Personal Finance

Do you get depressed when you see all the deductions on your paystub?

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 28th, 2017 10:34 pm
Sr. Member
User avatar
Mar 31, 2009
968 posts
378 upvotes
12345654321 wrote:
Apr 8th, 2017 10:26 pm
It sounds like your ideal country will have homeless/poverty issues.
My ideal country would kick some people into gear instead of letting them leech. Most people would be better off, the only people who would be worse off would be the current drains who still refused to put themselves in a position to finance their own lives and live responsibly. There would be some casualties, but overall, everyone would be better off because the average person is currently financing the leeches, those average people would be better off. So if the average/majority is better off, that's how it should be. It's for the greater good that the government play less of a role and take less of our money. Because they use it so badly and inefficiently

Keep in mind that even if you're someone who is a drain 'sometimes', as long as you're, on average, not a drain, you'd be better off. Because you'd have enough extra cashflow in your positive cashflow days that you'd be able to better fund the bad times better than the government does (by nature of how government wastes)

The only people who would be worse off would be the people who are, on average, drains, their whole lives. Those people would need to smarten up, take responsibility, and live responsible lives. If they did, they'd be better off as well. If they didn't, they'd be worse off.

So for the greater good of most people, the government should have less access to our money, and the only people who will suffer are those who are drains who do not put themselves in a position to stop being drains. Because, there'd be less for them to drain from. But overall, the majority would be better off.

So this is not a 'me me me' thing. It's selfish in the sense that, yes, we wouldn't be funding the drains of society. But I don't think there's anything wrong with telling the person who is a drain, 'sorry, you can't take so much of our money anymore' and I don't think there's anything wrong with telling government 'sorry, you can't waste our money so much anymore, you need to use it more efficiently because you're going to get less of it to use'
Last edited by unknownone on Apr 9th, 2017 6:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 19, 2004
7189 posts
981 upvotes
Cambridge, ON
WernerH084531 wrote:
Apr 9th, 2017 4:42 pm
yes we pay exorbitant taxes, especially with all the tax loopholes and foreign tax avoidance etc....so much govt waste doesn't help either

over $1000 every two weeks in taxes?
This is what bothers me. I don't mind paying taxes as needed, but paying other people's taxes because they are avoiding their share through loopholes or just plain evasion, that is what bothers me. We all end up paying more because of that.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 27, 2009
3421 posts
1352 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
don242 wrote:
Apr 9th, 2017 6:45 pm
This is what bothers me. I don't mind paying taxes as needed, but paying other people's taxes because they are avoiding their share through loopholes or just plain evasion, that is what bothers me. We all end up paying more because of that.
True, but I also don't believe in this poster's attitude of "why should I pay taxes when all these people are cheating". Over $1000 every two weeks in taxes would just make me happy I'm earning a good living. Probably around $100K at that level of taxes. If they don't like that, then perhaps they should find a country better suited to them and don't let the door hit their arse on the way out. Someone who doesn't mind helping to pay for the decent society we live in will gladly take thier $100K job I'm sure.
Sr. Member
Jan 5, 2015
580 posts
140 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
unknownone wrote:
Apr 9th, 2017 6:42 pm
My ideal country would kick some people into gear instead of letting them leech. Most people would be better off, the only people who would be worse off would be the current drains who still refused to put themselves in a position to finance their own lives and live responsibly. There would be some casualties, but overall, everyone would be better off because the average person is currently financing the leeches, those average people would be better off. So if the average/majority is better off, that's how it should be. It's for the greater good that the government play less of a role and take less of our money. Because they use it so badly and inefficiently

Keep in mind that even if you're someone who is a drain 'sometimes', as long as you're, on average, not a drain, you'd be better off. Because you'd have enough extra cashflow in your positive cashflow days that you'd be able to better fund the bad times better than the government does (by nature of how government wastes)

The only people who would be worse off would be the people who are, on average, drains, their whole lives. Those people would need to smarten up, take responsibility, and live responsible lives. If they did, they'd be better off as well. If they didn't, they'd be worse off.

So for the greater good of most people, the government should have less access to our money, and the only people who will suffer are those who are drains who do not put themselves in a position to stop being drains. Because, there'd be less for them to drain from. But overall, the majority would be better off.

So this is not a 'me me me' thing. It's selfish in the sense that, yes, we wouldn't be funding the drains of society. But I don't think there's anything wrong with telling the person who is a drain, 'sorry, you can't take so much of our money anymore' and I don't think there's anything wrong with telling government 'sorry, you can't waste our money so much anymore, you need to use it more efficiently because you're going to get less of it to use'
I think I get what you're saying - take responsibility for yourself.
And I would agree with that (if that's what you're saying).

But the problem from my point of view is that some people are irresponsible no matter what the government does.
Irresponsible people can slide down to desperation when resources become scarce. And we all know what desperation leads to - stupid and usually dangerous actions.
So, if we go libertarian (100% individual rights). What do we do with the irresponsible people committing crimes to feed mouths and their vices? And the process/procedures for dealing with these people, how will it be managed and funded?
The far left option, communism, is no better.

Management of people (governance) to me seems to be always between individual rights and communal benefit.
And I think the answer is somewhere inbetween the right and left, a balance in preserving as much individual rights without causing too much social unrest.
And to maintain this balance, you need social services (roads, police, health, fire, etc.) which comes with a price tag - taxes.
Sr. Member
Jan 27, 2015
917 posts
345 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
unknownone wrote:
Apr 8th, 2017 6:14 pm
Yes. It's my money going into the government coffers, and the government is absolutely horrible at managing that money.

If the money was used efficiently, effectively, and in ways that most benefitted me, then I'd be fine with it. But I know that for every dollar I give up, most of it is wasted, it's like throwing money away because of how bad government is.
Excellent point.

That's why I'm so big about small government: less government leads to less corruption, more efficiency, more liberty, more money for those who earn leading to more choices and greater prosperity. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

And while I'm at it, both Conservative AND Liberal government can fall into corruption.
Newbie
Mar 13, 2010
38 posts
13 upvotes
iamthebest wrote:
Apr 8th, 2017 3:32 pm
Yeah, and when you pay Home Insurance you are paying for others people burned down houses and when you pay for Car Insurance you are paying for other people's accidents or stolen cars...
Wrong, it's about likelihood and amount of expense. You can't control something happening to your home or car, accidents will happen. While I've not had anything happen to my home or car before, recovering from those accidents would be alot harder than if you lose a job. I have a pretty stable job, but even when I didn't have a stable job earlier in my career, I never had any downtime between jobs. I just went and got another job, never had to take EI. You can't control the extent of the damage of a home or car accident but you can control the extent of the damage of a job loss by going out and getting another job. I think there are definitely a portion of EI people that are able to get a job but are lazy or entitled or both.
Sr. Member
Nov 13, 2013
714 posts
244 upvotes
OTTAWA
unknownone wrote:
Apr 9th, 2017 6:42 pm
My ideal country would kick some people into gear instead of letting them leech. Most people would be better off, the only people who would be worse off would be the current drains who still refused to put themselves in a position to finance their own lives and live responsibly. There would be some casualties, but overall, everyone would be better off because the average person is currently financing the leeches, those average people would be better off. So if the average/majority is better off, that's how it should be. It's for the greater good that the government play less of a role and take less of our money. Because they use it so badly and inefficiently

Keep in mind that even if you're someone who is a drain 'sometimes', as long as you're, on average, not a drain, you'd be better off. Because you'd have enough extra cashflow in your positive cashflow days that you'd be able to better fund the bad times better than the government does (by nature of how government wastes)

The only people who would be worse off would be the people who are, on average, drains, their whole lives. Those people would need to smarten up, take responsibility, and live responsible lives. If they did, they'd be better off as well. If they didn't, they'd be worse off.

So for the greater good of most people, the government should have less access to our money, and the only people who will suffer are those who are drains who do not put themselves in a position to stop being drains. Because, there'd be less for them to drain from. But overall, the majority would be better off.

So this is not a 'me me me' thing. It's selfish in the sense that, yes, we wouldn't be funding the drains of society. But I don't think there's anything wrong with telling the person who is a drain, 'sorry, you can't take so much of our money anymore' and I don't think there's anything wrong with telling government 'sorry, you can't waste our money so much anymore, you need to use it more efficiently because you're going to get less of it to use'
Sounds good in theory but in reality if you don't take care of these "leechers" their kids are going to try and take it from you anyway. You are going to spend more on police and prisons trying to stop them and the cycle continues.
Newbie
Mar 4, 2014
72 posts
28 upvotes
Vancouver
FinancialFreedom wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 12:26 pm
Excellent point.

That's why I'm so big about small government: less government leads to less corruption, more efficiency, more liberty, more money for those who earn leading to more choices and greater prosperity. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

And while I'm at it, both Conservative AND Liberal government can fall into corruption.
Leads to Flint water crisis, leads to US health care system. This is not an opinion, those are facts, too, you know.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Sep 19, 2013
944 posts
267 upvotes
Winnipeg
People are blaming government for inefficiently managing resources, as if they have some sort of a master plan which everyone knows but only the govt doesnt.

Here is a genuine question? If not for this govt, which govt in the world has consistently done a good job?
And a rhetoric followup question? Are Canadian govt laggards and other govts are doing much better job?

In general, democracy does a very inefficient job at managing resources because decisions are slow. Also, govts have to think of all sections, including the poor, the homeless, the morons. Yes, theres a lot of lobbying and all that. But in general, dont expect any govt to be as efficient as a corporation, let alone a typical RFDer. So no wonder, an RFDer would feel hard done with the deductions.

Given that expectations, I believe Canada has done a decent job.
Last edited by amitdi on Apr 10th, 2017 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 4, 2007
2465 posts
459 upvotes
Quebec
believe it or not, canada is one of the most enjoyable place to live on earth...because of their policy. its not perfect, but at least its better than syria...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 16, 2009
1396 posts
270 upvotes
Most people (myself included) do a crap job at saving for the future. Come into contact with the healthcare system or suffer a job loss beyond your control and you will be grateful for the system we have in place. It's by no stretch of the imagination perfect.
Banned
Dec 5, 2015
1344 posts
439 upvotes
Thornhill, ON
No..Because I enjoy the air I breathe, my surroundings and the safety net I know is there for LTD, EI, CPP, pension, healthcare, old age, excellent schools and so forth

Why would I get depressed? I paid more than 80k in income taxes alone last year due to stock options, salary and a nice package and I think it was one of my happiest years yet
Deal Guru
User avatar
Aug 8, 2012
10198 posts
3812 upvotes
BC
FinancialFreedom wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 12:26 pm
Excellent point.

That's why I'm so big about small government: less government leads to less corruption, more efficiency, more liberty, more money for those who earn leading to more choices and greater prosperity. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

And while I'm at it, both Conservative AND Liberal government can fall into corruption.
[citation needed] for your "facts".
POLL: How frequent is your RRSP-matching?
Plastiq: Pay any bill with credit card for 0-2.5% fee (help meet min spending and keep old cards active!)
Rewards program transfer times (e.g. SPG->Aeroplan, Marriott->SPG, Amex MR->SPG...)
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 25, 2008
1142 posts
330 upvotes
Mississauga
Doubleshot wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 4:44 pm
Why would I get depressed? I paid more than 80k in income taxes alone last year due to stock options, salary and a nice package and I think it was one of my happiest years yet
The 80K sounds like a lot but like all things in life, its relative. What matters, in terms of building wealth is the % of taxes you pay relative to your overall net worth. If you are a high earner AND live a high consumption lifestyle, your income tax rate will be similar to tax rate/net worth.

Typical millionaires pay 3% or less of annual taxes relative to their net worth but this is not representative of the general population. What is more common, for your typical ambitious North American is climbing the corporate ladder to earn progressively higher income and pay incrementally higher taxes. This feeds the high consumption lifestyle. Our tax structure takes advantage of this and is punishing to those seeking higher realized income.

A frugal lifestyle, early in one's career is crucial to saving enough money to invest in passive unrealized income, e.g. stocks / real estate etc. Only then can you minimize your relative tax bite and continuously build your net worth over time.

Read the Millionaire Next Door by Thomas Stanley, who explains this concept very well.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Aug 8, 2012
10198 posts
3812 upvotes
BC
STP123 wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 9:22 am
The 80K sounds like a lot but like all things in life, its relative. What matters, in terms of building wealth is the % of taxes you pay relative to your overall net worth. If you are a high earner AND live a high consumption lifestyle, your income tax rate will be similar to tax rate/net worth.

Typical millionaires pay 3% or less of annual taxes relative to their net worth but this is not representative of the general population. What is more common, for your typical ambitious North American is climbing the corporate ladder to earn progressively higher income and pay incrementally higher taxes. This feeds the high consumption lifestyle. Our tax structure takes advantage of this and is punishing to those seeking higher realized income.

A frugal lifestyle, early in one's career is crucial to saving enough money to invest in passive unrealized income, e.g. stocks / real estate etc. Only then can you minimize your relative tax bite and continuously build your net worth over time.

Read the Millionaire Next Door by Thomas Stanley, who explains this concept very well.
Not sure who your "typical millionaire" is and how you determine that. Liquid assets only? There are a lot of people in Vancouver and Toronto worth more than $1M who are plugging away at jobs paying 10x those tax estimates on their income. Fine, if you make $100k and pay $30k taxes, and are worth $1M you are "only paying 3% of your net worth" ... but who measures taxes relative to net worth anyways? If I own $10M of stuff (say a sack of diamonds) and have zero income, I'm going to pay no income taxes obviously.

If I own $10M of diamonds and have a $50k/yr job I will pay less taxes than a guy who owns $50k of 'stuff' and earns $100k/yr income.
Do you propose we tax people on what they own instead of income?
POLL: How frequent is your RRSP-matching?
Plastiq: Pay any bill with credit card for 0-2.5% fee (help meet min spending and keep old cards active!)
Rewards program transfer times (e.g. SPG->Aeroplan, Marriott->SPG, Amex MR->SPG...)

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)