ (Dec. 5, London Free Press) But if the euro zone weakens there will likely be many repercussions in tidy old North America, home of an excessive lifestyle that rests firmly on the back of cheap oil and an unsustainable free market economy.
The news article re austerity measures in Italy reveals what will likely occur on the N. American side of the Atlantic in the years ahead.
[Please click here for full article]
“Monti said... the package was painful but necessary.”
What our future holds: N. American austerity measures will be painful for many, but not all.
“We have had to share the sacrifices, but we have made great efforts to share them fairly.”
["Things look bad."]
What our future holds: The sacrifices will not be shared fairly.
“Welfare Minister Elsa Fornero broke down in tears as she announced an end to inflation indexing on some pension bands, a move that will mean an effective income cut for many retired people.”
What our future holds: There will be signs of sympathy from those in power toward the poorest in society but that will be about it.
“As well as an end to inflation indexing for many pensioners, the measures will see the minimum pension age for both men and women raised in stages to 66 by 2018 with incentives to keep workers in employment until 70.”
What our future holds: N. Americans will soon get used to hearing news about ‘Freedom 75,’ maybe ‘80.’
“Contrary to expectations before the announcement, there was no increase in income tax but a new property tax, expected to raise some 10-12 billion euros, will account for the bulk of the new revenues.”
What our future holds: N. American Income taxes will be slow to increase because corporations will effectively block the government at every turn. However, more families on tight budgets will have to seek smaller accommodations.
["There's trouble ahead."]
“The package also cut a number of local government functions in a bid to reduce the cost of public administration. Measures to boost growth include tax incentives for companies to employ workers and special measures to favour women and young people.”
What our future holds: The public sector will continue being under attack in Canada and the US but the private sector will get more tax incentives because of the short-sighted belief that corporations are job creators ahead of being profit takers and down-sizers.
“But Monti left for a later date the vexed question of reforming of contracts that hinder companies from laying off workers, a measure seen as key to overhauling the labour market, but which is bitterly opposed by unions.”
What our future holds: N. American governments will continue to suppress the powers of unions as they drive to depress wages and remove workers’ rights.
Some readers may believe that the Italian and N. American financial and economical situations are far removed from one another, and things that occur on one side of the Atlantic need not be repeated on the other side. They are partly correct.
The same types of unfair, short-sighted measures applied in Italy need not be applied here, but many already are as N. American corporations strive to increase wealth (at the expense of workers’ wealth and rights) with the assistance of government policy.
Things look bad. Le cose cattive.
There’s trouble ahead. Non c'รจ problema a venire!
***
Please click here for news about smaller lifestyles.
.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Letter to the Editor: PT 3 “Attack the debt and public servants only"
["No doubt, many in our province, even in North America, are going to have to reduce lifestyle expectations now and in the near future." G. Harrison, Oct. 20]
No doubt about it.
R.S.M. Eberhard had some "not half bad" ideas re paying down the rising debt here in Ontario, Canada.
"Raise the HST (Homogenized Sales Tax) to 15%, with 1% going to the provincial government and 1% to the feds."
I'm not opposed to that, for the most part. The HST is a consumption tax that hits everyone, so at a certain level it's fair. It hits our consumption and many would admit we buy too much stuff too much of the time, then have to sell some of it at yard sales in order to clear a path to the washing machine.
The less-fortunate and unemployed would also be hit and would deserve some consideration, in my opinion, and nowhere does RSM address the needy.
As well, some of RSM's ideas are simply "half baked."
"All who receive income directly or indirectly from taxpayers should have an income over $50,000 a year reduced by 10%..."
Let's pause for a moment shall we.
Many will see that RSM is going after a pile of money, starting at $5,000 per household with an income of $50,000. It gets higher per household in which more than $50,000 is made.
Surely, many will also say RSM's idea is outrageous, though a few might at least give him a point for trying to spread the pain of paying off a mountain of debt in an equitable manner without attacking households with wages under 50 Gs. After all, some will say, it at least sounds equitable, because almost everybody in Ontario receives income "directly" from taxpayers" (e.g., politicians, doctors) or "indirectly from taxpayers" (e.g., retailers, lawyers and all others who get paid by billing ordinary citizens, aka taxpayers).
However, upon further reading, RSM may not be trying to be equitable at all.
In his description of "all who receive income directly or indirectly from taxpayers" he includes the following:
"Politicians, doctors, police officers..."
Are you catching a whiff of stink?
"Teachers, nurse, court officials, etc."
Do you know why RSM finished with etc?
It's likely because he couldn't think of any other occupations in the public sector.
To RSM, the private sector must be almost invisible. And as poor as poor can be. Not one occupation in the private sector is mentioned in his plan. "Half-baked" came to mind, as you read earlier.
Attack the debt?
Let's do so, but let's not let the wealthiest among us off the hook while we're trying to keep the next several generations from bearing all the weight.
***
To address provincial or national debt in a serious and equitable manner, what factors need to be considered?
Is there a link between national debts in many countries and the Occupy (Name a city) protests?
Please click here to read Letter to the Editor: PT 2 "Attack the debt. Pay tolls. Pay more for gas"
.
No doubt about it.
R.S.M. Eberhard had some "not half bad" ideas re paying down the rising debt here in Ontario, Canada.
"Raise the HST (Homogenized Sales Tax) to 15%, with 1% going to the provincial government and 1% to the feds."
I'm not opposed to that, for the most part. The HST is a consumption tax that hits everyone, so at a certain level it's fair. It hits our consumption and many would admit we buy too much stuff too much of the time, then have to sell some of it at yard sales in order to clear a path to the washing machine.
The less-fortunate and unemployed would also be hit and would deserve some consideration, in my opinion, and nowhere does RSM address the needy.
As well, some of RSM's ideas are simply "half baked."
"All who receive income directly or indirectly from taxpayers should have an income over $50,000 a year reduced by 10%..."
Let's pause for a moment shall we.
Many will see that RSM is going after a pile of money, starting at $5,000 per household with an income of $50,000. It gets higher per household in which more than $50,000 is made.
Surely, many will also say RSM's idea is outrageous, though a few might at least give him a point for trying to spread the pain of paying off a mountain of debt in an equitable manner without attacking households with wages under 50 Gs. After all, some will say, it at least sounds equitable, because almost everybody in Ontario receives income "directly" from taxpayers" (e.g., politicians, doctors) or "indirectly from taxpayers" (e.g., retailers, lawyers and all others who get paid by billing ordinary citizens, aka taxpayers).
However, upon further reading, RSM may not be trying to be equitable at all.
In his description of "all who receive income directly or indirectly from taxpayers" he includes the following:
"Politicians, doctors, police officers..."
Are you catching a whiff of stink?
"Teachers, nurse, court officials, etc."
Do you know why RSM finished with etc?
It's likely because he couldn't think of any other occupations in the public sector.
To RSM, the private sector must be almost invisible. And as poor as poor can be. Not one occupation in the private sector is mentioned in his plan. "Half-baked" came to mind, as you read earlier.
Attack the debt?
Let's do so, but let's not let the wealthiest among us off the hook while we're trying to keep the next several generations from bearing all the weight.
***
To address provincial or national debt in a serious and equitable manner, what factors need to be considered?
Is there a link between national debts in many countries and the Occupy (Name a city) protests?
Please click here to read Letter to the Editor: PT 2 "Attack the debt. Pay tolls. Pay more for gas"
.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Letter to the Editor: PT 1 “Attack the debt. Here’s how... maybe”
[“Gasoline (should rise) to $1.50 a litre. We will never conserve if it doesn’t hurt not to.” R.S.M. Eberhard]
Here in Canada, because the World Series isn’t on TV yet, the Stanley Cup finals are months away, the weather is cool and wet, the cottage is all closed up and lawn furniture is put away, we have time to talk to one another and many serious-minded people are talking about the severity of our provincial and national debt.
They’re huge. Getting huger.
R.S.M. Eberhard, London, wrote a letter to his local paper recently and included a few ideas about how to tackle the debt... now!
Few would argue with his preamble:
By our profligate lifestyle, exaggerated expectations and for the most part living on credit, both individually and provincially (I think Eberhard could include ‘and nationally’. GH), we have accumulated a debt burden that approaches that of some European countries. Servicing the debt (Reportedly, Ontario pays $40 billion per year on debt interest) is requiring an ever-increasing part of the provincial budget. (Oct. 15, London Free Press)
Readers of my last couple of posts, e.g., 100 Challenges Ahead 4, have seen some of the frightful numbers and have no doubt started to reduce spending, pay down debt and save for the tougher times ahead. Good move.
["My pig ain't scared of no debt gorilla!": photo GH]
Consider R.S.M. Eberhard’s proposals while you’re getting your household in order.
One. “Raise the HST to 15%, with 1% going to the provincial government and 1% to the feds.”
Now, I assume RSM means to target the debt with the 1% figures. I have no problem with that, because it would be interesting and informative to see if 1% would make any kind of dent. Plus, the HST is a consumption tax, and I’m in favour of reduced consumption all around the market place. After all, as RSM points out, “if you buy and spend wisely, you pay less tax.”
He can say that all day long to me. I’m sitting in front of the computer in a very comfortable pair of used jeans (from the Village of Values store @ $7 plus 13% HST - 91 cents - I would imagine) and drinking freshly brewed coffee from an old metal travel mug - sans handle - that will last me another 30 years if it doesn’t fall off my bicycle’s rat trap sometime on my way to the local coffee shop.
However, some of RSM’s other suggestions need some tweaking.
More to follow.
***
Please click here to read about another solution to debt.
.
Monday, October 17, 2011
“Reduce spending, pay down debt, save for tough times” 1
I will take one food item out of my grocery cart this week and put it back on the shelf.
["Feed the pig": photo G.Harrison]
I will put the money saved into my piggy bank for tough times ahead.
***
Please click here for a recent Zoom w a View.
.
["Feed the pig": photo G.Harrison]
I will put the money saved into my piggy bank for tough times ahead.
***
Please click here for a recent Zoom w a View.
.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Zoom w a View: “The gentlest of all reminders”
This doesn’t happen often. I’m delivering a gentle reminder.
In fact, I call it “the gentlest of reminders.”
“Save. Smile like my piggy.”
***
Please click here for news not so gentle.
Or here.
.
In fact, I call it “the gentlest of reminders.”
“Save. Smile like my piggy.”
***
Please click here for news not so gentle.
Or here.
.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Long-term Thinking PT 3: “Admit you are in debt. Seek advice.”
[“What to do about rising household costs? Look at your biggest expenses, i.e., housing, transportation, food, clothes, communication (e.g., cell phones), entertainment (movies, cable TV), etc. Ask yourself hard questions about each.” G.Harrison, Sept. 27]
By now a few Canadian households have taken my advice to “reduce spending, pay down debt, and save money for the tough times ahead.”
They are de-emphasizing ‘living for today’ and are hiding a few acorns in safe places (e.g., a piggy bank) for the long winter ahead. They are not just thinking about their own generation but their children’s generation as well.
According to an expert in personal financial planning, only a few people are doing this.
“The average Canadian continues to add debt... (but) it’s never too late to get out from under it and save (for example) for retirement.” Aug. 9, London Free Press)
Marc Lamontangne says “Success comes down to common sense, hard work and disciple.”
I recommend those in debt use some of his strategies to help them start living under their means and practice long-term thinking.
["Can't dig your way out? Ask for help."]
Marc suggests the following strategies:
prepare a weekly/monthly budget to track expenses
figure out where your money goes every month
download software packages to help organize and categorize expenses
ask a certified financial planner to design a plan to pay off debts
rather than a revolving line of credit, arrange a more disciplined fixed-rate loan that has to be paid off in full each month
(Author’s note: My wife and I did that to pay off home reno costs. We now know exactly when we will be free of debt. Mortgage and car payments are already zero.)
when debt is paid off, start working on other goals, such as retirement or children’s post-secondary education
Lamontagne expresses optimism for those who are over 40 and who wish to live well as seniors. They simply must “become serious about paying off debt and saving money.”
["That's one fine pig."]
Admittedly, my advice in an earlier post was brilliant. I.e., “Look at your biggest expenses... ask yourself hard questions about each. E.g., Can we survive with a smaller car?”
Lamontagne’s is brillianter. If your spending habits have landed you inside a deep hole, seek advice and assistance. Take a step to becoming a long-term thinker.
***
Please click here to read “Long-term Thinking PT 2: Families are in the danger zone.”
.
By now a few Canadian households have taken my advice to “reduce spending, pay down debt, and save money for the tough times ahead.”
They are de-emphasizing ‘living for today’ and are hiding a few acorns in safe places (e.g., a piggy bank) for the long winter ahead. They are not just thinking about their own generation but their children’s generation as well.
According to an expert in personal financial planning, only a few people are doing this.
“The average Canadian continues to add debt... (but) it’s never too late to get out from under it and save (for example) for retirement.” Aug. 9, London Free Press)
Marc Lamontangne says “Success comes down to common sense, hard work and disciple.”
I recommend those in debt use some of his strategies to help them start living under their means and practice long-term thinking.
["Can't dig your way out? Ask for help."]
Marc suggests the following strategies:
prepare a weekly/monthly budget to track expenses
figure out where your money goes every month
download software packages to help organize and categorize expenses
ask a certified financial planner to design a plan to pay off debts
rather than a revolving line of credit, arrange a more disciplined fixed-rate loan that has to be paid off in full each month
(Author’s note: My wife and I did that to pay off home reno costs. We now know exactly when we will be free of debt. Mortgage and car payments are already zero.)
when debt is paid off, start working on other goals, such as retirement or children’s post-secondary education
Lamontagne expresses optimism for those who are over 40 and who wish to live well as seniors. They simply must “become serious about paying off debt and saving money.”
["That's one fine pig."]
Admittedly, my advice in an earlier post was brilliant. I.e., “Look at your biggest expenses... ask yourself hard questions about each. E.g., Can we survive with a smaller car?”
Lamontagne’s is brillianter. If your spending habits have landed you inside a deep hole, seek advice and assistance. Take a step to becoming a long-term thinker.
***
Please click here to read “Long-term Thinking PT 2: Families are in the danger zone.”
.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Long-term Thinking PT 2: Families are in the danger zone
[“In many, many ways - financially (e.g., so many Canadian families are deep in debt), economically, socially, environmentally - we need to develop our long-term thinking ability.” G. Harrison, Sept. 24]
Most Canadians aren’t long-term thinkers. They live for the moment, not thinking of thirty to forty years down the road.
As a result, many families will face grave difficulties in the future regarding their retirement, pensions, personal finances, the length of their grocery list.
I shared the world’s best example (that I know of so far) of long-term thinking in an earlier post that touched on the usefulness of an ancient oak grove.
Yes, most Canadian families who appreciate the value of trees are miles off the mark set by one wee architect who made excellent use of a bagful of acorns over 350 years ago, and they’re way off the mark set by their parents and many other people who once owned a piggy bank and deposited weekly stipends like clock work.
Recently I read the following:
Canadian household debt continues to rise
the ratio of household debt to disposable income stands at 149 to 100
the number of Canadians vulnerable to an economic shock has risen to its highest level in nine years (Sept. 14, London Free Press)
And there’s more.
[Please click here for more details in an earlier post.]
Many households face a downtown in lifestyle during the current recession and in the future. Not only is the cost of extra-curricular activities and back-to-school expenses stressing out many families, but after-the-bell sports for youngsters (e.g., hockey, with costs averaging over $1,000 per season) push many over the top. (Sept. 21, London Free Press)
What to do?
Look at your biggest expenses, i.e., housing, transportation, food, clothes, communication (e.g., cell phones), entertainment (movies, cable TV), etc.
Ask yourself hard questions about each.
“Can we live without cable? Can we survive with a smaller car? Can we move to a smaller home to save on mortgage and heating bills?”
["What's the recipe for a healthy home?": photo GH]
“Can our Levis last for another season? Should I do what Harrison does and buy used jeans that are actually better looking on him than I imagined?”
There’s no doubt in my mind that many Canadians - with some effort - can make improvements to their current financial situation and I’m certain that 100% of Canadians would do great good to their future financial picture, as well as the environment, if they reduced spending now, paid down debt and saved money for the tough times ahead.
Let’s get out of the danger zone, financially and environmentally.
***
Please click here to read Long-term Thinking PT 1: The world's best example
.
Most Canadians aren’t long-term thinkers. They live for the moment, not thinking of thirty to forty years down the road.
As a result, many families will face grave difficulties in the future regarding their retirement, pensions, personal finances, the length of their grocery list.
I shared the world’s best example (that I know of so far) of long-term thinking in an earlier post that touched on the usefulness of an ancient oak grove.
Yes, most Canadian families who appreciate the value of trees are miles off the mark set by one wee architect who made excellent use of a bagful of acorns over 350 years ago, and they’re way off the mark set by their parents and many other people who once owned a piggy bank and deposited weekly stipends like clock work.
Recently I read the following:
Canadian household debt continues to rise
the ratio of household debt to disposable income stands at 149 to 100
the number of Canadians vulnerable to an economic shock has risen to its highest level in nine years (Sept. 14, London Free Press)
And there’s more.
[Please click here for more details in an earlier post.]
Many households face a downtown in lifestyle during the current recession and in the future. Not only is the cost of extra-curricular activities and back-to-school expenses stressing out many families, but after-the-bell sports for youngsters (e.g., hockey, with costs averaging over $1,000 per season) push many over the top. (Sept. 21, London Free Press)
What to do?
Look at your biggest expenses, i.e., housing, transportation, food, clothes, communication (e.g., cell phones), entertainment (movies, cable TV), etc.
Ask yourself hard questions about each.
“Can we live without cable? Can we survive with a smaller car? Can we move to a smaller home to save on mortgage and heating bills?”
["What's the recipe for a healthy home?": photo GH]
“Can our Levis last for another season? Should I do what Harrison does and buy used jeans that are actually better looking on him than I imagined?”
There’s no doubt in my mind that many Canadians - with some effort - can make improvements to their current financial situation and I’m certain that 100% of Canadians would do great good to their future financial picture, as well as the environment, if they reduced spending now, paid down debt and saved money for the tough times ahead.
Let’s get out of the danger zone, financially and environmentally.
***
Please click here to read Long-term Thinking PT 1: The world's best example
.
Monday, September 26, 2011
A $$ Conundrum: “No, don’t take it. Yes, take it.”
Put the following statements into the air space inside the average Canadian’s head and watch a conundrum occur... or a wee explosion of sorts.
One. Canadian policy makers warn Canadians against taking on too much debt.
I don’t know how the message is being delivered, but I guess it’s out there, at least according to my local newspaper.
Two. In Canada, many mortgages and consumer loans are at historically low rates.
Really, inside the lunch bucket I call a head I hear conflicting thoughts. “Gord, don’t take on more debt. Wait a minute, money is cheaper than ever before. Don’t take out a loan. But it’s so cheap. Stand back. Come here. Go away. Come back. No. Yes. Kiss me. Yuck.”
It’s like the conundrum described in ‘Where Did Our Love Go?’, a famous song by The Supremes.
Sing it with me with help from YouTube:
Baby, baby
Baby don't leave me
Ooh, please don't leave me
All by myself.
I've got this yearning, burning
Yearning feelin' inside me
Ooh, deep inside me
And it hurts so bad.
You came into my heart
So tenderly
With a burning love
That stings like a bee.
Now that I surrender
So helplessly
You now wanna leave
Ooh, you wanna leave me.
Ooh, baby, baby
Where did our love go?
Ooh, don't you want me
Don't you want me no more?
Really? The banks don’t want us no more? The heads of average Canadians will likely soon explode.
However, since I believe many Canadians will face even greater debt concerns in the future than they are at present, I suggest we face the conundrum in the following ways:
Though money is very cheap right now, make every effort to live under your means.
So, reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for the tough times ahead.
Stay in your apartment or small house. Think about getting a roommate to help with expenses.
What will you do to survive financially?
***
Please click here to read more about living small.
.
This Old Economist: “Household debt will crush many dreams”
Not enough Canadians are are buying into my mantra -reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for tough times ahead.
Some may be trying to live under their means for the first time in history, but according to the latest news, “Canadian household debt continued to rise in the second quarter (i.e., Q2, April to June; results aren’t in yet for Q3) as individuals took out more mortgages at historically low rates and obtained consumer loans...” Sept. 14, London Free Press.
Admittedly, homebuyers may feel they’re getting the deal of a lifetime (i.e., hysterically low mortgage rates may prompt hubby to say, “Come on, Dear. We can finally afford that big house in my favourite suburb.”) but... and this is a big but... there is a downside to taking the cheap mortgage plunge.
I agree with how the downside was reported in the Free Press: “Policy makers have warned Canadians against taking on too much debt, especially as interest rates can only go up over time and some may find themselves unable to afford their debt payments.”
We’re going the wrong way according to the numbers.
household debt compared to income is rising
the number of Canadians vulnerable to adverse economic shock is at the highest level in nine years
per capita net worth declined in Q2, including pension assets
government net debt and corporate debt-to-equity rose in Q2
though national net worth rose by 1.2%, fewer home owners can afford their assets
My recommendation: This would be a good time to look for a small house close to mass transit.
What recommendation would you make?
***
Please click here for more from This Old Economist.
.
Some may be trying to live under their means for the first time in history, but according to the latest news, “Canadian household debt continued to rise in the second quarter (i.e., Q2, April to June; results aren’t in yet for Q3) as individuals took out more mortgages at historically low rates and obtained consumer loans...” Sept. 14, London Free Press.
Admittedly, homebuyers may feel they’re getting the deal of a lifetime (i.e., hysterically low mortgage rates may prompt hubby to say, “Come on, Dear. We can finally afford that big house in my favourite suburb.”) but... and this is a big but... there is a downside to taking the cheap mortgage plunge.
I agree with how the downside was reported in the Free Press: “Policy makers have warned Canadians against taking on too much debt, especially as interest rates can only go up over time and some may find themselves unable to afford their debt payments.”
We’re going the wrong way according to the numbers.
household debt compared to income is rising
the number of Canadians vulnerable to adverse economic shock is at the highest level in nine years
per capita net worth declined in Q2, including pension assets
government net debt and corporate debt-to-equity rose in Q2
though national net worth rose by 1.2%, fewer home owners can afford their assets
My recommendation: This would be a good time to look for a small house close to mass transit.
What recommendation would you make?
***
Please click here for more from This Old Economist.
.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Climate Change Concerns: PT 2 Can we afford our present lifestyle?
Economic losses related to weather and climate change increased from $86 billion for 1980 - 89 to $474 billion for 1990 - 99. (pg. 102, Little Green Handbook)
And though I have no numbers for the last, most recent decade, I have to assume global expenses went north.
Ron Nielsen, DSc and author of the Green Handbook asks, “How long can we cope with weather-related economic losses?”
He then answers his own question.
“If global income is substantially greater than the losses, and if it increases at least as fast as the losses, we have nothing to worry about. There will always be enough money to repair the damage. If global income increases more slowly than the losses, it is worthwhile to calculate how long the money will last.”
Okay, someone has to ask, Dr. Nielsen, how long will the money last?
“To estimate this period I have analysed the data for weather-related economic losses and for gross world product (GWP), both expressed in 2001 US dollars. Preliminary examination of the data shows that the prospects are not encouraging, because the losses are increasing much faster than income.
["Let's not put off all our hard work until tomorrow."]
“As we have seen, global weather-related losses per decade incfreased from $86 billion to $474 billion, or 450 per cent, in the last two decades of the 20th century. However, GWP increased from $291 trillion per decade to $386 trillion, or 33 per cent, during the same period. GWP is still greater than the weather-related losses, but the losses are increasing much faster, and in time they might match global income. That would mean global bankruptcy.”
Okay, someone has to ask, if present trends continue, when will the planet be bankrupt?
“Weather-related economic losses can be fitted by using exponential function. The best fit corresponds to a doubling time of 4.42 years. GWP can be fitted using a polynominal function, which increases slowly and has no doubling time. The two calculated curves cross in 2045. If about that time we decide to repair the damage there will be no money left for anything else.”
Thank you, Dr. Nielsen. I’d give you a parting gift but I don’t think I can afford one.
2045. Bankrupt. If alive, I’ll be 95, closing shutters to protect myself from extreme weather and dipping into my birdhouse money on a pretty regular basis.
So, as I ask in the post’s title, can we afford our present lifestyle, knowing that the costs related to extreme weather - some undoubtedly related to climate change - will get higher? Or, can Planet Earth and its inhabitants afford the way humans choose to live?
If we think long-term and have half a wit of concern for those that follow in our deep footprints on Planet Earth (maybe we’ll have changed the name by 2045 to Junk Star Galactica), the answer must be NO.
So, let’s reduce spending, pay down debt, and save money for the tough, thin times ahead.
***
Please click here for PT 1 Can we afford our present lifestyle?
.
And though I have no numbers for the last, most recent decade, I have to assume global expenses went north.
Ron Nielsen, DSc and author of the Green Handbook asks, “How long can we cope with weather-related economic losses?”
He then answers his own question.
“If global income is substantially greater than the losses, and if it increases at least as fast as the losses, we have nothing to worry about. There will always be enough money to repair the damage. If global income increases more slowly than the losses, it is worthwhile to calculate how long the money will last.”
Okay, someone has to ask, Dr. Nielsen, how long will the money last?
“To estimate this period I have analysed the data for weather-related economic losses and for gross world product (GWP), both expressed in 2001 US dollars. Preliminary examination of the data shows that the prospects are not encouraging, because the losses are increasing much faster than income.
["Let's not put off all our hard work until tomorrow."]
“As we have seen, global weather-related losses per decade incfreased from $86 billion to $474 billion, or 450 per cent, in the last two decades of the 20th century. However, GWP increased from $291 trillion per decade to $386 trillion, or 33 per cent, during the same period. GWP is still greater than the weather-related losses, but the losses are increasing much faster, and in time they might match global income. That would mean global bankruptcy.”
Okay, someone has to ask, if present trends continue, when will the planet be bankrupt?
“Weather-related economic losses can be fitted by using exponential function. The best fit corresponds to a doubling time of 4.42 years. GWP can be fitted using a polynominal function, which increases slowly and has no doubling time. The two calculated curves cross in 2045. If about that time we decide to repair the damage there will be no money left for anything else.”
Thank you, Dr. Nielsen. I’d give you a parting gift but I don’t think I can afford one.
2045. Bankrupt. If alive, I’ll be 95, closing shutters to protect myself from extreme weather and dipping into my birdhouse money on a pretty regular basis.
So, as I ask in the post’s title, can we afford our present lifestyle, knowing that the costs related to extreme weather - some undoubtedly related to climate change - will get higher? Or, can Planet Earth and its inhabitants afford the way humans choose to live?
If we think long-term and have half a wit of concern for those that follow in our deep footprints on Planet Earth (maybe we’ll have changed the name by 2045 to Junk Star Galactica), the answer must be NO.
So, let’s reduce spending, pay down debt, and save money for the tough, thin times ahead.
***
Please click here for PT 1 Can we afford our present lifestyle?
.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Series Of Significance: “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
The following series of five posts were recently posted separately. They now appear together for your convenience.
PT 1 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[“The average Canadian family spent close to half its income on taxes last year - more than it paid for food, shelter and clothing combined, says a new study...” April 27, London Free Press]
My word. How shall I respond to the latest study from the Fraser Institute, a conservative think-tank?
Shall I clutch my chest over my heart? Shall I fall over and lie face down atop my shag carpet? Shall I curse the government for the terrible predicament (It is a terrible predicament, isn’t it?] that the average Canadian family faces day in and day out for the rest of my life?
No. I’ll do none of those things. Neither should you. Most average Canadians will be just fine, thanks.
Studies that share so little information don’t pass the Harrison Sniff Test.
Though the Fraser Inst. reports that “in 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes,” which may all be well and true, I want to have more information for context, perspective and balance.
For example:
What does the average family receive in return by paying taxes to different levels of government? Is there a concrete benefit to educational, health care, social programs, etc.? Can we put a dollar figure on the value of a good education or health care over the course of an average lifetime? If Canada invested in a dental care program would it the average family actually save money over the long term?
By discussing the benefits to taxation fully, the average Canadian family might see they generally live like kings and queens in a free country.
I’d also like to know the percentage of tax that families pay who earn less than $40,000. And who earn between $40 - $50,000, between $50 - 60,000, and so on, right up to millionaires (the number of Canadian millionaires is growing) and billionaires.
By looking at those figures we might see that the 41% tax rate is about average in Canada. Or we might see that people with higher earnings pay fewer taxes and therefore have a higher percentage of disposable income, and that a fairer taxation system is in order.
With even more information, we might learn that the average Canadian is almost getting the best deal in the world.
And who is the Fraser Institute? How conservative are they anyway?
***
PT 2 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[In 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes. Spending on food, clothing and shelter added up to 34% of the family income, the study found (i.e., a new study from conservative think-tank the Fraser Institute). April 27, London Free Press]
When I see a headline like ‘Taxes take 41% of pay’ I don’t gasp, clutch my chest or fall over due to weak knees. I don’t curse our government.
When I read that an average Canadian family pays 41.3% of its income on taxes I feel I need more information. What benefits do I receive for my tax dollars? What does the average family receive? What do the growing number of Canadian millionaires receive? 41.3% might be the bargain of a lifetime.
I’d also like more information about the corporate tax rate. I know it has gone down over the last few years and will go down another 1 - 2 per cent this year or next, thanks to the federal Conservative government.
So, I’d like to know how much revenue will be lost to the government because of the lower corporate tax rate. Will the 41% average family tax rate or beneficial government programs be under pressure because of the decline in corporate tax rate?
How much has the corporate tax rate declined since 2000? Since 1990? Since 1980? Since 1970? And what’s happened to our national debt from 1970 to the present time? Maybe time spent focusing on the average family would be better spent focusing on big business and a fairer, more-productive tax system.
And now that the conservative Fraser Institute has got me thinking about the average family and corporate tax rates, I want to know more about tax rates in other countries.
Do average families in the US or Europe, making $72,393 per year, pay more or less tax than Canadians? What benefits do they receive compared to Canadians? Perhaps we’d see, again, that 41.3% is an absolute bargain. Perhaps we’d see, in order to receive benefits common in other countries, that a slight increase in taxes would provide some very important improvements in our lifestyle.
Oh. Something else. I have some questions about the 34% that the average Canadian family - in the $70 - 75,000 income range - spends on food, clothing and shelter.
***
PT 3 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[“Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family,” Fraser Institute senior economist Niels Veldhuis said. April 27, London Free Press]
Should we fall down? No.
In spite of the conservative think-tanks findings, offered without the benefit of helpful context, when the average Canadian family (income $72,393) learns it pays 41.3% of that amount in taxes, it may breathe a sigh of relief.
“It’s the best deal on the planet,” some people will say.
“It sounds like a lot, but we’re doing well,” others will say, and say it honestly.
Now, admittedly, 41.3% is more than the average family spends on food, clothing and shelter (those costs come in at 34% of income), but people are getting a lot for their 34%.
For example, in the Food Dept.:
The average Canadian is overweight and wears XL Levis with a stretchy waistband
Canadians make 17 million visits to restaurants per day
Canadians pay one of the lowest amounts for weekly groceries (under 15%), compared to income, in the entire world. The percentage is higher in the US; it stands at 45% in Indonesia
Canadians annually write grocery lists that include millions upon millions of dollars worth of cookies, cola, sugar-covered cereals and snack foods
The average Canadian family would do much for its health - and health care costs - if it spent less on food, cooked more meals at home and walked around the neighbourhood more often after supper.
I’m sure the Fraser think tank would agree.
About the Clothing Dept.:
The average Canadian family has seen the size of closets grow substantially over the years
For example, in my 1930s three-bedroom house, the three closets (one is a hall closet for coats and two vacuum cleaners; one bedroom does not have a closet) are no more than 3 ft. by 4 ft. Modern homes and apartments now often come with one or more walk-in closets, room enough for more clothes and shoes than one person can shake a stick at. Sorry, I digress.
‘Clothes Hog’ and ‘Shoe Hog’ are modern terms and many families hire professional organizers or declutterers to help bring material possessions under some kind of control
The vintage and used-clothing markets have grown substantially in the modern era
The aforementioned 34% likely includes the cost of Nike running shoes for weekend runners at $169 per pair and the expensive NHL jerseys that adorn many fans watching the current hockey playoffs
I would therefore say the average Canadian family is getting by pretty nicely at the moment.
The conservative-minded Fraser Institute may want the average Canadian to feel that government has to be smaller, programs have to be cut, taxes have to be reduced - but I don’t buy their small government, market-first, large lifestyle philosophy.
And about the Shelter Dept.:
The average Canadian is not finding costs related to their homes unbearable because of government spending
For example, in the early 1900s, 800 - 1,000 sq. ft. homes, and smaller, were common. My parents and my four siblings lived in a one and a half storey, seven room house in Norwich for many years. We managed to get along without pitching anyone into the streets.
My wife and I and two sons lived comfortably together in our current home, eight rooms, 1,050 sq. ft., before the boys moved into their own digs. Half of the house, including the basement, is now under-used.
I would estimate that the modern day standard for a house is greater than 2,100 sq. ft., or twice my home’s size.
I would guess furnishings cost in excess of $20,000 per home. And if that includes the latest big-screen TV and finished rec room, I would suspect the high average debt per family ($148 debt for every $100 income) is the result of over-borrowing for items on “the want list” and not the size of the government. Again, I digress.
Now, what about that other 25% that the average Canadian family has left to spend after taxes and life’s essentials?
How are Canadians doing in the transportation, communication, recreation, RRSP and backyard pool departments? Any ideas? Is the government standing in the way of our success, progress, or excess?
***
PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[It has become fashionable these days to view government spending as a tremendous burden on society. In fact, spending our money collectively through governments, with their strong emphasis on health care, education and welfare, is the smartest investment we, as a society, can make. Shooting The Hippo, 1995, by Linda McQuaig]
Sixteen years have passed since L. McQuaig’s Shooting the Hippo said the above words. They may still be true.
The average Canadian family may be getting a very good deal for the 41% it pays in taxes, 34% it pays for food, clothing and shelter and the 25% it has left over to spend on whatever it wants.
And what does the average Canadian family want? I’m not sure.
And though Fraser Institute spokesperson, senior economist Niels Veldhuis, says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), he doesn’t say what the average Canadian would actually gain by reducing taxes or the size of government or its programs.
The average Canadian could buy more food I suppose, though we are growing more obese by the day.
We could buy more clothes and more furniture for our home, I suppose. We could upgrade our transportation, communication and recreational choices, I suppose.
But perhaps there’s more benefit to putting money aside for collective choices as opposed to individual choices. More on all of us, others. Less on the individual, me.
I don’t know if Canadians will ever find out.
The more elitist organizations, such as the conservative Fraser Institute, propose fewer taxes and smaller government (without context, and usually for the elite’s overall benefit - what might that be? - and not the average Canadian’s), the more likely the average Canadian will, unknowingly, lean toward the goals of the elite.
And what are the goals of the elite?
“In many ways, what the elite wants now is to lower citizen’s expectations of what they can count on from society, to roll back the frontiers of government - to return to an earlier focus on enforcing more narrowly defined legal and political rights. It wants to wean us away from the notion of government as provider and equalizer, and re-establish the discipline of the marketplace in meting out those sorts of rewards where they are “earned.” Under the harsher discipline of the marketplace, we would have no automatic “rights” or “entitlements:” all we would have is whatever we could get by selling our services to those with the money to pay us.
“Presented this way, the new ideology might not sound appealing to most members of society; so it is rarely presented this way. Rather, proponents of rolling back government have focused on finding fault with the system of extended rights that we’ve come to enjoy, or presenting ordinary citizens as victims of an excessive tax burden apparently caused by government largesse.” pg. 7, Shooting the Hippo
Are ordinary citizens in Canada, e.g., the average Canadian family, victims of excessive taxes?
I don’t think so. The average family is growing big and strong on 34% of its income (maybe too big and strong) and has 25% leftover to buy additional stuff that will one day clutter up a big house and garage in the burbs.
Instead of worrying or questioning the size of government, we should ask for a lot more information from the Fraser Institute. They paint wild pictures and make claims that are completely unsubstantiated.
Perhaps we should even read Shooting the Hippo by Linda McQuaig so we’re better equipped to recognize a pile of guff when it appears in the news.
***
PT 5 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[The notion that a consensus existed on cutting social spending was misleading. If anything, a consensus appeared to exist not to cut social spending. An Angus Reid poll, taken in late April 1993... found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians opposed any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent opposed any funding cuts to education. pg 34, L. McQuaig, Shooting the Hippo]
Yesterday I said, “And what does the average Canadian family want? If you’re an average Canadian let me know.”
I said that because senior economist Niels Veldhuis (Fraser Institute) says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), perhaps hoping the average Canadian would fall for his line of guff, clutch his chest and demand smaller government and fewer taxes and reduced social programs.
I’m pretty sure that’s what the elite want, but I believe their goals in 2011 differ greatly from those of the average working stiff (even though I referred to a 1993 poll).
Kevin O’Leary, seen nightly on the Lang and O’Leary Exchange (CBC TV), is on record for saying he supports a corporate tax rate of 0 per cent.
0 per cent. Of course, he’s a millionaire, he can afford private education for any children he might have now or in the future, he can afford private health care wherever he can find it, he can afford to let corporations (he’s the head of a business empire) get away with zero taxes. Why, he’d absolutely frickin’ love it!
What he doesn’t say is that the tax rate (all taxes) of the average Canadian family (41% on income of $72, 393) will likely rise substantially three seconds after he gets his wish.
O’Leary would love small government, lower taxes, fewer social benefits. O’Canadians want something else.
As mentioned earlier, 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent are opposed to any funding cuts to education.
From Shooting the Hippo:
This fits with the results of polls done by Environics. Dasko (pollster) said that support for social programs remains strong... the public supported the idea of reforming - rather than cutting - social programs. “People think there are inefficiencies and abuses in social programs and strongly feel that those should be ferreted out,” said Dasko.
Dasko also notes that while the public supports the idea of reforming programs, it is not primarily motivated by a desire to save money... the goal of ending inefficiencies ranked above the goal of saving money. Interestingly, however, the polling showed that people suspect that the government’s main motivation in overhauling the programs is to save money. (pg. 34)
Canadian readers are welcome to say the following:
Times have changed
McQuaig was referring to old news, e.g., polls from the 1990s
This is 2011. Liberals are out. Conservatives are in. Canadians want real change.
I have to ask. What kind of change does the average Canadian want?
Does the average Canadian family want a 39% tax rate, instead of 41%, and reduced government services (e.g., related to medicare and education) as a result?
Does the average Canadian feel that, in spite of what the Fraser Institute says, he is surviving in a satisfactory or excellent manner and doesn’t need to live by the same goals as the elite?
If you’re an average Canadian, let me know.
(Mr. O’Leary. No need to write).
***
Please click here to read another Series of Significance
.
PT 1 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[“The average Canadian family spent close to half its income on taxes last year - more than it paid for food, shelter and clothing combined, says a new study...” April 27, London Free Press]
My word. How shall I respond to the latest study from the Fraser Institute, a conservative think-tank?
Shall I clutch my chest over my heart? Shall I fall over and lie face down atop my shag carpet? Shall I curse the government for the terrible predicament (It is a terrible predicament, isn’t it?] that the average Canadian family faces day in and day out for the rest of my life?
No. I’ll do none of those things. Neither should you. Most average Canadians will be just fine, thanks.
Studies that share so little information don’t pass the Harrison Sniff Test.
Though the Fraser Inst. reports that “in 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes,” which may all be well and true, I want to have more information for context, perspective and balance.
For example:
What does the average family receive in return by paying taxes to different levels of government? Is there a concrete benefit to educational, health care, social programs, etc.? Can we put a dollar figure on the value of a good education or health care over the course of an average lifetime? If Canada invested in a dental care program would it the average family actually save money over the long term?
By discussing the benefits to taxation fully, the average Canadian family might see they generally live like kings and queens in a free country.
I’d also like to know the percentage of tax that families pay who earn less than $40,000. And who earn between $40 - $50,000, between $50 - 60,000, and so on, right up to millionaires (the number of Canadian millionaires is growing) and billionaires.
By looking at those figures we might see that the 41% tax rate is about average in Canada. Or we might see that people with higher earnings pay fewer taxes and therefore have a higher percentage of disposable income, and that a fairer taxation system is in order.
With even more information, we might learn that the average Canadian is almost getting the best deal in the world.
And who is the Fraser Institute? How conservative are they anyway?
***
PT 2 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[In 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes. Spending on food, clothing and shelter added up to 34% of the family income, the study found (i.e., a new study from conservative think-tank the Fraser Institute). April 27, London Free Press]
When I see a headline like ‘Taxes take 41% of pay’ I don’t gasp, clutch my chest or fall over due to weak knees. I don’t curse our government.
When I read that an average Canadian family pays 41.3% of its income on taxes I feel I need more information. What benefits do I receive for my tax dollars? What does the average family receive? What do the growing number of Canadian millionaires receive? 41.3% might be the bargain of a lifetime.
I’d also like more information about the corporate tax rate. I know it has gone down over the last few years and will go down another 1 - 2 per cent this year or next, thanks to the federal Conservative government.
So, I’d like to know how much revenue will be lost to the government because of the lower corporate tax rate. Will the 41% average family tax rate or beneficial government programs be under pressure because of the decline in corporate tax rate?
How much has the corporate tax rate declined since 2000? Since 1990? Since 1980? Since 1970? And what’s happened to our national debt from 1970 to the present time? Maybe time spent focusing on the average family would be better spent focusing on big business and a fairer, more-productive tax system.
And now that the conservative Fraser Institute has got me thinking about the average family and corporate tax rates, I want to know more about tax rates in other countries.
Do average families in the US or Europe, making $72,393 per year, pay more or less tax than Canadians? What benefits do they receive compared to Canadians? Perhaps we’d see, again, that 41.3% is an absolute bargain. Perhaps we’d see, in order to receive benefits common in other countries, that a slight increase in taxes would provide some very important improvements in our lifestyle.
Oh. Something else. I have some questions about the 34% that the average Canadian family - in the $70 - 75,000 income range - spends on food, clothing and shelter.
***
PT 3 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[“Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family,” Fraser Institute senior economist Niels Veldhuis said. April 27, London Free Press]
Should we fall down? No.
In spite of the conservative think-tanks findings, offered without the benefit of helpful context, when the average Canadian family (income $72,393) learns it pays 41.3% of that amount in taxes, it may breathe a sigh of relief.
“It’s the best deal on the planet,” some people will say.
“It sounds like a lot, but we’re doing well,” others will say, and say it honestly.
Now, admittedly, 41.3% is more than the average family spends on food, clothing and shelter (those costs come in at 34% of income), but people are getting a lot for their 34%.
For example, in the Food Dept.:
The average Canadian is overweight and wears XL Levis with a stretchy waistband
Canadians make 17 million visits to restaurants per day
Canadians pay one of the lowest amounts for weekly groceries (under 15%), compared to income, in the entire world. The percentage is higher in the US; it stands at 45% in Indonesia
Canadians annually write grocery lists that include millions upon millions of dollars worth of cookies, cola, sugar-covered cereals and snack foods
The average Canadian family would do much for its health - and health care costs - if it spent less on food, cooked more meals at home and walked around the neighbourhood more often after supper.
I’m sure the Fraser think tank would agree.
About the Clothing Dept.:
The average Canadian family has seen the size of closets grow substantially over the years
For example, in my 1930s three-bedroom house, the three closets (one is a hall closet for coats and two vacuum cleaners; one bedroom does not have a closet) are no more than 3 ft. by 4 ft. Modern homes and apartments now often come with one or more walk-in closets, room enough for more clothes and shoes than one person can shake a stick at. Sorry, I digress.
‘Clothes Hog’ and ‘Shoe Hog’ are modern terms and many families hire professional organizers or declutterers to help bring material possessions under some kind of control
The vintage and used-clothing markets have grown substantially in the modern era
The aforementioned 34% likely includes the cost of Nike running shoes for weekend runners at $169 per pair and the expensive NHL jerseys that adorn many fans watching the current hockey playoffs
I would therefore say the average Canadian family is getting by pretty nicely at the moment.
The conservative-minded Fraser Institute may want the average Canadian to feel that government has to be smaller, programs have to be cut, taxes have to be reduced - but I don’t buy their small government, market-first, large lifestyle philosophy.
And about the Shelter Dept.:
The average Canadian is not finding costs related to their homes unbearable because of government spending
For example, in the early 1900s, 800 - 1,000 sq. ft. homes, and smaller, were common. My parents and my four siblings lived in a one and a half storey, seven room house in Norwich for many years. We managed to get along without pitching anyone into the streets.
My wife and I and two sons lived comfortably together in our current home, eight rooms, 1,050 sq. ft., before the boys moved into their own digs. Half of the house, including the basement, is now under-used.
I would estimate that the modern day standard for a house is greater than 2,100 sq. ft., or twice my home’s size.
I would guess furnishings cost in excess of $20,000 per home. And if that includes the latest big-screen TV and finished rec room, I would suspect the high average debt per family ($148 debt for every $100 income) is the result of over-borrowing for items on “the want list” and not the size of the government. Again, I digress.
Now, what about that other 25% that the average Canadian family has left to spend after taxes and life’s essentials?
How are Canadians doing in the transportation, communication, recreation, RRSP and backyard pool departments? Any ideas? Is the government standing in the way of our success, progress, or excess?
***
PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[It has become fashionable these days to view government spending as a tremendous burden on society. In fact, spending our money collectively through governments, with their strong emphasis on health care, education and welfare, is the smartest investment we, as a society, can make. Shooting The Hippo, 1995, by Linda McQuaig]
Sixteen years have passed since L. McQuaig’s Shooting the Hippo said the above words. They may still be true.
The average Canadian family may be getting a very good deal for the 41% it pays in taxes, 34% it pays for food, clothing and shelter and the 25% it has left over to spend on whatever it wants.
And what does the average Canadian family want? I’m not sure.
And though Fraser Institute spokesperson, senior economist Niels Veldhuis, says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), he doesn’t say what the average Canadian would actually gain by reducing taxes or the size of government or its programs.
The average Canadian could buy more food I suppose, though we are growing more obese by the day.
We could buy more clothes and more furniture for our home, I suppose. We could upgrade our transportation, communication and recreational choices, I suppose.
But perhaps there’s more benefit to putting money aside for collective choices as opposed to individual choices. More on all of us, others. Less on the individual, me.
I don’t know if Canadians will ever find out.
The more elitist organizations, such as the conservative Fraser Institute, propose fewer taxes and smaller government (without context, and usually for the elite’s overall benefit - what might that be? - and not the average Canadian’s), the more likely the average Canadian will, unknowingly, lean toward the goals of the elite.
And what are the goals of the elite?
“In many ways, what the elite wants now is to lower citizen’s expectations of what they can count on from society, to roll back the frontiers of government - to return to an earlier focus on enforcing more narrowly defined legal and political rights. It wants to wean us away from the notion of government as provider and equalizer, and re-establish the discipline of the marketplace in meting out those sorts of rewards where they are “earned.” Under the harsher discipline of the marketplace, we would have no automatic “rights” or “entitlements:” all we would have is whatever we could get by selling our services to those with the money to pay us.
“Presented this way, the new ideology might not sound appealing to most members of society; so it is rarely presented this way. Rather, proponents of rolling back government have focused on finding fault with the system of extended rights that we’ve come to enjoy, or presenting ordinary citizens as victims of an excessive tax burden apparently caused by government largesse.” pg. 7, Shooting the Hippo
Are ordinary citizens in Canada, e.g., the average Canadian family, victims of excessive taxes?
I don’t think so. The average family is growing big and strong on 34% of its income (maybe too big and strong) and has 25% leftover to buy additional stuff that will one day clutter up a big house and garage in the burbs.
Instead of worrying or questioning the size of government, we should ask for a lot more information from the Fraser Institute. They paint wild pictures and make claims that are completely unsubstantiated.
Perhaps we should even read Shooting the Hippo by Linda McQuaig so we’re better equipped to recognize a pile of guff when it appears in the news.
***
PT 5 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[The notion that a consensus existed on cutting social spending was misleading. If anything, a consensus appeared to exist not to cut social spending. An Angus Reid poll, taken in late April 1993... found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians opposed any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent opposed any funding cuts to education. pg 34, L. McQuaig, Shooting the Hippo]
Yesterday I said, “And what does the average Canadian family want? If you’re an average Canadian let me know.”
I said that because senior economist Niels Veldhuis (Fraser Institute) says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), perhaps hoping the average Canadian would fall for his line of guff, clutch his chest and demand smaller government and fewer taxes and reduced social programs.
I’m pretty sure that’s what the elite want, but I believe their goals in 2011 differ greatly from those of the average working stiff (even though I referred to a 1993 poll).
Kevin O’Leary, seen nightly on the Lang and O’Leary Exchange (CBC TV), is on record for saying he supports a corporate tax rate of 0 per cent.
0 per cent. Of course, he’s a millionaire, he can afford private education for any children he might have now or in the future, he can afford private health care wherever he can find it, he can afford to let corporations (he’s the head of a business empire) get away with zero taxes. Why, he’d absolutely frickin’ love it!
What he doesn’t say is that the tax rate (all taxes) of the average Canadian family (41% on income of $72, 393) will likely rise substantially three seconds after he gets his wish.
O’Leary would love small government, lower taxes, fewer social benefits. O’Canadians want something else.
As mentioned earlier, 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent are opposed to any funding cuts to education.
From Shooting the Hippo:
This fits with the results of polls done by Environics. Dasko (pollster) said that support for social programs remains strong... the public supported the idea of reforming - rather than cutting - social programs. “People think there are inefficiencies and abuses in social programs and strongly feel that those should be ferreted out,” said Dasko.
Dasko also notes that while the public supports the idea of reforming programs, it is not primarily motivated by a desire to save money... the goal of ending inefficiencies ranked above the goal of saving money. Interestingly, however, the polling showed that people suspect that the government’s main motivation in overhauling the programs is to save money. (pg. 34)
Canadian readers are welcome to say the following:
Times have changed
McQuaig was referring to old news, e.g., polls from the 1990s
This is 2011. Liberals are out. Conservatives are in. Canadians want real change.
I have to ask. What kind of change does the average Canadian want?
Does the average Canadian family want a 39% tax rate, instead of 41%, and reduced government services (e.g., related to medicare and education) as a result?
Does the average Canadian feel that, in spite of what the Fraser Institute says, he is surviving in a satisfactory or excellent manner and doesn’t need to live by the same goals as the elite?
If you’re an average Canadian, let me know.
(Mr. O’Leary. No need to write).
***
Please click here to read another Series of Significance
.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Live Small and Prosper: Gord’s Frontier Stew is a winner PT 2
[Consumers will eventually feel the impact of a 40% rise in basic agricultural commodities in the past year. “That will work its way down to the grocery stores...” Apr. 8, London Free Press]
I pay less than 10 cents for a large mug of coffee.
And that includes milk and sugar and 15 seconds of ‘silly dance’ as the caffeine enters my system whilst I stand at the kitchen counter.
I pay less than 20 cents for a healthy bowl of homemade breakfast cereal.
And that includes diced banana on top. Gotta have my diced banana. It also powers the silly dance.
But what do I pay per serving for my ever-popular Frontier Stew?
I can fairly accurately determine the cost of my latest batch. I bought a few supplies for $13.70 and added supplies I already had at home.
The $13.70 covered a can of peas, can of corn, two cans of maple-flavoured beans, two cans of five-bean medley, one Spanish onion and a boneless pork rib roast ($5.32 @ $4.49/kg; on sale). These supplies were halved ($6.85) in order to make two batches of slow-cooker stew.
From ‘on-hand’ supplies I added half a bottle of dark ale ($0.65), 3/4 cup of red wine ($1.00), seven potatoes ($1.00) and five carrots ($1.00) to each batch. ($3.65)
Total cost of one full, large pot of slow cooker stew (enough to fill two large casserole dishes) - $10.50.
["Delicious stew and photos by GH"]
Cost per serving varies, of course, depending on my appetite, but (and I’ll be honest) I’ll easily get a dozen or more meals from each batch. And when I compare my stew to even the cheapest restaurant or fast food offerings, I have to say (and I’ll be honest), Frontier Stew is cheaper - AWESOMER!
Every other day the media will announce that hard times are coming, grocery-, mortgage-, taxes-, and lifestyle-wise. I also proclaim - regularly - “reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for the tough times ahead” because I know (I’ll be honest here) they are coming.
However, here in North America we are a very capable, creative bunch. We know how to shop for deals (Oh, do we ever know how to shop!), we know our way around a kitchen, which is the most expensive and under-used room in most new houses. A little more self-reliance won’t hurt any of us at all.
If higher grocery prices move us toward (for example) our own kitchens and healthier eating, I say, the sooner the better.
In the same way, if higher fuel costs drive us toward other healthier lifestyle choices (e.g., smaller homes and less furniture, smaller closets and fewer clothing items, smaller cars and fewer driving kilometers and more mass-transit, smaller meals and fewer manufactured individual servings, etc.), I say, the sooner the better.
Okay, where’s the darn spatula?
***
Please click here to read Gord’s Frontier Stew is a winner PT 1
.
I pay less than 10 cents for a large mug of coffee.
And that includes milk and sugar and 15 seconds of ‘silly dance’ as the caffeine enters my system whilst I stand at the kitchen counter.
I pay less than 20 cents for a healthy bowl of homemade breakfast cereal.
And that includes diced banana on top. Gotta have my diced banana. It also powers the silly dance.
But what do I pay per serving for my ever-popular Frontier Stew?
I can fairly accurately determine the cost of my latest batch. I bought a few supplies for $13.70 and added supplies I already had at home.
The $13.70 covered a can of peas, can of corn, two cans of maple-flavoured beans, two cans of five-bean medley, one Spanish onion and a boneless pork rib roast ($5.32 @ $4.49/kg; on sale). These supplies were halved ($6.85) in order to make two batches of slow-cooker stew.
From ‘on-hand’ supplies I added half a bottle of dark ale ($0.65), 3/4 cup of red wine ($1.00), seven potatoes ($1.00) and five carrots ($1.00) to each batch. ($3.65)
Total cost of one full, large pot of slow cooker stew (enough to fill two large casserole dishes) - $10.50.
["Delicious stew and photos by GH"]
Cost per serving varies, of course, depending on my appetite, but (and I’ll be honest) I’ll easily get a dozen or more meals from each batch. And when I compare my stew to even the cheapest restaurant or fast food offerings, I have to say (and I’ll be honest), Frontier Stew is cheaper - AWESOMER!
Every other day the media will announce that hard times are coming, grocery-, mortgage-, taxes-, and lifestyle-wise. I also proclaim - regularly - “reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for the tough times ahead” because I know (I’ll be honest here) they are coming.
However, here in North America we are a very capable, creative bunch. We know how to shop for deals (Oh, do we ever know how to shop!), we know our way around a kitchen, which is the most expensive and under-used room in most new houses. A little more self-reliance won’t hurt any of us at all.
If higher grocery prices move us toward (for example) our own kitchens and healthier eating, I say, the sooner the better.
In the same way, if higher fuel costs drive us toward other healthier lifestyle choices (e.g., smaller homes and less furniture, smaller closets and fewer clothing items, smaller cars and fewer driving kilometers and more mass-transit, smaller meals and fewer manufactured individual servings, etc.), I say, the sooner the better.
Okay, where’s the darn spatula?
***
Please click here to read Gord’s Frontier Stew is a winner PT 1
.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Bits and Pieces: A culinary and photo challenge
Food prices are going north. We shouldn’t be surprised.
Maybe we’re disappointed that it’s happening, but not surprised. And already some readers may be learning to cook in order to cut costs.
["Yellow label Frontier Stew. What can be said about it?"]
Years ago, after I retired, I made my first batch of lasagna as a learning experience and a challenge. I learned I could cook great lasagna and - related to a challenge to myself - make more than a large tray of a popular brand of frozen lasagna for the same price.
["Can I make 665 grams of stew for a cheaper price?"]
(I wrote a column about it. The world was turned on its ear. Maybe I’ll look for it. Maybe I’ll reprint it here now that the column is my property again).
["Don't let this nice picture fool you.": photos by GH]
Due to rising food costs and the distinct possibility I’ll find myself in the kitchen more than in the past, I’ve issued myself two challenges.
One. Make something like Frontier Stew (not ‘exactly’ like, fer Pete’s sake) but for a cheaper price.
["With flash. I am looking for the green beans."]
Two. Take a photo of yellow label Frontier Stew that makes it look better than it actually tastes.
["Without flash. I've stopped lookin' fer the beans."]
I’ve got my work cut out for me.
***
Please click here for more Bits and Pieces.
Please click here for a trip to Zoom w a View.
.
Maybe we’re disappointed that it’s happening, but not surprised. And already some readers may be learning to cook in order to cut costs.
["Yellow label Frontier Stew. What can be said about it?"]
Years ago, after I retired, I made my first batch of lasagna as a learning experience and a challenge. I learned I could cook great lasagna and - related to a challenge to myself - make more than a large tray of a popular brand of frozen lasagna for the same price.
["Can I make 665 grams of stew for a cheaper price?"]
(I wrote a column about it. The world was turned on its ear. Maybe I’ll look for it. Maybe I’ll reprint it here now that the column is my property again).
["Don't let this nice picture fool you.": photos by GH]
Due to rising food costs and the distinct possibility I’ll find myself in the kitchen more than in the past, I’ve issued myself two challenges.
One. Make something like Frontier Stew (not ‘exactly’ like, fer Pete’s sake) but for a cheaper price.
["With flash. I am looking for the green beans."]
Two. Take a photo of yellow label Frontier Stew that makes it look better than it actually tastes.
["Without flash. I've stopped lookin' fer the beans."]
I’ve got my work cut out for me.
***
Please click here for more Bits and Pieces.
Please click here for a trip to Zoom w a View.
.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Simple Life PT 3: What is this world coming to?
I must confess - I’m a rubber-necker.
I first displayed the R&B gene at the age of five, when our family car caught fire during a Sunday drive.
After being told to hop out of the car and stand at the side of the road I couldn’t contain my excitement as smoke poured from under the hood. My dad must have thought I was such an odd kid. Oh, I was. Next to my wedding day and days my sons were born, it was the most exciting afternoon of my life.
As well, I demonstrated my possession of the gene while returning from Toronto by bus after a grade eight field trip.
My teacher told the class to sit still, and not rubber neck, after he first spotted an accident at the side of the road. I admit, I couldn’t be contained.
I stuck my head out the window and gawked in delight. I gawped until my eyes hurt.
I think because I am a well-practiced rubber-necker and say, “What’s that over there? What’s that over there?” about 300 times per week, I am fascinated by growing U.S. debt.
I mean, the collision up ahead is going to be huge. And I’m on the bus - with a huge window seat.
Others may be lulled into thinking nothing bad will happen in the future. They have a good job and an RRSP and a big-screen TV in the family room. They may even have parents or friends with a 10 year supply of canned goods and bottled water stashed in the basement, and they’re willing to share. So, life is good.
Some may also think the following:
“Compared to most industrialized countries Canada's economy is performing well.”
“Of all the G8 countries, Canada has come closest to returning to pre-recession levels... and we are the only country that is aiming to balance its budget by 2015.”
“Canada has been able to direct most of its government stimulus funds into job-creating infrastructure projects.” (Feb. 12, London Free Press)
My opinion? They may be forgetting a few things in order to simply maintain a rosy view on life.
["How you doin'?" "I don't know. How you doin'?": photo link]
What some Canadians may forget is that besides sharing one of the longest borders in the world with the USA, along with fresh water from the Great Lakes and most of our oil production out west, we also share a country-wide economy like two horses share one stall. Also, some forget several provinces are 60 - 80 per cent dependent upon the US growth and stability for sound health in their individual economies.
Of course, a rosy view is always appreciated. But I’m a rubber-necker and I think my neck is about to get a workout.
***
Raise your hand if you’re a rubber-necker?
Please click here to read The Simple Life PT 2: What is this world coming to?
.
I first displayed the R&B gene at the age of five, when our family car caught fire during a Sunday drive.
After being told to hop out of the car and stand at the side of the road I couldn’t contain my excitement as smoke poured from under the hood. My dad must have thought I was such an odd kid. Oh, I was. Next to my wedding day and days my sons were born, it was the most exciting afternoon of my life.
As well, I demonstrated my possession of the gene while returning from Toronto by bus after a grade eight field trip.
My teacher told the class to sit still, and not rubber neck, after he first spotted an accident at the side of the road. I admit, I couldn’t be contained.
I stuck my head out the window and gawked in delight. I gawped until my eyes hurt.
I think because I am a well-practiced rubber-necker and say, “What’s that over there? What’s that over there?” about 300 times per week, I am fascinated by growing U.S. debt.
I mean, the collision up ahead is going to be huge. And I’m on the bus - with a huge window seat.
Others may be lulled into thinking nothing bad will happen in the future. They have a good job and an RRSP and a big-screen TV in the family room. They may even have parents or friends with a 10 year supply of canned goods and bottled water stashed in the basement, and they’re willing to share. So, life is good.
Some may also think the following:
“Compared to most industrialized countries Canada's economy is performing well.”
“Of all the G8 countries, Canada has come closest to returning to pre-recession levels... and we are the only country that is aiming to balance its budget by 2015.”
“Canada has been able to direct most of its government stimulus funds into job-creating infrastructure projects.” (Feb. 12, London Free Press)
My opinion? They may be forgetting a few things in order to simply maintain a rosy view on life.
["How you doin'?" "I don't know. How you doin'?": photo link]
What some Canadians may forget is that besides sharing one of the longest borders in the world with the USA, along with fresh water from the Great Lakes and most of our oil production out west, we also share a country-wide economy like two horses share one stall. Also, some forget several provinces are 60 - 80 per cent dependent upon the US growth and stability for sound health in their individual economies.
Of course, a rosy view is always appreciated. But I’m a rubber-necker and I think my neck is about to get a workout.
***
Raise your hand if you’re a rubber-necker?
Please click here to read The Simple Life PT 2: What is this world coming to?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)