You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Rumour is PM Trudy will be taking care of that next month with some major tax changes for personal corporations. Just in time for another possible rate hike next month... The market has already priced in another hike by the end of the year.
The tax changes are not a slam dunk.
Even if the tax changes come into effect, the damage is already done.
Vivagrand Developments, a Vancouver-based firm which describes itself as the North American office of a property developer in southern China, has cancelled its Langara West condo project in the Cambie Street corridor.
It’s a rare move that comes as land prices in the area, as well as end prices for condos and townhomes in general, have surged.
It leaves 71 buyers of one-, two- and three-bedroom condos who, starting two years ago, locked into pre-sale contracts of around $700 to $900 a square foot with nothing but an offer from the developer to return their deposits, “plus an additional 50 per cent of their paid deposit as further compensation. For your $49,390 deposit, that means you will receive a total payment of $74,085.”
That’s little consolation in an area where prices for pre-sale condos are now going for between $1,200 to $1,400 a square foot, according to buyers who shared letters they received from Vivagrand.
They are reaching out to each other and potentially seeking legal advice. Some say they are now priced out of buying other condos or homes in the area given the appreciation in prices.
Vivagrand said in an email, “the project will not be re-marketed and the property will be sold. This was an incredibly difficult decision, which was driven by extensive permitting delays, sharply rising construction costs and the subsequent loss of project financing.”
It explained to Postmedia: “Langara West submitted its development permit application to the City of Vancouver two years ago, in September 2015. To date, the final development permit for the project has not yet been issued. As such, construction has not yet been able to commence and the project would not be finished by the contractual completion date (July 2019).
Details in letters shared by the company with buyers reveal a possibly shorter timeline, and the city, in an emailed reply to Postmedia’s queries, agreed:
“The City of Vancouver is disappointed that the developer has chosen to halt the project at this time, when the permit is close to completion, after years of collective work on the project, and when the city is in dire need of more housing.”
In January 2017, Vivagrand notified buyers it had obtained construction financing for the development from CIBC and Canadian Western Bank.
The company had also been keeping buyers informed about a situation involving a felled tree. It said in October 2016 that a tree on the corner of the development had been cut down without permission. The company hired a private firm to investigate, but was unable to identify the individuals involved. It then notified and worked with the city on a revised landscaping plan, which was submitted in April 2017.
“Unfortunately, in this instance, the timeline for issuance of permits was extended due to the fact that the developer repeatedly submitted designs that contravened bylaws and the site conditions set forth by council (and reiterated by staff), which specifically required the protection of key trees on site,” according to the City.
In April 2017, Vivagrand let buyers know it hadn’t yet received a development or building permit and gave them the option to sign an addendum confirming a desire to continue their contracts.
“Accommodation of this tree was one of the city’s original requirements for issuance of the development permit,” Vivagrand told buyers, explaining there could be design and exterior landscaping changes.
The city said it gave the developer feedback on its submission in March 2016, but did not receive a redesign until April 2017, “a period of 13 months. During that time frame, a tree that council directed to be preserved disappeared from the property, which complicated the proposal and caused further delays.”
Around four months later, in mid-August, buyers were told the company was cancelling all pre-sale contracts.
The developer acquired the land, which sits on the corner of Cambie Street and West 59th Avenue, in March 2014. The sites of the former Flamingo House Restaurant and two single-family homes were combined and sold then for $12.5 million. Commercial realtors estimate it is worth about triple that amount now.
“It’s an unusual case, we hope,” said Anne McMullin, president of the Urban Development Institute, which represents developers. “It is troubling and we are concerned about these. One is one too many when you have this lack of supply. People will not be able to buy back into another project.”
McMullin emphasized she wasn’t familiar with the exact financial details of the Langara West case, but, in general “with super high land costs, if developers can’t get permits and it’s taking too long, they can say, ‘I’m out.” They can stop it and sell the land. The money will go elsewhere. To Burnaby, Surrey, the (Fraser) Valley or Seattle.”
As well, she said, “only big developers can hold. The small and medium-sized ones get squeezed out.”
The City said “a review and approval of final designs across all City departments currently takes 12 to 14 weeks. (It) is focused on reducing this average response time, however, the response to the final submission for this specific project falls within that average time frame.”
On its website, Vivagrand, which has offices on West Broadway, describes itself as linked to Guangzhou-based Xiang Li, “a leading real estate firm with 22 years of experience and over 350,000 square feet of residential, mixed-use and infrastructure development in China.”
Xiang Li’s website says it was established in the mid-1990s and around 2011 it set up Canadian entities and “is developing Vancouver real estate projects, trying to become international, opening up global territory …”
Vivagrand has three other condo projects in Metro Vancouver, including two listed as “coming soon” — on Cambie Street at 42nd Avenue across from Oakridge Centre and at Davie and Nicola Streets in the West End. There is a third that is “under construction” on Marine Drive in North Vancouver.
George Wong of Vancouver agency Magnum Projects Ltd., which did marketing for the Langara West project, directed queries to Vivagrand. Vancouver-based W. T Leung Architects, which was working on its plans, did not return phone calls.
hi friends i need some advice. I just started my 5yr variable term mortgage and im getting prime -.65% = 2.55%. To lock in i would be getting 3.04%. I truly believe by this time next yr, itll be more than 3.04% and will only go up, but the bank, wife and some other friends dont think so. What does revscene think?
Your variable rate is not too bad - mine is Prime - 0.7% and I suspect that these days you could do a little better as there tends to be more room as rates go up.
Your fixed rate seems high, I had a friend who was approved a few weeks ago and he was offered 2.85% but we ended up getting it down to something in the 2.6s, I can't quite remember the exact rate. Since then, rates have gone up, but I think that you should be in the 2.8s at least with some shopping around.
If you are planning on buying something you will stay in, you should definitely lock in - the prognosis is almost assured you will see at least 2 more rate increases next year and BMO is projecting 4 increases.
-Mark
__________________ I'm old now - boring street cars and sweet race cars.
He's currently on a variable rate 5 year term, no bank is just going to allow you to switch to their best possible fixed 5 year without penalty. They probably offer the 3% rate due to their leverage in the position.
No one is getting 2.6X now, so closing in on 3 isnt surprising.
__________________
Dank memes cant melt steel beams
If you are paying 2.55, you are paying 75K principal and 58K interest interest over 5 years. (with an avarage of 2.55 rate) 133K total over 5 years.
If you pay 3.0 fixed, you are paying 71K principal 68K interest interest over 5 years. 139 total over 5 years.
So by going variable, you are saving 6K.
In the same time, for 6K, you can have sanity of mind, and FORGET about worrying about rate surging over the next 5 YEARS.
Ok, so now you are "down 6K over 5 years", and probably up XXX,XXX K up from the value of your home rising.
note: yeah theres endless variables, but in general, this is what made me choose fixed.
For what it's worth most people I know in finance with mortgages who have preached variable rates for the last 10-15 years have started locking in on 5 year fixed terms.
In that above example, if all you're outing down it 5% (if that's possible) I'd be pretty worried going with a variable rate
__________________
Dank memes cant melt steel beams
@riceIntegraRS check aging. 3+ seems to high to lock in. I'm looking aswell for a bigger place currently at 2.39 For 5, I was offered 2.85 as a blended rate if I decide to take on more mortgage debt. Get ur bank to do better than 3.04
But as Hondaracer pointed out. They have leverage so... I don't think they'll be another hike this year as they don't want to cool of too much and crack the housing market.
Rumour is PM Trudy will be taking care of that next month with some major tax changes for personal corporations. Just in time for another possible rate hike next month... The market has already priced in another hike by the end of the year.
didn't even know about the news until i read this off facebook from an anesthesiologist in Edmonton
Spoiler!
Quote:
About our government’s assault on physicians:
Make no mistake about it. Trudeau and Morneau are mounting an assault on physicians and other incorporated professionals (lawyers, dentists, accountants, etc). They are being disingenuous in their claim that the one percent are not paying their fare share of taxes. For starters, you should know that the “one percent” in Canada is defined as those who make over $192,000 per year. We are not millionaires or billionaires. Second, I will not apologize for being in the top one percent. I, as well as every other physician I know, has earned our success through years of hard work. And I would encourage all Canadians to strive to get into that one percent demographic. Contrast that with Morneau (a net worth of around 50 million dollars, mostly inherited from his father and Trudeau….)
Lets talk about fairness which I believe requires real numbers. Most physicians in Canada make over $200,000 per year which in Alberta (for example) would put them in the top tax bracket which is a marginal rate of 49%. (If you don’t understand the concept of our progressive tax system, google it. It overwhelmingly works in favor of lower income people.) Note that there is also a flat tax on small business income which is approximately 15% in Alberta.) For my example, lets use a physician who has a gross income of $300,000 per year (this is not uncommon - and this example applies identically to a dentist, lawyer, accountant, architect, etc.)
This physician bills fee for service and the income is deposited into her corporation and is considered business income. At the end of the year, there is $300,000 cash in the account. Now lets say she needs $190,000 to pay her personal expenses (ie. rent, disability insurance, health insurance, property taxes, car loan, running water/heat, kids summer camp, student loans, food, RRSP contribution, etc.) She then pays herself a salary at the end of the year of $190,000. Transfers that money into her personal checking account. Just the same as how those of you who are an employee on payroll are paid. And don’t tell me that $190,000 is too much or pass any judgement on that. It is what it is an in a capitalist society we are all free to earn as much money as we can as long as we pay taxes on it. Now lets calculate the personal tax she will pay on this salary. You can go to the following Alberta Government web site to calculate this. Alberta Personal Income Tax Calculator for 2016 Tax Year - Treasury Board and Finance
I assumed she is single with no children and contributed $15,000 to her RRSP.
The PERSONAL TAX payable is $53202. This is a check she writes to the government. No if’s and’s or but’s about it. Anything short of writing that check to the government is TAX EVASION and is a criminal offense. Everyone does it and even the government is not accusing us of not doing that. They would not need to reform taxes to fix this. They could just put offenders in prison.
Ok… So now what about the remaining $110,000 thats remaining in the corporation. She has business expenses. Lets assume they are extremely/unusually low so that there is tons of money left over for the government to apply their new proposed tax to. So she pays for her medical license, work cel phone, billing company, a few conferences, etc.) Lets say this cost $10,000. So now the corporation/business has a net profit of $100,000.
There is now corporate tax payable. In Alberta that would be roughly 15 percent on the corporate profits which would be $15,000. Again, there is no way to avoid this. Otherwise its tax evasion and you go to prison.
So in the current year she has cut two checks to the government. $15,000 + $53202 = $68,202.
Now what to do with the remaining money…. She invests that in a mutual fund to save for retirement, illness, disability, maternity leave, university for her kids, etc. So assuming her income and expenses stay constant for the next three years (that a big assumption) she puts $100,000 into this mutual fund yearly for 3 years and other also pays $68,202 in tax for three years. (This mutual fund is the passive investment out government wants to tax 70%. My example is THE WAY IT CURRENTLY IS, where we are apparently NOT paying our “fair share.”) Lets assume the mutual fund gains 10 percent yearly. So at the end of three years she has $364,000 in the investment.
Now she has a child and decides to take a year off work. She will make no income for that year. Or if she’s 65, we would call this retirement, and its the same but lasts for more than one year. Since she still needs her $190,000 to survive the year, she is about to pay herself a salary from the retained earnings in her corporation of $190,000.
So she needs to sell the mutual fund and Immediately upon cashing in her mutual fund the corporation is taxed on the capital gains of that investment. In Alberta the corporation is taxed a rate of 50.17% on half of the capital gain. The capital gain is $64,000 ($364,000-$300,000.) So the corporation is taxed $16,000 on that investment.
But then she has to pay herself the salary. So she cuts herself a check for $190,000 and pays personal tax on that of $53,202 just like the other years.
So lets do a tally of all the taxes paid over four years.
Year 1: $15,000 + $53202
Year 2: $15,000 + $53202
Year 3: $15000 + $53202
Year 4: $15000 + $53202 + $16000
Total: $288,808
Now lets calculate the gross revenue from being a physician she has earned over four years (note that in the fourth year, she actually earned nothing from working but still had to pay personal tax because she needed money to pay her bills. This is the deferred tax.) Her tax rate in year four is infinity, but I digress…
Year 1: $300,000
Year 2: $300,000
Year 3: $300,000
Year 4: $0.00
Total: $900,000
So over four years she earned $900,000 and paid $288,808 in taxes. This is roughly 32% of her gross revenue.
In another practical example, lets say that one year she needs to come up with a down payment on a house of $200,000. She will need to pay herself a $390,000 salary that year and the tax payable would be $146,702. This is an effective tax rate of 37%.
As a comparison, lets take a salaried middle class worker making $70,000 per year. Based on the same tax calculator, that individual would pay $9669.00 in taxes. This is an effective rate of 14%.
The point is that self employed physicians, lawyers, accountants, etc are paying a staggering amount of taxes. Yes there are incentives built into the tax code to encourage investment (which our government wants to eliminate) but there is NO WAY of avoiding paying A LOT of taxes if you are in the top one percent.
I CHALLENGE Bill Morneau or Justin Trudeau to explain how paying $288,000 of taxes on $900,000 of income (an effective rate of 32 percent) is not a “Fair Share” compared to a middle class worker paying $9669.00 or $70,000 of income (an effective rate of 14 percent.)
Note that under their PROPOSED taxation plan this physician would pay somewhere around $438,000 in taxes on $900,000 of income which would be an effective tax rate of 48.7% Thats a tax increase of 53%. Yes its more money, but its it more "fair"? How do you define fair? (Note that this number is approximate as I do not have the specifics on the proposed tax plan - just the basics."
They are being outright dishonest in their rhetoric. Professionals pay an outrageous amount of tax using the CURRENT system.
Earlier this week while at the Liberal Caucus meeting in Kelowna, Trudeau was quoted as saying "So you get someone who's making $50,000 a year who's actually paying more taxes than someone who's making $300,000 a year because they have private corporation mechanisms and good accountants that allow them to get away from that." This is absolutely asinine. After seeing this, the only thing I can surmise is that Trudeau is either stupid or lying. And either case should be concerning to us. There is absolutely no way this would be possible and hopefully my example demonstrates this.
Again, I will not apologize for being in the one percent and being in the fortunate position of having a tax liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I do absolutely resent anyone telling me or any of my colleagues that we are not paying our “fair share.” This is outright misguided at best and dishonest at worst. The government is capitalizing on the average Canadian not understanding the way that taxation on the “one percent” works and they are deceiving you by doing this.
If the government wants to have a discussion about our “fair share” of taxes, they should be transparent and be very clear about what they want us to pay. If the one percent pay 40% while the rest pay 14% is that fair? How about 47%? Maybe it would be “fair” if we paid 70% and the middle class paid 10%? “Fairness” is impossible to define, but I can assure you that the one percent are contributing substantially more taxes on an individual basis than the middle class does on on individual basis. There is no way around that.
Furthermore, this scenario does not account for all of the benefits that salaried employees likely receive. (Particularly public sector employees with generous pensions, sick leave, disability leave, etc.) These are worth tens of thousands of dollars per year per employee which are paid for by tax payers.
Bill Morneau and Justin Trudeau on the other hand…. Lets see how much taxes as a percentage of their their investments from their inheritance they are paying. There is no way its 32%. If its all converted to capital gains, it would be 25 % (the same percentage as the capital gains in the investment that the corporation above paid.)
If you’ve taken the time to read this - Thank you. If you don’t understand this, then ask one of your business owner acquaintances to explain. If you think that business owners are making too much money and you are a socialist then unfortunately for you thats not the way our society is structured and theres no point in having this discussion. And if you think professionals are not paying their “fair share” then I challenge you to define with a reason to back your number, what a “fair” percentage should be as compared to the average middle class employee. As far as I can tell, the only “fair” number is whats higher than the status quo, no matter what the status quo is.
Please share this with as you see fit. Our government has no intention of changing course on their “tax reform” but at best I will have convinced a few more people to be outraged at the dishonesty they are speaking.
didn't even know about the news until i read this off facebook from an anesthesiologist in Edmonton
There's a reason he's an anesthesiologist and not in finance. If you're paying 50% effective tax rate on capital gains, then either you're retarded or you don't know how to do taxes. So much misinformation and blatent lies in the post.
i'm not in finance either..but his post said 25% tax in AB which I thought was believable
either way, Trudeau going after self-employed professionals for tax hikes seems out of line
anyways.. wasn't trying to derail this thread by too much
I think he's obviously cherrypicking data to prove his point. He picks Alberta to compare the 70k worker which has one of the lowest effective tax rates in the country (Compare that to BC where the worker would pay an effective tax rate of ~23%). There are also lots of other tax breaks that are applicable to him that would bring his tax rate much lower than he would claim which would be why these individuals pay to hire an accountant. He is just using the worst possible situation to exaggerate his claims.
He also fails to mention that at the end of the day, he still made 180k after taxes which is still 3-4 times what the 70k worker brings home at the end of the year. Am I supposed to pity him for feeling that 180k is too little money?
The point of taxing the rich is that $1 to a poor man is worth many times more than $1 to someone who is rich. They may cry and complain but at the end of the day, they're still living very comfortably and helping make sure society around him doesn't go to shit.
That FB post:
1) Spelling and grammar, holy shit.
2) Only 'MURRICA! uses 'check'
3) Apostrophes, apostrophes everywhere
4) If that's a real scenario (which LOL if it is), you're doing it wrong.
Just on Federal Tax Rates alone, the $70k worker in AB would pay:
15% on the first $45,916 ($6,887.40)
20.5% on the remaining $24,084 ($4937.22)
$11,824.62 in taxes ...
Then in Provincial taxes:
10% on $70,000 ($7,000)
$18,824.62 on $70,000 of income is a tax rate of 26.9%
Of course, he doesn't show the calculations for the $70k worker, but I assumed he put in a $15k RRSP contribution and, low-and-behold, using his tax calculator link ... OH, LOOK AT THAT, $9669 Total Federal & Provincial Tax. Exactly the same number he quoted. Aside from being impossible (max is 18% of earned income), very few $70k workers can afford to put $1250/month into RRSPs/savings.
I think he's obviously cherrypicking data to prove his point. He picks Alberta to compare the 70k worker which has one of the lowest effective tax rates in the country (Compare that to BC where the worker would pay an effective tax rate of ~23%). There are also lots of other tax breaks that are applicable to him that would bring his tax rate much lower than he would claim which would be why these individuals pay to hire an accountant. He is just using the worst possible situation to exaggerate his claims.
He also fails to mention that at the end of the day, he still made 180k after taxes which is still 3-4 times what the 70k worker brings home at the end of the year. Am I supposed to pity him for feeling that 180k is too little money?
The point of taxing the rich is that $1 to a poor man is worth many times more than $1 to someone who is rich. They may cry and complain but at the end of the day, they're still living very comfortably and helping make sure society around him doesn't go to shit.
well he does live in AB
yes it's assuming he doesn't take advantage of tax incentives (which he has identified in the post)
It's not so much about the dollar amount, but how the current system is already taking a significant chunk from that group and to have the PM/MoF accuse them of not paying a fair share is a slap in the face. Even if you wanna go down the route of comparing salaries, I'm familiar with that program he's trained in, and it's an abysmal amount compared to what the colleagues he graduated with makes
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Failed 929 Times in 340 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by twdm
I think he's obviously cherrypicking data to prove his point. He picks Alberta to compare the 70k worker which has one of the lowest effective tax rates in the country (Compare that to BC where the worker would pay an effective tax rate of ~23%). There are also lots of other tax breaks that are applicable to him that would bring his tax rate much lower than he would claim which would be why these individuals pay to hire an accountant. He is just using the worst possible situation to exaggerate his claims.
He also fails to mention that at the end of the day, he still made 180k after taxes which is still 3-4 times what the 70k worker brings home at the end of the year. Am I supposed to pity him for feeling that 180k is too little money?
The point of taxing the rich is that $1 to a poor man is worth many times more than $1 to someone who is rich. They may cry and complain but at the end of the day, they're still living very comfortably and helping make sure society around him doesn't go to shit.
You are forgetting one thing though. To get to the top 1% is not just like flip of a switch. Lot's of these type of profession put in more than 40 hours a week. They have to go to school every year to obtain, attend conference, pay liscense fees, take a risk of operating a business etc etc WHILE the rest of us works 40 hours go home and not worry about work.
I remember a long time ago I need to see my family doctor really bad (major back pain ) he wouldn't book in till 2 weeks later because if he sees more paitents per day the gov doesn't pay for it so he is working for free. Image if lets say a lot of top 1% decided not to over work and stay just below a certain tax barcert a lot of people (us) are going to have to wait to get our services dentist, doctors , lawyers etc etc. Or you are going to see a lot more business taking "taking cash only" and not report what they all earn.
Let's face it a lot of self employed business (especially contractors, the construction dude you hire to reno your house, the handy you hire to fix your pipe, the gardener you hire to take care of your lawn) do you thick they all report all the income they earn? Of course not that's why they like cash. The gov should go after these people not people who actually report their income.
^The govt should go after CEO's, CFO's, COO's who work in large corporations like Telus, Bell, Rogers, Shaw as well, those are the guys that are nickel and diming the Canadian community, yet making hundreds of millions in QUARTERLY profits hand over fist, and yet, the people JT chooses to ding are the upper middle class - effectively making them, middle class. If he really thinks that all doctors are upper class, he's a complete idiot.
Trudeau, planned on running the country at a deficit of no-more than 10 billion over the first couple years in office. But as of right now, we have a shortfall of nearly at a $30 billion. This is a scam at the highest level. He's lost money, now he needs to find a scape goat to pay for his poor spending habits, so he targets the middle class.
Once doc's and other small business owners feel the crunch, they may start letting go of some staff, or closing shop all together to go to a different country. Jobs will surely diminish from the small business sector.
Couple the above with rising interest rates, a housing bust may, actually, soon be on the horizon.
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Failed 929 Times in 340 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiRV
^The govt should go after CEO's, CFO's, COO's who work in large corporations like Telus, Bell, Rogers, Shaw as well, those are the guys that are nickel and diming the Canadian community, yet making hundreds of millions in QUARTERLY profits hand over fist, and yet, the people JT chooses to ding are the upper middle class - effectively making them, middle class. If he really thinks that all doctors are upper class, he's a complete idiot.
Trudeau, planned on running the country at a deficit of no-more than 10 billion over the first couple years in office. But as of right now, we have a shortfall of nearly at a $30 billion. This is a scam at the highest level. He's lost money, now he needs to find a scape goat to pay for his poor spending habits, so he targets the middle class.
Once doc's and other small business owners feel the crunch, they may start letting go of some staff, or closing shop all together to go to a different country. Jobs will surely diminish from the small business sector.
Couple the above with rising interest rates, a housing bust may, actually, soon be on the horizon.
But we all know the gov will never got after the CEO's and big corporations since that's where the gov gets their donations or favors. So they go after the professionals who in my books have paid enough tax already. Is not like they haven't been thorough schools (8+ years) and then still need to update their skills and to top it off work long hours.
Typical professions for this class include lawyers, physicians, psychologists, certified public accountants, pharmacists, optometrists, stockbrokers, editors, dentists, engineers, professors, architects, school principals, urban planners, civil service executives and civilian contractors.
Jmac, your right, the definition is loose. I'll go by the definition given by Wikipedia for presenting my argument, you can go with your source of choice.
My friend and I were talking about a time when his classmates father, a physician, managed to raise a family in Shaugnessy. We took a moment to pause, and laugh at that absurd idea, that a doctor could actually afford a property like that anymore.
People don't understand the sacrifices involved when choosing this profession. It delays life, with 60-100hr work weeks. Unlike many other professions, to start and raise a family requires, often (not always), one spouse to give up their career goals and become a full time care taker. A physician who, under the proposed taxes, typically bills 400k, will pay 100k worth of expenses, including other salaries. They will likely have a taxable income of 300k , and will only take home 175k. That's equivalent to two working professionals who work 40hrs/week each. That seems like a typical middle class family to me in Vancouver with salaries of two nurses/pharmacists/accountants/engineers. That doesn't even go into the issue of debt accrued, or the total lost income during all the years of education where we could have been doing other things.
The "loose" definition used by the United States isn't loose in terms of quantification, but in terms of the number of people who fall within it.
The original definition from the 1980s, using the median income (where exactly half of the people are above and half of the people are below) used +/- 25% as that resulted in approximately 1/3 of the people falling within that range using the data from the 1960s and 1970s. So literally the middle third of earners (with the lower third being lower class and the upper third being upper class).
The updated definition of middle class that the US now uses is set so roughly the lowest 20% of earners and highest 20% of earners don't fall within it, which equated to roughly 66.7% to 200% of median income by state (so middle class varies state-to-state). This results in 5 income classes: Lower class (bottom 20%), Lower-middle class (20%-40%), Middle class (40%-60%), Upper-middle class (60%-80%), and Upper class (Top 20%).
Sources would be MIT (where the term was originally coined), Statistics Canada, and Pew Research Center (the US government uses their definitions).
In any case, the highest earning states still top out that definition of the upper-middle class at around $145k USD.
Nurses aren't making $130k/year working 40 hours/week, which is approximately what would be required to take home $87.5k/each. Not even close. With lots of overtime, maybe, but definitely not without.
Nurses top out at $52.14/hour for a level 6 RN in wage category 9 (which is VERY, VERY few nurses). Even assuming the top wage bracket ($52.14/hour) and they work all night shifts (+$3.50/hour) and two of those shifts fall on a weekends every week (+$2.30/hour) and that nurse works 52 weeks/year, that still only tops out at $117,644.80/year (and, again, we're talking an extremely generous scenario that would literally never happen).
Pharmacists working for the health authority aren't doing that either (I'm not going to post info off my employer's internal postings). Can't speak for the private firms (though, what I've found online hasn't been any better than the health authority). I can't see too many accountants making that, either.
Without belabouring the point of what the definition of upper middle class means, maybe we can change the conversation to the idea of 'fairness'. I don't know what your stance is on the Trudeau taxes are, so I won't make any assumptions. Since I'm curious what your take is on it, please let me know your thoughts.
I was a pharmacist working in a health authority making approximately $45/hour and change before I went back to school, for the record. Is it really fair that a pharmacist working for a health authority can retire by the age of 58-65 and earn 70% of their highest 5 years of income for the rest of their/spouse's life, INDEXED TO INFLATION (for the next 30-40 years)? Not to mention paid sick calls, paid vacation time, paid benefits, paid union protection, paid insurance etc.?
A lot of my friends that work as health authority pharmacists are cracking over 100k already, with hardly any extra overtime, all the while collecting one of the sweetest retirement nest eggs in the world.
Private sector business owners (doctors et al.) get none of that luxury, instead we were provided with the ability to incorporate, to somewhat try to replicate what government employees are privy to by investing with our corporation in stocks, real estate, etc. All of which are entirely up to the gods of economics and bull/bear cycles.
Sure, in the grand scheme of things, neither system is fair for the greater good of the people (homeless population, school teachers, single parents, etc.). But, is there one that seems fairer than the other? And if so, why?
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
