^^^^Again his knobness.... how many unionized employees are there in Ontario who work for the government. Teachers, police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, government workers, etc, etc, etc...
Last edited:
Teachers Union Sabotaging Education
- Thread starter Boober69
- Start date
Come on Johnny, don't sound like a BOOB!
^^^^I think they may be best friends!!!
The union represents its membership and is paid to achieve a hard-fought solid contract. What part of that do you not understand? Past governments could have declared teachers an essential service and avoiding strikes but obviously feel it is better to negotiate. If you know better, run for office and stop the bellyaching against one profession. You are sounding like a crusty old spam eating wannabe teacher!!!
^^^^Thank you... I'm only an asshole to Johnny because things always have to be his way. I may be the steward but I'm not a die hard union follower. Debt is a problem going forward and it will need to be addressed but cutting taxes at the same time makes absolutely no sense.
Do you believe Sammy sits at the bargaining table and demands anything besides having 1 vote, maybe 2 if Sammy's spouse is a teacher as well? Come on Johnny, you're smarter than that. If you concentrate on your pay and perks perhaps you can enjoy a cottage, a nice car, a yacht, and more. It's all attainable with the right strategies and hard work, just ask Sammy!
^^^^^YES!!! Shit squeezer you've been such a good friend... I would like you to keep the yacht. The only think I ask is if I can join you once in a while going down to the Caribbean!!!
Nah, I'm pretty good at following logic and sorting through the nonsense and bullshit.
using leverage (at the expense of students & parents)
as you say a fight rather than seeking a co-operative agreement
Very Trump like
In the past the unions could have also chosen to seek a co-operative agreement but instead ALWAYS choose to "Fight"
As SammyS says "The battle with the unions will never end"
Very Trump like
Useless cancel culture bullshit as you try to avoid the issue
Very Trump like - did you not learn anything from last nights bare knuckled , mud slinging debate and despicable approach by Trump
Do you believe SammyS comments, flaunting of his wealth and his screw you attitude do not represent the union? - alter all he is a union rep
I am smart enough to see you will protect despicable union acts behavior and you will do this unconditionally
Hard work ? SammyS ?
He works part time compared to the rest of the workforce
His strategy?????
I guess you can call extortion a strategy
Not a strategy I could ever respect or personally execute
You dispise Trumps behavior , yet support the same behavior unconditionally if a union does it
And you again avoided the question
Explain how Trumps philosophy's differs from that of a union?
1. both are based based upon applying leverage and
2. both are singularly focused on what is best for him/them as opposed to what is best for all vested parties
Last edited:
What is the supply of doctors and nurses vs demand? too low, and that will become a massive problem real soon because of demographics
What is the supply of those willing and able to teach vs demand ? Very, very high
do not flatter yourself with a comparison vs police, firefighters, doctors, nurses
They save lives and they take risks doing their job
How many unions use children as negotiating pawns?
How many unions have a planed four years screw the public cycle ?
You have painted yourself as the poster boy for what is wrong with the the public sector unions.
besides the total number of public sector employees in ONTARIO does not represent any where near a majority of the provincial electorate.
yet you claim demanding some co-operation from the public sector unions would result in removal from office for any governing party
Special interest groups preverting the democratic process for their own financial interests?
Do we add that to the ever growing list of union sins?
Last edited:
What is the supply of doctors and nurses vs demand? too low, and that will become a massive problem real soon because of demographics
What is the supply of those willing and able to teach vs demand ? Very, very high
do not flatter yourself with a comparison vs police, firefighters, doctors, nurses
They save lives and they take risks doing their job
How many unions use children as negotiating pawns?
How many unions have a planed four years screw the public cycle ?
^^^^^WOW!!! You really are clueless!!! I was referring to all the government employees, not comparing teachers to other professions. LOL
You have painted yourself as the poster boy for what is wrong with the the public sector unions.
besides the total number of public sector employees in ONTARIO does not represent any where near a majority of the provincial electorate.
yet you claim demanding some co-operation from the public sector unions would result in removal from office for any governing party
Special interest groups preverting the democratic process for their own financial interests?
Do we add that to the ever growing list of union sins?
^^^^^What wrong Johnny????
Mentor didn't do very well last night!!!
You do not ever get anything right
Look at post 1,193. I made my position on Donald Trump very clear
What's wrong SammyS ?
Are you unable to follow the adult conversation?
Are you unable to respond with anything intelligent justifying your despicable greed and lack of morality?
"I agree with some of his policies, defiantly not all of them, however the bottom line is he is the right man for the job"
And in regards to your other comment... I'm still waiting for the data that shows the devastating tax burden that the average Canadian family is dealing with. Showing that taxes are more then cost of living proves shit since Canada has been ranked with best quality of life in the world for 5 years running. And using Pierre Poilievre as your second source of the impact that the tax burden is having on Canadians is...
so you cant even quote someone properly
I know you have zero integrity, and your child-like mind thinks that was funny but do not do that again
[/QUOTE]
Numbers do not lie
Average Canadian family spends nearly $39,000 per year on taxes: op-ed
Since 1961, the average Canadian family’s total tax bill increased nominally by 2,226 per cent.
The amount of taxes a family pays should be far less than what they spend on the necessities , not more
Do you honestly think your compensation is more important to the average Canadian Family than the necessities of life for that family
.
And here is the trend in debt levels
No denying there is an excessive tax burden causing the average Canadian family to fall further into unstainable debt
Do you think the expected tsunami of bankruptcies , unsustainable consumer and government debt will have zero impact on quality of life.
You equate high taxes with a high quality of life ???
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer
You would get steam rolled in the private sector
As for using Pierre Poilievre as a source ???
He quote two publicly available stats/ facts and you want to invalidate actual stats / facts because his name is in the article???? (more despicable cancel culture)
What is wrong with you??
If Pierre Poilievre was kind enough to tell you today is Thursday, would automatic decide it must be Friday and start your weekend right there and then
Last edited:
Except it is not what I have said
Show us the quote demanding my taxes be lowered or get lost
What is wrong with you?
I have been quite clear
the tax burden and debt burden on the Average Canadian Family is unsustainable, cutting the tax burden would enable the average Canadian Family to reduce its debt burden to more sustainable levels
The government debt is also unsustainable (especially the Ont provincial govt)
Both unstainable problems need to addressed
The only viable solution to either / both is for governments to reduce their spending.
The lions share of government spending is to public sector unions who are loading up on second homes and cottages (as per SammyS) .while the average Canadian Family goes deeper into debt
Instead of acknowledging perhaps the unions may have pushed the envelope too far, you blindly support this despicable union approach of total non-cooperation:
You ignore the problems and instead try to make this about me, attempting to cancel me and remove the problems from sight (absolutely despicable cancel culture)
That will not work as the problems remain independent of me. AND YOU KNOW THIS !!!!
What is wrong with you?
"I agree with some of his policies, defiantly not all of them, however the bottom line is he is the right man for the job"
^^^^^First off Johnny, I'm sorry that your leader has contracted Covid. It's unfortunate that somebody who has taken so many precautions to protect himself (and modelled this for his country) has become infected with this terrible disease.
^^^^^First off Johnny, I'm sorry that your leader has contracted Covid. It's unfortunate that somebody who has taken so many precautions to protect himself (and modelled this for his country) has become infected with this terrible disease.
Oh great... can't wait to see the data to support this claim... LOL
^^^^^Johnny on the left hand side... use to making false claims and false starts.
Canadians now owe $1.77 for every dollar they have to spend
www.moneysense.ca
How did we get here?
There are two overarching reasons why we’ve ended up with our current level of collective debt.
Debt is cheap
The basic laws of economics tell us that when prices fall, demand increases. Here’s why that’s important for the debt-to-income ratio: what really matters is not the total amount borrowed, but the cost to service that debt over time—that’s the debt-service ratio. The lower the interest rate, the cheaper it is to borrow money and service that debt, and thus the more debt a household can afford to carry.
Over time, the debt-service ratio has remained pretty constant even as the household debt-to-income ratio has risen.
In 1980, for example, the ratio of household debt to personal disposable income was just 66%, or $0.66 owed for every dollar of disposable income.
Back then, however, the bank rate—the minimum rate of interest that the Bank of Canada charges on one-day loans to financial institutions, now superseded by the target interest rate—was 12.89%, compared to just 0.25% today.
In practical terms, $100 borrowed for a year at 1980 rates would cost nearly 20 times as much as it would to borrow today.
This astonishing drop in interest rates accounts for why the debt-service ratio has remained relatively steady over time, fluctuating between about 12% and 15% from 1990 to the first quarter of 2020, and falling from 14.81% in the last quarter of 2019 to 14.67% in the first quarter of 2020.
Our relationship to debt has changed
Over time, we’ve become more and more accepting of borrowing as a normal part of household finances. When the ability to borrow became available as a tool to “bring forward” our household spending, lots of us decided to do so. And as the cost of borrowing progressively dropped, we ramped up our debt.
This behaviour is consistent with what financial economists call consumption smoothing, or the idea that we can maximize happiness by spreading our resources over our lifetimes to achieve the highest possible total standard of living.
From this point of view, in the words of former Bank of Canada Governor Steven Poloz,
“Simply put, debt is a tool that allows people to smooth out their spending throughout their life.”
Johnny... this one is for you...
^^^^^For those that don't know... this is Johnny on the left!!!
Canada's climbing debt-to-income ratio: what you need to know - MoneySense
We break down what the debt-to-income ratio means—for the nation’s financial health, and for yours.
www.moneysense.ca
How did we get here?
There are two overarching reasons why we’ve ended up with our current level of collective debt.
Debt is cheap
The basic laws of economics tell us that when prices fall, demand increases. Here’s why that’s important for the debt-to-income ratio: what really matters is not the total amount borrowed, but the cost to service that debt over time—that’s the debt-service ratio. The lower the interest rate, the cheaper it is to borrow money and service that debt, and thus the more debt a household can afford to carry.
Over time, the debt-service ratio has remained pretty constant even as the household debt-to-income ratio has risen.
In 1980, for example, the ratio of household debt to personal disposable income was just 66%, or $0.66 owed for every dollar of disposable income.
Back then, however, the bank rate—the minimum rate of interest that the Bank of Canada charges on one-day loans to financial institutions, now superseded by the target interest rate—was 12.89%, compared to just 0.25% today.
In practical terms, $100 borrowed for a year at 1980 rates would cost nearly 20 times as much as it would to borrow today.
This astonishing drop in interest rates accounts for why the debt-service ratio has remained relatively steady over time, fluctuating between about 12% and 15% from 1990 to the first quarter of 2020, and falling from 14.81% in the last quarter of 2019 to 14.67% in the first quarter of 2020.
Our relationship to debt has changed
Over time, we’ve become more and more accepting of borrowing as a normal part of household finances. When the ability to borrow became available as a tool to “bring forward” our household spending, lots of us decided to do so. And as the cost of borrowing progressively dropped, we ramped up our debt.
This behaviour is consistent with what financial economists call consumption smoothing, or the idea that we can maximize happiness by spreading our resources over our lifetimes to achieve the highest possible total standard of living.
From this point of view, in the words of former Bank of Canada Governor Steven Poloz,
“Simply put, debt is a tool that allows people to smooth out their spending throughout their life.”
Johnny... this one is for you...
^^^^^For those that don't know... this is Johnny on the left!!!
Last edited:
Average Canadian family spends nearly $39,000 per year on taxes: op-ed
Since 1961, the average Canadian family’s total tax bill increased nominally by 2,226 per cent.
^^^^^Fraser is a Conservative public policy think tank.
Meanwhile, the household debt service ratio — measured as total obligated payments of principal and interest on credit market debt as a proportion of household disposable income — fell to 14.67 per cent from 14.81 per cent.
creditcardgenius.ca
^^^^^Some key statements in this article.
Should you care about the soaring Canadian debt ratio?
At this time, no. It has been on a steady rise for 30 years now. And, as you can see in the graph above, it has been relatively level for the last 5 years.
On an individual level, however, this isn’t the number you should be worrying about. The real number you need to consider is your household debt service ratio. This ratio measures your ability to pay your debts.
Even if your full debt ratio number is 250%, it doesn’t mean you’re borrowing too much or living outside your means
Even if your full debt ratio number is 250%, it doesn’t mean you’re borrowing too much or living outside your means
Even if your full debt ratio number is 250%, it doesn’t mean you’re borrowing too much or living outside your means
Even if your full debt ratio number is 250%, it doesn’t mean you’re borrowing too much or living outside your means
^^^^^Repeated for Johnny.... must repeat information for him... he struggles with comprehension though
Mortgage debt and interest rates, not consumer debt, responsible for increasing debt ratio
With all that said, what has actually caused the increasing debt ratio?
Accounting for inflation, we’re paying more for mortgages, even with lower interest rates. But the increasing number is caused by both the low interest rates and higher housing prices, with low interest rates making it easier to borrow large amounts of money.
The 177% number is calculated as the total amount of debt Canadians owe, divided by their disposable income for 1 year.
It’s an interesting number, but for most Canadians and lenders it’s not a very useful number. It doesn’t truly reflect anyone’s capacity to actually pay their debts.
A better debt ratio to consider: household debt service ratio
A better debt ratio number is the household debt service ratio. This takes your gross income and compares it to what you’re actually paying on your debt.
It’s a better ratio that takes into account how much you’re making and how much you have to pay towards your debt.
Is there a magic threshold you want this number to be under? Generally, you’ll want to keep your debt service ratio under 43% (which is what lenders usually use).
So far this year, the average debt service ratio in Canada has actually decreased – from 14.81% to 14.67%. Meaning, most Canadians are well within their means to pay what they owe.
^^^^^And Johnny wonders why I use what he calls finger puppets... because dealing with you is like dealing with kindergarten students. It's like I'm wiping your ass because you can't do it yourself(get reliable data). Now please give your friend Pierre Poilievre a call and see if he can baby sit you tonight!!!
creditcardGenius
creditcardgenius.ca
Should you care about the soaring Canadian debt ratio?
At this time, no. It has been on a steady rise for 30 years now. And, as you can see in the graph above, it has been relatively level for the last 5 years.
On an individual level, however, this isn’t the number you should be worrying about. The real number you need to consider is your household debt service ratio. This ratio measures your ability to pay your debts.
Even if your full debt ratio number is 250%, it doesn’t mean you’re borrowing too much or living outside your means
Even if your full debt ratio number is 250%, it doesn’t mean you’re borrowing too much or living outside your means
Even if your full debt ratio number is 250%, it doesn’t mean you’re borrowing too much or living outside your means
Even if your full debt ratio number is 250%, it doesn’t mean you’re borrowing too much or living outside your means
^^^^^Repeated for Johnny.... must repeat information for him... he struggles with comprehension though
Mortgage debt and interest rates, not consumer debt, responsible for increasing debt ratio
With all that said, what has actually caused the increasing debt ratio?
Accounting for inflation, we’re paying more for mortgages, even with lower interest rates. But the increasing number is caused by both the low interest rates and higher housing prices, with low interest rates making it easier to borrow large amounts of money.
The 177% number is calculated as the total amount of debt Canadians owe, divided by their disposable income for 1 year.
It’s an interesting number, but for most Canadians and lenders it’s not a very useful number. It doesn’t truly reflect anyone’s capacity to actually pay their debts.
A better debt ratio to consider: household debt service ratio
A better debt ratio number is the household debt service ratio. This takes your gross income and compares it to what you’re actually paying on your debt.
It’s a better ratio that takes into account how much you’re making and how much you have to pay towards your debt.
Is there a magic threshold you want this number to be under? Generally, you’ll want to keep your debt service ratio under 43% (which is what lenders usually use).
So far this year, the average debt service ratio in Canada has actually decreased – from 14.81% to 14.67%. Meaning, most Canadians are well within their means to pay what they owe.
^^^^^And Johnny wonders why I use what he calls finger puppets... because dealing with you is like dealing with kindergarten students. It's like I'm wiping your ass because you can't do it yourself(get reliable data). Now please give your friend Pierre Poilievre a call and see if he can baby sit you tonight!!!
Last edited:
Household debt
Household debt is defined as all liabilities of households (including non-profit institutions serving households) that require payments of interest or principal by households to the creditors at a fixed dates in the future.
data.oecd.org
Household debtTotal, % of net disposable income, 2019 or latest available
1. Denmark 281.69
2. Norway 239.27
3. Netherlands 238.30
4. Switzerland 223.03
5. Australia 217.16
6. Sweden 187.73
7. Korean 184.20
8. Canada 181.21
Quality of Life Ranking
1. Canada
2. Denmark
3. Sweden
4. Norway
5. Australia
6. Netherlands
7. Switzerland
8. New Zealand
^^^^What do you think Johnny... can you see a correlation between high taxes and quality of life???
^^^^Which of the above finger puppets best represents Johnny???
If you said all of the above....
you got it!!!
Last edited:
Another claim that taxes won't help the debt. I really hope you aren't in business if you believe income and budgets aren't related.
And are you really trying to claim that teachers and not the government set tax policy?
Other option is to declare them an essential service but considering how employee friendly the mediated contracts for police, fire, paramedics, and other essential services are, I don't think it would make you happy.
Canada’s Economy and Household Debt: How Big Is the Problem?
Governor Poloz talks about household debt and how it will affect Canada’s economy and monetary policy for years.
www.bankofcanada.ca
It is time for me to conclude. If Shakespeare were writing today, he might say that our financial system gives Canadians more choices than ever in deciding whether to be, or not to be, in debt. Today’s record level of household borrowing reflects the evolution of the financial system and the comfort level of Canadians in taking on debt. But it also reflects a prolonged period of very low interest rates and rising house prices.
At the Bank of Canada, we have been watching these debt levels closely because of the growing risks they pose to financial stability and the economy. We know that a portion of Canadian households are carrying large debts, and the concern will become larger for them as interest rates rise. Of course, higher interest rates would likely reflect an economy that is on even more solid ground and less prone to a major economic setback. Furthermore, our financial system is resilient, and the new mortgage rules mean that it is becoming progressively more so. Even so, our economy is at risk should there be an unexpected increase in bond yields or a global slowdown, because both effects would be magnified by their interaction with high household debt.
Ultimately, the Bank’s job is to look at the economy as a whole and judge the outlook for inflation.
Today, the view is quite good, even with the shadow cast by household debt. This debt still poses risks to the economy and financial stability, and its sheer size means that its risks will be with us for some time.
But there is good reason to think that we can continue to manage these risks successfully. The economic progress we have seen makes us more confident that higher interest rates will be warranted over time, although some monetary policy accommodation will still be needed. We will continue to watch how households and the entire economy are reacting to higher interest rates. And we will be cautious in making future adjustments to monetary policy, guided by incoming data.
So who are you going to listen to???
Former Governor of the Bank of Canada Stephen S. Poloz
or Johnny's star MP Pierre Poilievre
^^^^^Oh look, I think he's referring to the Average Canadian Families tax burden.... OR something belonging to Johnny!!!
^^^^^Oh look, you do have some support Johnny!!!
Payne: New report shows 'egregious' California taxes continue to drive out big earners
California's tax plan is "so egregious" that people of every socioeconomic background are leaving the state, host of "Making Money" Charles Payne said Wednesday.
www.foxnews.com
Gov. Cuomo's Right: The Rich Are Leaving High-Tax New York
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo says his state budget is short $2.3 billion of revenues. Give him credit: He knows he can't get it by raising taxes on the rich.
www.investors.com
I really hope you aren't in business if you believe the government can tax away its irresponsible spending problems
Actually, that was not me.
SammyS said he agrees the debt needs to addressed but "tax cuts" are off the table
I believe he also indicated the unions would see to it any governing party who cut union comp and cut taxes would be destroyed.
So apparently the union rep believes the unions determine tax policy, not the elected representatives
He had a real problem understanding the problem of taxation without representation (and he is a teacher ????, lets hope he does not teach history, ............math, economics, ethics, common sense etc)
You really need to pay attention to what is being posted & by who as SammyS continues to show true union attitudes
