Personal Finance

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

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 22nd, 2017 10:13 pm
Sr. Member
Mar 1, 2016
619 posts
185 upvotes
ckay1980 wrote:
Apr 6th, 2017 2:49 pm
Deductions from the paystub no, but the property tax bill annoys me. Really high in Ottawa. Then the $1,000 monthly daycare fees. That's another big chunk out. But my husband started a new job 2 weeks ago and will bring home $2,000 more each month. Smiling Face With Sunglasses
I actually get depressed when I travel and see people with no tax deductions, because little income, and no health care, minimal education system, crappy infrastructure....
But that's just me.
Sr. Member
Mar 1, 2016
619 posts
185 upvotes
skykisser wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 2:20 pm
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.
Well I not insignificant portion of your insurance premium is for other people's fraud (and cost to prevent it), so same applies there.
Newbie
Mar 4, 2014
60 posts
26 upvotes
Vancouver
ace604 wrote:
Apr 11th, 2017 5:58 pm
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?
We sometimes do already, for example through property taxes. You could could an inheritance (I think it's considered an estate sale) as such as well.
Newbie
Sep 25, 2016
23 posts
29 upvotes
amitdi wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 2:56 pm
Here is a genuine question? If not for this govt, which govt in the world has consistently done a good job?
Someone already brought up Singapore in this thread. They pay a lot less in taxes than we do and still enjoy a very high standard of living.
A few examples: they have much lower income taxes than us. 22% max income tax, starting at SG$320,000/yr. Someone making SG$80,000/yr would only pay SG$3,350 in income tax. In addition to that- no capital gain tax, no dividend tax, low corporate tax. When it comes to healthcare, they have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate than in Canada, while spending less than we do on healthcare relative to the GDP.
I'm not saying they have a perfect system- maybe they don't, but why not learn from countries like that, instead of holding on to our belief that our system is somehow superior to all others.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 27, 2009
2486 posts
781 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
wtraveller wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 10:52 am
Someone already brought up Singapore in this thread. They pay a lot less in taxes than we do and still enjoy a very high standard of living.
A few examples: they have much lower income taxes than us. 22% max income tax, starting at SG$320,000/yr. Someone making SG$80,000/yr would only pay SG$3,350 in income tax. In addition to that- no capital gain tax, no dividend tax, low corporate tax. When it comes to healthcare, they have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate than in Canada, while spending less than we do on healthcare relative to the GDP.
I'm not saying they have a perfect system- maybe they don't, but why not learn from countries like that, instead of holding on to our belief that our system is somehow superior to all others.
Read here about Singapore's "low" taxes:
https://thehearttruths.com/2013/08/16/a ... eally-low/

And another one:
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/0 ... ng-part-1/

There are always different ways to spin things, but there's no such thing as something for nothing - anywhere.
Newbie
Sep 25, 2016
23 posts
29 upvotes
Chickinvic wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 11:30 am
Read here about Singapore's "low" taxes:
https://thehearttruths.com/2013/08/16/a ... eally-low/

And another one:
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/0 ... ng-part-1/

There are always different ways to spin things, but there's no such thing as something for nothing - anywhere.
This is a very one-sided review of the CPF. You can see it being criticized in the comments. The point is that the CPF isn't really a tax. It's a compulsory savings fund to help people cover their medical, retirement and housing needs. This is your money, not someone else's. It forces people to be responsible and nobody can take away the funds that they've saved.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 27, 2004
35488 posts
1861 upvotes
Toronto
Chickinvic wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 11:30 am
Read here about Singapore's "low" taxes:
https://thehearttruths.com/2013/08/16/a ... eally-low/

And another one:
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/0 ... ng-part-1/

There are always different ways to spin things, but there's no such thing as something for nothing - anywhere.
wtraveller wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 12:14 pm
This is a very one-sided review of the CPF. You can see it being criticized in the comments. The point is that the CPF isn't really a tax. It's a compulsory savings fund to help people cover their medical, retirement and housing needs. This is your money, not someone else's. It forces people to be responsible and nobody can take away the funds that they've saved.
The weird thing about singapore is that they are a dictator like nanny state. It limits freedoms, but at the same time they use it towards what seems like positive things.

But where are the gaps? We gain and lose something with everything in life...
i guess freedom is limited... if you want to blow your life savings on some sort of venture you won't be able to with this type of compulsary savings scheme.
Newbie
Mar 13, 2010
31 posts
12 upvotes
foreigncontent wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 8:02 am
Well I not insignificant portion of your insurance premium is for other people's fraud (and cost to prevent it), so same applies there.
Missing the point entirely. As I said in my original post, wish there was an option to opt out of EI. And as I said in my second post, the reason for buying home insurance is about the unpredictablility of losing a home and amount of expense. It makes sense to buy home insurance because for most people, a house is the biggest financial investment anyone has in their lifetime, losing one due to an accident would be a huge burden. Whether or not someone is doing fraud doesn't come into consideration because you need home insurance. If someone doesn't need home insurance they can choose to not buy it and even when you do, you can tailor it to your needs.

With EI there is no option. Unlike home insurance, for the people who don't need EI, they can't opt out of it.

Having the option to opt out of EI makes sense. EI would still be there for the people who know they need that safety net.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 19, 2004
6942 posts
829 upvotes
Cambridge, ON
skykisser wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 12:45 pm
Missing the point entirely. As I said in my original post, wish there was an option to opt out of EI. And as I said in my second post, the reason for buying home insurance is about the unpredictablility of losing a home and amount of expense. It makes sense to buy home insurance because for most people, a house is the biggest financial investment anyone has in their lifetime, losing one due to an accident would be a huge burden. Whether or not someone is doing fraud doesn't come into consideration because you need home insurance. If someone doesn't need home insurance they can choose to not buy it and even when you do, you can tailor it to your needs.

With EI there is no option. Unlike home insurance, for the people who don't need EI, they can't opt out of it.

Having the option to opt out of EI makes sense. EI would still be there for the people who know they need that safety net.
How do people afford the premiums if only those that need it opt in?

And then do you only opt in when you are younger and your job situation is more precarious? And then opt out once your career and financial situation is more established? You can see how this obviously wouldn't make much sense.

By the way, you can opt out if you become self employed.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 8, 2012
7213 posts
2473 upvotes
BC
skykisser wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 12:45 pm
Missing the point entirely. As I said in my original post, wish there was an option to opt out of EI. And as I said in my second post, the reason for buying home insurance is about the unpredictablility of losing a home and amount of expense. It makes sense to buy home insurance because for most people, a house is the biggest financial investment anyone has in their lifetime, losing one due to an accident would be a huge burden. Whether or not someone is doing fraud doesn't come into consideration because you need home insurance. If someone doesn't need home insurance they can choose to not buy it and even when you do, you can tailor it to your needs.

With EI there is no option. Unlike home insurance, for the people who don't need EI, they can't opt out of it.

Having the option to opt out of EI makes sense. EI would still be there for the people who know they need that safety net.
No it doesn't make sense.
don242 wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 1:14 pm
How do people afford the premiums if only those that need it opt in?

And then do you only opt in when you are younger and your job situation is more precarious? And then opt out once your career and financial situation is more established? You can see how this obviously wouldn't make much sense.

By the way, you can opt out if you become self employed.
^ this, this, this.

Insurance costs stay low when EVERYONE shares the burden. When it's optional the costs sky rocket and you approach the same thing as NO insurance for everyone, aka self-insurance. Which works great for those who have money and horribly for those who don't.

Don't forget EI also funds parental leave.

A similarity ridiculous argument:
Medical premiums should be optional. If you are young and healthy you can just opt out. Ya right.
POLL: How many credit cards do you CARRY?
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...)
Newbie
Mar 13, 2010
31 posts
12 upvotes
don242 wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 1:14 pm
How do people afford the premiums if only those that need it opt in?

And then do you only opt in when you are younger and your job situation is more precarious? And then opt out once your career and financial situation is more established? You can see how this obviously wouldn't make much sense.

By the way, you can opt out if you become self employed.
We don't know what the breakdown is of who would opt in vs not opt in, so you can't say it doesn't make sense. Some may still want it even with a stable career for extra insurance or if they are always working but their industry activity fluctuates. It could be a 5 year interval at time opt in even. So if your career has stabilized then yes you may decide to opt out when you are older.
ace604 wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 1:48 pm
No it doesn't make sense.



^ this, this, this.

Insurance costs stay low when EVERYONE shares the burden. When it's optional the costs sky rocket and you approach the same thing as NO insurance for everyone, aka self-insurance. Which works great for those who have money and horribly for those who don't.

Don't forget EI also funds parental leave.

A similarity ridiculous argument:
Medical premiums should be optional. If you are young and healthy you can just opt out. Ya right.
Yes EI does fund parental leave, which is why it wouldn't be totally abandoned by people even with stable careers and having the option to opt out could be sustainable.
Last edited by skykisser on Apr 12th, 2017 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2013
3600 posts
804 upvotes
Kingston, ON
ace604 wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 1:48 pm
Don't forget EI also funds parental leave.
Yep. It's more than people in Sunnyvale going on pogey. EI covers parental leave for you, your wife, your sister. It covers Short-Term Disability for precariously-employed people who aren't on benefits or who work for small employers who don't provide that kind of coverage. It covers parents of critically ill children, or people who have to leave work to care for a sick parent.

Healthy people who will never miss a day of work pay into it, true, but that's how insurance works. You pay hoping you won't ever need it, but knowing it'll be there if you do.
Newbie
Mar 4, 2015
22 posts
7 upvotes
Montreal
UrbanPoet wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 12:38 pm
The weird thing about singapore is that they are a dictator like nanny state. It limits freedoms, but at the same time they use it towards what seems like positive things.

But where are the gaps? We gain and lose something with everything in life...
i guess freedom is limited... if you want to blow your life savings on some sort of venture you won't be able to with this type of compulsary savings scheme.
I lived in Singapore for a number of years, and from my perspective, I consider the tax burden low and there were no large out of pocket expenses related to a lack of government services as a result of said lower tax. I also did not experience anything I would consider remotely limiting on my freedom, although my experience may be different than a citizen due to being a foreigner.

I could see that the government's goal was to take care of its own citizens first. They provide subsidized housing for citizens to buy, for example. They focus their effort on the average working class citizen. If you can't afford the subsidized housing, then it's pretty much your fault for being poor, there's no safety net to prevent anyone from bottoming out. I would describe the government as utilitarian, it does things the most efficient way possible, rather than trying to make sure everyone makes it. Not everyone agrees with that, but for the majority of its people, this works just fine.

At the lowest percentile of the population, things are pretty bad though. People that do jobs like cleaning, as linked in the 2nd article, definitely get paid unlivable wages. And there are a lot of migrant workers in sectors such as construction that get paid peanuts to work, and also get none of the benefits that a citizen would get, on account of being a foreigner

As for whether we can learn from and/or emulate Singapore here, I personally like how Singapore operates, but I don't think their system is portable to a population that is accustomed to greater safety nets, and would be harder to implement here with our structure of government. Singapore can pull off a lot because its small enough to micromanage successfully
Sr. Member
Jan 27, 2015
793 posts
253 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
ace604 wrote:
Apr 10th, 2017 6:00 pm
[citation needed] for your "facts".
Seriously?



Again, this is fairly common sense material.
Newbie
Sep 25, 2016
23 posts
29 upvotes
Mithorium wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 2:11 pm
At the lowest percentile of the population, things are pretty bad though. People that do jobs like cleaning, as linked in the 2nd article, definitely get paid unlivable wages. And there are a lot of migrant workers in sectors such as construction that get paid peanuts to work, and also get none of the benefits that a citizen would get, on account of being a foreigner
I realize that not everyone is well off in Singapore and yes, some people are relatively poor, but that's the case almost everywhere. In the 2 weeks that I spent there I haven't seen any homeless people, though I know they do exist. Still, the homeless situation appears to be much better than in Vancouver or even Toronto, especially considering the warm climate.
Mithorium wrote:
Apr 12th, 2017 2:11 pm
As for whether we can learn from and/or emulate Singapore here, I personally like how Singapore operates, but I don't think their system is portable to a population that is accustomed to greater safety nets, and would be harder to implement here with our structure of government. Singapore can pull off a lot because its small enough to micromanage successfully
I'm also not optimistic about the prospects of a system like that being implemented here. Although, I don't think it's the size, but rather the attitude and mentality. Territory isn't that important in this day and age, while in terms of the population Singapore isn't that small. In fact, it's comparable to many European welfare states, like Finland, Denmark, Norway- all of them being highly urbanized. I don't see any apparent technical issues why it couldn't be implemented the same way. The main reason it won't, is because most people, like you said, are afraid of losing their safety net and many are convinced that what they have is the best in the world, even when facts may show otherwise. Still, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. At the very least, there should be an open discussion and debate about this in our society.
× < >
Rotate image Save Cancel

Top