on minimum wage

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0839-e.htm

Although the incidence of low income has declined significantly since 1997, its level in 2006 was similar to that found in the late 1980s...

Prior to 1996, the federal government set its own minimum wage rate, a single rate that was applied to all employers covered under Part III of the Canada Labour Code. Since that time, the federal minimum wage has been set according to the applicable provincial or territorial legislated rate for adult workers.(3) Consequently, there are 13 different federal minimum wage rates applied to workers covered under Part III of the Canada Labour Code.(4) Figure 1 provides a graphic illustration of 2008 regional federal minimum wages, which range from a low of $7.75 per hour in New Brunswick to a high of $10.00 per hour in Nunavut...

Between 1997 and 2007, the average federal minimum wage increased by some 21%. However, when adjusted for inflation, the average federal minimum wage declined slightly (less than 5%) during the same period.
-------
http://maytree.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/figure1_national_average_minimum_wage1.jpg (image)

D- min. wage peaked in 1976 (Boomers) and bottomed out by 1985 (Xers).
D - it is not any 1 measurement, or any 1 policy that accounts for generational differences. It is ALL of them in synergy.

---------------

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/auto/diagramme-chart/stg2/c_15_54_1_4_eng.png?20091025165225865 (image)

D - this chart ignores the cost in principal and interest in paying back a student loan.

D - I saw a surprising min. wage chart for the USA. The young adults had worse hourly wages than teens - when they're working thru school.

-------------

And wage means little without the context of income tax.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

Federal tax rates for 2012

15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
29% of taxable income over $132,406.
Ontario 5.05% on the first $39,020 of taxable income, +
9.15% on the next $39,023, +
11.16% on the amount over $78,043

D - notice anything? They gouge the middle class, then increases in tax rate for the upper class starts to level out. Not particularly progressive, particulary when all those credits and exemptions are considered. Me, I'm all for a pretty much flat tax, if it means no exemptions. At least I could file my own tax form then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada#Personal_income_taxes

Income taxes throughout Canada are progressive with the high income residents paying a higher percentage than the low income residents. However, a study conducted by Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and released on November 8, 2007, found that the richest pay the lowest rates of all income groups.[1]

D - aside: I tried 1 year. I could not figure out for the life of me where the rent rebate went. Turns out it was under the category 'property owned'. I don't own any property so I ignored that category. Clear as MUD.

------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony#Minimum_wage

D - economic theory behind setting min. wage. A bit beyond me.

------------

D - so somebody working full time at minimum wage is already paying income tax. Folks wonder how welfare and disability get exploited by the undeserving. Perhaps they should ask WHY it is. The answer is we punish work ethic, and artificially depress entry-level workers into poverty with our tax policy. I should know. I spent my 20s and early 30s getting taxed with an income typically between the absolute and relative poverty lines.
BTW, I could have paid off my student loan if I was not being artificially depressed into a lower poverty rung by income tax. So how much gov't / society gained from this strategy is dubious.

---------------
Little change in low income rates

The incidence of low income in Canada remained relatively stable in 2009 using the after-tax low income cut-offs. Nearly 3.2 million Canadians, or 9.6% of the population, lived in low income, virtually unchanged from 2008.

About 634,000 children aged 17 and under, or 9.5%, lived in low-income families in 2009, also virtually unchanged. This proportion was roughly half the peak of 18% in 1996.

D - we made good inroads into child poverty. Note that senior poverty levels are lower than any other group.

(statscan) In the late 1970s, Canada’s seniors were the most likely families to experience low income, with nearly 20% earning less than the low income cut-off. Pension program reforms at the end of the 1970s helped this rate to decline sharply, so that by 2006 senior families had Canada’s lowest incidence of low income, at 2.3%.

While it seems particularly humane to address senior poverty, the societal payoff takes place while we are still 'investing' in children.
Living in poverty trims 9IQ points off a child, on average.
In other words, we stunt our future geniuses.

-------------

http://www41.statcan.ca/2008/3868/ceb3868_000-eng.htm

Gains for all families

From 1997 to 2006, the median after-tax annual income of families composed of two or more people grew 18%, from $49,400 to $58,300 (2006 constant dollars). This period of sustained growth follows two decades where the median after-tax income for most families grew very little or even declined...

Median after-tax incomes for unattached elderly men and women grew the slowest from 1997 to 2006, at 11% and 14% respectively. Lone-parent families saw the most income growth during the past decade: their median after-tax income increased by almost half, from $23,800 in 1997 to $34,900 in 2006.

----------

D - as we'd expect with my "benign neglect" hypothesis. Once Boomers were in the workplace and getting divorced, well, there it is. The #s support the hypothesis.

------------

Government transfers can make up a sizeable portion of family income. From 2005 to 2006, unattached individuals and families of two or more people saw their median transfers rise from $3,100 to $3,500.

Child tax benefit programs were changed and new federal and provincial benefits were introduced in 2006, increasing not only the amounts transferred to families, but also the proportion of families receiving transfers

------------

D - not just tax rate. Also fiscal policy - child tax credits. Once again, as we'd expect from Boomers reaching the heyday of their political clout and income earning potential.

D - here's a prediction. The child tax credit will suddenly get de-emphasized once the Boomers have all retired, despite the more onerous burden of parenting facing the younger generations.

----------

http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/images/BankChart1980-2010.gif (image)

D - looks like times got tougher after 1980. Though not the chart is not adjusted per-capita for population growth.

D - really spiked during the 'jobless recovery' of 1991- which also coincides with when tuition started increasing 10% per year.
I suspect the brief plateaus can be linked to student loan rules about time out of school. Though it did nothing to halt such trends in the long term - it merely increased the suffering during those years for grads in need of succor.

Well try as I might, I cannot find an annual historical chart of basic income tax exemptions.

The first income tax act:

http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/CanadianLegalHistory/LawArticle-168/1917-The-Birth-of-Income-Tax.aspx

-----------
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/images/minwage_avwage.png (image)

D - note how it plummets between the 80s and 90s as a proportion of typical hourly wage (US? but relevant). Why? The Boomers had moved past entry level starter jobs. They no longer CARED.
It stays there through the youth and young adulthood of GenX.

retirement age across the world. trend.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1126150--raising-canadians-pension-age

But making seniors wait longer for their money is a trend underway in other parts of the world.

Government approaches and recipient ages vary widely, with some increases using very long transitions, but the trend appears undeniable.

The chart makes it clear that pension evolution, whether a reflection of governments’ financial anxieties or a population of healthier, more active 60-somethings capable of working longer, is a fact of life on the global landscape.

Margaret Wente, will you marry me? <:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-war-against-the-young/article2322982/

And despite what Ms. Eng says, nobody pays for it in advance. It comes from current general tax revenue.

The poverty rate among the elderly in Canada is 5.9 per cent, much lower than it is for children or those of working age.

Now, our biggest social problem is not how to redistribute more money to the needy old. It’s how to protect everyone else from the tsunami of geezers that’s about to crash on our shores and suck the wealth of future generations out to sea. The war against seniors’ pension reforms is a war against the young.

When the federal government introduced OAS in 1952, the qualifying age was 70 and many people didn’t live long enough to collect it. Today, it’s 65, and a Canadian of that age can expect to collect OAS for nearly 20 years.

Are we really sure we want to transfer so much wealth from struggling young families to relatively well-off geezers? How smart is it to suck our grandchildren dry? How many schools won’t get built because we’re buying Lipitor for people who can already afford to pay for it?

Education. What's hot, what's not.

http://www.mindflash.com/blog/2011/12/infographic-which-college-majors/

Hmm, clinical psychology is even MORE unemployable than fine arts? And history? That says something.
I was surprised by library science though.

Can't go wrong with emerging high tech.

for a later mandatory retirement age for CPP

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/well-keep-working-past-65-and-well-like-it/article2320096/

Such reforms, far from taking something away from seniors, are a tiny step in reversing decades of bad policy that has marginalized older Canadians, damaged their health and harmed their morale. Raising the age of eligibility is emphatically not a matter of imposing costs on seniors in order to benefit the rest of the population. It is an exceptionally pro-seniors policy to reduce the incentives to stop working at 65.

...
There was a time when 65 and retirement were closely linked for a compelling reason. A life of labour had left the average worker depleted.

...
Age 65 and the moment when one can no longer reasonably be expected to work have long since parted company. We live longer and are in better health. Much of the work in our increasingly service-based economy is not physically taxing.

More than four-fifths of Canadians say they would like to continue to work even if they had enough money to retire. And nearly half of Canadians of working age already expect to work beyond the age of 65, and not just for economic reasons, according to a survey done for one financial institution: “Nearly all of those who expect to work beyond age 65 cite one or more lifestyle reasons, including remaining mentally active, enjoyment of their jobs and the interaction with their co-workers.” In other words, future retirees are coming more and more to realize that work (although not necessarily any particular job, a distinction many people seem to have difficulty grasping), is closely related to happiness.

------------

D - I do express some concerns about hard physical work that late.

waterloo voted most age friendly by WHO

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/662815--world-health-organization-declares-waterloo-an-age-friendly-city

The international body has added Waterloo to its global network of age-friendly cities, which rewards municipalities for planning, maintenance and social services that accommodate older residents.

Waterloo is the eighth Canadian city to receive the honour, joining the ranks of London and Halifax. Waterloo is the 42nd member of the Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities.

“This is big stuff. We’re number 42 in the world,” said Arlene Groh, who chairs the mayor’s committee on advisory committee on age-friendly cities that submitted the application to join the network.

------

D - well that is something to be proud of. My home town! <:

'OAS' sustainability is wrong question

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxseason/story/2012/01/31/old-age-security-sutainability.html

OAS provides a monthly cheque to Canadians, 65 years of age or older. Those who live in Canada must have lived in the country for at least 10 years after the age of 18 to be eligible for the payments; for those living outside Canada, the residency minimum is 20 years after the age of 18. People who are still earning an income of around $68,000 will have some of their OAS money clawed back. Those making around $108,000 aren't eligible for any benefit.

------------------

D - first of all, the top # is closer to $110,000 than $108,000.

For 2011, the tax recovery applies to persons whose net income exceeds $67,668. For each $1 of income above this limit, the amount of basic Old Age Security pension reduces by $0.15.

-------------------

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/portfolio-strategy/how-to-avoid-the-dreaded-oas-clawback/article2037894/

OAS is a federal social program designed to provide a very modest pension to low- to middle-income retirees. The maximum monthly benefit right now is $526.85 or $6,322.20 a year. The clawback of OAS benefits starts with a net income of $67,668 and it completely eliminates OAS with income of $109,764.

----------------

D - "Sustainable" is the wrong question. "Fair" is.
OAS should pay out enough to raise seniors out of poverty.
The international comparisons focus upon 'median income', which is about $25,000 for a single Canadian.
By re-arranging existing OAS funding, we could end senior poverty just like that. Forget placing HIGHER on the survey - we're already very good. Let's just END senior poverty.
Since present and near-future older retirees were counting on the middle class 'feeding trough' mentality present in OAS funding, we cannot just suddenly do this.

A very minor - painless- and effective policy would be to simply -just -only de-index the clawback level from inflation.
This would eventually drive down the clawback to the median income, as per international senior poverty studies.

"Sustainable" is the wrong question. Why would GenX, 1/2 the size of Boomers, often working at
a) below LICO relative poverty line
b) above LICO but below median Canadian income
be paying to redistribute income to HIGHER income brackets, in a regressive vs progressive fiscal policy?
That OAS was originally -and rhetorically, nominally still is- an anti-poverty measure merely makes this even more UNFAIR.

D.