Murray Edwards Changes Residency from Calgary to London

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by 4X4

No, I just think it's ridiculous that some peoples money is worth more than others. Your $9000 bike is a prized possession, but Edwards' money is something that should be carved up for public good?

Hey, if he robbed that money from the Canadian Mint, I'd be on your side, but he made that money employing Albertans and Canadians, most of which pay taxes. I don't see how some people are getting so pissed off that a guy that has actually contributed so much to the local and regional economy, only to get an extra few inches of dick put up his ass, is a bad guy for finding a better place to chill. I mean, you may think it's extravagant to have hundred dollar bills to wipe your ass with, but you own a bike that is so much more expensive than most people on Earth own? So what's fair? My truck is worth maybe ten grand. Do I owe it to the poor and downtrodden, or am I a victim of my father who owns an $80,000 vehicle?

It's just so pathetic to read people who think that just because someone has money, they either owe it to the greater good, or else they are greedy a-holes.

You're right in the sense that most of us on here have way more than other individuals around the world. On the other hand, no one person can earn $2 billion.

I think at some point one guy can have too much and I think it's reasonable to consider putting some of that 'back in the pool' somehow. I'm thinking about this as I go, but maybe a death tax or something? I certainly wouldn't want any of my money taken from me if I have some at the end, so I wouldn't want the death tax to affect me. Maybe just insanely wealthy people. Like your first $250 million isn't taxed at death, but anything above that is taxed at 75% or something. Probably a bunch of reasons why that's a bad idea, but I can't shake the thought that at a certain level of wealth, you officially have too much and it is coming at the expense of too many other people that are suffering.

I really like the movement that is happening around the world where some of the wealthiest people are leaving huge fortunes to charity. That's how it should be.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by darklord700

It's funny when people say they would move from Calgary to Hawaii if they won the lottery, and that's OK. But moving from Calgary to London/Paris is frown upon, why?

Calgary is still rural at heart. Most people here understand the appeal of living somewhere hot with sand beaches. The appeal of walking out your door at 10 p.m. any night of the year and enjoying the best music, theatres, clubs, and restaurants the world has to offer, on streets thronging with people from all over the world enjoying the dizzying variety, is not as widely shared here.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You're right in the sense that most of us on here have way more than other individuals around the world. On the other hand, no one person can earn $2 billion.

I think at some point one guy can have too much and I think it's reasonable to consider putting some of that 'back in the pool' somehow. I'm thinking about this as I go, but maybe a death tax or something?

People who study these things have observed that Millennials are the first generation in about 100 years whose material station in life will be determined mostly by inheritance. We're basically reverting to the inter-generational class structure of the 19th and 18th centuries. But inheritance is a taboo subject in North America, so it's not talked about at all.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by sun

People complain about the price of Vancouver... compared to the price of Vancouver. Detached house prices have risen, what, 40% in the past five years? 20% in the past year?

I would hope I would have the self awareness not to laugh at anyone complaining about the price of Vancouver if I bought my east van house 30 years ago for pennies and it's now worth $1.5M. Just because London is even more expensive? No one is allowed to complain about housing prices in their city unless they live in a top five expensive city on the planet? Makes about zero sense.

Looks like he's just arguing to brag. If you can't live in your favourite place in the world with $1.5 million Canadian I wonder how much poverty there is in London, must be very high if $1.5 million buys you a garage. Guess you need to be born into wealth in London or you have to move to poor Vancouver.

What happens when you finish university in London? Do people just move because they can't afford it?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Looks like he's just arguing to brag. If you can't live in your favourite place in the world with $1.5 million Canadian I wonder how much poverty there is in London, must be very high if $1.5 million buys you a garage. Guess you need to be born into wealth in London or you have to move to poor Vancouver.

What happens when you finish university in London? Do people just move because they can't afford it?

none of the guys I grew up with live in London, everyone lives out of town.

No I'm not bragging, I bought an ex grow op in the late nineties and gutted it, if I had to buy a place now I'd buy a beater house in new west or Port Moody, both those areas will take off in the next ten years.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People who study these things have observed that Millennials are the first generation in about 100 years whose material station in life will be determined mostly by inheritance. We're basically reverting to the inter-generational class structure of the 19th and 18th centuries. But inheritance is a taboo subject in North America, so it's not talked about at all.

What do you mean it's not talked about in N America? You realize the U.S. has an estate tax right? The IRS basically takes half of your entire net worth when you die. It's a huge topic down there and analyzed to death. When I tell US colleagues that we don't have an estate tax in Canada they are just shocked (and very jealous).

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by sun

People complain about the price of Vancouver... compared to the price of Vancouver. Detached house prices have risen, what, 40% in the past five years? 20% in the past year?

I would hope I would have the self awareness not to laugh at anyone complaining about the price of Vancouver if I bought my east van house 30 years ago for pennies and it's now worth $1.5M. Just because London is even more expensive? No one is allowed to complain about housing prices in their city unless they live in a top five expensive city on the planet? Makes about zero sense.

I'd guess your not old enough to have to worry about what your going to live on in ten years when you are no longer wanted in the work force.

I bought a beaten up craphole fifteen years ago and worked my arse of to renovate it, it's current price is absurd and I fully expect around a 30% drop in the next few years if we're lucky 50 if unlucky. There's sod all point in complaining about house prices anywhere, I have no more God given right to live in London than Vancouver.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You're right in the sense that most of us on here have way more than other individuals around the world. On the other hand, no one person can earn $2 billion.

I think at some point one guy can have too much and I think it's reasonable to consider putting some of that 'back in the pool' somehow. I'm thinking about this as I go, but maybe a death tax or something? I certainly wouldn't want any of my money taken from me if I have some at the end, so I wouldn't want the death tax to affect me. Maybe just insanely wealthy people. Like your first $250 million isn't taxed at death, but anything above that is taxed at 75% or something. Probably a bunch of reasons why that's a bad idea, but I can't shake the thought that at a certain level of wealth, you officially have too much and it is coming at the expense of too many other people that are suffering.

I really like the movement that is happening around the world where some of the wealthiest people are leaving huge fortunes to charity. That's how it should be.

Ironically the UK has a 40% inheritance tax, Canada none.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by heep223

What do you mean it's not talked about in N America? You realize the U.S. has an estate tax right? The IRS basically takes half of your entire net worth when you die. It's a huge topic down there and analyzed to death. When I tell US colleagues that we don't have an estate tax in Canada they are just shocked (and very jealous).

I meant more the inter-generational transfer of wealth. When I've talked about retirement planning with friends, and casually mentioned that I'll probably inherit 1/3 of a modest suburban Calgary bungalow, they look at me like I just confessed to running an elaborate pyramid scheme. People just don't talk about inheritance in our society. Only a small fraction of Canadians have openly discussed estate planning with their children. But the amount of wealth that is expected to be transferred from Boomers to their children is astonishing.

[sun]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'd guess your not old enough to have to worry about what your going to live on in ten years when you are no longer wanted in the work force.

I bought a beaten up craphole fifteen years ago and worked my arse of to renovate it, it's current price is absurd and I fully expect around a 30% drop in the next few years if we're lucky 50 if unlucky. There's sod all point in complaining about house prices anywhere, I have no more God given right to live in London than Vancouver.

I have no idea what you said in this entire post. Except that you bought your house at an unbelievably opportune time when the average house in Vancouver cost $400k and is now worth $1.4M fifteen years later. Source.

What does my age or your age have to do with anything? No I'm not old enough to worry about what I'm going to live on in retirement. I'm young enough to know I'll never be able to own a house in Vancouver. You wouldn't be able to afford one today either, by your own admission. What are you getting at?

I don't feel a "god given right" to live in Vancouver. It would be nice if it was at least possible though, as it is clearly a very desirable place to live. I would kill to be able to buy a detached grow-op for <$400k and work my arse off to gut it. What makes you think prices will drop 30-50%? I highly doubt it. How long have you been saying that?

All this is irrelevant though as your initial post, you laugh at people who say Vancouver is expensive because London is more expensive. One being true doesn't mean the other is false. When I lived in Paris was I allowed to comment on how expensive it was (it was)? Or not, because Hong Kong is more expensive?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by sun

I have no idea what you said in this entire post. Except that you bought your house at an unbelievably opportune time when the average house in Vancouver cost $400k and is now worth $1.4M fifteen years later. Source.

What does my age or your age have to do with anything? No I'm not old enough to worry about what I'm going to live on in retirement. I'm young enough to know I'll never be able to own a house in Vancouver. You wouldn't be able to afford one today either, by your own admission. What are you getting at?

I don't feel a "god given right" to live in Vancouver. It would be nice if it was at least possible though, as it is clearly a very desirable place to live. I would kill to be able to buy a detached grow-op for <$400k and work my arse off to gut it. What makes you think prices will drop 30-50%? I highly doubt it. How long have you been saying that?

All this is irrelevant though as your initial post, you laugh at people who say Vancouver is expensive because London is more expensive. One being true doesn't mean the other is false. When I lived in Paris was I allowed to comment on how expensive it was (it was)? Or not, because Hong Kong is more expensive?

I've watched house prices drop 30 percent or more both here and in the UK and vancouver is due for a massive correction, I couldn't say when or by how much, well that isn't strictly true, the when will be when interest rates start back up.
When a correction happens it is incredibly fast, within a month prices start dropping 10 or 20 percent as the herd rushes to get out desperately.
It only stops dropping when utter despair sets in and people stop listing their houses, in Vancouver that will take a while.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You're right in the sense that most of us on here have way more than other individuals around the world. On the other hand, no one person can earn $2 billion.

I think at some point one guy can have too much and I think it's reasonable to consider putting some of that 'back in the pool' somehow. I'm thinking about this as I go, but maybe a death tax or something? I certainly wouldn't want any of my money taken from me if I have some at the end, so I wouldn't want the death tax to affect me. Maybe just insanely wealthy people. Like your first $250 million isn't taxed at death, but anything above that is taxed at 75% or something. Probably a bunch of reasons why that's a bad idea, but I can't shake the thought that at a certain level of wealth, you officially have too much and it is coming at the expense of too many other people that are suffering.

I really like the movement that is happening around the world where some of the wealthiest people are leaving huge fortunes to charity. That's how it should be.

Who decides at what point someone has too much? The mere notion that someone should be expected to automatically forfeit their money because they have more than a certain amount is ridiculous.

What you're essentially asking for is that someone else do all the work, but give away the spoils because they did too well.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Who decides at what point someone has too much? The mere notion that someone should be expected to automatically forfeit their money because they have more than a certain amount is ridiculous.

What you're essentially asking for is that someone else do all the work, but give away the spoils because they did too well.

And you get into all sorts of value debates, such as:

1) Should there be a difference between a self-made fortune and inherited one?
2) Does the asset generate more "beneficial" economic activity in the hands of Edwards (or whoever) or in the hands of Rachel Notley (or whoever) or in the hands of PETA (or whoever he chooses to donate to)?

You can really spin this many ways...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by darklord700

It's funny when people say they would move from Calgary to Hawaii if they won the lottery, and that's OK. But moving from Calgary to London/Paris is frown upon, why?

It's only frowned upon if you are rich, and the socialists here in Canada get upset that you are too "selfish" to let them steal your money.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Who decides at what point someone has too much? The mere notion that someone should be expected to automatically forfeit their money because they have more than a certain amount is ridiculous.

Well, I proposed over $250 million would be taxed. I didn't say they would have to forfeit their money; they would be heavily taxed on portions over a certain threshold. I don't think it would be that hard to come to a consensus on a good number that would only affect the ultra rich, while still allowing their heirs to remain ultra rich.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's not ridiculous at all.

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

What you're essentially asking for is that someone else do all the work, but give away the spoils because they did too well.

The point is, nobody can earn billions of dollars. He didn't work extra hard to make hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars more than everybody else. If somebody makes it to billionaire status, they did so largely by fluke, luck and other peoples' hard work. They slipped through the cracks in a way. Or they were greedy. It is greedy to let yourself become that rich unless you have a future plan to disperse your wealth for a greater good upon your death.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Sliver

The point is, nobody can earn billions of dollars. He didn't work extra hard to make hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars more than everybody else. If somebody makes it to billionaire status, they did so largely by fluke, luck and other peoples' hard work. They slipped through the cracks in a way. Or they were greedy. It is greedy to let yourself become that rich unless you have a future plan to disperse your wealth for a greater good upon your death.

I'd say that's pretty well all wrong and the opposite is more likely true. Greed is most often what causes people to lose money not make money. Risk is most often what generates wealth. And smarter people tend to take better risk and get more reward. Fluke and luck are both possibilities but like poker, the best and brightest tend to be the luckiest and most successful.

[llwhiteoutll]

So the billions that he and his company have put into the economy through corporate taxes, personal taxes, creating thousands of jobs and various philanthropy isn't enough and because he still has “too much”, it needs to be redistributed to other people because they don't have the same amount.

People need to get over their jealousy. Redistribution won't create a society of haves, it will create a society of have nots. Despite what many people think, they don't have a right to what other people have.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I'd say that's pretty well all wrong and the opposite is more likely true. Greed is most often what causes people to lose money not make money. Risk is most often what generates wealth. And smarter people tend to take better risk and get more reward. Fluke and luck are both possibilities but like poker, the best and brightest tend to be the luckiest and most successful.

There's success and there's unreasonable success. I think proposing a tax on amounts above $250 million is hardly unreasonable. In the same way we buoy people up on the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale because we think it would be unfair to let people have nothing whatsoever, it's a good idea to look at people on the other end of the extreme and even things out a little on that end as well.

The best and brightest equating to having the most money is probably the most ######ed thing I've ever read on this board.

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

So the billions that he and his company have put into the economy through corporate taxes, personal taxes, creating thousands of jobs and various philanthropy isn't enough and because he still has “too much”, it needs to be redistributed to other people because they don't have the same amount.

People need to get over their jealousy. Redistribution won't create a society of haves, it will create a society of have nots. Despite what many people think, they don't have a right to what other people have.

What does it have to do with jealousy? "Fair" is a basic principle we all share. I don't know of a single parent that isn't proud of their kid when they share with others. My son had a bunch of Easter chocolate yesterday and he shared it with his cousin who didn't have as much. That's the right thing to do. What changes when it comes to grown-ups with far more money than they could ever spend in multiple lifetimes where it becomes more acceptable to hoard it than disperse it to areas where it could do more good? And don't forget, I'm talking about taxing on amounts beyond obscene wealth after the guy who "earned it" dies.

Taxing amounts over $250 million after death will hardly create a society of have nots. That's preposterous.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Can't blame Edwards, gotta protect those three commas.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Who decides at what point someone has too much? The mere notion that someone should be expected to automatically forfeit their money because they have more than a certain amount is ridiculous.

What you're essentially asking for is that someone else do all the work, but give away the spoils because they did too well.

So you're against progressive taxation, which is used by virtually every state in the civilized world?

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

So the billions that he and his company have put into the economy through corporate taxes, personal taxes, creating thousands of jobs and various philanthropy isn't enough and because he still has “too much”, it needs to be redistributed to other people because they don't have the same amount.

People need to get over their jealousy. Redistribution won't create a society of haves, it will create a society of have nots. Despite what many people think, they don't have a right to what other people have.

So dyed in the wool libertarian?

I'll ask you the question I ask all libertarians - can you give me an example of a country that operates under the principles you champion? A place that we could hold up as a model place to live and work if llwhiteoutll had his way?