Re the post you sent me (appended in red) -particularly the part:
The number of people now getting free stuff
outnumber the people paying for the free stuff .
Many people feel this is obviously "unsustainable" (to use the popular Ecological buzzword)
The sentiment in the e-blast "rant" - that most Canadians would 85-100% support - is about "unsustainablility" in an economic & Fiscal (gov't budget) sense.
I have attached a spreadsheet that puts perspective on the "# people getting outnumber # paying"
NB I cannot attach the spreadsheet to this blog
- so use this link which includes the same data in a Real Estate application
The Nanny State -gov't support from cradle to grave - has been constructed in Canada since ~1965 -(?modeled? on programs developed in Europe and hugely expanded since WW2 .
Their success in "capturing the Crown" is another story -
So, without blaming any particular ideology or Cdn political party or individual for "buying votes" this way and creating the current mess, we must examine the present state of finances, demographics and to a
significant degree (immigration) and determine if we are "on the right path"
Most Canadians of a certain age, recall a different Canada and notwithstanding that the WHOLE world has changed since 1965 and the Canada we "fondly remember" would have changed too - but maybe not so holus-bolus fundamentally if we the Taxpaying-Resident-Citizens hadn't been so selfishly non-vigilant and allowed the wannabe-elites to step-by-step, election-by-election, unsustainable program-by-unsustainable program, deficit-upon-deficit from the early 70's til the late 80's
See Table 1 on Page 9 of pdf - Fiscal Reference Tables - Oct 2013
NB. The post-Lehman Sept15/08 Global/ Monetary Crisis is another matter - similar, but one level up the power-grab chain.
Enough blathering and introduction:
The chart is intended to show a breakdown of the proportions of Canadians who are "getting the free stuff" and therefore the number who are "paying for it"
Because of how Statscan breaks down population into "Families of two or more" and "Unattached Individuals", there are two identically-formatted parts to the chart --which makes it confusing
PLUS it's MORE confusing on first blush because the left side works on "gov't transfers received" and the right side works on "Income Tax paid"
and then an "averaged result" is in the centre ... print it and read it in the bathroom when you figure you'll be there a few minutes... sometimes the lack of distractions helps me concentrate - perhaps you too
Anyway the intended purpose of the chart is to show the proportions of RICH (aka Non-Broke) vs BROKE.
RICH (non-broke) vs BROKE I borrowed this comparator/differentiator from
Raymond Aaron, an Investment speaker/advocate who I saw at the Chimo Hotel in about 1994, who defined a "broke" as "
anyone who's life would be seriously affected if they missed their next 6 pay-cheques".
This definition includes many more people in the Broke category - even if you're earning my charts "median Family Income" of $110,000/yr, if you miss the next six pays ... are you feeling a lifestyle 'pinch'? That's why I think it's better to use Non-Broke rather than Rich to differentiate the haves and have nots.
So..... finally..... the chart blatantly points out that the first 2 Quintiles (Statscan's 5 equal categories of 20% of population), the 2 lowest-income Quintiles (i.e. 40% of population) could not survive without a "top up"/subsidy or 3 from the elite, wanna-be Crown ruling class, that 'knows better'.
In most local election ridings 40% could swing any election ..... if/when:
The voters figured out they could vote themselves money
from the treasury by electing people who promised to give
them money from the treasury (paid by somebody else) text added in exchange for electing them.
BUT, even more significantly, the root of the problem is that ALL the political parties wanna-be the elite Crown ruling class - even if only temporarily and so they ALL:
Promise to give money, from the treasury,
to the Brokes (paid by the non-Brokes (aka Rich),
in exchange for their party/gang/cabal's opportunity
to BE the wanna-be Crown ruling class.
Bottom line .... please decide this for yourself
If we continue to elect party-reps who support the Untouchability of Unsustainable fiscal programs, nothing will change.
We WILL continue to BE OFFERED bland-leading-the-blind candidates AND Party platforms that clearly support the Untouchability of these Unsustainable programs BY ALL THE party/gang/cabals who "wanna-be" in charge.
The untouchability is derived from the facts above - 40% of the population is milking the system and 60% is being milked .ie If you are paying, you're paying 2/3rds too much! Even Nice-Guy, benevolent Canadians will agree they're paying 1/3rd too much ...ie some folks ARE freeloading -Yes?/ No?
Smart chaps/gals behind the political machines that run campaigns know - that if they propose returning the Unsustainable programs to "sustainability" the milkers will not vote for them.
What do you suggest we do?
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
Yours truly,
rce
Real Estate related application of Chart Data
No comments:
Post a Comment