*Updated* Ongoing Bank of Canada Benchmark Rate Announcements

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Brupal

RY is up 20% in the past year and just hit a new all time high, so clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Ya, it is going to depend on the time period, but longer term, over the past 5 years it's been up an average of 8.4% a year, with a 3.88% dividend on top of that(if my pre-coffee math is right).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

He can't cut more without the US Fed doing the same, the decline in the Canadian dollar will make inflation worse.

Low productivity and economic prospects also like the Canadian dollars value. Latest reports do have two US cuts expected this year though.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Because of Collective Bargaining.

In terms of what their teams pay them, thats the deal. Endorsements and sponsorships are something else entirely.

Wouldn’t someone just being an employee rather than an independent contractor be the disqualifying factor?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Dude it’s been pretty well established that the US tax code heavily favours the ultra wealthy. You’re going to find all sorts of conflicting numbers and reports but what you don’t find very often is billionaires releasing their tax returns to completely discredit those reports.

Dude, he posted a specific stat that I'm curious to see the validity & source for.
Not sure what any of your post has to do with it. I'm not arguing rich Americans don't ever find tax loopholes.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Dude, he posted a specific stat that I'm curious to see the validity & source for.
Not sure what any of your post has to do with it. I'm not arguing rich Americans don't ever find tax loopholes.

Dude(I think we should keep that going for the time being), I was just saying that regardless of which link he posts there will be conflicting numbers reported elsewhere but generally the average working class American does pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the top 1% of earners because of tax loopholes and avoidance mechanisms that lower income earners can’t use.

So fair enough that you just want to check the validity of what torture posted but like I said you’ll get conflicting numbers from different sources even if the conclusion that the ultra wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income generally remains the same.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Source?
That sounds unbelievable.
Probably defining richest families based on old money equity; so they're not paying much tax on it now; since its not current earnings/income.

Source: Literally the White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/writt...est-americans/

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

Why can't an athlete set up a corp, and contract himself for "professional services"?!?

That would clearly be a personal services business, which comes with huge downsides and is generally not worth doing.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Torture

Source: Literally the White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/writt...est-americans/

A lot to read in there, but seems they're mostly talking about unrealized gains made on investments (stocks) to evaluate wealth.
True enough, but taxing based on unsold values of investments is a whole discussion in itself.

Also they mention the maximum capital gains tax rate in the US is 20%.
I wasn't aware it was so low. That certainly benefits people making investment income vs employee income.
Big advantage for the rich here as your average joe can't even pay their bills, let alone get into investments and capital gains.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by Torture

Source: Literally the White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/writt...est-americans/

When you dig into the details there are always problems with the data. In this case, the problem is they are claiming to calculate an income tax rate, but are actually using change in wealth as their measure of income, which clearly is not the same thing:

To estimate comprehensive income for the 2010–2018 period, we begin by subtracting the total wealth (net worth) of the Forbes 400 in 2009 from the total wealth of the Forbes 400 in 2018.

Now, you can have a whole other argument about taxing increases in wealth vs just taxing income (I'm a big supporter of just taxing income FYI), but that source is misleading and contains a ton of estimates too.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Brupal

RY is up 20% in the past year and just hit a new all time high, so clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about.

New all time high on $1 CAD over 2022?

Incredible 0.5% gain over that time period.

Now do TD Bank or Scotia or BMO.

Or how about an evenly distributed bank ETF? https://www.marketwatch.com/investin...tchlist_ticker

I'm just saying that buying bank stocks - ie. all of the big banks and not just cherry picking the best performer has not yielded anything close to market. The "Buy bank stocks because they own us" feeling that I responded to has actually lost you money over the last several years.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

A lot to read in there, but seems they're mostly talking about unrealized gains made on investments (stocks) to evaluate wealth.
True enough, but taxing based on unsold values of investments is a whole discussion in itself.

Also they mention the maximum capital gains tax rate in the US is 20%.
I wasn't aware it was so low. That certainly benefits people making investment income vs employee income.
Big advantage for the rich here as your average joe can't even pay their bills, let alone get into investments and capital gains.

The US has both short term and long term capital gains. Short term is anything held less than a year and is taxed at 40%... Long term is anything held for more than a year and yes, is taxed at 20%.

Lots of shenanigans employed when it comes to unloading assets near the 12 month mark...

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Regorium

New all time high on $1 CAD over 2022?

Incredible 0.5% gain over that time period.

Now do TD Bank or Scotia or BMO.

Or how about an evenly distributed bank ETF? https://www.marketwatch.com/investin...tchlist_ticker

I'm just saying that buying bank stocks - ie. all of the big banks and not just cherry picking the best performer has not yielded anything close to market. The "Buy bank stocks because they own us" feeling that I responded to has actually lost you money over the last several years.

Did you just pick the 2022 high to use as your point? I could pick the $78 low in 202 to "prove" it almost doubled. That's being silly though. Would I buy it now? No. I'd wait until their is a drop in the market, and get some then.


And it wasn't "buy bank stocks because they own us" it's "buy bank stocks because they are low risk government supported oligopolies".

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Did you just pick the 2022 high to use as your point? I could pick the $78 low in 202 to "prove" it almost doubled. That's being silly though. Would I buy it now? No. I'd wait until their is a drop in the market, and get some then.


And it wasn't "buy bank stocks because they own us" it's "buy bank stocks because they are low risk government supported oligopolies".

But even if they are, if you bought ZEB, you haven't earned much more than cash sitting in a 5% GIC. Canadian banks as a whole have underperformed over the last few years.

Sure, if you stock-picked and picked RY instead of TD or BMO or BNS, you did well. But if we're just picking the top performers, you could also argue you could've just picked NVDA and won even more.

So basically, being a government supported oligopoly is basically irrelevant when it comes to their performance. Don't let that drive your investing decisions.

[Fuzz]

I honestly mostly do it to prevent the feeling of being burned so badly by fees. I don't even have that big a position, and bought Royal because that's who I bank with. I bought Shaw because I hated seeing the bill increases and it's another industry that government protects from international competition, and that payed off big time with the Rogers takeover.


I just think if government protects an industry from competition, and consumers pay higher than what we think is reasonable based on international comparisons, well, I may as well have a piece of that. I bought Royal bank in 2011 or something in the 40's.

[The Fonz]

BOC meeting is Wednesday, this week. Expectation is another .25% cut.

[Azure]

At this point cut it till we blow the country apart.

Why not?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Azure

At this point cut it till we blow the country apart.

Why not?

I like the way this man thinks. Drop it like a bomb, drop it like a bomb!

[Fuzz]

I wish it were higher.

[Sylvanfan]

They did cut it another quarter point. Maybe 2 more downward adjustments by the end of the year.

[Azure]

Ugh.

I mean things aren't going well, but in my industry I can only see this leading to higher inflation.