This article says the average Canadian owes about $26,000 in non-mortgage debt, on their credit cards, car loans, student loans, lines of credit, and stuff like that. When I first read that I was surprised to think that I'm way below that amount, but then I realized it's because I don't owe for my cars.
http://www.moneyville.ca/article/1000720--average-canadian-owes-26-000-excluding-mortgages
Excluding mortgage debt is cheating. At one point I was close to that amount then paid it / rolled it up when I purchased my next house.
Those that rent instead of owning would be more likely to fit that number especially if they financed a vehicle.
I sure as hell don't owe that much. Something like $13k.
http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/wealth-of-canadians-net-worth/
Networth is probably a better mesure of financial health.
How many renters have no debt but also no savings?
I think I'm around $21k
Well, it is an average, so it's expected that some will be well below that average while others are well above it.
Not including mortgages seems like cheating, but remember that mortgages are supported by an asset worth more than the loan that is expected to increase in value, rather than decrease (as opposed to a car loan, which also is supported by an asset but that asset
decreases in value). This is more of a comparison of debts owed that don't appear to have collateral to claim on default.
Not including mortgages does mean that anyone who rolled other debts into their mortgage when their property's value spiked between 2005 and 2008 is showing kinda low for this comparison. But still, the bank doesn't let you borrow more than a certain percentage of the market value of your property, and when rolling extra debt into the mortgage, they're somewhat conservative on the amount you can borrow as well as the market value.
Quote from: Lazybones on June 01, 2011, 05:48:41 PM
http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/wealth-of-canadians-net-worth/
Networth is probably a better mesure of financial health.
How many renters have no debt but also no savings?
That article is five years out of date, just at the start of the Great Upswing or whatever they call that period. Lots of people's net worth went up because of the housing value boom. If we were to look at net worth at the end of 2008, I'm sure those numbers would be noticeably lower. Nevertheless, net worth
is an important indicator of financial health.
How much you own, how much you make, how much you owe, put them all together to get a real feel for how you're doing.
All I know is I can't go more than a few months with no work before I'm all tapped out. Four or five at the most. And if I do that, it'll put me in dire financial straits for at least a year after. Although if I'm not working and have to sell the house I'll still get a large sum of money back form the sale, plus own a couple cars and all the furnishings and clothing I need.
And that's kinda how I measure financial health - is there enough resiliency to be able to handle a life-changing event such as a layoff, an injury, etc.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 01, 2011, 09:44:49 PM
I think I'm around $21k
I owe less than you? Yay! It'll take me longer to pay off than you? Damn kids!
Quote from: Thorin on June 02, 2011, 12:48:33 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 01, 2011, 09:44:49 PM
I think I'm around $21k
I owe less than you? Yay! It'll take me longer to pay off than you? Damn kids!
Wow that made me feel a whole lot better about it...
Not sure if there's sarcasm or anything in your last post there... All I know is current plans show it taking longer than two to three years to pay mine off.
Quote from: Thorin on June 02, 2011, 03:14:37 PM
Not sure if there's sarcasm or anything in your last post there... All I know is current plans show it taking longer than two to three years to pay mine off.
Well then it's a race! *puts on top hat*
Let's see who can get out of debt first!
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Thought of this thread.
Interesting that the wealth distribution for Canada and the US is similar yet like Sweden we tax the rich more to try and retain some balance.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 02, 2011, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Thorin on June 02, 2011, 03:14:37 PM
Not sure if there's sarcasm or anything in your last post there... All I know is current plans show it taking longer than two to three years to pay mine off.
Well then it's a race! *puts on top hat*
Let's see who can get out of debt first!
I think you're already way in the lead. <looks at $4k spent on sports registration and equipment before the season even starts>
Quote from: Lazybones on September 22, 2011, 05:31:17 PM
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Thought of this thread.
Interesting that the wealth distribution for Canada and the US is similar yet like Sweden we tax the rich more to try and retain some balance.
HOLY long read! Nice to see a bunch of numbers supporting the claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Quote from: Thorin on September 22, 2011, 05:57:47 PM
HOLY long read! Nice to see a bunch of numbers supporting the claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
1. http://www.google.com/search?q=lyrics+kill+the+rich+anti-flag
2. http://www.google.com/search?q=lyrics+eat+the+rich
3. ???
4. PROFIT!
imo.
I'm not sure that eating the rich would be such a good idea - they're all skinny and old. Although... Buffett buffet?
Anyway, here's hoping Canada sticks to being less focused on making the rich richer (as evidenced by that long-read article).
A year later, and apparently our average debt is a few hundred dollars higher: http://www.moneyville.ca/blog/post/1245843--average-canadian-owes-26-000-excluding-mortgage
Still right near the $26k amount for non-mortgage debt, though.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 02, 2011, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Thorin on June 02, 2011, 03:14:37 PM
Not sure if there's sarcasm or anything in your last post there... All I know is current plans show it taking longer than two to three years to pay mine off.
Well then it's a race! *puts on top hat*
Let's see who can get out of debt first!
I went decidedly in the wrong direction this year - with CowGirl not working for six months, we have significantly more non-mortgage debt now than we did this time last year.
I currently owe 8k less than last year :)
I have a bit more debt at the moment. But a heck of a lot more "on the books" savings (sadly most of it is set aside for taxes and the like, >10k at this point). Most of my creditcard debt is covered, since I was reimbursed for a large-ish work expense ($1200 for a mac mini server). I just have to wait for the check to clear.
If it's already set aside and spoken for, don't call it savings, call it future payments.
Mr. A, you're down to $13k? That's awesome! I'm up at $32k now (up from $30k last year), but we should start seeing that go down at a decent clip with CowGirl bringing in $1k+ of extra income (most of it'll go to debt repayment). We're at that point where I make not quite enough to cover all the costs associated with our lives, but with her income we're up and over the hump and have extra cash to not just maintain the balances but also pay them down.
Still, it's an eight year plan at the moment :(
My big one is still my car which will take a while to pay off, that plus my credit debt (mostly low interest account with the bank) puts me over the 26 easy.
Yep, still moonwalking down the mountain of debt haha
Quote from: Thorin on August 31, 2012, 12:34:26 PM
If it's already set aside and spoken for, don't call it savings, call it future payments.
Yeah, thats what the quote was for. My savings account looks impressive. At least till I subtract the money set aside. ;D To me, the money doesn't even exist. I should probably find another account to stick it in.
Quote from: Thorin on August 31, 2012, 12:34:26 PM
Mr. A, you're down to $13k? That's awesome! I'm up at $32k now (up from $30k last year), but we should start seeing that go down at a decent clip with CowGirl bringing in $1k+ of extra income (most of it'll go to debt repayment). We're at that point where I make not quite enough to cover all the costs associated with our lives, but with her income we're up and over the hump and have extra cash to not just maintain the balances but also pay them down.
Still, it's an eight year plan at the moment :(
:(
better than rising debt though. 32k is a fair chunk of change.
Putting it in a different account where you don't see it is a good idea. Or you could spin up a little spreadsheet that shows current balance and all future payments to come out of the account, then you can see how much of it is already spoken for and how much of it you can spend. Take it one step further and add in future debits into the account (for instance, if you know you're gonna put $500 in it every month), and then you'll be able to predict whether your future savings will be enough for your future debts.
I do this, and at the moment I don't have enough future income for the expected future debts, but I've estimated Cowgirl's income very conservatively and am hoping she'll make more than estimated to cover those future debts.
An' yeah, rising debt sucks.
The best thing I ever did was automatically move stuff to my savings account.
The less I see in Checking the less I spent in Checking!
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 31, 2012, 02:59:42 PM
The best thing I ever did was automatically move stuff to my savings account.
The less I see in Checking the less I spent in Checking!
Due to the irregularity, I can't set it up automatically, but I have been moving money over regularly. And I can't access money in the savings account immediately. Takes a day to transfer. It does help keep my paws off it.
Tom, maybe make a budget based on your smallest cheque, then consider anything more than that amount as "found money" and move it into savings.
Also, remember to treat yourself occasionally (but guessing by your scooter and TV, you've been doing that :) )
Quote from: Thorin on August 31, 2012, 03:52:56 PM
Tom, maybe make a budget based on your smallest cheque, then consider anything more than that amount as "found money" and move it into savings.
Also, remember to treat yourself occasionally (but guessing by your scooter and TV, you've been doing that :) )
The total of the checks isn't the issue, its the time they come in. It's a bit irregular when they come in. I'm sometimes a bit late submitting my invoice, and the boss sometimes forgets to send... I once got /three/ invoices in a single check. And $8k check sure looks impressive.
lol, yeah, eight thousand dollars on one cheque feels good :)
So, for the heck of it I got my credit score, and equifax thinks its "Very Good". I'm really rather surprised.
And it appears that the last time I tried calculating my taxes, I did something very wrong. Over estimated by a couple thousand at least. So I'll probably have > 5k in savings this month, not including the stuff set aside for taxes. doing a bit better than I thought.
Getting good credit is easy - always pay at least the minimum payment on time. All creditors care about is whether you'll give them the money you've agreed to give them by the day you've agreed to give it to them.
Quote from: Thorin on September 02, 2012, 03:29:30 PM
Getting good credit is easy - always pay at least the minimum payment on time. All creditors care about is whether you'll give them the money you've agreed to give them by the day you've agreed to give it to them.
I have a student loan that defaulted on. I had expected that to kill my credit rating for a very long time.
As Thorin stated it is more about your ability to pay.
You should watche Maxed Out it should still be on Netflix.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0762117/
Quote from: Lazybones on September 02, 2012, 05:48:34 PM
As Thorin stated it is more about your ability to pay.
I just assumed that since I missed a crap load of payments (ever since it came due after going to CDI way back when, up till a few years ago, when I started paying $20/mo), it would look really bad.
Quote from: Lazybones on September 02, 2012, 05:48:34 PM
You should watche Maxed Out it should still be on Netflix.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0762117/
Hmm. I'll watch that.
Student loans have special rules where if you can show hardship the government will pay the interest for you, six months at a time, for up to five years. If you can still show hardship after that time, they'll start paying down the principal for you as well. Being on AISH as your only income is definitely considered hardship. Do you remember filling out any kind of assistance papers for your student loan before it came due? It could be that an AISH caseworker did it for you, as well. If so, then it doesn't affect your credit because the bank is still getting their interest on your loan.
I had a friend who went through five years of not paying his student loan, although much of his hardship was self-imposed and to be honest he was working for a livable wage so could have made payments if he'd prioritized them. Unfortunately he did things like pay double the minimum payment one month then nothing the next, thinking that they would just split the payment from one month into two months. So his record showed a lot of missed payments, and his credit rating went sour.
Quote from: Thorin on September 02, 2012, 08:01:42 PM
Student loans have special rules where if you can show hardship the government will pay the interest for you, six months at a time, for up to five years. If you can still show hardship after that time, they'll start paying down the principal for you as well. Being on AISH as your only income is definitely considered hardship. Do you remember filling out any kind of assistance papers for your student loan before it came due? It could be that an AISH caseworker did it for you, as well. If so, then it doesn't affect your credit because the bank is still getting their interest on your loan.
I had a friend who went through five years of not paying his student loan, although much of his hardship was self-imposed and to be honest he was working for a livable wage so could have made payments if he'd prioritized them. Unfortunately he did things like pay double the minimum payment one month then nothing the next, thinking that they would just split the payment from one month into two months. So his record showed a lot of missed payments, and his credit rating went sour.
I know I talked to a lady at a collection agency, and worked out a minimum payment deal, even though it was less than the interest. That was several years ago, and I didn't always manage to make the payments.. Then the Govt took back control of the loans (stopped farming out the collections), and I never heard about the loan again, except for the monthly statements. I didn't get the loan direct from a bank, but rather through the canada student loans thing (with "Human Resources and Skills Development Canada", or at least thats where the statements are coming from).
Now that you make money, you'll have to figure out how much interest you're paying on that student loan, as you can use it as a tax deduction.
Quote from: Thorin on September 02, 2012, 10:23:57 PM
Now that you make money, you'll have to figure out how much interest you're paying on that student loan, as you can use it as a tax deduction.
From what I remember, its very little. Just looked at Nov's and it says $40.
lol. I took another look at my score, apparently its /one/ away from "Excellent". ahah. And my student loan doesn't show up on it at all. Maybe it was never submitted to equifax.
Might just be your historically-low income keeping it below excellent, then. This time next year, it might be excellent, given all the money you're making this year :)
TOM IS RICH!
Quote from: Thorin on September 03, 2012, 09:54:04 PM
Might just be your historically-low income keeping it below excellent, then. This time next year, it might be excellent, given all the money you're making this year :)
TOM IS RICH!
:P
I'm doing ok.
I've been reading recently about Canadian debt-to-income ratios being over 150%. So I thought I'd try and work out where mine sits. Turns out there's a couple of different debt-to-income calculations.
The first one, where Canadians are averaging 150%+, is basically a calculation of how much you owe compared to how much you make. So if you're right around the Canadian average, your total debts (including mortgage, credit cards, student loans, car loans, lines of credit, and other loans) are about 1.5 times what you make in a year. For my family? We owe about $300k at the moment, and are expecting to make about $90k this year, so 333% (that'll be balanced by someone young who's just entering the workforce and has no debt, and therefore is at 0%). This gets muddled if you add in net worth - for instance our house is worth $340k, so that cancels out the $300k we owe, which would put us at 0% debt-to-income ratio when net assets are counted.
The second calculation, much more common in Google searches and the one that I thought they were referring to is how much of your monthly income is going to monthly debt payments. Imagine if 150% of your monthly income was going to monthly debt payments! This is a fairly straightforward calculation, too, but there's a calculator on the web for it to make things easier: http://www.consolidatedcredit.ca/credit-counselling/debt-income-ratio/. Here, my family's monthly income is about 7.5k and bills are about 3.7k (including mortgage payments, property tax, insurance, electricity, natural gas, water, garbage removal, phone, internet, cable, gas and parking, minimum credit card payments); this works out to 49% debt-to-income ratio (aka "Financial distress is right around the corner unless you act quickly to prevent it").
Go figure, even something seemingly as simple as debt-to-income ratio is complicated. All I can say is that I have a greater than average debt-to-income ratio at this point in my life, and that it's a good thing I don't like to go out all the time. Also, if I took the $10k a year back from kids' sports, it'd only take three years to get rid of all other debt except my mortgage.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2012, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: Lazybones on September 02, 2012, 05:48:34 PM
You should watche Maxed Out it should still be on Netflix.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0762117/
Hmm. I'll watch that.
Apparently "Maxed Out" has a piece of the film "Wise Use Of Credit". It's from 1960 and can be found here: http://youtu.be/9s3KMrRuHXE
(Youtube has EVERYTHING)
Quote from: Thorin on September 13, 2012, 04:07:47 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2012, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: Lazybones on September 02, 2012, 05:48:34 PM
You should watche Maxed Out it should still be on Netflix.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0762117/
Hmm. I'll watch that.
Apparently "Maxed Out" has a piece of the film "Wise Use Of Credit". It's from 1960 and can be found here: http://youtu.be/9s3KMrRuHXE
(Youtube has EVERYTHING)
They actually showed a fair bit of it. It's spliced in throughout the movie.
TWUOC has a classic line delivered completely straight-faced by Judy @ 9:45
"Gee Mr. Money, do girls have to learn all this about credit too?"
(the response: sure, the wife has to learn how to get the most out of the money her husband earns from working hard, yeesh Judy didn't you know that!?)
apparently a good "modern day equivalent", minus the sexism and cheesy acting, might be found here:
"Money As Debt (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Money+as+Debt+full)"
(seems to be 45 minutes long, although there is a 75 minute version or sequel here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmbWBpnCNk )
It talks about the entire world economy pretty much running on debt. #wearealldoomed
Yeah, well, product of the 60s. Kirk kissing Uhura caused some people to turn off their set in disgust back then. Gee, times change.
The problem nowadays is that instead of using a reserve of gold as the basis upon which a bank can lend out money, banks can now use people's debt (such as mortgages) as the basis upon which they can lend out money. And the ratio is 11:1.
So the bank lends me money for a mortgage, say, $100k. It can now count me paying back that $100k as "secured capital" which it can use to loan money out 11:1. So on the back of my mortgage that I owe them, they can lend out $1,100k. On which they can then lend out $12,100k. Etc. Basically, money appears out of thin air without any tangible asset backing it all up (well, mortgages have the house as tangible asset, but imagine if this was just a cash loan; the rules are the same). Okay, this problem only exists in the US, I'm pretty sure Canada still has the gold standard in place. Hmm, that's something I should google.
Quote from: Thorin on September 13, 2012, 04:50:12 PM
Yeah, well, product of the 60s. Kirk kissing Uhura caused some people to turn off their set in disgust back then. Gee, times change.
The problem nowadays is that instead of using a reserve of gold as the basis upon which a bank can lend out money, banks can now use people's debt (such as mortgages) as the basis upon which they can lend out money. And the ratio is 11:1.
So the bank lends me money for a mortgage, say, $100k. It can now count me paying back that $100k as "secured capital" which it can use to loan money out 11:1. So on the back of my mortgage that I owe them, they can lend out $1,100k. On which they can then lend out $12,100k. Etc. Basically, money appears out of thin air without any tangible asset backing it all up (well, mortgages have the house as tangible asset, but imagine if this was just a cash loan; the rules are the same). Okay, this problem only exists in the US, I'm pretty sure Canada still has the gold standard in place. Hmm, that's something I should google.
Prepare to be disappointed/horrified.
Fiat Currency = pretty much the standard worldwide. Especially as the developed nations' economies move away from manufacturing industry and more towards service industry.
Clarke and Dawe (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Clarke+and+Dawe+-+Understanding+the+GFC) explain the cause of the Global Financial Crisis very well, boiling it down to the essentials: "lending money that didn't exist".
Hmm, yeah, Canada went off the gold standard way back in 1931 apparently.
The global financial crisis was in very large part caused by lending money to people that wouldn't pay it back and then selling these loans as "packages" to unsuspecting investors. If everyone who had gotten a mortgage had paid it back, it would've all worked. But when you extend a mortgage to someone with ballooning payments that they simply can't afford (in some extreme instances, it was more than they made in a month), well, then it's all gonna crumple. Of course, if the bank extending the loan is forced to hold the loan and retain the risk, these terrible mortgages would never have happened.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on September 13, 2012, 04:40:23 PM
"Money As Debt (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Money+as+Debt+full)"
a 75 minute version or sequel here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmbWBpnCNk
HOLY CRAP just started watching it while eating and had to post this -- it simplifies/clarifies (in a headasplode kind of way) the process of getting/granting a loan -- starting at 10:00 in ... check it out, and be prepared to have your presumptions overturned about ... well, most of our day to day consumer lives...
definitely recommended viewing (and maybe discussion, with the kids etc.)
nice, troubling quote @ 26:26 in the video
"The entire world economy rests on the consumer; if he ever stops spending money he doesn't have on things he doesn't need -- we're done for."
- Bill Bonner, author, publisher and columnist on economics and money
http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/references.htm
:o
"I can tell you somethin'. You might think I'm an idiot. My family is one of the richest families in the world. But not with money; with love, kindness, tolerance, and patience; qualities dat's worth more than money. And you can't buy dat... They taught me to treat people the way I want to be treated. They taught me to treat people for who they are, not clump 'em together 'cause we all different in our own way. Dat's the richness that I was brought up with." The taxi driver has the solution.
- a "poor" taxi driver offering up wisdom far more valuable than any stock options, in a documentary on the gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of us ... written/directed/narrated by Jamie Johnson, a 27-year-old heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune.
"The One Percent" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc)
Yah.
'cept one of my kids wants to play hockey, two want to play ringette, one wants to play soccer, and my wife wants to go camping again next year. Oh, and the basement carpets stink from having a week's worth of soaking in water so they need replacing, and the car's making a horrible noise when we drive it. Add on that they all need to eat and we need to heat the house and we need fresh, clean water.
So there is a requirement for money. Sure, some of those things we could go without, but then we could all go without computers and electricity, too, and go back to cooking our meals on woodburning stoves. And yet no one does. Well, no one except for the weirdos that wanna live "off the grid", but even they usually have high-tech electricity capture and storage systems so they can still use lights and computers and all that.
If the taxi driver didn't need money because he's "rich", he wouldn't be driving his cab 12 to 16 hours a day.
edit: see Maszlow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs). The cabbie is talking about the Love & Belonging and Esteem layers.
dude, when you have no money, it is a source of stress, no argument there.
What I'm saying is that this guy "gets it" when it comes to what is really valuable. Sure he coulda done more in his life re. doing stuff / bought more stuff for his loved ones over the years with cash if he had it.
But clearly he was in a socioeconomic situation where that just wasn't gonna happen.
And maybe that was a good thing, for him.
Maybe he was was forced to come to a place of handling that poverty reality -- he coulda chosen to live in denial/anger, instead he seems to have accepted it and ended up focusing on other ways of experiencing "wealth". In human relationships and sharing of himself with others.
Quote from: Thorin on September 13, 2012, 10:41:15 PM
If the taxi driver didn't need money because he's "rich", he wouldn't be driving his cab 12 to 16 hours a day.
edit: see the (not-uncontroversial -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Criticisms ) Maszlow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs). The cabbie is talking about the Love & Belonging and Esteem layers.
By the looks of it, this cabbie had gotten to a place where he chose to embrace that "layer" (even if according to some "experts" it's something that has to wait until the "survival" type of needs are taken care of).
Sometimes people lose their home and all their possession in a fire. They are devastated, and it makes for a good news story. But for a lot of people, it's an eye-opener about their priorities, about where they invest their time and heart -- stuff? or people? And for some folks it never goes back to the way it was -- by their choice. (In the case of the taxi driver, it probably wasn't his choice, but no matter... whatever the reason, this guy got to a place where he could really experience a kind of fullness in his life that an awful lot of rich people never get to; just watch that "One Percent" documentary, some of the "born into wealth" people will turn your stomach when you hear what myopic viewpoints come out of their mouths [very brief soundbites can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raC1QG0-ld4).)
Jamie Johnson actually put together a pretty good film, well-balanced, no obvious pre-selected "voice" filtering every scene (Michael Moore could learn from this kid), and in the end he shares a moment of honesty and vulnerability with his dad (who is opposed to the film project the entire way through).
I for one am glad I watched it tonight -- no doubt because lately been doing a lot of reflecting on [sorry for the wording but it's true]"what really matters"[/sorry] and this kind of food for thought appeals to me more and more as my kids get older and my grave gets closer (have I mentioned that at the end of this month I am moving to be super-close to my kids, even though it's gonna cost me a bit more in rent?)
Want what you have, instead of trying to have what you want. In the end nothing really matters (we're all gonna die), but if you treat your family nice they'll treat you nice and maybe even come visit you in your old age. That's what you're trying to say, right?
The other thing that cabbie said was don't put people into groups, but you quickly make a born-into-wealth group. There's lots of people at every level of income that are self-centered and don't even try to make nice with their families, it's not a high-income-earner-only problem.
Two things, though. First, I kept misreading your text because you keep using quotation marks wrong - the way you're using them makes it look like you mean the opposite of what you're writing, kind of like you're doing air-quotes. Second, please don't quote me and then add your own text to said quote. At that point it's not a quote anymore, it's altered text; at best paraphrased, at worst completely changed in meaning. If you want to say Maszlow's hierarchy is controversial, do that outside of the quote since it's your words not mine.
That said, it sounds like a good film and I am somewhat surprised that a man about to inherit a large fortune has the ability to see and show the world from a poor man's point of view. Poor being relative to the country said man lives in, of course.
Quote from: Thorin on September 13, 2012, 11:20:18 PM
That said, it sounds like a good film and I am somewhat surprised that a man about to inherit a large fortune has the ability to see and show the world from a poor man's point of view. Poor being relative to the country said man lives in, of course.
yeah, it's a pretty solid film on its own, even more impressive that it's basically just him and his co-writer who were behind it (and a camera man or two) ... but his life path is fascinating, it shows that being born into wealth (fact, not "category" ;) ) can be utilized either as a blessing (Jamie, used his name recognition to get access to a lot of hard-to-reach people, for this documentary as well as his previous one called "Born Rich"), or it can be a "Golden Handcuffs" burden/curse (his later sister/cousin -- Wikipedia is unclear on their exact relation -- is Casey Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Johnson).)
and I was actually saying not "then my kids will want to see me in my old age" but rather "establishing genuine, deep relationships with fellow human beings > building a large bank account just for the sake of accumulating material wealth or lots of zeros". Most people will pay lip service to that noble-sounding ideal, but their actions tend to show an attitude towards money that is (as Warren Buffet's grand-daughter in the film points out) based on fear... to the detriment of their human relationships. (imo that's what the bible was talking about "the root of all [sorts of] evil", meaning when you put greed/moneylust in a higher priority than the people in your life -- instead of utilizing it to improve the quality of people's lives -- then you're on the wrong path).
ps: sorry about the "quotes", most people expect them to be used for irony, but they can also be used for "emphasis". Ah the internet, "advanced" technology except when it comes to literary clarity ;)
No, quotes can't be used for emphasis because it creates an ambiguous, nigh-unparsable piece of text. Readers will try to figure out what's so ironic or what alternate usage of the word the writer meant, much as I was late last evening reading your post. Why not just italicize, bold, and/or underline the emphasized word? Quotation marks mean the text is a direct, verbatim quote of someone else's text, or the words quoted are being used in an ironic manner, or the words quoted are being used differently than what the reader would reasonably expect them to be used as.
Let me give you two examples:
Quote from: Darren Dirt on September 13, 2012, 10:49:44 PM
What I'm saying is that this guy "gets it" when it comes to what is really valuable.
If the quotation marks mean irony, you're saying he doesn't get it. If the quotation marks mean alternate usage, the alternate usage is unclear. If the quotation marks mean emphasis, you're saying he gets it even more than most people. Throwing in that third (incorrect) usage of quotation marks makes this sentence ambiguous and unparsable on its own. Luckily previous posts have indicated the line of thinking and therefore the meaning of this sentence can be assumed to be that he gets it even more than most people. Switch to italics, and the sentence is parsable without resorting to previous posts.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on September 13, 2012, 10:49:44 PM
By the looks of it, this cabbie had gotten to a place where he chose to embrace that "layer" (even if according to some "experts" it's something that has to wait until the "survival" type of needs are taken care of).
I tried counting the possible ways this could be parsed (and thus interpreted) if quotation marks are used for either irony or emphasis. For simplicity, I ignored their use for alternate meanings. I came up with eight different variations this sentence could be parsed: irony/irony/irony, irony/irony/emphasis, irony/emphasis/irony, irony/emphasis/emphasis, emphasis/irony/irony, emphasis/irony/emphasis, emphasis/emphasis/irony, emphasis/emphasis/emphasis. Indicate emphasis using italicization, and suddenly there's only one way to parse the sentence. Seriously, reading and re-reading this sentence and the surrounding text
and adding in what I've encountered as your general world view, I cannot tell whether you mean the experts are not really experts or whether you mean to emphasize that they are
experts, nor can I tell whether you mean they're not really survival needs or whether you mean to emphasize that they are
survival needs.
And at eleven at night, as I was trying to properly read your post to understand what you were saying so that I could coherently reply, this was just hurting my head.
But if I'm gonna criticize I should do so constructively; no point in complaining if I can't provide a solution. So, if you use the plaintext posting method, you can type
[ i ] (no spaces) at the start of what you want to emphasize and
[ /i ] (again, no spaces) at the end. Or, if you use the WYSIWYG interface, I'm pretty sure you can highlight the text and press Ctrl+I. Or if that's too much work, put an underscore wherever you're putting quotation marks for emphasis. Yes, I know, using an underscore for emphasis is not in any proper style guide; however, the underscore at the start and end of a word or phrase has no other meaning and therefore does not make the sentence ambiguous and unparsable.
w.
t.
f.
I'm tired of being tired of this.
Someone needs to lighten up.
Maybe it's me, I'll take a break and see if that's the case.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on September 14, 2012, 12:47:13 PM
w.
t.
f.
I'm tired of being tired of this.
Someone needs to lighten up.
Maybe it's me, I'll take a break and see if that's the case.
I have to admit it confuses me as well when you use quotes for emphasis. most of the time I try to pretend they aren't there, since the post doesn't make much sense if they aren't meant as air quotes.
It's just confusing all around. It's difficult to get the intended inflection when the punctuation is used in an ambiguous way.
QuoteI really like Edmonton vs I really like Edmonton vs I "really" like Edmonton
World o' Difference
I think the other thing to avoid is using platitudes, because let's face it, we have a bunch of borderline OCD programmers here and very often sentiment gets dumped for logic (particularly if people are grumpy).The old classic "All you need is love" vs "no you need food and water, duh" type crap that does nothing but push each others buttons.
In the mean time I'll try to sound less arrogant :P
Now that we are nitpicking off topic as usual, i will fist stay it doesn't bother me, I ignore the quotes since all the other formatting tends to be inconsistent anyway.
Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark
In English writing, quotation marks or inverted commas (informally referred to as quotes or speech marks)[1] are punctuation marks surrounding a quotation, direct speech, or a literal title or name. Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony. Quotation marks are sometimes used to provide emphasis, although this is usually considered incorrect
So some people use it as a practice but it is not formally correct....
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 14, 2012, 02:08:38 PM
It's just confusing all around. It's difficult to get the intended inflection when the punctuation is used in an ambiguous way.
QuoteI really like Edmonton vs I really like Edmonton vs I "really" like Edmonton
World o' Difference
I think the other thing to avoid is using platitudes, because let's face it, we have a bunch of borderline OCD programmers here and very often sentiment gets dumped for logic (particularly if people are grumpy).
The old classic "All you need is love" vs "no you need food and water, duh" type crap that does nothing but push each others buttons.
In the mean time I'll try to sound less arrogant :P
Heh. I have this thing. Where my brain immediately tries to argue with whatever someone else is saying, even if I agree with them. It can be hard to resist :-x Sometimes I can't help being contrary. Maybe thats my OCD Programmer personality coming out, I dunno. Of course I grew up with parents and siblings that did nothing but argue till blue in the face, and you could never ever prove my mom wrong, even if you were right. So yeah.
Exactly, I find people sometimes get really contrary as well (myself included).
Some days we're looking for a fight heh
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 14, 2012, 02:08:38 PM
I think the other thing to avoid is using platitudes, because let's face it, we have a bunch of borderline OCD programmers here and very often sentiment gets dumped for logic (particularly if people are grumpy).
Okay, this is a very valid point. Also, some of us aren't borderline OCD - we're full-on OCD. All I have to do is look in the mirror to see that.
Quote from: Lazybones on September 14, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
So some people use it as a practice but it is not formally correct....
There's lots of examples of people using punctuation incorrectly; I'm sure people can find examples of me doing so as well. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to present our ideas in unambiguous language, which was really what I was whining about here.
You see, at first I read the bit about the "experts" and thought Darren was implying they're not experts. I started typing up a reply basically defending the human psychology chops of those who have debated Maszlow's hierarchy. Then I re-read Darren's post and thought that he might be emphasizing that they are experts rather than implying ironically that they are not. Which would've made my reply rather foolish, and over the last twelve years Darren and I have had several run-ins that can be attributed to misunderstandings (I'd say the Sony Store (http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,3925.msg27528.html#msg27528) thread was pretty famous? At the time I didn't realize Darren was making up a story and responded rather harshly to what I thought he had really said at a Sony store).
So there I was, not sure how to reply because I actually couldn't figure out from the post and the rest of the thread what was really meant and how to respond.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 14, 2012, 02:26:41 PM
Some days we're looking for a fight heh
Thing is, I was trying to understand what Darren posted so that I could respond to it
without a big misunderstanding and an ensuing fight. Didn't turn out that way, though :(
So when do we get back to the debt conversation? :P Wow explosion thread!!!! Good on you all for working through this conversation.
Okay, since this has turned kinda into a all-about-money-and-taxes-and-debt thread, I was just trying to predict my wife's future cheques using the Payroll Deductions Online Calculator (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/bsnss/pdoc-eng.html). Then I wondered which province actually has the lowest taxes. So I started punching in the same income, but changing the province, and recording the tax that would be withheld from the paycheque. I went with $3,000 semi-monthly (24 times a year) for a total $72,000 income. This is probably a little less than what some of us make, but still in the ballpark (except Tom, TOM IS RICH :) ). Here's the tax withheld from the paycheque for each province:
QB $367.25 * seems to be missing prov tax, and qpp and ei seem different
NV $574.80
BC $601.03
NWT $615.43
YK $640.57
ON $648.91
AB $656.19
NB $709.73
SK $713.36
NL $716.08
MB $755.30
PEI $767.40
NS $780.45
This is only personal income tax withheld from your paycheque, this doesn't in any way reflect the sales tax many of the provinces have. However, based solely on this, Alberta should stop bragging about having the lowest taxes!
And these are semi-monthly, so Nova Scotia withholds $124.26 more than Alberta
twice per month. That's $248.52 less take-home pay per month!
Quote from: Melbosa on September 14, 2012, 04:11:46 PM
So when do we get back to the debt conversation? :P Wow explosion thread!!!! Good on you all for working through this conversation.
Yeah, I was writing this post while you popped that in there :) Also, many of our threads go off the rails like this, even the ones that were split to
avoid going off the rails.
Quote from: Thorin on September 14, 2012, 04:21:08 PM
Okay, since this has turned kinda into a all-about-money-and-taxes-and-debt thread, I was just trying to predict my wife's future cheques using the Payroll Deductions Online Calculator (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/bsnss/pdoc-eng.html). Then I wondered which province actually has the lowest taxes. So I started punching in the same income, but changing the province, and recording the tax that would be withheld from the paycheque. I went with $3,000 semi-monthly (24 times a year) for a total $72,000 income. This is probably a little less than what some of us make, but still in the ballpark (except Tom, TOM IS RICH :) ).
You say that, but after the bank charges its 2.5% what I get before tax is $59904, which after setting aside 30% I'm left with is $41932.
Quote from: Tom on September 14, 2012, 04:29:00 PM
You say that, but after the bank charges its 2.5% what I get before tax is $59904, which after setting aside 30% I'm left with is $41932.
I thought you banked with PC?
Quote from: Lazybones on September 14, 2012, 04:39:37 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 14, 2012, 04:29:00 PM
You say that, but after the bank charges its 2.5% what I get before tax is $59904, which after setting aside 30% I'm left with is $41932.
I thought you banked with PC?
They charge 2.5% for the US->CAD conversion. I checked out another bank and they charged 3%... Soo yeah.
All that said, I could live fairly comfortably on $20k.
Quote from: Tom on September 14, 2012, 04:29:00 PM
Quote from: Thorin on September 14, 2012, 04:21:08 PM
(except Tom, TOM IS RICH :) ).
You say that, but after the bank charges its 2.5% what I get before tax is $59904, which after setting aside 30% I'm left with is $41932.
$59,904 per cheque is pretty good, even if it is only once a month.
Okay, kidding, I understand that's your annual, not monthly. Remember that you need to keep receipts and that you can write off thousands of dollars. That means your $59,904 is gross revenue, then you take off, say $8,000 in business expenses, then that leaves you $51,904. Let's round that to $52,000. That's what you end up paying tax on, that'd be about $4,333 per month. The online calculator says you'd have the following deductions: $778.94 for tax, $200.05 for CPP. Since you have to pay both the employee and employer portion of the CPP, that means you can expect to owe about $780 for tax plus $400 for CPP per month, or $1,180. So from $4,333, you have to save $1,180; that's 27.2%. So you're right on the money with saving that 30%. Although I think you could find more than $8,000 to write off if you do some digging into all the rules about what you can write off.
Quote from: Thorin on September 14, 2012, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 14, 2012, 04:29:00 PM
Quote from: Thorin on September 14, 2012, 04:21:08 PM
(except Tom, TOM IS RICH :) ).
You say that, but after the bank charges its 2.5% what I get before tax is $59904, which after setting aside 30% I'm left with is $41932.
$59,904 per cheque is pretty good, even if it is only once a month.
Okay, kidding, I understand that's your annual, not monthly. Remember that you need to keep receipts and that you can write off thousands of dollars. That means your $59,904 is gross revenue, then you take off, say $8,000 in business expenses, then that leaves you $51,904. Let's round that to $52,000. That's what you end up paying tax on, that'd be about $4,333 per month. The online calculator says you'd have the following deductions: $778.94 for tax, $200.05 for CPP. Since you have to pay both the employee and employer portion of the CPP, that means you can expect to owe about $780 for tax plus $400 for CPP per month, or $1,180. So from $4,333, you have to save $1,180; that's 27.2%. So you're right on the money with saving that 30%. Although I think you could find more than $8,000 to write off if you do some digging into all the rules about what you can write off.
Yeah, its something I need to look into.
Hm, can I claim my internet as completely business related? Or only a portion like the rest of my living expenses? Thats $1000/yr right there. Then there's my dedicated server which I do use for business, at another $1000/yr. I figure $1900 for 20% ($2200 for 25%) of my living expenses (rent, utilities)
You think I can deduct office furniture? ;D (I need a new couch, computer desk, some shelves and a tv stand). What about improvements to the trailer, since I'm renting, can I claim that as added rent costs? I think that might be a bit iffy. Same with getting new appliances.
Okay, this won't be a quick answer :) There are a few different pots of write-offs, and I'll describe them below.
First, there's things that you own (computers, routers, etc) that you use for your business; these depreciate (lose value), and it is the depreciation that you can write off. Lets say you own a computer that you bought for $2,000 and it depreciates 25% this year. That's $2,000 x 25% = $500 deprecation that you can claim this year. Next year, you have to list the computer as worth only $1,500, and at 25% deprecation you can claim $375. The year after that, you have to list the computer as worth only $1,125. Etc. Oh, computer equipment actually depreciates at 55% these days, cars at 30%, buildings at 5%. Anything that you buy mainly for your business you can claim depreciation on - computers, networking gear, printers and NAS, computer desks and chairs, filing cabinets, shelving units for work use, etc. You can try to claim anything you want, but if you get audited you have to show that it's used for the business, so a couch probably wouldn't be allowed (unless you're a psychiatrist?). Oh, and this stuff is called CCA, or Capital Cost Allowance.
Second, there's things that you rent or pay monthly for (servers, internet connection, mobile phone used for office, software subscriptions, professional insurance) that you use only for your business; these can be written off at full value. The key here is that if audited you need to show that these were exclusively or almost exclusively used for the business. For instance, if a doctor's office has TV service in their waiting room, they can write off the cable bill, whereas my cable bill at home is presumed to be for my private enjoyment not my customers', and therefore I can't write it off.
Third, there's business-use-of-home expenses (rent, lot rent, gas for heat, electricity, water and sewer, garbage disposal, home insurance). This is the stuff where you have to work out the percentage of the home used for your business, and then you can only claim a percentage of those expenses - the rest is considered personal expenses for living rather than expenses for carrying out your business. They say to look at the square footage of your home and determine how much of it is used for work, and if the work area is also a living area (for instance, if you work in your living room and also watch movies after work in your living room then it's not being used for work 100% of the time) then you have to do some math with how many hours in a day you work divided by how many hours there are in a day. However, in my big house I simply put 25% and screw the math; I'm sure you can do the same. Lets say your rent is $400 a month and you say that 25% of your house is used for your business; that means you can write off $1,200 ($100/month for 12 months). If you own your place and have a mortgage, you would write off 25% of the mortgage interest and 25% of the property tax.
Fourth, there's incidental expenses (travel expenses to visit a client site, meals when meeting with clients, office supplies like pencils and paper and paperclips, mailing costs, etc). As long as you have a receipt for these you can write them off directly as well.
I don't think you can claim the couch or TV stand, but the computer desk and shelves make sense. Renos to the trailer can't be claimed because you don't own the property you're improving, but if you're friendly with your landlord they could increase your rent and then let you pay part of the rent via the renos; although that will mean they have higher income on paper and therefore a higher tax bill. New appliances can only be claimed if you're using them for the business - for instance if you had a laundromat service then washing machines can be written off.
Anyway, I think you should first go list all the computers, keyboards, mice, networking gear, external drives, comptuer desks, computer chairs, and other office furniture you have, determine how much they would cost to replace, and write that down; when you're done, determine what CCA class they fall in (most likely the 55% computer class and the 20% furniture class). Do the math and write down how much depreciation you can claim this year. Then list all of the monthly bills that are solely for the business, such as internet, mobile phone, software subscriptions, server rentals, and professional insurance. Do the math and write down how many business bills you can claim this year. Last but not least list your rent, lot rent, gas bill, power bill, home/renter's insurance, water bill, garbage bill, and any other household bill that your business also uses (home phone and cable TV are normally excluded), multiply by 25%, and write down the total as how much you can claim for business-use-of-home expenses.
And if anyone asks, you started operating as a self-employed person on January 1st of this year; that makes the math a lot easier, otherwise they'll make you take all your write-offs and reduce them by how many days out of the year you weren't self-employed.
Hopefully that all made sense, feel free to ask further questions :)
Oh, I forgot to mention, keep track of exactly how much you paid for bank fees including the cost to convert USD to CAD - this is a direct business expense that you simply write off.
Also, this is helpful to know: employees pay 4.95% of their income into CPP, with the employer paying an equal 4.95% of the employee's income. As a self-employed person, you pay both these amounts, i.e. 9.9%.
I figured a lot of the stuff I thought up wouldn't pass ;D
So I can't claim any of the internet or my phone. Good to know.
If you are going to claim bank fees make sure you print or save the statements... Don't trust they will be online.
Quote from: Lazybones on September 14, 2012, 09:25:04 PM
If you are going to claim bank fees make sure you print or save the statements... Don't trust they will be online.
There's no explicit statement for them. I deposit a US funds check, and it states on screen that there'll be a fee, and then the rest of it is all displayed in Canadian after the fee is taken out. So all I have are my invoices, and the deposit amount.
Quote from: Tom on September 14, 2012, 08:57:56 PM
I figured a lot of the stuff I thought up wouldn't pass ;D
So I can't claim any of the internet or my phone. Good to know.
(emphasis mine)
Quote from: Thorin on September 14, 2012, 08:31:46 PM
Second, there's things that you rent or pay monthly for (servers, internet connection, mobile phone used for office, software subscriptions, professional insurance)
[..]
list all of the monthly bills that are solely for the business, such as internet, mobile phone, software subscriptions, server rentals, and professional insurance
I said it twice... Maybe it was just a wall of text and I should've broken it down more. Internet is
absolutely a 100% business bill, as is any phone other than your house phone (which is VOIP for you, isn't it?).
As for cheque-cashing fees, if they're not on the statement then call the bank and demand that they give you some kind of statement that
does show them. Banks in Canada are
not allowed to charge you a fee without disclosing to you somehow, somewhere, how much they charged you.
Quote from: Thorin on September 14, 2012, 11:41:52 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 14, 2012, 08:57:56 PM
I figured a lot of the stuff I thought up wouldn't pass ;D
So I can't claim any of the internet or my phone. Good to know.
(emphasis mine)
Quote from: Thorin on September 14, 2012, 08:31:46 PM
Second, there's things that you rent or pay monthly for (servers, internet connection, mobile phone used for office, software subscriptions, professional insurance)
[..]
list all of the monthly bills that are solely for the business, such as internet, mobile phone, software subscriptions, server rentals, and professional insurance
I said it twice... Maybe it was just a wall of text and I should've broken it down more. Internet is absolutely a 100% business bill, as is any phone other than your house phone (which is VOIP for you, isn't it?).
As for cheque-cashing fees, if they're not on the statement then call the bank and demand that they give you some kind of statement that does show them.
Emphasis mine ;)
Quote from: Thorin on September 14, 2012, 11:41:52 PMBanks in Canada are not allowed to charge you a fee without disclosing to you somehow, somewhere, how much they charged you.
They do, but its only on screen, before the final transaction is made. It doesn't get printed to the receipt, and there's no trace of the original US funds in my account history. The machine essentially does the conversion separately before the deposit.
internet is too hard to determine what portion is for business and what portion is for home (who sits and counts packets?), so that one's always allowed as a full bill. Mobile phone is pretty easy to claim as needed for the business, since you have a home phone that you use for all your personal calls. Claim 'em both, they'll hold up to scrutiny if you're audited (I have yet to be, it's pretty rare to get randomly audited). The TV on the other hand would be difficult to prove you need for your business, unless you have a different TV somewhere else in the house that you can say you use for personal use. But they'd call BS on that, I'm sure.
Quote from: Thorin on September 15, 2012, 12:20:27 AM
internet is too hard to determine what portion is for business and what portion is for home (who sits and counts packets?), so that one's always allowed as a full bill. Mobile phone is pretty easy to claim as needed for the business, since you have a home phone that you use for all your personal calls. Claim 'em both, they'll hold up to scrutiny if you're audited (I have yet to be, it's pretty rare to get randomly audited). The TV on the other hand would be difficult to prove you need for your business, unless you have a different TV somewhere else in the house that you can say you use for personal use. But they'd call BS on that, I'm sure.
Ah OK. The TV I have is included with my internet. I asked for one, got both. But if i ask its only $10 of my bill. At least that's what my bill would be reduced by if I told shaw I didn't want it. Originally you weren't able to reject the TV bit, but enough people complained. You have to explicitly tell them you don't want it, they don't actually advertise you can do that I don't think.
I have a combined bill, too, but Shaw does break it down for you if you look at the details on their website aafter you log into My Account and go to the billing section.
Remember that Canada Revenue Agency works on the honour system, though, where they expect you to only claim what's reasonable under threat of getting audited and having to explain why you claimed something. So if you just said total bill minus ten dollars for cable, and they audit you, they might consider this a reasonable claim. And like I said, random audits are rare - most businesses get audited because someone squealed on them, usually because bosses who cook the books are typically also asshats who piss off their workers.
Quote from: Thorin on September 15, 2012, 02:35:13 AM
I have a combined bill, too, but Shaw does break it down for you if you look at the details on their website aafter you log into My Account and go to the billing section.
Remember that Canada Revenue Agency works on the honour system, though, where they expect you to only claim what's reasonable under threat of getting audited and having to explain why you claimed something. So if you just said total bill minus ten dollars for cable, and they audit you, they might consider this a reasonable claim. And like I said, random audits are rare - most businesses get audited because someone squealed on them, usually because bosses who cook the books are typically also asshats who piss off their workers.
This is what my bill says:
QuoteCurrent Monthly Services (13-Sep-12 to 12-Oct-12)
Personal TV + Broadband 50 89.90
Total Current Monthly Services $89.90
Basically internet comes with PTV, their website won't even let you remove TV when personalizing your plan. Most you can do is select basic/personal TV.
I browsed to http://www.shaw.ca/, clicked My Account, entered my username and password, clicked Sign In, clicked Bills and Payment, clicked View My Bill, clicked View Bill, and got a web page with the attached details on it.
If it doesn't split it up for you like that, then you can look under Bills and Payment -> View Account History, that's where everything's completely broken down the same as how the accountants see it. And if even that doesn't show the different charges, then just claim your whole Shaw bill because at that point you've done your best to try and separate it and can't.
Also, I couldn't get Personal TV + Broadband 50 for $89.90; the lowest I could get it was $104.90 ($15 more). Nice job on getting the good deal.
Quote from: Thorin on September 15, 2012, 01:57:41 PM
Also, I couldn't get Personal TV + Broadband 50 for $89.90; the lowest I could get it was $104.90 ($15 more). Nice job on getting the good deal.
Yeah, I got this plan just after they redid my line, I guess they wanted me off the business extreme plan. For the first 6 months it was $49 or something insane. Then was $79 or something for a while. They keep upping the price of everything a few dollars every couple months.
Quote from: Thorin on September 15, 2012, 01:57:41 PM
If it doesn't split it up for you like that, then you can look under Bills and Payment -> View Account History, that's where everything's completely broken down the same as how the accountants see it.
Aha! There it is.
Quote
13-Sep-12 050-220 Billing-Additional Outlets 5.00
13-Sep-12 050-1112 Billing-Broadband 50 70.00
13-Sep-12 050-1063 Billing-Personal TV 30.95
13-Sep-12 050-888 Billing-Bundle Discount -16.05
13-Sep-12 050-501 Billing-Shaw Digital Terminal 12.95
13-Sep-12 050-882 Billing-Digital Terminal Promo -12.95
13-Sep-12 050-341 Billing-WiFi Modem 3.95
13-Sep-12 050-341 Billing-WiFi Modem -3.95
13-Sep-12 050-970 Billing-G.S.T. 4.50
But if I ask shaw to remove the PTV, it only reduces my bill by $10. Even though it should probably be $30 since thats what they count it as.
Do you have two outlets in your house? If not, tell them they're charging you for an extra outlet that you don't have. Also, for your business expense write-off, your internet is clearly $70, and the bundle discount is clearly applied to your tv bill. So claim the full $70 + $3.50 GST (internet's portion of the GST on the bill). That's $882 a year you don't have to pay tax on, yay!
Quote from: Thorin on September 17, 2012, 12:29:40 PM
Do you have two outlets in your house? If not, tell them they're charging you for an extra outlet that you don't have. Also, for your business expense write-off, your internet is clearly $70, and the bundle discount is clearly applied to your tv bill. So claim the full $70 + $3.50 GST (internet's portion of the GST on the bill). That's $882 a year you don't have to pay tax on, yay!
You're supposed to get four so I don't know why I'm getting charged for more. I /could/ technically have three, but they aren't hooked up (on either end). But yeah, the $880 is kinda nice.
Ok so I was curious about the various tax brackets, and found this (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html). You mentioned $8000 in deductions, what was the reason for that number? It doesn't seem to bump me to the lower bracket. Was it just to reduce taxes a little (of course 2400 is nothing to sneeze at)?
Okay, so lets go with round numbers: $50,000 gross revenue billed to the client (and paid), $10,000 in expenses. If you made $50,000 as a salary at a job, you'd pay tax on all of it. But because you're self-employed (i.e. running like a business), you pay tax on what's left after you subtract expenses from gross revenue; that is, you pay tax on $40,000 ($50,000 - $10,000). So that's 22% federal tax and 10% provincial tax that you don't have to pay on that $10,000, or $3,200 less in taxes owing.
See, if I get internet and TV for $89.90 a month, I have to pay that out of after-tax dollars, so I actually have to make $118.67 to pay the bill. This is where self-employment really rocks - so long as you can find a job where normal life expenses become a business expense.
By the way, it sounds like you're not understanding tax brackets correctly - you pay the bracket rate only on the income that falls within that bracket. So if you make six million a year (apparently your name is Hall, Taylor Hall, and it's next year and the lockout is already a thing of the past) you would pay 15% on the first $42,707 dollars, 22% on the next $42,707 dollars, 26% on the next $46,992 dollars, and 29% on the remaining $5,867,594 dollars. The bracket rate doesn't get charged on all your income, only on the income that falls within that bracket.
A more reasonable example: if you make $60,000, you pay 15% on the first $42,707 and 22% on the remaining $17,293. If you can write off $10,000 in expenses, you pay 15% on the first $42,707 and 22% on the remaining $7,293.
So yes, there are brackets, but imagine your annual income being split into separate piles with each pile representing a bracket and the piles filling up to the bracket maximum from the lowest tax rate to the highest.
By the way, the way taxes are figured out is take your annual income (remember, for self-employed that's gross revenue - business expenses), split into the piles (brackets), figure out the amount of tax owing for each pile (amount of income in that bracket * bracket rate); this is your gross tax. Now figure out all your tax credits (basically, things the government says you don't need to pay tax on). Subtract your tax credits from your gross tax to get your tax due. So what tax credits are there? Everyone gets a basic personal amount of $10,822 this year, and anything you pay into CPP, and other things as well like disability credit if you qualify). That's for federal tax; provincial tax in Alberta works the same, except there's only one bracket and it's 10%. The basic personal amount is $17,282 this year in Alberta. Hmm, that's kinda wordy. Boiled down for you (and for anyone employed it works the same way except we start at the Total Income step and pay half the CPP and pay EI at 1.83% on income up to $45,900):
gross revenue (billed and paid) - business expenses = net revenue (aka total income)
total income - RRSP contributions = net income
(net income - $3,500 [min $0 max $46,600]) * 9.9% = cpp due
net income that falls in bracket 1 * bracket rate 1 + net income that falls in bracket 2 * bracket rate 2 = gross federal tax
gross federal tax - federal tax credits (($10,822 basic + cpp due) * 15%) = federal tax due
net income * alberta tax rate = gross alberta tax
gross alberta tax - alberta tax credits (($17,282 + cpp due) * 10%) = alberta tax due
federal tax due + alberta tax due + cpp due = total due
I'll round your billed-and-paid revenue to $60,000, your business expenses to $8,000, and ignore the disability credit since I don't know what it is. Here's the numbers:
$60,000 - $8,000 = $52,000 net revenue
$52,000 - $0 = $52,000 net income
($52,000 - $3,500) * 9.9% = $46,600 [hit the max] * 9.9% = $4,613.40 cpp due
($42,707 * 15%) + ($9,293 * 22%) = $8,450.51 gross federal tax
$8,450.51 - (($10,822 + $4,613.40) * 15%) = $8,450.51 - $2,315.31 = $6,135.20 federal tax due
$52,000 * 10% = $5,200 gross alberta tax
$5,200 - (($17,282 + $4,613.40) * 10%) = $5,200 - $2,189.54 = $3,010.46 alberta tax due
$6,135.20 + $3,010.46 + $4,613.40 = $13,759.06 due
If you're saving 30% of every cheque, you'll have $18,000 on $60,000. You'd have $4,240.94 still in your savings account after paying your total due.
Anyway, the point of me saying $8,000 in deductions is because that's how much I figure you should be able to add up for business expenses; these then lower your actual income by subtracting from the gross revenue as described above.
I like numbers :)
For RRSPs, if you're considering them, they'll reduce your net income thus if you put enough away you might not have any net income in the second bracket. Reducing your net income also reduces what you owe for CPP. Lets say you put $10,000 into RRSPs, this will reduce your net income from $52,000 to $42,000. Between $52,000 and $50,100, you would be saving the federal second bracket rate and the provincial tax rate. Between $50,100 and $42,707, you would be saving the federal second bracket rate, the provincial tax rate, and the cpp rate. Between $42,707 and $42,707, you would be saving the federal first bracket rate, the provincial tax rate, and the cpp rate. Or less wordy:
$52,000 to $50,100 = $1,900 * (22% + 10%) = $608
$50,100 to $42,707 = $7,393 * (22% + 10% + 9.9%) = $3,097.67
$42,707 to $42,000 = $707 * (15% + 10% + 9.9%) = $246.74
$10,000 put into RRSPs would save you $3,952.41 in payments to the government, so really would only cost you just over $6k.
Good sound numbers I say! Deducting amounts off your total tax payout is one of the great things about tax write-offs of being a contractor or running a business. I've been doing it for years myself with my own contracting, and yes do not overlook the power of RRSP contributions.
I roll my tax return right back into RRSP, it's a pretty sweet deal.
Of course, having a giant RRSP will reduce your CPP and OAS and GIS benefits when you turn 65 (well, 67 now). I talked about that in another thread: http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,7196.msg63017.html#msg63017. The funny thing here is that on the one hand RRSPs save you taxes now (that you'll pay when you take the money back out) but on the other hand RRSPs cost you retirement benefits later in life. If you make over a certain amount, I'm pretty sure the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) get clawed back. Whereas if you put all that money into after-tax investments you wouldn't officially have any pension savings and therefore be able to get all the CPP and GIS.
I've never done the numbers on it to see what would be more beneficial, though, and the Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) throws a bit of a wrinkle into it, too.
Thanks Thorin! I think I've read that a few times, and will probably read through it some more to make sure it sinks in :)
Though I did know about how the brackets work. But my mind does like to "simplify it" by ignoring them (and ignoring the provincial tax and cpp, the amount is somewhat close after). Over estimates the tax, but that isn't really a huge problem (unless I was broke).
Quote from: Thorin on September 17, 2012, 05:09:37 PM
Of course, having a giant RRSP will reduce your CPP and OAS and GIS benefits when you turn 65 (well, 67 now). I talked about that in another thread: http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,7196.msg63017.html#msg63017. The funny thing here is that on the one hand RRSPs save you taxes now (that you'll pay when you take the money back out) but on the other hand RRSPs cost you retirement benefits later in life. If you make over a certain amount, I'm pretty sure the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) get clawed back. Whereas if you put all that money into after-tax investments you wouldn't officially have any pension savings and therefore be able to get all the CPP and GIS.
I've never done the numbers on it to see what would be more beneficial, though, and the Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) throws a bit of a wrinkle into it, too.
That would be interesting. If you do do (heh I said do do) the numbers please post the results :)
Yeah, most people look at the brackets and then forget they're there and then make some ridiculous claim like, "I got a thousand dollar a year raise and my paycheque went down". I hate when people say things like that, it's so wrong! I've also heard, "I worked a bunch of overtime but I had so many deductions on my cheque that it was smaller than regular". 1) No it wasn't, it was more, 2) the deductions are so big because the government thinks you're making that amount _every_ paycheque, 3) you're gonna get a bunch of that extra tax deducted back at the end of the year in your income tax return.
Heh, do-do.
We are not immature.
A neighbor of mine was saying you get taxed on the money going into an RSSP twice. I was like noooooo... Had to explain that while your check got tax taken from it as normal, you'll get that back as a tax deduction.
Ha ha ha ha ha, people are so stupid. RRSP contributions reduce your net income. Things that happen when you decrease your net income:
1. lower federal and provincial taxes due (if you have regular tax taken off your paycheque, then you'll get a refund when you file)
2. lower CPP due just checked this and I should stop saying CPP is based on net income, it's not
3. more GST credit
4. more AFETC (Alberta Family Employment Tax Credit) credit if you have kids
5. more CCTB (Canada Child Tax Benefit) credit if you have kids
6. more NCBS (National Child Benefit Supplement) credit if you have kids and have pretty low income
7. lower threshold before you can start deducting medical expenses (so you can deduct more)
As you can see, RRSPs make even more sense if you have a family.
By the way, couples should file separately for as long as they can. If/when a couple has children, if one of them stays home and they've always filed separately, then the one that stays home will get the full CCTB and NCBS and GST credit and this will add up to a significant amount of money, whereas if they claim together then the CCTB and NCBS and GST credit are based on the combined incomes and NCBS and GSTC are usually completely clawed back (meaning you don't get them) and CCTB is usually a fair bit lower, too.
As an example, if I had filed separately with my spouse all these years and she stayed home, this year she would have gotten:
$1,544 + $1,544 + $1,380 + $1,292 + $98 + $98 = $5,956 CCTB
$2,177 + $1,926 + $1,832 + $1,832 = $7,767 NCBS
$260 + $260 + $137 + $137 + $137 + $137 = $1,068 GSTC
$14,791 per year total.
That's roughly what I expect she'll make this year now that she's working, and if she makes that as income then she has to pay (($14,791 - $3,500) * 4.95%) + ($14,791 * 1.83%) = $829.58 in CPP and EI.
So if we'd never claimed as a couple, we'd have $14,791 in tax free money from the government plus $829.58 less in deductions. I'll call it $15.5k.
Although then I'd lose out on the spousal tax credit and the kids' sports tax credit, which is about $3,659.90 in tax savings. Hmm, so we'd still be about $1,000 per month ahead if we had never claimed as a couple but stayed claiming separately.
Of course this is for four kids - for one kid the numbers are much lower.
So two years along and how is everyone? Still under the $26k amount from the original post? I've ballooned up to $37k all on credit cards (half on high interest, half on really low interest). And with one car written off and another about to be bought, I'll be at $17k on really low interest credit cards and $47k on a zero-interest car loan. That officially puts me at $64k, more than double the average. At least I've got a shiny new truck to show for it, plus I've gone from eight years to pay off my debts to five years (one year after saying it would take eight years, so really it'll take six years total). Funny, that, higher debt, lower interest, higher income, less time to pay off.
Slowly paying down my student loan. Be done in the next two years. My credit card debt is inconsequential.
I'm really close to wiping out debt altogether (outside the mortgage that is)
Maybe 6 months or something
15K in Debt, 15K left on Car. So 30K here.
43k after consolidating the car loan. All on prime +1, was tempted to go with a prime +.5 offer however it was not as flexible.
Got to love those unexpected car purchases.
On the plus side this number is headed in the right direction. Previously I was not making much progess but by getting the interest rates down I can clearly see it shrinking.
Lazy: Prime is 3% now, right? So you're paying 4% interest? That's not bad. How long do you figure it'll take you to pay it all off? And is this a consolidation loan, or did you access a line of credit of some type?
Mel: I'm hoping that $15k in debt is low-interest stuff. High interest rates suck.
Mr. A: YOWZA, you've been sticking to your payment regime :) Whatcha gonna do with the money for the payments once you're done paying off the cards? You'll have all this extra cash! Are we gonna see posts from Aruba every January from now on?
Tom: Good job on not racking up a bunch of credit card debt when you started working. Seriously. I know how easy it is to just charge it thinking that you'll pay it off when the bill comes, but then bill comes and there's groceries to buy, so then you don't pay it all off, then repeat a few times, then HOLY BIG BILL.
About a year ago we were talking about taxes for you on this thread, did you get it figured out? Did you have more than $8,000 in business expenses to claim? Just wondering if I was in the right ballpark with that guess.
Quote from: Thorin on June 18, 2013, 09:56:14 AM
Mr. A: YOWZA, you've been sticking to your payment regime :) Whatcha gonna do with the money for the payments once you're done paying off the cards? You'll have all this extra cash! Are we gonna see posts from Aruba every January from now on
That's always an option, I'd actually like to save up a lot of money too if I can. So if I want to travel I can just go whenever. Or take a month off without worrying.
Most likely I'll just buy a tux, a monocle and drink martinis all day
Quote from: Thorin on June 18, 2013, 09:56:14 AM
Lazy: Prime is 3% now, right? So you're paying 4% interest? That's not bad. How long do you figure it'll take you to pay it all off? And is this a consolidation loan, or did you access a line of credit of some type?
Secure line of credit (setup like a second mortgage but acts like a credit cart / revolving line of credit ), with terms that allow a minimum of interest only payments (safety net for bad months only, I always pay more).
My income (changed jobs in the last year, and some of it is bonus based) and expenses (high food costs due to diet issues with the kids as well as extra care) have been highly volatile lately but if all goes well 4 years. Not including accelerating it with dumping bonuses and tax returns into it.
If interest rates go crazy however with both the mortgage and the line of credit variable that could be bad.
It's a HELOC (Home Equity Line Of Credit), right? Where you can borrow up to the difference between your current mortgage amount and 75% of the value of the home? Those are incredibly flexible once you've got the mortgage down below the 75% value of the house. The more you pay off on your mortgage, the more you'll have available for emergencies. It's almost like being pre-approved for life to re-mortgage your house.
If it's a HELOC and it's the same interest rate as your mortgage, here's something to think about: cash fluidity. With a mortgage payment, you always have to pay enough so it covers at least a portion of the principal (original amount borrowed). With a HELOC, you could take money out to make extra payments on your mortgage (up to whatever limit your mortgage agreement specified). This would pay the mortgage off much faster, but essentially relocate your debt from your mortgage to your HELOC. That doesn't seem any better, except when you realize that you could make interest-only payments on the HELOC when needed or pay any amount (since there's no maximum extra contribution like with a mortgage). This only makes sense if the mortgage and HELOC interest rates are close, though.
Another thing you can do with a HELOC is buy investments (stocks, bonds, mutual funds). You can then write off the interest you pay on the HELOC as a cost of investing. This write-off then reduces your gross tax owing, which typically means you'll get a tax refund as they'll have withheld too much on your cheque.
4 years for $43k is pretty dang good. At 4%, that's just under a thousand per month for 48 months. That's only four years away, time to start planning what you're going to do with your extra thousand a month when you get there :)
Quote from: Thorin on June 18, 2013, 12:59:22 PM
It's a HELOC (Home Equity Line Of Credit), right? Where you can borrow up to the difference between your current mortgage amount and 75% of the value of the home? Those are incredibly flexible once you've got the mortgage down below the 75% value of the house. The more you pay off on your mortgage, the more you'll have available for emergencies. It's almost like being pre-approved for life to re-mortgage your house.
If it's a HELOC and it's the same interest rate as your mortgage, here's something to think about: cash fluidity. With a mortgage payment, you always have to pay enough so it covers at least a portion of the principal (original amount borrowed). With a HELOC, you could take money out to make extra payments on your mortgage (up to whatever limit your mortgage agreement specified). This would pay the mortgage off much faster, but essentially relocate your debt from your mortgage to your HELOC. That doesn't seem any better, except when you realize that you could make interest-only payments on the HELOC when needed or pay any amount (since there's no maximum extra contribution like with a mortgage). This only makes sense if the mortgage and HELOC interest rates are close, though.
Another thing you can do with a HELOC is buy investments (stocks, bonds, mutual funds). You can then write off the interest you pay on the HELOC as a cost of investing. This write-off then reduces your gross tax owing, which typically means you'll get a tax refund as they'll have withheld too much on your cheque.
4 years for $43k is pretty dang good. At 4%, that's just under a thousand per month for 48 months. That's only four years away, time to start planning what you're going to do with your extra thousand a month when you get there :)
The product is a secure line of credit of a fixed amount at prime +1, my montage is at a slightly lower rate but my bank did not offer an option as flexable and also the frees where fairly steep to setup.
Is it a fixed maximum amount and when you go under the maximum you can take some out to bring it back to the maximum? Or are you not allowed to take money back out if you've paid some off? I ask because you say it's like a revolving line of credit, and revolving lines of credit allow one to access unused credit much like a credit card.
As for interest rates, the only reason they would significantly increase is if the Canadian economy improves significantly and the central bank feels a need to constrain the economy. Given that the Canadian economy is closely tied to the US economy, and the US economy is taking a very long time to recover, I suggest that interest rates will probably be low for another ten years. And then they'll start rising in the typical boom-bust cycle.
Quote from: Thorin on June 18, 2013, 02:26:06 PM
Is it a fixed maximum amount and when you go under the maximum you can take some out to bring it back to the maximum? Or are you not allowed to take money back out if you've paid some off? I ask because you say it's like a revolving line of credit, and revolving lines of credit allow one to access unused credit much like a credit card.
It is revolving like a credit card, so i have a limit of X amount, I only pay interest on the amount used, and the minimum payment IS interest only. Other than the legal binding of it to my home, it functions like a credit card and can even be bound to the savings button on my debit card.
Ah, so exactly as you named it, not a HELOC but an SLOC. So at max $43k, minimum payment for interest would be about $145/month, payments required to pay off in 48 months would be about $970/month. That is a large amount of flexibility, $825 that you should pay but that you don't have to pay each month.
With my alteration to my finances, I've gone from $1,185/month minimum payment to $1,075/month minimum payment. Not much extra flexibility there. I tried applying for a HELOC before and didn't get it because there wasn't enough equity in the house, though. And I never did bother with a SLOC because I had so much credit available (a lot of it low-interest) that it didn't matter. Looking back, a HELOC or a SLOC would've been great to have over the last two years.
I wish I was in Tom's boat, TOM IS RICH.
I had a low interest line of credit already, it was prime +3 I believe but it was worth consolidating down to the prime +1 revolving because it made all my outstanding debt very visible and allowed for both a lower monthly payment and easy bursts of larger payments.
My car was financed used at prime plus 1.99 so there was some savings in moving it but not much.
So I shaved a bit of interest off both an made payments easy and very visible.
Wonder if I should move this thread to a more private section?
Quote from: Thorin on June 18, 2013, 03:28:57 PM
Ah, so exactly as you named it, not a HELOC but an SLOC. So at max $43k, minimum payment for interest would be about $145/month, payments required to pay off in 48 months would be about $970/month. That is a large amount of flexibility, $825 that you should pay but that you don't have to pay each month.
With my alteration to my finances, I've gone from $1,185/month minimum payment to $1,075/month minimum payment. Not much extra flexibility there. I tried applying for a HELOC before and didn't get it because there wasn't enough equity in the house, though. And I never did bother with a SLOC because I had so much credit available (a lot of it low-interest) that it didn't matter. Looking back, a HELOC or a SLOC would've been great to have over the last two years.
I wish I was in Tom's boat, TOM IS RICH.
To begin with, things are a little less flexible now. I've pretty much decided to try and get my own stuff out the door now instead of waiting on them for stuff to do. Which, unless something changes, my pay will probably be cut in half, or worse.
Quote from: Thorin on June 18, 2013, 09:56:14 AM
Tom: Good job on not racking up a bunch of credit card debt when you started working. Seriously. I know how easy it is to just charge it thinking that you'll pay it off when the bill comes, but then bill comes and there's groceries to buy, so then you don't pay it all off, then repeat a few times, then HOLY BIG BILL.
It really does help that my max credit limit right now is $3500. $1500 on one card, $2000 on the other. I have managed to have my cards maxed or close to maxed for way too long :( but I've decided to put $200 on each one per check regardless (so long as I get enough that check ::)).
I don't care if it's public or private, but then I don't care who knows what I make or what I pay for what else. In fact, I hope it's helpful to others to share my finances, so they can learn about taxes and write-offs and interest rates and how payments are calculated and ways to improve cash flow, and stuff.
Quote from: Thorin on June 18, 2013, 09:56:14 AM
About a year ago we were talking about taxes for you on this thread, did you get it figured out? Did you have more than $8,000 in business expenses to claim? Just wondering if I was in the right ballpark with that guess.
I forgot to reply to this....
Yeah, I got it figured out. Payed an accountant/tax-guy to do it for me. Ended up claiming a lot more than $8000. In the end my tax bill is just over $8000 total, including cpp and all that jaz. Assuming the govt doesn't make changes...
Wow, you did claim a lot more, then. My original prediction was a $13.5k-ish tax bill for you... http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,7955.msg64954.html#msg64954. Good thing you got an accountant instead of listening to me :)
Quote from: Thorin on June 18, 2013, 04:44:43 PM
Wow, you did claim a lot more, then. My original prediction was a $13.5k-ish tax bill for you... http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,7955.msg64954.html#msg64954. Good thing you got an accountant instead of listening to me :)
I would not have been able to do it myself. Not even slightly ;D my old taxes was confusing enough for me, even though most of it was just filling on 0s :o
But yeah, My guess was $13k or there abouts, or less depending.
Quote from: Thorin on June 18, 2013, 03:28:57 PM
So at max $43k, minimum payment for interest would be about $145/month, payments required to pay off in 48 months would be about $970/month. That is a large amount of flexibility, $825 that you should pay but that you don't have to pay each month.
Yes, it is a @%&# happens buffer, or sometimes the stupid buffer. It allows me so smooth over months where things break or if there is some over spend without amassing more debt.
Until the new job and the consolidation little bumps would end up being big setbacks.
After the credit debt is gone, accelerating the home payments and maybe some more fun are the goals. Housing is crazy expensive out here if I want to get something bigger I am going to need to need a lot more equity in my current place.
Yeah, housing costs are pretty dang high where you are. You have to either commute further or live in a smaller place. It's not cheap back where I live anymore, either. I'm pretty sure we're just going to stay in the house we're in, though. As much as it's kinda crowded, well, that's how life goes. At least we don't have the entire extended family in the house.
Ya as it is I had to go with an 1h 15m commute to afford a town house. I would really like to have a yard but that is ether another 100-150k or 25 more min commute time by my current calculations.
Ugh, I've got a 45-60 minute commute. It sucks and I'm glad I'm with a company that allows working from home. I can't imagine having more than an hour and a half commute one way every day.
I like the convenience of working from home as well, I really don't mind the commute as long as I catch it at the right times.
Quote from: Thorin on June 19, 2013, 10:22:54 AM
Ugh, I've got a 45-60 minute commute. It sucks and I'm glad I'm with a company that allows working from home. I can't imagine having more than an hour and a half commute one way every day.
My commute is all transit so waiting at a transfer or bus stop is a factor especially the train that comes at a low frequency.
Walk->Buss->Train->LRT->Walk
I take it parking is prohibitively expensive, too? If I went to work downtown full-time, parking would be about $240 a month and gas about $40-$60 a month (depending on what vehicle I took). So about $300 a month. A bus pass from where I live is now $110 a month, I think, but bussing to work and back makes it a lot more difficult for me to attend early afternoon practices and stuff like that.
I think the commute is longer if he drives too ;D
If I could some how get through the wait list for office parking it would only be $50/mo in our company lot, other wise the local day rate is $14.
However there is the issue of traffic:
Ideal drive time is about 30-35min
Morning commute time tends to be about 45min.
The drive home tends to be grid lock at some time over 1hr, it is highly variable and frustrating.
Also we are a one vehicle house hold so the car is now in use when I am in work. So insuring and fueling even a free second car would be more than my monthly transit pass..
Gas prices also are around $1.30 to $1.40/L around here due to transit and environmental fees so it is best if I am not doing a long distance drive every day.
IF ONLY they added more bridges to Vancouver! (just kidding ;) )
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 19, 2013, 03:10:26 PM
IF ONLY they added more bridges to Vancouver! (just kidding ;) )
On the plus side there are no toll bridges between me and the office.
Quote from: Lazybones on June 19, 2013, 03:12:37 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 19, 2013, 03:10:26 PM
IF ONLY they added more bridges to Vancouver! (just kidding ;) )
On the plus side there are no toll bridges between me and the office.
Man, first pass I read that as "troll bridges" which I guess would also be bad (and annoying, imagine rolling over a bridge and hearing YouTube comments...)
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 19, 2013, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: Lazybones on June 19, 2013, 03:12:37 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 19, 2013, 03:10:26 PM
IF ONLY they added more bridges to Vancouver! (just kidding ;) )
On the plus side there are no toll bridges between me and the office.
Man, first pass I read that as "troll bridges" which I guess would also be bad (and annoying, imagine rolling over a bridge and hearing YouTube comments...)
Or "What is your favorite color?"
Yeah, gotta say when I read "troll bridges" I immediately tried to remember the what the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is.
I understand the gridlock frustration. Traffic gets real slow here if you leave at 4:30pm. It's better to leave before 4pm or after 5pm. But it's best not to have to travel at all :)
Not A Joke Page: http://style.org/unladenswallow/ *
found via http://10000birds.com/air-speed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow.htm (found via Google)
* "a brilliant webpage devoted to a thorough explanation of this confounding question. This site, which employs Strouhal numbers, simplified flight waveforms, and an obvious reverence for the source material, is an absolute masterpiece, and a fancy bit of physics footwork to boot."
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 20, 2013, 08:56:29 AM
Not A Joke Page: http://style.org/unladenswallow/
Final answer: 11 meters per second, rounded off to 39 km/h, rounded off to 24 mph. For the European Swallow.
Anyway, what was this thread about?
Oh yes, got the new truck, got the cheque that came with it, paid off a credit card, now I owe about $78.2k without the mortgage ($9.8k at 19.99%, $6.7k at 13.65%, $11.7k at 5.99%, $3k at 3.00%, $47k at 0%, monthly interest cost $305.36). Then I'll use a balance transfer (super-low interest for 12 months), and the insurance cheque will come in, and that'll get down to about $65.7k ($8.8k at 5.99%, $9.9k at 0.99%, $47k at 0.00%, monthly interest cost $52.10).
So I guess for a while I'll owe more than the average Canadian non-mortgage debt of $26k. Although $40k of my $65.7k will be secured by my new vehicle, so really I'm looking at $25.7k unsecured debt.
Put it all on that 0% credit.
I'd like to but I can't. That's a car loan through GM (but not GMAC). Those numbers are at as low an interest rate as I can get them. Athough I'll betcha that I get offers for low interest rates within three months of doing this money-shuffling.
Although the offers in the mail of low-interest balance transfers with credit card convenience cheques should stop: http://www.moneysense.ca/2012/05/22/unsolicited-credit-card-cheques/. It's been two years since the government announced their plans to ban these cheques.
The $9.9k at 0.99% will have to be transferred to the 5.99% balance by June 1st, 2014, otherwise it'll jump up to the cash advance rate (22.99%, I think). But that's for next year to worry about.
Geeze, 22.9? that's incredibly evil. I can see the regular rate, but wow...
From my experience most $0 fee cards come default with a 18-19% rate from the Banks and if it is a store card like Sears or Canadian Tire it is 20%+.
Cash advance rates are often much higher than the default rate, probably because of higher fraud and chance there is no asset to recover.
Over several years I was able to negotiate my MBNA card down from 18%, to 9.9% for the general transaction rate.. Basically I have the promo rate permanently on all transactions.
The only high rate card I have is my PC Mastercard, but I get 2% or so back on all transactions at Superstore with it and never pay interest by carrying a balance on it.
Quote from: Tom on June 20, 2013, 02:42:22 PM
Geeze, 22.9? that's incredibly evil. I can see the regular rate, but wow...
That's not far from the norm for cash advance rates. And there's no grace periods on cash advances, either, they start charging interest the moment the transaction posts to the account.
Normally I don't use cash advances from credit cards because they're heinously expensive, but in this case they're giving me 0.99% for a year. Secretly they're hoping I forget to pay it of or transfer it elsewhere after a year, but I'm smart and pay attention to my bills so that won't happen.
Like Lazy said, try hard not to carry a balance on high interest rate cards. Also don't use cash advances and avoid yearly fees if possible. And nowadays, don't go over your limit because instead of declining the card, they'll allow the charge to go through and then charge you $20 for going over your limit.
Quote from: Lazybones on June 20, 2013, 02:52:49 PM
Over several years I was able to negotiate my MBNA card down from 18%, to 9.9% for the general transaction rate.. Basically I have the promo rate permanently on all transactions.
The only high rate card I have is my PC Mastercard, but I get 2% or so back on all transactions at Superstore with it and never pay interest by carrying a balance on it.
I'd suggest this Capital One card if you want a lower interest rate: Smartline Platinum (http://www.capitalone.ca/credit-cards/smartline-platinum-mastercard/?Log=1&EventType=Link&ComponentType=T&LOB=MTS%3A%3ALCTMMBESH&PageName=Your+Recommended+Credit+Cards&ComponentName=Smartline+Platinum+Mastercard%3B&ContentElement=1%3BSmartLine%3Csup%3ETM%3C%2Fsup%3E+Platinum+MasterCard%3Csup%3E%C2%AE%3C%2Fsup%3E&TargetLob=MTS%3A%3ALCTMMBESH&TargetPageName=Smartline+Platinum+Credit+Card). 5.99% on both purchases and balance transfers (cash advances are still stupid high). It requires $60k income and a decent credit rating, but I assume you have those. We have this card and they transferred a third of our balance to a 3% "special transfer" section, I guess as a thank you for being their customer? I didn't request it and there were no strings or hidden increases attached.
I don't carry balances on ether of my credit cards anymore so it isn't much of an issue, if I need to I just transfer the balance to my prime +1 borrowing account before the grace period / bill is due.
I've got a capital one. first card I got. It sucks, but I got the rate down to 14.9 or something. My PC card is 19.8 or thereabouts.
Digging up an old thread..
New article / numbers
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/burdened-by-debt-and-slipping-behind-survey-respondents-say-1.3219868
Not to pick nits but the sample size seems very small, of the 4k respondents how geographically varied were they across the country? We know debut is distributed differently based on where people live/work, not just at a Provincial level but also at a city level within the same Province??
Also who is the Canadian Payroll Association? Their wiki article is somewhat uninformative. So many questions
Quote from: Lazybones on September 09, 2015, 10:04:07 AM
Digging up an old thread..
New article / numbers
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/burdened-by-debt-and-slipping-behind-survey-respondents-say-1.3219868
IMO pretty weak-sauce article, not exactly any "news" let alone "...that you can use". And even worse is that its COMMENTS became almost insantly a Harper bash-a-thon. Although I find "#HeaveSteve" to be a pretty clever hashtag :)
But linked from this one was another -- potentially more useful -- article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/why-september-is-the-ideal-time-to-do-a-financial-check-in-1.3196895
Quote from: Darren Dirt on September 09, 2015, 12:39:36 PM
But linked from this one was another -- potentially more useful -- article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/why-september-is-the-ideal-time-to-do-a-financial-check-in-1.3196895
Hmm, it gives advice for people who might have forgotten to pay bills and give basic advice about how to order debt paydown. And then it says to save money. But if you have high interest credit card debt, then you should put all your available monies towards paying that down instead of setting it aside to save while still paying exorbitant interest.
I was more interested that the high amount of debt the average Canadian has, stated about the same as previous articles.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/business/debt-income-net-worth-1.3223917
Average debt to income levels at an all time high.
Interesting that those percentiles rose in parallel
So on average, for every $1 of disposable income we owe $1.65 in debt but have $7.68 in assets. So on average, we could sell off our assets, pay off our debts, and still have $6.03 left over. So on average, people will be okay.
Reading the article that is only if the Canadian housing market doesn't reset. It's based a lot on the fact house prices are still rising and currently worth a lot.
Quote from: Thorin on September 11, 2015, 11:21:20 AM
So on average, for every $1 of disposable income we owe $1.65 in debt but have $7.68 in assets. So on average, we could sell off our assets, pay off our debts, and still have $6.03 left over. So on average, people will be okay.
As Lazy mentioned, a huge part of the "assets" are the real estate that many people live in. But then you've got many people renting so having virtually zero assets (but still comparable debt to the home-owners I am guessing, considering our present uber-consumer society).
On "average" people will be okay, but the "average person" might not be.
Sounds like you're trying to point out that the arithmetic mean and median are two different things.
That article pretty clearly talks about the arithmetic mean (aka the average). So for every person with more than $7.68 in assets per dollar of income, there's another person with less than $7.68 in assets per dollar of income.
We'll probably end up disagreeing a whole bunch if we start debating this topic, as we probably have completely different views of what an "average person" is.
For the record, for every dollar of income I presently owe $4.07 in debt and have $4.94 in assets (house, cars, trailer, savings). If I work out the family income, for every dollar of income we presently owe $3.44 in debt and have $4.19 in assets. My family and I are well below the arithmetic mean established above, and yet we seem to be living a comfortable enough life and we'll be okay.
But you are a home owner.
That's all I was saying.
You could do a nation-wide or province-wide or city-wide analysis of a large group of people of one general demographic, and collect stats about their total assets and their total debts, and from that get an average [statistic of your choosing] but what I am saying is there are plenty of "average" people that would be very different in the one way, that they do not have a significant asset under their ownership -- specifically a home; they rent. So they are definitely not okay financially if they suffer a surprise job loss, they have no asset that could be potentially worst-case-scenario liquidated to cover their debt load.
Definitely not interested in debating or anything, no need to analyze meaning of the math of analysis or whatever, just speaking in more general terms. Not everybody owns a house/mortgage (or is able to / wants to). And that can mean a big difference when it comes to the impact of life events (even if in virtually every other way they are "close to the average").
As a personal example, I have essentially zero assets except for the car for which I have a multi-year loan to pay off. But I am other than that debt-free. But I am not the norm by any means, plenty of people who rent would have a car loan as well as a ton of credit card debt etc. and surely some of them have RRSPs or other investments, while others are truly living paycheck to paycheck while ALSO having trouble meeting CC minimum payments... Averages are not exactly useful when it comes to analyzing personal finances of Canadians/Albertans/Citytonians. Other than for news copy ;)
Well the numbers came from Stats Canada, didn't they? So not just news copy.
Whether I'm a homeowner or not doesn't make a lick of difference, as the numbers have been aggregated for all people regardless of whether they're homeowners or not. ON AVERAGE, Canadians own more than four times as many assets as they have liabilities.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on September 14, 2015, 11:09:09 AM
You could do a nation-wide or province-wide or city-wide analysis of a large group of people of one general demographic, and collect stats about their total assets and their total debts, and from that get an average [statistic of your choosing] but what I am saying is there are plenty of "average" people that would be very different in the one way, that they do not have a significant asset under their ownership -- specifically a home; they rent. So they are definitely not okay financially if they suffer a surprise job loss, they have no asset that could be potentially worst-case-scenario liquidated to cover their debt load.
Definitely not interested in debating or anything, no need to analyze meaning of the math of analysis or whatever, just speaking in more general terms. Not everybody owns a house/mortgage (or is able to / wants to). And that can mean a big difference when it comes to the impact of life events (even if in virtually every other way they are "close to the average").
As a personal example, I have essentially zero assets except for the car for which I have a multi-year loan to pay off. But I am other than that debt-free. But I am not the norm by any means, plenty of people who rent would have a car loan as well as a ton of credit card debt etc. and surely some of them have RRSPs or other investments, while others are truly living paycheck to paycheck while ALSO having trouble meeting CC minimum payments... Averages are not exactly useful when it comes to analyzing personal finances of Canadians/Albertans/Citytonians. Other than for news copy ;)
What you are doing here is picking a subgroup and then saying that subgroup is below the average for the whole group, and then using that train of thought to say statistics based on the entire group don't apply to individuals. But they _do_ apply - for instance people who are living paycheque to paycheque, who have trouble paying their bills and owe a whole bunch, are below the average. So people can look at the stats and say to themselves "I have more debt than average and I have less assets than average, I should try to change that".
The data used by Stats Canada included both homeowners and non-homeowners. Your suggestion that "there are "average" people that would be very different in one way" (non-homeownership) doesn't hold water, because those very people _are_ included in the statistics.