|
Congratulations Canada - A New Record! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| drgoodvibe |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Are you going to ever buy a house ? |
a mortgage is the biggest scam on earth. Don't buy a house unless you can put AT LEAST 30% down. SO much money is spent on interest it's insane. I'll understand however if you must rent. It's better to own then rent. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by drgoodvibe
You can't blame the government when people control how much money is in their pockets. Sure we get taxed to definitely there by reducing the amount you have in your pocket, I completely agree there. We all want to see more money in our pockets. But remember we have a highly consumerist economy, people are encouraged to spend everything and even go a little into debt. Why is consumer spending so important in an economy? If people stopped spending and started saving what would happen? You want to lower your taxes? Start a business, or buy assests..there are so many tax breaks it's incredible. |
Well, I only posted about the Personal Savings rate but it's a little more complicated than that. Not only are consumers borrowing more than they should be, but corporations are borrowing a lot less than they should be. Everything is backward, which is why the banks are having trouble deciding whether or not to change the interest rates. They want consumers to save, which means they should raise the interest rate... but they want corporations to borrow too, which means they should lower the interest rate.
Normally you have an economic equilibrium point where consumers are saving just enough and corporations are borrowing just enough, but those two factors seem to have actually crossed over the boundary, totally ing up the equilibrium. Now there's no possible target interest rate the banks can use which would put things back into gear. Raise the rate, you screw the corporations; lower the rate, consumers will go into even more debt.
It's also kind of hard to believe that we could be an entire nation of people who can't balance a budget. I mean sure, there are always the spendthrifts and the deadbeats but you expect to the fiscally-conscious to vastly outnumber those. Something's probably not healthy when the PS rate sinks under the rate we had just a few years after the Great Depression... |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Are you going to ever buy a house ? |
Already did... why, what's your point? |
|
|
| dance2dabeat |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
It's official, Canadians are the working poor. Either that or we can't keep a budget. Probably both.
The Personal Savings rate according to StatsCan at the end of the third quarter of 2004 was zero. Yes, zero. Zilch. Nil. Nada. Diddley squat. A big fat honking nothing.
That means the average Canadian spends every dollar he earns and is just a whisker shy of being in debt. Or, put another way, there are as many Canadians in debt as there are who have money put away. This is the lowest figure we've seen since 1936.
Don't fret folks, our economy is doing great! ;)
Sources:
Statscan: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/indi02a.htm (last item in 1st table)
Related article: NP: Economic Growth Slows Down |
wow I was just mentioning to a friend today that I don't know WHY i can't save cash anymore!!!!!
I hate being a girl sometimes!!!! With being blind and having bad skin, heck I'm always having to buy something!!!!!! and yes trying to be as beautiful as possible YUCKS!!!!!
The worst part of it all is that my DAD is a SAVING'S FREAK!!!!!!! I feel I'm just a huge disappointment to him. ( yes I am Portuguese and still live a home). It's the only thing he asks of me to do (besides asking me to never get pregnant haha) and i can't seem to save lately.
ON a brighter note:
HORRAH!!!!! for my new job starting on the 8th of Dec. :D
More money.......FACK is is really true the more money u make the more u spend??? Is there no end to this!!!!!!! |
|
|
| dance2dabeat |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Been in debt for the past 4 years.. At the same time, I rarely refuse myself when I want to buy something.
Soo... being in debt isn't so bad.
PS. I don't understand why people don't like owing money to the bank. Bank PROFITS from you! They like giving you money! And generally, accepting money isn't such a bad thing ! |
buddy you're FACCKED!
If only u had my dad for a father! |
|
|
| d!abolic |
| saving. We make what we NEED and not a dollar more. If we save our money, we're not buying the best we can have, not motivating ourselves to make more than we have to, and therefore making less in the end. It's just human nature. Napoleon Hill says you'll never be a millionaire unless you can convince yourself that you HAVE to have that money. That's why i'm gonna blow a load of money on a car. It'll be the shark pit underneath my feet to motivate me to bust my balls harder than ever. I'll probably pick up a condo towards the end of next year as well. Can i REALLY afford either? Hell no! Will i be able to if i make it a MUST? Absolutely. Unfortunately, i don't think THIS philosophy is the reason most people aren't saving anything, but these are my reasons. In the end of course, i still have some money saved for emergencies, but i refuse to save anymore than that. Living on the edge keeps me awake at work. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by dance2dabeat
It's the only thing he asks of be (besides not getting pregnant haha) and i can't seem to do it lately. |
:eek:
I think that came out wrong? hahaha...
| quote: | | More money.......FACK is is really true the more money u make the more u spend??? Is there no end to this!!!!!!! |
Sure, the money you spend is usually relative to the money you make... it's the actual proportion that varies from person to person. People who spend 120% of what they make seem to spend 120% of what they make whether they make $20,000 a year or $200,000 a year - that is the nature of bad budgeting.
| quote: | Originally posted by d!abolic
saving. We make what we NEED and not a dollar more.
...
blah blah blah blah blah blah
... |
Thank you for lavishing upon us yet another piece of high-quality advice, but keep in mind that condos and cars are assets and don't have the effect of lowering your overall net worth - unless you lease/mortgage/finance them, in which case they are liabilities until the contract is up, which is exactly the opposite of what you want. Nevertheless, that's not at all the same as blowing it on booze and hookers and technological gimmicks.
You also need to save money in order to have enough capital to do investing, which is how people really get "rich". Of course you COULD just borrow the money to invest, but that would be an extremely stupid idea and is precisely how many people have ruined their lives financially. |
|
|
| dance2dabeat |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE] :eek:
I think that came out wrong? hahaha...
Sure, the money you spend is usually relative to the money you make... it's the actual proportion that varies from person to person. People who spend 120% of what they make seem to spend 120% of what they make whether they make $20,000 a year or $200,000 a year - that is the nature of bad budgeting.
|
you know what i meant!!!!!! hahaha!!!
:stongue: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Has anybody ever thought that greed could be the reason?
Let me explain. In 1964 or whatever year in the 60s you quoted we didnt have to buy as many "essentials" (emphisis on the quotations).
There were no DVD players, CD players, internet, home computers, cell phones, air conditioners, cable TV.. etc etc.
People usually had only one car if any cars at all. You didnt have to buy a BMW in order to keep up with the gino down the street. Designer clothes from Europe were only for the super rich and everyone drank molson export.
Perhaps the reason we have zero savings isnt due so much to overtaxation (although I do agree that this is out of control). Perhaps its a combo of government raping and our ever increasing wants that are disguised as needs. I know people who have 2 tvs, a car, take a trip once a year and always eat well who think they are "poor". No wonder we cant save a dime! |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| Keep in mind that in the 60's only one member of the household needed to work. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Okay, this thread was really started more under the umbrella of economics than politics, but since some people are offering their analyses I might as well respond with mine (take it or leave it).
First of all, come on Jay, you of all people should know that greed and capitalism are what drive the economy - if it wasn't for people wanting more things, we'd never innovate and we'd never expand.
I did not quote a year in the 1960s, the year I quoted was 1936. In 1936 there was very little to buy. In the 60s, there was plenty to buy - homes, cars, appliances, televisions. And yet the economy was still doing fairly well. Status-seeking and greed have been around forever. To claim this as a new phenomenon you'd have to really have slacked off in your history classes. I think people today understand just as well as people in the 60s did what constitutes an "essential". If your analysis were correct, we'd be seeing this same economic phenomenon in the USA and across Europe, but we aren't.
So we have to look at other factors. Greed alone does not drive people into debt - simply wanting more does not prompt someone to try to acquire what they know they can't afford. Under normal circumstances, it would prompt them to work harder so they can acquire the wealth to afford those things. So it isn't just greed. But, perhaps it is partly greed - if you combine that greed with entitlement and a sloppy work ethic.
Perhaps when there are a large number of people who want material things AND feel that they shouldn't have to work for them, and are used to the idea of getting things for free, there is more of an inclination to shirk off finances. When you are told that, no matter what happens, you will be fine and you will be taken care of, you lose a lot of your motivation to work and a lot of your motivation to save.
It's all speculation of course - I'm not going to move beyond the speculation and claim that I have any theory, because even the economists don't really understand why this is happening. But I will say this, and I think most people will agree: if you were suddenly put into a position where you had to pay for doctor and hospital visits, you would probably start to pay A LOT more attention to your finances and, in particular, your savings. And if you found out that for some reason you weren't eligible for EI or welfare if you lost your job, you would also pay a lot more attention to your wallet.
So perhaps people are not saving up simply because there is little motivation for them to do so. It is a fallacy, though, because if everybody is in debt, they will not be able to pay their taxes, which means that the government will not be able to continue to provide those services. In fact, this is the reason why social programs are going bankrupt in many countries.
This isn't a pledge to cut social programs - again, I'm only speculating and trying to keep the politics fairly neutral here - but it does seem to me that Canadians on the whole need a serious kick in the ass when it comes to personal finance. One way to accomplish that is to cut down on social services, which will piss everyone off but ultimately be good for them. However, I'm certainly open to ideas if people think that there is another way. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
You are right that greed is not a new thing. But in my opinion it has accelerated rapidly since the 70s. I think a lot has to do with the fact that 2 household members now typically work as well as the introduction of credit cards as a widespread tool in the 60s. In fact I remember when using your credit card was a bad thing. It meant you had no money and people never wanted to use one unless absolutely necissary (that was when i was a kid and Mastercard was called Chargex) LOL. What a change from the current environment in only 20 years.
My dad actually told me this once. He said "women working have driven up the cost of living because now you cannot afford a household on one income since the market can usually bear to charge for a 2 income family".
Before you jump all over him for being chauvenistic, he's not against women as women going to work. What he is against is the idea that 2 people must now work just to survive as opposed to pre-60s when you only needed one. It's an interesting point if you ask me. |
|
|
|
|
