babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Ah, yeah, it does take food and energy costs into account.
Ok, because I wasn't sure. It's an extra calc in some federal cost of living tables
cio
Link
$42,533 was the before tax federal Low Income Cutoff for a family of six living in a medium size Canadian city in 2005. So you were close but about $5,000 shy of what our feds refer to loosely as the poverty line.
Of course, our costs of living in Canada would be different from those in the U.S. It's said that Canada's bottom 60 percent of income earners have more PPP than the same income group in the U.S. Food tends to be cheaper the farther south one goes. But services in general are cheaper in Canada, especially health care.
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Talk about gaming the system in their favour! [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
"Let them eat voicemail", eh?
$110k combined is just two workers clearing $50k a year each. Based on the rates for single adult employables, $50k a year is ALREADY above the national median wage, which puts them into the top 40% of income earners.
What I wish people would realize is that incomes are way more pyramidal than they look. A VAST majority of people, if you poll them, will tell you they make between 7 and 12 dollars an hour. $12 an hour still only works out to somewhere around $20k a year.
And Sven, it's disingenuous of you to use two incomes to compare against single incomes. Double incomes automatically allow almost double the standard of living without needing all the extra agony of trying to elbow your way into a $110k a year job.
Presumably, you and your wife don't live in separate residences. If you did, then the true cost structure of your wage and her wage would immediately become evident.
$100,000 sounds quite high, and I would guess it is around $50,000 to $60,000.
Anybody have any idea?
Some city summaries are here.
[ 10 February 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
I didn't know the stuff was so easily available.
Here are some examples of a few of the millions of truly rich people in this world:
This guy has a garage...a garage!!...that is worth millions of dollars and the vehicles inside are worth millions more. As the owner notes, it consumes $25 of electricity just to run the vehicle elevator up and down once (that's probably $10,000 worth of juice a year for the car elevator).
This feller has a million dollar plus foyer...the chandalier in the foyer cost $220,000 and the stairway cost $190,000. The money line? "It's the most opulent certified green home!" (the guy is from California, after all).
Here's a master bedroom where the art alone is worth about $1 million. The bed? $80,000. It has "his" and "hers" bathrooms (his bathroom cost about $200,000).
Here's a garage that doubles as a ballroom. Cost? Two million dollars. And the owner said, "It was totally worth it."
Now, by contrast, let's say you make $110,000...or even $250,000...per year in wages. Are you really rich? Or, are you a person that has to work to pay the mortgage...or else you lose your house? You probably don't have a $220,000 chandalier (maybe you have a whole house worth that much...or even twice that much).
Yet, there is a huge percentage of people who would call those in that latter category "rich" (if not the stinking rich). For them, if you drive a Lexus...or even a high-end American car, then you're "rich"...as though you are an indistinguishable part of a monolith of people that includes those with $220,000 glass chandaliers (along with private jets, multiple mansions, and mega yachts) and who don't have to lift a finger ever again and can continue to live in such opulence until they die.
Really.
The person who makes $150,000 per year has a hell of a lot more in common with someone who makes $50,000 per year than someone who is truly rich. Yet, the person making $150,000 is considered by many to be "rich" and "not paying their 'fair share' of taxes".
What do you think??
I think that Sven is really Carrot Top.
I'm not that good looking...
That might require an extra 5 cent assessment per head on the $150k per year crowd, or at least a re-assessment of priorities on the part of the corporate tax legislators. Problematic when you consider the existing horrors Spokesman Sven relates to here, whether it's out of pocket or passed down on everything from corporate street to the cash registers.
So, then it wouldn't be "free" as Boom Boom was suggesting. "Free" means it's available without cost -- it doesnt mean "no cost to me but you pay for it"...
I do laugh at the phrase "the $150k per year crowd," as though those are the jet set living in the Hamptons in $15 million homes with 150' yachts docked at their private piers (not to mention, of course, having glass chandaliers that cost more than "the $150k per year crowd" make in a year, before taxes).
How about demographic then? I suppose it's free in the same way that universal health care is thought of, except in the case of rural internet access, under the auspices of the recently defunded Community Access Program, courtesy of the Harper Gov. It's apparently not profitable for telecom corporations to extend their range in this regard, even though in Nova Scotia's case for example, there was multi-million dollar cost sharing arrangement with the private sector to provide such access to all rural areas, some of whom are still without, in contravention of the applicable agreements, ever since the cash was set aside for that purpose.
Sven I think that you don't get it.
This is not about extremes of opulence.
I realize everyone wants to draw the line above them to say they are one of the regular struggling folk and the people above them are rich.
Let's just consider one difference between someone who is supporting a family making $150,000 a year and someone supporting a family making $50,000:
At $50,000 a year you can afford to rent a row house by handing over every second cheque to your landlord. At about $80,000 you can afford, with close to 50% of your income, to buy that rowhouse in a major city in Canada-- not every major city but one like Ottawa for example. At $150,000 you can easily afford to own a nice house in many cities without any strain financially and still afford a vacation.
Shall we go for another?
At $150,000 you worry about your savings and investments, that the interest rates are too low to make money for retirement. At $50,000 you have no such worries. At $50,000 you are concerned about the interest rate on your Visa, worried that it is too high.
At $150,000 you are trying to get ahead, trying to make sure you have enough to retire comfortably. You want to pick the location of the house you are going to buy and worry about enough south-facing windows that your plants get sunlight. You worry that you have enough room for the snow-blower in your garage. At $50,000 you are trying to help your family survive financially over the year, you have the rent covered so long as nothing bad happens, and you are hoping when retirement comes you just have a big fucking heart attack because you know there will be no money to survive once you stop working. You hope that the landlord does not sell the house you are in because at market rent you don't know where you and your family will go. At $30,000 you are trying to get through the week wondering what to do on rent day. Less than $30,000 you choose between rent and food. There are people living on less than $10,000. Sven, you need to get in touch and talk to people if you think that you have much in common with someone making $50,000.
Consider this: There is such a thing as a cost of living. What you make above that is discretionary. You spend that on what you want. After their deductions someone making $50,000 has a pay cheque of about $1300 every two weeks. First cheque might cover the rent. Second cheque covers the bills. You may have $20 left over for luxuries per month. After covering your expenses at $150,000 a year you might have 100 times that.
Most people earn less than $50,000 in Canada. Many are supporting a family on that income and are scraping by cutting corners trying to get through their weeks. $50,000 in income for a family is pretty bad and many have it much, much worse.
Now you can say there are quite a few making $50,000 with someone else in the family also making $50,000 as well. They are quite comfortable compared to the person supporting a family on a $50,000 but then again there are couples where both make $150,000. Again there is no comparison between the two income levels or the lives people making those amounts.
I think an argument could be made that provincial and federal government in this country, by changing some of their priorities, could easily provide universal broadband coverage in Canada. Cancel a few of those totally fucking useless corporate tax cuts for starters, and stop subsidizing the oil companies which are just fucking ripping off taxpayers.
How would one develop an argument that posits universal broadband as a right?
I'm sure it could Boom Boom. Frank McKenna did a splendid job back in the early 90's of selling public investment in the information highway as a potential commercial bonanza, complete with all the trickle down benefits NB'ers could imagine at that time.
You would have to argue that it is a necessity. Given how many public and specifically government services are being moved to an internet focus,if not exclusively internet this is increasingly not a great stretch.
We have a kid in high school. His ability to interact with the class, the teacher and do his homework would be compromised horribly if he did not have internet at home.It is almost like sending a kid to class without anything to write with. Sure you will learn something but you could never claim to have equal or fair access.
The government has withdrawn the support for internet in libraries saying that internet at home is now basic. What is basic becomes a right if you believe in social justice. Our society is organized around the idea that internet is available everywhere.
The internet is organized around the idea that the access is broadband and sites are not built for dial up.
There are two aspects about this access-- cost and access at any price for many in rural and remote communities.
You need reliable broadband access to be fully part of our society today. Being part of that society is a right in my view.
If you are talking about the provision of services at a reasonable rate then IMO its easy to defend as a public good. The government took over the provision of telephone and electricity so that the modern benefits of both could go to all citizens and not leave some to the vagaries of a market place. That was primarily because provision of services to small communities is not profitable in comparison to urban areas.
As a right it is more difficult. It depends on whether or not a citizen should have the right to communicate in a modern manner with fellow citizens or whether that privilege should totally be based on a persons ability to pay.
Like Sean mentioned, so many government services and basic communication with the public have shifted online, that I think it has become a basic political right if we want to consider ourselves a democracy.
I'd love to see the NDP be the party that embraces universal broadband as a policy platform. I think it's a sure-fire vote getter.
I agree.
I live in a city and find it essential both for our family and to participate in the community
People with the access I enjoy often don't realize that many others do not have that access either because it does not exist where they live or is unaffordable.
It is important to remember the internet is not a new thing. It is a shift due to technology of an old thing. Before the internet you could participate widely without the internet but now you almost don't exist without it. Many things require email to do.
People who did not have it at work or at home used to get it at the library. That program was cancelled this month so soon that will no longer be an access point.
I like Twitter-- Twitter is a nonessential. The whole internet is a medium of communication where our entire society interacts for education, commerce, democracy and socially.Did you know that immigration forms are no longer being printed by the government? They are now only available online. Many services have gone this way. Banking-- now you have to pay to get your transactions. The reason is you can get banking on line for free-- that is only for free if you have internet.
This is different than having a TV a generation ago. TV was always mostly about entertainment. The Internet is a hub for all information only some of which is entertainment.