Oh, I get that. I'm not one of those people that think the fuckers should work for minimum wage.

I'm simply saying at a time where a LOT of people are making sacrifices, then everyone should. Yeah, its a slippery slope to start doing pay cuts for elected officials, but perhaps a little "hey everyone, cut your fucking office expenses, and make it so we can publicly state that our claimed expenses are lower than x number of years ago"

Things of that nature.

Just an FYI, all of you are complaining about BC insurance rates, I came from Ontario, and these rates have me in heaven.

1) When I was 19 I bought a 2004 CBR600RR, thinking a 600 would be great to learn on and insure. I went to a few insurance companies trying to get the best rate (not a monopoly in Ontario but more expensive). What I discovered is in Ontario they charge for the full twelve months up front, no 3 or 6 month plan. The total for basic liability was $4500 for the year. You cannot pay for the year, then in October cancel the policy and collect the refund, as they charge you 75% – 90 % cancellation fee.

2) The next summer, I went to upgrade to a Triumph Daytona 675r, bought the bike thinking I had a year of experience, insurance in, I would get a break. The cheapest company I found was $6000 for basic liability. I did not pay it this time, but instead just kept it in storage.

I moved here now in my mid twenties, and pay on a 6 month plan, which costs me $1000 for a Triumph 675r, with theft/comprehensive.

The grass is always greener, give me ICBC ANY DAY OF THE YEAR over the corrupt “free market” of insurance in Ontario.

- I have a perfect driving record, zero accidents/tickets. The rates I got from in Ontario didn't include Theft/Comprehensive, just BASIC liability.

As much as I think that ICBC is an intellectually bankrupt organisation, I have to say that management wages should be compared to other benchmarks in the industry rather than a change from previous years.

If the CEO wants to expand the organisation, and there is a proven ROI in doing so, I have no problems with that.

The more I read this, the more I think this stinks.

Here's an excerpt from a media article:
"The provincial government is now ordering ICBC to cut costs by reducing between 165-195 positions over the next two years.

The review also recommends increasing oversight, reducing legal and procurement costs and improving management of bodily claims injuries."

Improving management of bodily claims injuries, raises all sorts of red flags. If there are fraudulent claims, but it costs more to prove that the claim is fraudulent than for ICBC to settle and avoid the legal and investigative costs, ICBC should still spend the extra money to prove a claim is fraudulent, rather than make a payout.

I'm guessing Shubert resigned not as an admission of wrong doing but as a protest of what he sees as interference by the provincial government in his job.

More than you think. My dad has worked at head office for over 30 years and you would be surprised at all the stories I've heard since I was a kid.

It's not easy to run an insurance company, and in regards to the managers question.. remember ICBC runs claim centers, driver services centers, call centers, they have road inspection estimators, have people who deal with out of province claims etc. etc. The list goes on. All of which have at least a small handful of managers in each branch/office.

To the poster above me, after talking with my dad, who talks and deals with Schubert several days a week this is the impression he is getting. Schubert had a lot of great ideas, none of which came to frutition. Too much red tape, too much gravy train, why fix what isn't broken? In ICBC's mind that is.

200K is not a lot of money for someone in senior management, who is entitled to a good standard of living.

In Vancouver, I think you would need at least a combined gross family income of $350K-500K to live comfortably and support 2 kids.

And they are all directors of areas of the company anyways. No "regular" Manager is making over 200k. My father is one of a very small amount of people who have been there over 30 years and makes significantly less than 200k and he is in a Middle/Sr. Management position, but not director.



But, that being said you also think it takes 350k/yr to support a family and 2 kids so I'm not sure I should be agreeing with you on anything. Haha... 350k? fer serious? You can quite easily live with a 4 person family in Vancouver for under 100k a year. I know MANY people who own homes and live very comfortabley. But then again, lots of wannabe ballers on here with big dollaz who spend excessive money on coture crap and expensive cars for "status." So I can understand why they would need 350k/yr to support a wife and two kids.

I'm being serious. Below is my rough cut calculation of what it would take to support my hypothetical future 4 person family, coming from the top 1% in a major city like Vancouver or Palo Alto, CA. If you moved to London, or New York, it would be much more than this. Granted my SO is becoming an anaesthesiologist and we are in the top 1% of income earners but I am outlining the expenses that would give us a "middle class" lifestyle among our peers. But at $608,000, our family would just barely be breaking even. The below is also why the 1% complain about high taxes.

Combined Gross Annual Income: $608,000
Income Tax $212,800 (avg. tax rate of 35%)
Housing $108,000 (Property value of $2.5M. Mortgage of $7500 + $1500 for utilities, landscaping, maintenance and property tax)
Retirement, savings and investments: $60,800 (10% of gross income)
Vehicles $42,000 ($3500 / mo, finance + gas + insurance)
Food $24,000 ($500 per person per month)
Misc Expenses $72,000 ($1,500 per person per month. Very conservative.)
Annual vacation Budget $12,000
Private Highschool $24,000 ($2,000 per child per month).
US Ivy University amortised $52,000 ($65,000 per child per year * 4 yrs / 10 yr amortization)

^ 2.5M housing doesn't seem like what an average family would live in...

Private highschool also has nothing to do with living comfortably...

But I do agree that if you want to support your children going to schools in the states then you need to save up a shit ton of money.

Bro, 2.5m gets you a shack in Vancouver West. 2.5M gets you a 2000 sq ft 20 year old one storey home in Palo Alto. That is the average closing price in the area. If anything, I'm being conservative on the housing because the other costs are so high. The rule of thumb is 30% of income for housing and this works out to be way less than that.

My SO and I both went to school in the US so we would naturally want our kids to go to the same schools.

^ But I thought we were talking about what you need to make to live "comfortably". If you think living in Vancouver West is a requirement then I guess your correct. I've lived in Surrey, Coquitlam, Port Moody and Burnaby and 2.5M would not have gave me a shack to live in.

I guess we can agree that "comfortable" is a relative term

Unrealistic expectaions are unrealistic. Your view of what "comfortable and middle class" are extremely skewed, Marco911.

This is exactly why the 99% don't get the 1%. We are struggling just like everyone else to make ends meet. If anything a lot of those expenditures are way understated from what they truly are. I have broken out the numbers for you and all you can say is I'm unrealistic. Where am I being unrealistic? Do you realize that even at $600k our family of four only has a disposable income of $72k per year? That is hardly enough to live "comfortably" if you consider housekeeper expenses, vet bills, buying something nice once in awhile etc, etc.

I think most people will agree with the notion that every generation should improve on its station in life from the former. I'd want to give my kids a better life than I had. My SO and I are both highly educated working professionals. We went to some of the best schools in the world. I grew up upper middle class in North Van district. Suggesting that we move to Surrey, PoCo and Burnaby because major districts like Vancouver West and West Van are out of reach is a non-starter. The other working professionals in those neighbourhoods are our peer group. One of my good friends from high school is a dentist with his own practice and his wife is a lawyer in vancouver. They have one kid on the way. Together they pull in more than $500k a year and they claim to still struggle to get by in Vancouver West. I can see why.

That is the same mentality that describes those who spend the money they don't have to buy useless shit they don't need to impress the people they don't like

I did not say middle class for the whole of society. I said middle class for our peers who are other one percenters. Thee ultra rich (0.1 percenters) live a whole different life entirely, if you consider the yacht, the multiple homes etc, etc.

I recognize that my issues are first world problems.

Nice saying but if you look at the lifestyle I'm describing and what a 2.5m home looks like in Vancouver west or palo alto these days, it is not impressing anyone.

:fulloffuck:

You mean Middle-Upper Class which is wildly different than Middle Class.

^^what's confusing about that? If you make USD 60-70k per year you are middle class in America or Canada. You'd be considered wealthy in Vietnam, china or the Philippines. Likewise, relatively speaking, making 600k per year would give us a very middle class existence among our peers. Please go through the expenses I listed and highlight exactly what is unrealistic. The thing is taxes are just way too high, which is why the one percenters tend to vote republican.

you quickly turned this thread from going down the road where people may learn some truth about how ICBC is actually a good institution, into a trainwreck of Marco's baller status.

Pix please !

kthxbye

I also made a mistake in the calculation. That private high school is 48k per year for 2 kids not 24k. So add another 35k of before tax income required. We are now up to $640k income required range just to own one home in a decent neighborhood, put my kids through school and live a fairly austere existence.

Delete

Thread was dead anyhow. Feel free to split the thread, move to OT, and change the title. No baller status here. The prospect of raising two kids well and living in a high tax, high cost jurisdiction has killed the dream.

If you look at the disposable income available after paying for education, reasonable house and car payments. There's just 70k left, which really is not a lot to cover clothing for four, tennis lessons, socializing, entertainment professional dues, etc etc for 4 persons.