Many Canadians in their 30s, 40s not saving enough for retirement

[Azure]

Well I certainly don't think their pension should be taken away from them. I'm just saying that whatever they get from CPP might not be enough.

I also think there should be incentives in place for people who save money.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well I certainly don't think their pension should be taken away from them. I'm just saying that whatever they get from CPP might not be enough.

I also think there should be incentives in place for people who save money.

Amazing isn't it, when the capitalist system in and of itself should have been the reward for saving money yet we agree on having even more socialist programs...for morons?

[afc wimbledon]

I think if you have paid tax on the money you earned you shouldn't have to pay tax on any money you make out of that money. It always struck me as the government double dipping so to speak.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Regardless of how much or little one has saved, if they have paid their taxes their working life and contributed to CPP then they are entitled to at least the minimum compensation, imo. I do, however, feel that there should be much more specific rules for these people. IE, no using CPP money when you haven't saved anything on your own to go on a vacation or something.

So "they" are entitled to at least the minimum compensation, eh? And then you want to put rules on how "they" can spend their money. People who rely 100% on government cheques to get by probably won't be jetsetting around, so that shouldn't be a real problem.

ANYWAY, this thread is yet another reminder that if we were to pool the collective consciousness and talent of the people on the OT board, we'd be able to save our world and maybe start looking at taking over others.

I mean think about it -- everybody here (save one person) has a rock solid retirement plan, which is remarkable, but that's just a start. Everyone is also an excellent driver, an outstanding parent/friend, makes "good money", is charitable practically to a fault, an expert in their chosen field, a law-abiding citizen, a healthy eater, unfailingly polite, over six feet tall (save one) and an above average athlete.

It's a hell of a population, but that's not all. It's our citizenship and community spirit that really put this crowd above the bar. Not one of us, not a single solitary one of us, would let our dog (who rules) take a dump in a public place and fail to clean up after it. That kind of sense of duty to our fellow man is unheard of in the wider world, and something to be proud of.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by KTown

I never claimed to be an expert on investing. Was I lucky I don't think I was, Every job I ever got wasn't handed to me I had to interview for them. I never had a friend or a parents friend ever get me a job. I also go turned away for work plenty of times but I kept on trucking. Using equity you built up in an investment or property is your smartest way of making money. Your right that I am over leveraged right now probably, but if you don't take a risk then chances are you won't make money. If all my tenants start to leave and I lose my job than there is a good chance I'd have to sell some properties or some of my shares in my investments. Do I think I will lose my contract job? No considering I just got a raise on my rates by about 25% since another firm tried to steal me away from my current firm. I've got a good reputation out there in the industry that I built up over time.

I have lost money on investments any investor will. The question is do you make more than you lose, I also bought stocks last summer when everything was at its lowest point. Was I lucky there or was I smart? Probably a bit of both. Buy low sell high, right. Easier said then done it takes a bit of a risk taker to buy stocks when everything is tanking and people are losing there jobs left and right.

I have no problems disclosing how I've managed to start taking care of my future and how I am years ahead of people in there 40's and 50's. I just hate when people question ones integrity.

I always say work hard, invest hard and then play hard.

Well aren't you just the cat's meow. You may be good at investing or saving or building wealth through some good decisions, but you are horrible at displaying any humility. Ultimately, people want good advice, but you don't need to jerk yourself off to provide it. And that goes for several other people in this self-appreciating contest thread. It's like sitting around with a bunch of finance grads talking about how sweet their stocks and bonuses are, nobody gives a crap, and you aren't doing yourself a favour by bragging because this is viewed as a negative quality. There's confidence, being classy and knowing you've done well, and then there's being ######y about it.

As for the topic at hand, I believe there are 2 reasons for people being unable to save enough. One is the obvious societal change in perception on debt and how it doesn't matter if your VISA is maxxed and your largely paying interest, and the other is the fact that the buying power of a dollar today has been eroded over the years. What our baby boomer parents could do with their money was generally more... and this helped them be able to save more. And if the government really cares, maybe they should consider policies that influence the little oligopoly of banks we have in this country and allow citizens to ACTUALLY build a savings account. Thanks for the 61 cents of interest Royal Bank, that was awesome.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So "they" are entitled to at least the minimum compensation, eh? And then you want to put rules on how "they" can spend their money. People who rely 100% on government cheques to get by probably won't be jetsetting around, so that shouldn't be a real problem.

ANYWAY, this thread is yet another reminder that if we were to pool the collective consciousness and talent of the people on the OT board, we'd be able to save our world and maybe start looking at taking over others.

I mean think about it -- everybody here (save one person) has a rock solid retirement plan, which is remarkable, but that's just a start. Everyone is also an excellent driver, an outstanding parent/friend, makes "good money", is charitable practically to a fault, an expert in their chosen field, a law-abiding citizen, a healthy eater, unfailingly polite, over six feet tall (save one) and an above average athlete.

It's a hell of a population, but that's not all. It's our citizenship and community spirit that really put this crowd above the bar. Not one of us, not a single solitary one of us, would let our dog (who rules) take a dump in a public place and fail to clean up after it. That kind of sense of duty to our fellow man is unheard of in the wider world, and something to be proud of.

So true... so much arrogance on this board. It is astounding.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So "they" are entitled to at least the minimum compensation, eh? And then you want to put rules on how "they" can spend their money. People who rely 100% on government cheques to get by probably won't be jetsetting around, so that shouldn't be a real problem.

I just saw an all inclusive down in Mexico that would have ended up being $400 per person all in. Even if they could each save the 40 per month for 10 months, they shouldn't be allowed to go if its CPP money, imo. I guess having two brackets for CPP users, essentially the eff-ups and the non-eff-ups. The eff-ups don't get the privelage of travelling when they were not responsible enough in their working lives to plan for said privelage once they 'retired' (read: wore-out broke).

ANYWAY, this thread is yet another reminder that if we were to pool the collective consciousness and talent of the people on the OT board, we'd be able to save our world and maybe start looking at taking over others.

I mean think about it -- everybody here (save one person) has a rock solid retirement plan, which is remarkable, but that's just a start. Everyone is also an excellent driver, an outstanding parent/friend, makes "good money", is charitable practically to a fault, an expert in their chosen field, a law-abiding citizen, a healthy eater, unfailingly polite, over six feet tall (save one) and an above average athlete.

It's a hell of a population, but that's not all. It's our citizenship and community spirit that really put this crowd above the bar. Not one of us, not a single solitary one of us, would let our dog (who rules) take a dump in a public place and fail to clean up after it. That kind of sense of duty to our fellow man is unheard of in the wider world, and something to be proud of.

Can I polish your Nobel Prize?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well aren't you just the cat's meow. You may be good at investing or saving or building wealth through some good decisions, but you are horrible at displaying any humility. Ultimately, people want good advice, but you don't need to jerk yourself off to provide it. And that goes for several other people in this self-appreciating contest thread. It's like sitting around with a bunch of finance grads talking about how sweet their stocks and bonuses are, nobody gives a crap, and you aren't doing yourself a favour by bragging because this is viewed as a negative quality. There's confidence, being classy and knowing you've done well, and then there's being ######y about it.

As for the topic at hand, I believe there are 2 reasons for people being unable to save enough. One is the obvious societal change in perception on debt and how it doesn't matter if your VISA is maxxed and your largely paying interest, and the other is the fact that the buying power of a dollar today has been eroded over the years. What our baby boomer parents could do with their money was generally more... and this helped them be able to save more. And if the government really cares, maybe they should consider policies that influence the little oligopoly of banks we have in this country and allow citizens to ACTUALLY build a savings account. Thanks for the 61 cents of interest Royal Bank, that was awesome.

I don't buy the parents dollar bought more argument, the real reason that they saved more 50 years ago is they lived simpler lives in small houses and rarely replaced anything unless it was actually broken beyond repair.
The actual things people bought in the past were far more expensive than what we spend now, if you look at old ads appliances and TVs cost about the same in dollar amount as they do now, except in those days a good wage was one 10th we get now.

It used to be ok to have 2 kids in a bedroom, you kept cars, TV's, shoes clothes etc until they were literally threadbare or un fixable.
Holidays tended to be a week camping or visiting relatives.

We don't save these days because we piss money away on Coffee machines, X boxes, Blue ray players, we throw away perfectly good cell phones because we want to be able to browse the web or BBM each other while driving regardless of the fact we already have laptops and computers all over the place.

You spoilt little b*****d's don't now how good you've got it, in my day etc etc etc.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by fotze

I m a middling driver, unless we are talking about golf where I am also middling.
Probably an average friend, tend to not phone people back.
Give very little to charity, unless I get something back, like chance at winning a home, or are guilted into giving.
Middling in my field at best.
Pretty law abiding.
Terrible eater, probably 10-15 years off my life from what I have eaten.
Short as fata, just a notch above midget.
Middling athlete who quit hockey at 8 cause some other kid picked on me.

That badass trophy in your office for winning last year's golf tourney disagrees with statement 1.

You have friends?

Midget is accurate, but I'm right down there with you.

Engineers bashing landmen about humility is rich. We're not the ones cruising around with pinky finger rings.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I just saw an all inclusive down in Mexico that would have ended up being $400 per person all in. Even if they could each save the 40 per month for 10 months, they shouldn't be allowed to go if its CPP money, imo. I guess having two brackets for CPP users, essentially the eff-ups and the non-eff-ups. The eff-ups don't get the privelage of travelling when they were not responsible enough in their working lives to plan for said privelage once they 'retired' (read: wore-out broke).

Okay, but don't come crying to me when your taxes go up to pay for the TravelCops at the airport and the Travel Priveleges Oversite Office on every highway.

Seriously, you are proposing some sort of system that doesn't allow people to leave where they live based on how much money they have. Have you thought this idea through?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay, but don't come crying to me when your taxes go up to pay for the TravelCops at the airport and the Travel Priveleges Oversite Office on every highway.

Seriously, you are proposing some sort of system that doesn't allow people to leave where they live based on how much money they have. Have you thought this idea through?

Taxes? Travel cops?

Last time I checked, when one purchases an airline ticket one is required to provide current legal gov't issued ID like a passport or drivers liscense. I don't see a huge upgrade to a system that would show "inelligable" considering it would be data piggy-backing on a system that is already integrated with sufficient infrastructure.

The idea is to punish people for using government money to continue their self-indulgent lifestyle that got them in their position to begin with!

So, do I get to polish your Nobel Prize or what?

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Taxes? Travel cops?

Last time I checked, when one purchases an airline ticket one is required to provide current legal gov't issued ID like a passport or drivers liscense. I don't see a huge upgrade to a system that would show "inelligable" considering it would be data piggy-backing on a system that is already integrated with sufficient infrastructure.

The idea is to punish people for using government money to continue their self-indulgent lifestyle that got them in their position to begin with!

So, do I get to polish your Nobel Prize or what?

If they can afford to go on vacation couldn't we reduce the subsidies in the first place?

What's the difference in someone saving $40 a month for 10 months for airline tickets and someone saving $40 a month for 10 months and getting Stampeders season tickets?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Deegee

If they can afford to go on vacation couldn't we reduce the subsidies in the first place?

What's the difference in someone saving $40 a month for 10 months for airline tickets and someone saving $40 a month for 10 months and getting Stampeders season tickets?

Well, nothing I guess, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I figured air-travel would be a really good one.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Taxes? Travel cops?

Last time I checked, when one purchases an airline ticket one is required to provide current legal gov't issued ID like a passport or drivers liscense. I don't see a huge upgrade to a system that would show "inelligable" considering it would be data piggy-backing on a system that is already integrated with sufficient infrastructure.

I think you've kind of missed the point here.

Giving the government the power to restrict citizen's movement based on income levels is just flat out crazy.The logistics don't matter.

"Don't give me no song and dance about your grandson's wedding. I don't care. Your application has been denied by the Travel Restriction Bureau. You should have thought of this 40 years ago. Go home".

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

So, do I get to polish your Nobel Prize or what?

Polish your own.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think you've kind of missed the point here.

Giving the government the power to restrict citizen's movement based on income levels is just flat out crazy.The logistics don't matter.

"Don't give me no song and dance about your grandson's wedding. I don't care. Your application has been denied by the Travel Restriction Bureau. You should have thought of this 40 years ago. Go home".
Polish your own.

And you know damn well that it's just a short trip to:-

'I see you have a few outstanding parking tickets and a speeding within the municipality, I'm afraid you have to pay those first'

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think you've kind of missed the point here.

Giving the government the power to restrict citizen's movement based on income levels is just flat out crazy.The logistics don't matter.

"Don't give me no song and dance about your grandson's wedding. I don't care. Your application has been denied by the Travel Restriction Bureau. You should have thought of this 40 years ago. Go home".

Sonny Boy better have the dough to pay for pappy's ticket then.

Maybe I'm a little facist, but I have no problem restricting the movements of a citizen based on income when they had every opporotunity to provide for themselves and chose not to and instead are now on the dole. This would be people who earned above a set threshold over their working lives and barring special circumstances, have nothing to show for it. They have stolen from society and as such should have privelages revoked.

Abuse driving privelages you lose your liscence.

Commit crimes, and you go to jail.

Live a gluttunous lifestyle and then go on the dole, no air travel on gov't money.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

And you know damn well that it's just a short trip to:-

'I see you have a few outstanding parking tickets and a speeding within the municipality, I'm afraid you have to pay those first'

You already have to, when you re-register your vehicle.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

You already have to, when you re-register your vehicle.

Yes and to be frank that p***es me off as it is.

[Traditional_Ale]

^ Me too. I need the vehicle to make the money to re-register.

By not allowing me to re-register I am costing society more in the end.

[afc wimbledon]

I just don't like the government being able to use the full weight of it's power to collect what is essentially just a debt, and these days tickets are just another revenue grab, no different from taxes.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I just don't like the government being able to use the full weight of it's power to collect what is essentially just a debt, and these days tickets are just another revenue grab, no different from taxes.

I don't mind the gov't using "the full weight of its power" to collect true debts, like people who live gluttunously then have to go on the dole, or even personally in my own case, the way they came after me for outstanding student loans! I won't get into details, but man, what a nightmare! I'm still fighting for the last four years worth of tax returns!

But like you said, for things like a simple "fine" or "penalty" which is a revenue generator and not actually a deficit run by someone at some point should not be so heavily enforced. Imagine losing a lucrative contract because on the way to the meeting or jobsite you got pulled over for no valid registration and the cop decided to be a dick about it...