[bootlegga]

$1:

For all the hue and cry over Canada’s richest 1 per cent, little is known about just who they are.

Until now. A new picture of that rarified club shows they are overwhelmingly men, older men in particular. They tend to have university degrees, and half of them work more than 50 hours a week. They’re not, by any stretch, all bankers: they are also doctors, dentists, managers and veterinarians, who earn at least $230,000 a year to qualify.

A paper released last week by University of British Columbia economics professors sheds new light on income inequality trends in Canada, who the top earners are and what policies might best address the country’s growing income gap.

They find, broadly speaking, that income distribution has not been this uneven in Canada since “the dark days of the Great Depression.”

“The ratcheting-up of inequality in Canada is real,” the 43-page paper says. “Whatever else it achieved, the Occupy movement shone a light on our growing inequality.”

Income inequality has been hotly debated in the past year, and a raft of recent studies has shown it is widening in most advanced economies. Growing income disparity has been linked with deteriorating outcomes for health-care, crime and long-term economic growth.

In Canada, about 8 per cent of the country's total income was concentrated in the hands of 1 per cent of the population back in the late 1970s. In recent years, that almost doubled to 14 per cent, the UBC paper said, which is based in part on details from the 2006 long-form census.

Reasons for the growing chasm vary. The wage gap between those with a university degree and those with just high school is widening. Younger workers are facing worse earnings prospects than a generation ago. Outsourcing, declining unionization rates and technological change may also be playing a role.

Policies that could narrow the gap include closing tax loopholes, hiking taxes on the richest 1 per cent and increasing refundable tax credits to lower-income Canadians, the authors say. Making the education system more flexible and reducing high school dropout rates could help support the middle class.

Here are some more of the findings from the study, entitled “Canadian Inequality: Recent Development and Policy Options”:

> The top 1 per cent of earners amount to 275,000 individuals.
> Fifty-two percent of people in the top 1 per cent work at least 50 hours a week, compared to less than 20 per cent for the overall population.
> One needs an annual income of at least $230,000 to be part of the top 1 per cent. The average income in this group is $450,000, compared to only $36,000 for the whole Canadian population.
> One could safely call this a brotherhood -- 83 per cent of those in the top 1 per cent are men. “So despite the significant gains realized by women over the last few decades, they remain dramatically underrepresented at the very top of the income distribution.”
> Young people (under age 35) are also underrepresented in the top income group, though this may just be transitory as most haven't yet reached their peak life-cycle earnings.
> Fifty-eight percent of individuals at the top have at least a bachelors’ degree, a greater proportion than the broader population, where 19 per cent of the adult population are university graduates.
> Top earners hail from a variety of sectors. Just 10 per cent of people in the top 1 per cent work in the finance and insurance industry (despite garnering most of the public’s wrath). Senior managers and CEOs are over-represented in the top group, but still only account for 14 per cent of top earners. The only other large group of top income earners? Physicians, dentists and veterinarians who comprise almost 10 per cent of top earners, despite representing less than 1 per cent of the workforce.

The paper was jointly written by UBC’s Nicole Fortin, David Green, Thomas Lemieux, Kevin Milligan and Craig Riddell for the Canadian Labour Market and Skills Researcher Network.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le4231232/

[BartSimpson]

What about the share of taxes these people pay?

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What about the share of taxes these people pay?

In the context of this article, it's irrelevant.

The article isn't slamming them for being 1%ers, but rather pointing out who are 1%ers - doctors, dentists and lots of others who are critical to society as a whole. It also notes that most of them work longer hours and are generally better educated than the rest of the population.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What about the share of taxes these people pay?

In the context of this article, it's irrelevant.

In the context of the article, it is:

$1:

“The ratcheting-up of inequality in Canada is real,”

$1:

The article isn't slamming them for being 1%ers, but rather pointing out who are 1%ers - doctors, dentists and lots of others who are critical to society as a whole. It also notes that most of them work longer hours and are generally better educated than the rest of the population.

By calling this an 'inequality' suggests that these people are doing something wrong, which they are not.

It is also relevant because in a progressive tax scheme the richest people pay a disproportionate share of taxes. Therefore, the more wealthy people you have in a country the better off the lower classes are because they can pay a lower portion of their incomes to taxes.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What about the share of taxes these people pay?

In the context of this article, it's irrelevant.

In the context of the article, it is:

$1:

“The ratcheting-up of inequality in Canada is real,”

$1:

The article isn't slamming them for being 1%ers, but rather pointing out who are 1%ers - doctors, dentists and lots of others who are critical to society as a whole. It also notes that most of them work longer hours and are generally better educated than the rest of the population.

By calling this an 'inequality' suggests that these people are doing something wrong, which they are not.

I wish I could recall the article, but one I read made some interesting points about wealth distribution and contribution to the economy. It was along the lines of taking that 1%er making 500,000 and comparing his consumption to a 99%er and stating that if that $500,000 was split up intosaturday 5 couples or 10 people making $50,000 each, instead of one big house being bought you could have five. Instead of two or three luxury cars, you'd maybe have ten average cars. Instead of groceries for that one family, you'd have groceries for 10 or more. Ultimately, many of those in that $500,000 to $1,000,000 range aren't making jobs and the can't contribute near as much as what that money could contribute in a greater number of people's wallets.

[Tricks]

Means my dad is probably in the top 1%. Cool

[Gunnair]

Tricks Tricks:

Means my dad is probably in the top 1%. Cool

Sonofa 1%er! Oppressor with a silver spoon in your mouth!

[OnTheIce]

So the point of all this inequality is "some is good, more is bad"?

We will always have income equality. It's a fact of life.

Let's stop looking over the neighbours fence and worry about yourself.

[Tricks]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Tricks Tricks:

Means my dad is probably in the top 1%. Cool

Sonofa 1%er! Oppressor with a silver spoon in your mouth!

Andy is probably thinking that haha.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What about the share of taxes these people pay?

In the context of this article, it's irrelevant.

In the context of the article, it is:

$1:

“The ratcheting-up of inequality in Canada is real,”

$1:

The article isn't slamming them for being 1%ers, but rather pointing out who are 1%ers - doctors, dentists and lots of others who are critical to society as a whole. It also notes that most of them work longer hours and are generally better educated than the rest of the population.

By calling this an 'inequality' suggests that these people are doing something wrong, which they are not.

It is also relevant because in a progressive tax scheme the richest people pay a disproportionate share of taxes. Therefore, the more wealthy people you have in a country the better off the lower classes are because they can pay a lower portion of their incomes to taxes.

IMHO, it's open to interpretation either way - I choose to look at the positive side of the article.

[bootlegga]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I wish I could recall the article, but one I read made some interesting points about wealth distribution and contribution to the economy. It was along the lines of taking that 1%er making 500,000 and comparing his consumption to a 99%er and stating that if that $500,000 was split up intosaturday 5 couples or 10 people making $50,000 each, instead of one big house being bought you could have five. Instead of two or three luxury cars, you'd maybe have ten average cars. Instead of groceries for that one family, you'd have groceries for 10 or more. Ultimately, many of those in that $500,000 to $1,000,000 range aren't making jobs and the can't contribute near as much as what that money could contribute in a greater number of people's wallets.

It sounds basically similar to that TED Video of Nick Hanauer I posted a couple of weeks ago;



He basically argues that as a 1%er, he has one home and three cars, and doesn't really consume all that much, and neither do most of the other 1%ers in comparison to the middle class.

It makes sense - Apple didn't make billions selling iPods and iPhones to the million or so millionaires and billionaires in the US, it made it by selling them to the middle class. Same with Ford, The Gap, and almost every other major corporation out there.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

He basically argues that as a 1%er, he has one home and three cars, and doesn't really consume all that much, and neither do most of the other 1%ers in comparison to the middle class.

Ignoring the fact that the majority of the middle class don't have 3 cars?

Regardless, I find the claim that he 1%'er don't "consume much" to be outright false. The ones I know are the first to have all the new toys. iPods, iPhones, Apple TV, cars, boats, cottages, etc.

bootlegga bootlegga:

It makes sense - Apple didn't make billions selling iPods and iPhones to the million or so millionaires and billionaires in the US, it made it by selling them to the middle class. Same with Ford, The Gap, and almost every other major corporation out there.

And what's the point of that, to prove that simple math makes sense?

[Tricks]

Why is success a bad thing? Sure they make more, but they (as the article clearly states) are working for it. I don't see an issue with this...

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

He basically argues that as a 1%er, he has one home and three cars, and doesn't really consume all that much, and neither do most of the other 1%ers in comparison to the middle class.

Ignoring the fact that the majority of the middle class don't have 3 cars?

Regardless, I find the claim that he 1%'er don't "consume much" to be outright false. The ones I know are the first to have all the new toys. iPods, iPhones, Apple TV, cars, boats, cottages, etc.

Which way produces more GDP - a million people with three cars each, or 30-40 million families that have 2.28 cars each?

http://www.autospies.com/news/Study-Fin ... old-26437/

I can tell you which model Ford was built on...

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It makes sense - Apple didn't make billions selling iPods and iPhones to the million or so millionaires and billionaires in the US, it made it by selling them to the middle class. Same with Ford, The Gap, and almost every other major corporation out there.

And what's the point of that, to prove that simple math makes sense?

Well, based on your comment above, YOU don't seem to understand "simple math"...

The point is that market is ultimately determined by the 99%, not the 1%.

[bootlegga]

Tricks Tricks:

Why is success a bad thing? Sure they make more, but they (as the article clearly states) are working for it. I don't see an issue with this...

Based on this study, I'd say much of Canada's 1% deserve the money they earn. Many of them made sacrifices getting a good education and perform vital services for society.

I think many people feel the problem lies with CEOs making million dollar salaries even though their companies are collapsing and investment bankers making $10 million on an IPO, not with doctors making $500,000 a year.