http://policyalternatives.ca/documen...ags_riches.pdf
sure, left wing folks, but they at least got their data from stats can.
Top 10% wealthiest own 53% of wealth in Canada.
Top 20% wealthiest own 70.4% of wealth in Canada.
Top 50% wealthiest own 94.4% of wealth in Canada.
Poorest 10% have more debt than wealth.
From 1970 to 1999 the inflation-adjusted wealth of the top 10% increased 122%.
As of 1999: The top 10% of family units have,
on average, 1 million dollars in assets. The poorest 10% have,
on average -10,000$ in assets.
Breakdown of assets by 10% groups:
53%
17.4%
11.2%
7.7%
5.1%
3.3%
1.8%
0.7%
0.2%
-0.4%
The top 2.5% of Canadian households account for 29% of the wealth.
Note that in the USA, 1% of households own 38% of the wealth (1998).
...
Highest median wealth is Ontario, highest Average wealth is Alberta. Ontario, Sask, Alb. and BC stand out from the rest of the country as the "wealthy" provinces. Quebec, Manitoba and PEI are middling. And Nfld, NS, NB are poor.
...
So Canadian wealth distribution is not nearly as skewed as American. I can't get decent information on the top 1% of Canadians wealth, nor do I have more recent numbers than 1999.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JJRousseau
To me, a family is a family whether you have children or not. To me a family is a singular thing. To me, more married people should think that way... |
Sure, you should think you are a unit. But that doesn't mean you should get a tax break for it compared to single people.
I can see the government's interest in encouraging the middle class to have children.
Quote:
|
Ow! Good shot. You got me right in my little libertarian heart. It is an interesting point which I'll have to consider. My quick and dirty reply would be that without what I would consider to be excess govt spending in areas championed by the left wing my govt could protect individual rights at a flat tax rate.
|
First, a flat tax has nothing to do with the rate. You can have a flat tax regardless of the rate you want to tax the economy.
Second, Social stability is very valueable. That is one of the reasons behind the safety net.
Wealth redistribution is another advantage. The best predictor of expected lifespan, among both the poor and the rich, is the size of the local wealth gradient. Places with flatter wealth gradients have rich people that live longer.
Wealthy people could do this individually, but there is the free rider problem -- when your buddie decides he wants the benefits of social stability without paying for it. Hence government taxation.
Quote:
|
But I can see your argument of the assets being clustered higher up the income pole. I find the 1% fact difficult to believe given that the top 10% of income in Canada generates 50% of personal income tax. But you might be including corporate assets at which point, I have no idea.
|
Corperations don't "really" own things -- the things owned are owned by people via shares in the Corperation.
This value is measured by the value of the corperation. People who own shares own a fraction of the value of the corperation. So you don't have to directly examine corperate assets -- you just have to examine personal assets, and the corperate assets get automagically counted.
You can use corperate assets to double-check that someone isn't being fancy with paperwork and hiding assets.