I think that with all the talk about the legalization of marijuana in Canada due to Justin Trudeau's stated intent to legalize it if he is elected and the Conservatives subsequent attack ads, it is good to reference the Senate Committee report that was completed in 2001. Here is a link to the summary. It's still a long read, but quite good. Sometimes I wonder if anyone in the government ever reads the reports the Senate puts out...
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/rep/summary-e.pdf
Monday, December 30, 2013
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Money Changes Hands
Seems topical that Monday on my way to work I heard a mini documentary on pension plans and the power the larger institutional plans have based on the huge sums of money they control, because that was the day I was reminded that I am eligible to enroll in my company pension plan.
I went through the online process of enrollment and how much they assess me to need for retirement and how great my shortfall is. Yes, that's right, my shortfall. I'm a 24 year old male with another 40 years of earning potential and they're telling me I already have a shortfall. That's a depressing thing to hear before you've even enrolled. That's why my first priority and plan for retirement won't be to depend on my pension plan, which is a defined contribution and is subject to fluctuations before I receive whatever is left (which makes sense to me, but that's another post). This is not to say I won't be trying go manage my pension to earn the best return I can, I am just saying I don't want to depend on it and then have it come crashing down. I guess you can say that's really pessimistic, but it's the view I hold anyway. So, as a result of this thinking, my main goal is to pay off a house. I want to know that whatever happens, I will always have a place to live. Sure, I know that from an investment standpoint it makes more sense to leverage that money that I plan to tie up in the house and earn a return, but at the same time, I don't care - and that's also assuming I can earn a return of greater than the prevailing interest rate on a mortgage, which seems hard to do in this economic market, although I'm assuming that may change. I want to know that when it comes to the end, if all of my investments unravel, I won't need to cover $1,000 a month in mortgage payments.
Let's put it this way. The Service Canada website says the average monthly payout for CPP is $528.92 and for Old Age Security it says it is $510.17 (both based on one person receiving these amounts). So this is our base, our starting point. We will assume for ease of calculation that these amounts would be adjusted to inflation, which they should be, and that there is no income tax owing on these amounts as the yearly total falls underneath the sum of the base personal exemption and old age tax credits. Therefore, we have approximately $1,040 to work with each month. We already know that we would be in trouble if we had to make mortgage payments still. Now, assuming we take 10% off the top for charitable donations, that leaves us with $936 a month to live off of. If we allocate $250 for food, $300 for utilities, $200 for property taxes and $200 for transportation, we can get by. This may not seem like much of a life, but it should be noted that we're not aiming to be in this situation of low income, we're just preparing for it. And it should be noted that the situation improves dramatically if your spouse receives any CPP (or for those that are single, that decreases the amount to be spent on food).
Basically, the moral of the story is, if you're not comfortable with investing and the risk that is involved, buy yourself a home, completely, and make sure that money does not change from being in your hands, to being in someone else's with you holding the empty bag at the end of the day.
I went through the online process of enrollment and how much they assess me to need for retirement and how great my shortfall is. Yes, that's right, my shortfall. I'm a 24 year old male with another 40 years of earning potential and they're telling me I already have a shortfall. That's a depressing thing to hear before you've even enrolled. That's why my first priority and plan for retirement won't be to depend on my pension plan, which is a defined contribution and is subject to fluctuations before I receive whatever is left (which makes sense to me, but that's another post). This is not to say I won't be trying go manage my pension to earn the best return I can, I am just saying I don't want to depend on it and then have it come crashing down. I guess you can say that's really pessimistic, but it's the view I hold anyway. So, as a result of this thinking, my main goal is to pay off a house. I want to know that whatever happens, I will always have a place to live. Sure, I know that from an investment standpoint it makes more sense to leverage that money that I plan to tie up in the house and earn a return, but at the same time, I don't care - and that's also assuming I can earn a return of greater than the prevailing interest rate on a mortgage, which seems hard to do in this economic market, although I'm assuming that may change. I want to know that when it comes to the end, if all of my investments unravel, I won't need to cover $1,000 a month in mortgage payments.
Let's put it this way. The Service Canada website says the average monthly payout for CPP is $528.92 and for Old Age Security it says it is $510.17 (both based on one person receiving these amounts). So this is our base, our starting point. We will assume for ease of calculation that these amounts would be adjusted to inflation, which they should be, and that there is no income tax owing on these amounts as the yearly total falls underneath the sum of the base personal exemption and old age tax credits. Therefore, we have approximately $1,040 to work with each month. We already know that we would be in trouble if we had to make mortgage payments still. Now, assuming we take 10% off the top for charitable donations, that leaves us with $936 a month to live off of. If we allocate $250 for food, $300 for utilities, $200 for property taxes and $200 for transportation, we can get by. This may not seem like much of a life, but it should be noted that we're not aiming to be in this situation of low income, we're just preparing for it. And it should be noted that the situation improves dramatically if your spouse receives any CPP (or for those that are single, that decreases the amount to be spent on food).
Basically, the moral of the story is, if you're not comfortable with investing and the risk that is involved, buy yourself a home, completely, and make sure that money does not change from being in your hands, to being in someone else's with you holding the empty bag at the end of the day.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Roundabout rage
Sometimes it seems like things work on paper and the idea is great, but we forget that people don't like change/can't handle it/cannot learn. Take the North American roundabout as an example. In theory it's great. It helps all traffic to move smoothly with no one direction getting held up for a longer period of time than another. It also helps to slow traffic and reduce accidents. Let's start putting them in. And you know what, why don't we change existing lights to roundabouts too. Then traffic congestion will be eased and the world will be a wonderful place...
But... That doesn't seem to be happening at some of the roundabouts I've used in Ancaster and Kitchener. With the exception of the single lane roundabouts in the suburbs (which still have some small traffic confusion), roundabouts seem like a hectic and stressful place. Take for example the roundabout at Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line. I knew it was going to be trouble when coming up to the traffic circle and there were construction signs informing drivers that cars in the roundabout have the right of way. I was in the left lane and it is a two lane roundabouts. As far as I knew, vehicles in the left hand side of a roundabout could go left and straight, while those in the right lane could go straight and right. As a result, I stayed in the left lane and entered the roundabout to go straight. However, when I was in the roundabout there was a car that entered the roundabout from block line and attempted to drive "through me" and started honking when I kept going straight in his way.
I think this is an example of how ideas don't always work and it is probably due to poor education about roundabouts in general (I include myself in this). When a municipality has a great idea to introduce a new tool to promote better traffic flow, it doesn't help when the average person probably doesn't know what to do when faced with one and there is no effective way to communicate with these people. While the city has recognized that there is a problem, i.e. they put up the signs, I think it may be best to stop construction of all roundabouts that contain more than one lane until they can figure out how to better educate people on the rules.
For a starter on roundabout rules, here is a link to the transport Canada help guide: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp14787-menu-179.htm
(Although I would like to point out that it does not address multi-lane roundabouts)
But... That doesn't seem to be happening at some of the roundabouts I've used in Ancaster and Kitchener. With the exception of the single lane roundabouts in the suburbs (which still have some small traffic confusion), roundabouts seem like a hectic and stressful place. Take for example the roundabout at Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line. I knew it was going to be trouble when coming up to the traffic circle and there were construction signs informing drivers that cars in the roundabout have the right of way. I was in the left lane and it is a two lane roundabouts. As far as I knew, vehicles in the left hand side of a roundabout could go left and straight, while those in the right lane could go straight and right. As a result, I stayed in the left lane and entered the roundabout to go straight. However, when I was in the roundabout there was a car that entered the roundabout from block line and attempted to drive "through me" and started honking when I kept going straight in his way.
I think this is an example of how ideas don't always work and it is probably due to poor education about roundabouts in general (I include myself in this). When a municipality has a great idea to introduce a new tool to promote better traffic flow, it doesn't help when the average person probably doesn't know what to do when faced with one and there is no effective way to communicate with these people. While the city has recognized that there is a problem, i.e. they put up the signs, I think it may be best to stop construction of all roundabouts that contain more than one lane until they can figure out how to better educate people on the rules.
For a starter on roundabout rules, here is a link to the transport Canada help guide: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp14787-menu-179.htm
(Although I would like to point out that it does not address multi-lane roundabouts)
Thursday, March 29, 2012
That only took forever...
According to the federal budget today we get to say goodbye to the smallest member of our currency family. I do not think I'm alone in saying that it's about time. When inflation has made it so that the value of the penny is less than its buying power, I think it's time to let it go.
On another note, the OAS age will be pushed up to 67 starting in 2023 and being phased in over 6 years. I heard someone on the radio today who was interviewed on the street call it a cash grab. I cannot say I agree. I believe it makes sense with how the Canadians are living longer. I have come to terms with the fact that I will likely be working until I am 70.
On another note, the OAS age will be pushed up to 67 starting in 2023 and being phased in over 6 years. I heard someone on the radio today who was interviewed on the street call it a cash grab. I cannot say I agree. I believe it makes sense with how the Canadians are living longer. I have come to terms with the fact that I will likely be working until I am 70.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Budget Madness
So the Ontario 2012 budget is already at risk of being defeated the day after it was announced. PC leader Tim Hudak let everyone know that the PC party would be voting against it within a short time of it being announced and the NDP will likely have a hard time coming to terms with the pressure being put on the public sector unions. However, I still appreciate Andrea Horvath's response on CBC Radio One today where she stated that the NDP will take some time to figure out what is good about the budget and is opening the channel for dialogue with the people of Ontario. I also like how she mentioned that Ontario elected a minority government to have the parties work together. This is what should be happening in a situation where the political views of the people of Ontario are split, you work together with those you "live with" in order to achieve what's best for the province. I don't really see the PC party having that mentality, but maybe that's because they're aiming to be in power in order to do whatever they want while the Liberals didn't consult with the people because they're used to having a majority and being able to push through whatever they want. These mentalities from the Liberals and the PC party make me wish we had a minority NDP government as it seems they would be the most willing to cooperate. I look at the minority governments that occur regularly in Germany and I see a system of collaboration that truly works in the long-term interest of a people - for the most part - and does not aim solely at re-election.
On another note, what would happen if we had the opposition government create their own mini budgets before they knew what the governing party's budget contained and all were released to the public on the same day. I think we might see some interesting similarities between some of the parties approaches that might help to reduce the voting down of budgets for purely partisan reasons. It may also work to some extent in businesses and not for profit entities as both those proposing and those setting the budgets would have to come up with their ideas of a realistic approach before knowing the results. Hopefully that would serve to increase the amount of objectivity involved in the decision making process. However, this would require an intimate knowledge of the department setting the budget in order to avoid situations of underachieving and will still not work if one of the negotiating parties is unwilling to be honest. That's where flexible budgets and management by walking around step in to supplement.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
A Level Headed Approach
Listening to Here and Now on CBC Radio One today and I was pleasantly surprised by the balanced responses offered by Warren (Smokey) Thomas, president of OPSEU, in response to the budget speech by Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan where it was announced that the government would be freezing public employee wages for the next two years. Rather than being hostile and angry in the interview, Mr. Thomas was calm and said that he was disappointed with the approach the Ontario Liberals have taken while adding that he was not going to get too excited about it yet and admitted he still had to dissect the budget more thoroughly. I felt Mr. Thomas to be a breath of fresh air from some of the heated reactions we can hear from some of the other union leaders.
The entire interview can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/hereandnowtoronto/episodes/2012/03/27/public-sector-unions-and-ontarios-budget/
The entire interview can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/hereandnowtoronto/episodes/2012/03/27/public-sector-unions-and-ontarios-budget/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)