If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Did you know that only 50% of earnings from capital gains is taxable?
Capital gains is a large portion of the income of the super rich.
Doesn't seem fair. Why tax labour more than capital?
My wife and I wouldn't be considered rich yet during the five years we have been married thus far we've made almost as much from capital gains as from employment. I don't think capital gains should be taxed at all. We already got taxed on the money when we earned it, so why should it be taxed again when we invest it? Our delayed consumption does others a favour - not us - as we only benefit from the money if/when we actually spend it. Canada needs more savers, not more spenders, so encourage that.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
"A provincial movement to expand the Canada Pension Plan is picking up speed, with civil servants drafting a concrete proposal for change and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne rallying support for the reform.
Ms. Wynne is kick-starting that push with a trip to Calgary to make her case to Alberta’s Alison Redford, whose province opposed a previous attempt to increase CPP benefits on the grounds that the tax hike to fund them would hurt businesses.... The push comes amid increasing concern many Canadians will be left high and dry when they retire. Earlier this week, the Bank of Canada put off hiking rates, stoking fear among pension funds that face shortfalls in their investments.
“It doesn’t matter where you are in the country, people are not saving enough. There is not enough being put aside for people’s retirement – whether you’re in a jurisdiction with full employment or not,” Ms. Wynne said in an interview at her Queen’s Park office....Ms. Redford’s finance minister, Doug Horner:
“What we want to ensure is that this doesn’t have a detrimental impact on jobs, on economies and on small and medium-sized businesses,” he said. “We have an open mind to the discussion, and we’ll look forward to having that national discussion.”
While Ms. Wynne is publicly pressing to gain other provinces’ backing, bureaucrats have been working behind the scenes on a white paper that would spell out exactly what CPP reform could look like. The policy is expected to be presented at a meeting of provincial finance ministers next week in Toronto. Prince Edward Island Finance Minister Wes Sheridan said the white paper will likely be largely based on measures he has been advocating. The PEI proposal would raise the current maximum insurable earnings cut-off from $51,000 to $102,000, meaning higher income earners would pay more in premiums but would also receive more in retirement....
Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger, who met with Ms. Wynne Thursday evening in Winnipeg, is also on board. “Manitoba has been working with Ontario and other provinces to lobby the federal government for a meaningful, phased-in and fully funded expansion of the CPP as a foundation piece of a plan to strengthening the retirement income system in Canada,” Mr. Selinger’s spokesman wrote in an e-mail.
CPP reform will also be on the agenda at a premiers’ meeting in Toronto in November. The push is building toward a sit-down between federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and his provincial counterparts in December, where the provinces can make their case directly to him. Ms. Wynne has already pressed him informally at a dinner hosted by Cardinal Thomas Collins last week.
Provincial finance officials are already preparing a backup plan that would create an Ontario-only pension plan if negotiations on an expanded CPP fail. But Ms. Wynne said she hoped not to exercise that option. “Our first choice is to bring in the federal government into this discussion with the provinces, and I don’t think that we have exhausted that outreach at this point,” she said.
The federal government remains non-committal toward a CPP increase, but has not ruled it out."
I have a question. Is this raising of the current maximum insurable earnings cut-off from $51,000 to $102,000, an attempt to increase the retirement pensions of the middle class?
I have two questions: 1) Why do I need the government to take care of my retirement? 2) How does increasing my CPP payments make it easier for me to save for my retirement?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I have two questions: 1) Why do I need the government to take care of my retirement? 2) How does increasing my CPP payments make it easier for me to save for my retirement?
a) because you don't know when you will die but the government does know when on average people die. This means that your private effort attempts at a pension will mean you will have to over save in case you have the misfortune to live longer than average. A pooled pension solves this problem for you.
b) because, although you are no doubt capable of responsibly planning for retirement, a substantial portion of Canadians are not. And even among those who do save, some of them will pick bad investments. In either case, there would be a class of elderly people who have no or insufficient income. This results in various social ills which as a social 'bad' will need to be addressed through government programs - read higher taxes - something you probably would prefer not to happen even if you personally don't care about the fate of those people.
This means that your private effort attempts at a pension will mean you will have to over save in case you have the misfortune to live longer than average.
Roger, I have to tell you that "the misfortune to live longer than average" is a whole lot better than the alternative. Something for people to remember when they wake up in the morning and everything hurts.
To collect Canada Pension a person has to pay into the plan. It seems many who get into problems with not having enough income are those who don't tend to work. How would an increase in CPP premiums or a provincial equivalent help them? Are you and also Bob suggesting the provincial plan for a massive redistribution of wealth?
One other point. Why should Tom and I be responsible for some person who blew a few million with a bad bet on the commodities market? That has to be what you have in mind when you talk about those who pick bad investments. Why should every working man have to support such a person who might never have paid into a pension plan?
One other point. Why should Tom and I be responsible for some person who blew a few million with a bad bet on the commodities market? That has to be what you have in mind when you talk about those who pick bad investments. Why should every working man have to support such a person who might never have paid into a pension plan?
Is there something you don't understand about pension plans? You know, the part where you pay in early to collect later? Knowing that you and Tom are responsible enough to plan ahead (and apparently smart enough to do so with zero risk), to first order, a compulsory pension plan leaves you in roughly the same financial position as you would have been without it. You simply put less into your private account to match what is going into your pension account. You are not paying for other people.
Further, you will be better off as those who would have been irresponsible to make no plans will be supported by their compulsory pension rather than by your tax money. Thinking that a modern day government will let those people starve in the gutter is out of touch with reality. Not to mention, you are not as exposed to the negative externalities of widespread poverty.
Although, I suppose you will not receive the positive utility from your schadenfreude.
Just because the government and many of its citizens are incapable of budgeting doesn't mean that everyone has that problem. CPP should be optional. If you want it, you pay into the plan, if you can save you do that instead. Same with UI. I can get a better return than the government because I don't need the government bureaucracy to take its cut. Only the government could think the solution to dealing with people who are bad with money is to give them an allowance. They must think the average adult has the brains of a five year old.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Is there something you don't understand about pension plans? You know, the part where you pay in early to collect later? Knowing that you and Tom are responsible enough to plan ahead (and apparently smart enough to do so with zero risk), to first order, a compulsory pension plan leaves you in roughly the same financial position as you would have been without it. You simply put less into your private account to match what is going into your pension account. You are not paying for other people.
Further, you will be better off as those who would have been irresponsible to make no plans will be supported by their compulsory pension rather than by your tax money. Thinking that a modern day government will let those people starve in the gutter is out of touch with reality. Not to mention, you are not as exposed to the negative externalities of widespread poverty.
Although, I suppose you will not receive the positive utility from your schadenfreude.
That's so nasty, I love it!!! It also makes personal assumptions which aren't correct. Correct is that I worked and paid into the Canada Pension for decades.
The problem with the proposed provincial plan and including everyone who is taxable, and those who are not, is to use the income tax to collect the money. That includes taxing seniors and in effect clawing back the pensions they are already receiving. It's not enough that every working man and woman in this country are already paying into a pension plan from their pay package but now the governments are looking for ways to get back the money they receive in pensions through the tax system to pass onto others in the future. Provincial plans would also help cash strapped provincial governments. They simply guarantee future payments from general revenue and, like they say in the U.S., kick the can down the road. That way they can use premiums for whatever they want.
Here's something about what's happening with Air Canada's pension plan. An example of kicking the can down the road to save a company.
Take note of the part about low interest rates in that article. It's likely problem for all defined benefit private pension plans and the viability of the companies which sponsor them.
Knowing that you and Tom are responsible enough to plan ahead (and apparently smart enough to do so with zero risk), to first order, a compulsory pension plan leaves you in roughly the same financial position as you would have been without it. You simply put less into your private account to match what is going into your pension account. You are not paying for other people.
The provincial government pension plan is likely to work in roughly the same way as Canada Pension Plan. But I haven't seen details.
A private account and a government plan look like apples and oranges. With a private personal RRSP plan, at age 71 a person must convert. If it's to a RIF the age of a younger spouse can be used. This allows a person to take annual payments at a lower amount if he wishes. On death the spouse becomes the successor recipient. On the death of both, if there is money left it goes to a designated beneficiary or to the estate.
The CPP is not this generous as far as I know.
Company pension plans also treat the surviving spouse better than does the government plan but this may vary depending on the terms of the plan. For a slight deduction in monthly pension payments the spouse can receive 100% on the death of the pensioner. The deduction dependent on the age of the spouse.
This is how I understand it and others should do their own homework and not rely on this post.
Roger, are you financially literate with the pension plans or are you simply arguing a point to get reactions? Reading this thread I wonder if you and Bob have so much you can afford to give it away.
Wealthiest 1% earn 10 times more than average Canadian
The richest of the rich in Canada earn about 10 times more than the average Canadian income of $38,700 and are generally married, middle-aged, white men, the final release of data from the National Household Survey shows.
Is this a problem? If so, why?
Bob A
P.S. I assume that the $ 38,700 is a single individual income. If so, I am surprised that it is this high these days. It seems to me that many in the 25-40 year olds range, are having difficulty finding decent paying full-time jobs, and that many are underemployed (many with first University degrees), many working more than one low-paying part-time job just to survive. Is anyone else surprised by the individual average?
Here is an article on this issue in the Globe and Mail On-line today:
How income inequality hurts every Canadian's chance of building a better life
Globe staff
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Nov. 08 2013, 1:24 PM EST
Last updated Friday, Nov. 08 2013, 7:08 PM EST
Canada is at a crossroads. A gap has grown between the middle class and the wealthy. Now, that divide is threatening to erode a cherished Canadian value: equality of opportunity for all. This article is part of The Globe's Wealth Paradox series, a two-week examination into how the wealth divide is shaping Canada's cities, schools, social programs – and even its national sport.
The Wealth Paradox
[Try out their Video]
Every generation expects to achieve more than the one that came before it and for many years, those expectations came true. But a disquieting trend has emerged over the past two decades, as the gap between the richest Canadians and the rest has grown, faster here than in all but one other OECD country, the United States. While inequality is less pronounced in Canada than the U.S., it is headed in the same direction, by several key measures.
The growth in inequality is being driven by an accumulation of wealth among the very top income earners, while the middle class lower income earners continue to stagnate. The richest 1 per cent earned 10.6 per cent of Canada’s income in 2012, down slightly from the pre-recession peak of more than 12 per cent, but up sharply from 7.1 per cent in 1982. The concentration of wealth in this country is also rising: The top 20 per cent control 70 per cent of net worth.
How did this happen? A host of factors are at work, including technological change, the shift of manufacturing and other low-skill jobs to the developing world, the decline of unionization, a surge in self-employment and a proliferation of performance-based incentives for top executives. And the great equalizers – universal health care, education, pensions – are under threat, as cash-strapped governments look to trim budgets.
Canada is facing a Wealth Paradox. As wealth continues to grow at the top, the economic health of the whole grows poorer. Already, mobility between income groups has slowed – it is much harder to get ahead than it used to be. If no action is taken, the Canadian dream itself may be in peril. Read more in a full story by Barrie McKenna.
I have no real interest in golf. Sure, every few years if I see it on TV I will watch for a few minutes. But I've never played a round, never taken a lesson, never read a book on golf. So I am probably a really, really bad golfer. But that's okay, as my lack of understanding of golf has little (no?) bearing on the quality of my life.
Some people have no real interest in personal finance. They buy what they want, when they want. They don't read about it, don't get help with it, and couldn't care less about it. Unfortunately, their lack of understanding probably has a huge bearing on the quality of their life.
When you quote these articles you ever notice how they get the idea of income and wealth conflated? Seems people mysteriously think that only people making big salaries can save. It's just not so.
I live in a small town. Lots of poor people here, relatively speaking, compared to in Ottawa. Still lots of people smoking, drinking, driving late model SUVs and pickups and watching big-screen TVs. When you piss away all your income you can't whine that you don't have money to invest.
Lots of poor people here, relatively speaking, compared to in Ottawa. Still lots of people smoking, drinking, driving late model SUVs and pickups and watching big-screen TVs. When you piss away all your income you can't whine that you don't have money to invest.
Hi Tom:
I agree that having a savings plan is a critical financial tool. And people with modest incomes, can generally find ways to save a bit.
But I think that there are many who do not have much disposable income - let's say many widowed older women. I think that we in Canada can do better in closing the gap between the top more than 1%, and the lowest echelon.
But what you say is true still - giving more money to those who do not plan ahead, will not improve their situation much. But there are also many capable of saving, if given slightly more than their very modest living expenses. I think the focus has to be on the positive, not the negative.
Tweet
Comment