The /r/Canada subreddit is a shithole, but this line of attack does seem to be working there at least. Lots of people saying that the Liberals are fucking over hardworking doctors and small business owners while pretending like they're going after millionaires. Like "just like always the Liberals talk a good game but they're pretending like they're going after the 1% with this tax while actually screwing the middle class yet again."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
The /r/Canada subreddit is a shithole, but this line of attack does seem to be working there at least. Lots of people saying that the Liberals are fucking over hardworking doctors and small business owners while pretending like they're going after millionaires. Like "just like always the Liberals talk a good game but they're pretending like they're going after the 1% with this tax while actually screwing the middle class yet again."
I suspect a lot of people who think they're 'middle class' in Canada don't even realize they're actually 10%ers or 1%ers in a Canadian context, at least for income. Top 10% of incomes in Canada in 2010 started at $80k and top 1% at $191k.
I mean, people using overbroad ideas of 'middle class' is nothing new, but I definitely feel like it's gotten even more skewed lately.
I mean, people using overbroad ideas of 'middle class' is nothing new, but I definitely feel like it's gotten even more skewed lately.
Are there any reliable figures on the number of actual Canadians employed by small business that aren't just doctors/lawyers who have incorporated for the very reasons this new tax is coming into play? I'm talking 'Bob's Plumbing' or 'Anne's Convenience Store'. I'd have to think that more people work for multinationals or they do work for small business but aren't going to be affected by the tax because they don't meet the threshold in the first place, but to take a shot at Trudeau/the Liberal party means they'll fight it anyway
There are people who make way more than that who call themselves working class because they listen to country music and drive a pickup.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3767812/tax-changes-small-business-farms-doctors-income-sprinkling/
According to this:
This is according to the CCPA who are a leftwing think tank, so grain of salt.
Definitely.
I'm making 100k and I'm under no illusions that I'm middle class despite supporting two elderly parents.
Why? Because I literally make twice as much as my parents' combined income when they were still working.
I would easily trade higher personal taxes if it meant that there's a sufficient social safety net for them.
huh...
wow...
ok then.
Personally I always personally saw anyone after 75k as being straight up rich, so... huh...
The again, i live in the lower mainland where house prices are shit so maybe i can kinda understand the thought...
It doesn't really mean anything because nearly everyone thinks they are it and there's no clear and universal definition of the word.
That said, it's honestly pretty ridiculous to think you're middle anything if your income is in the top 10 percentile. Sorry.
Yeah, there was a ViewPoints segment on CBC that discussed this and how "middle class" is essentially a meaningless aspirational term now that no longer has a quantifiable definition, which is why the CPC and Liberals can both use the term for the voters they claim to be defending with a straight face.
It complicates things when people in the true middle class either feel like they're not represented by anyone, either due to policies that don't serve them or a false belief that they aren't middle class because of the 10%ers who have co-opted the definition, while the parties refuse to define their nebulous use of the term to confirm whose interests they represent and continue presenting they represent all of them.
How do you co-opt a definition that historically includes you?
If anything, the "aspirational" aspect of the term means that it has been the "working class" that has "co-opted" the definition as first world wages rose from the 50s to the 80s/early 90s to the point that by the 80s through to the present the "working class" began viewing themselves as "middle class" when that term never really applied to them.
I mean, if teachers, police officers, postal carriers, and entry-to-mid level engineers aren't "middle class", what are they? Upper class? Really? Even if you think, say, high school teachers in Ontario are "overpaid", you think they are "Upper Class"? "The Rich"? Please.
My father was a truck driver. ("was" because he got injured and had to change jobs, he's not dead). Surely truck driver is a "working class" career. But wait! In 2003, as a transport truck driver, my dad pulled 70k a year. In 2017 dollars, that's 88k! Holy shit! Not only was he clearly not "working class", he clearly wasn't even "Middle Class"!
My father, hauling cars between auto plants to car dealerships all between Detroit to the GTA, was a member of the upper class! Who knew?!
...
All of this is just to say this: "Class" perceptions are NOT just about income. They weren't historically, and tying them strictly to income levels gets REALLY messy if you are committed to it.
Which is why I think it is really silly to get grumpy about how people perceive their "class", based solely on income.
Yeah, I make 95k a year. I know I've got it "good". But yes, I consider myself "Middle Class". Not because I have some "misconception" about where I fall in the income distribution in Canada. I'm fully aware. But rather, because of my knowledge of what the term means. I just don't see the logic in berating people for perceiving themselves in a category that was defined to include them for decades, just because the utility of the term has gotten murky in the past 20 years.
gutter_trash
Banned
80k is middle class.
mais oui
I agree that 80k is middle class in the sense that they're materially comfortable but don't own a meaningful share of capital.
I agree that they live very nice lives and don't really have a lot to complain about in terms of taxes, but I also see why they consider themselves middle class.
I agree that they live very nice lives and don't really have a lot to complain about in terms of taxes, but I also see why they consider themselves middle class.
ok, on paper, but we all know that's a huge pile of bullshit to compare 80k and 40k, both "technically" middle class
Agreed. This is essentially what my position boils down to as well.
I would argue that few careers making strictly 40k a year are "middle class". Barely entry-level to it, perhaps. More likely, what should properly be viewed as the "working class". YMMV.
gutter_trash
Banned
In Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto, even in Montreal now. 80K = Middle Classs.
80k is an employee, on a payroll. meaning, they pay full taxes. They are not business owners.
You people are too poor
80k is an employee, on a payroll. meaning, they pay full taxes. They are not business owners.
You people are too poor
uncalled for
I expect nothing less from you, representative of the people you vote for
I wrote a big long post getting into the weeds and decided I didn't want to, so I'm just going to boil it down to this:
I don't really care if you consider yourself middle class because almost everyone does. Pretending that actually makes you the middle of anything in particular is what bothers me. The term is broken and applies to class analysis that does not work anymore and imo shouldn't be used at all.
@gutter I damn near guarantee I make more than you. Not that that means anything, but if you think income makes you qualified to have an opinion on something then you can shut up now.
I don't really care if you consider yourself middle class because almost everyone does. Pretending that actually makes you the middle of anything in particular is what bothers me. The term is broken and applies to class analysis that does not work anymore and imo shouldn't be used at all.
@gutter I damn near guarantee I make more than you. Not that that means anything, but if you think income makes you qualified to have an opinion on something then you can shut up now.
I respect if you think the term is broken and "useless" in 2017, as concerns public policy.
I actually think that we may be close to agreement about it's utility, when we get into details.
It's just the getting self-righteous and grumpy about how people perceive themselves on that scale that I don't like. Like my above post, how do you really get outraged about a high school teacher or a truck driver perceiving themselves as "middle class"?
Remember I said this whole tax thing is going to be a problem for the liberals in the thread involving Russia? These are exactly the things that make people fight and dispute. 80k seems like a lot to those earning 40k but thats miles away from the 1%. Living in Vancouver, I would at best classify 80k as middle class because it offers a general comfortable standard of living. I think thatd be the case for other major Canadian cities too. 40k is lower middle class at best because there will be some financial decisions youll have to make based on that income. Of course if you get to the rural area, 80k goes much further. Middle class can be a range so being upper middle is still middle class. We should focus more on the true inequality between the 1% and is than upper middle vs lower middle class.
80k+ are engineers, doctors, accountants, middle managers... etc who get paid by employers. In that way, I agree with gutter.
80k+ are engineers, doctors, accountants, middle managers... etc who get paid by employers. In that way, I agree with gutter.
Certainly.
But again, in the popular consciousness, I would imagine "Upper Middle Class" conjures images of GP doctors, lawyers, upper-middle managers, etc. to most.
who would see doctors and lawyers as Upper Middle Class lol
well other than gutter_tra$h and his castle made of gold
Okay, I rescind "outrage", but maintain "grumpy" ;P
People who make 95k a year and live in a suburban GTA townhouse without a yard, drive a Hyundai, and who see their neighbours living in a detached house, driving a BMW? ;P
I mean...
That's just kinda me
haha, fair enough <3
Agreed, and why I think some of us may be "talking past" each other a bit on this subject.
Simon Belmont
Banned
They should measure it in disposable income. Someone making 85k in Toronto is significantly poorer than someone making 85k in Kenora, or factor in what the LICO is in the area.
I think that's definitely a fair point. Cost of living is an issue across the country as it can vary from province to province.
If you're in the top 10% of wealth, you can't claim to be "middle class" in good faith. It requires co-opting a term that applies to the rung below you.
If the "working class" are blue-collar hand-to-mouth labourers and the "upper class" are the wealthiest who hold the most socio-political strength and the means of production, if you are far closer to the upper class than to the working class, the best you can claim is that you are "upper-middle class", but I can tell you for certain that people in that bracket consider themselves to be purely middle class erroneously.
You know why your father makes that money and counts as middle-class?
a) He didn't start off that way and got to where he was through at least a decade of wage increases
b) the class system was redefined with the generations that came after him by the changes in cost of living
I can guarantee to you that a 20-something doing the same job will never achieve the financial security he enjoyed. EVER. That job is more working-class than ever. And it's nothing to do with his wage being higher, it has to do with his wage going a lot further than it does now due to house pricing increases, post-secondary tuition increases of 200% (and let's not kid ourselves, PS-educated people are in working class jobs now more than ever in history), a rise in the costs of auto ownership, etc.
Jobs that were typically defined as "middle class" no longer afford the luxury of things that the middle class were able to achieve, like strong retirement savings, any degree of financial investments and a debt load that wouldn't outlive them. This is due to both declining earning potential and a cost of living difference.
So there are 2 options and both of them require acknowledging that the term "middle class" has changed:
1) We acknowledge that the middle class of 21st century are working the same jobs as those of the 20th century middle class but with a greatly reduced economic prosperity, or
2) We acknowledge that the "middle class" is still a term based solely on quality of life that prior "middle class" jobs don't facilitate anymore and therefore the middle class is such a small segment of the population that it's effectively disappearing and not nearly as big as politicians who "champion the middle class" or economists who use the "middle class" to measure economic prosperity are comfortable admitting to.
In either case, using the term without establishing which definition you mean to let the rest of the population know if their feelings about their place in the class system align with that politician or pundit's definition is irresponsible at best.
If we're going to use the term, it needs a firm definition under a modern context by every person who uses it or it ends up being a meaningless buzzword. If it didn't need personal definition, we wouldn't have politicians or even ourselves using the term to mean 2 different things and confusing the issue by talking past one another.
Their job title would put them in middle class, but the income they make it working class at best
So the issue of "Are loot boxes gambling" has come up Gaming with it being brought up in British parliament, and there's even been a petition over there.
As far as I'm aware this issue hasn't come up in Canadian parliament, and I couldn't find any e-petitions about it. Looking through the e-petition process, it only takes 500 signatures to get something brought up in parliament. It'd take 6 people and an MP's sponsorship to get the petition posted up on the site. Hmm...
As far as I'm aware this issue hasn't come up in Canadian parliament, and I couldn't find any e-petitions about it. Looking through the e-petition process, it only takes 500 signatures to get something brought up in parliament. It'd take 6 people and an MP's sponsorship to get the petition posted up on the site. Hmm...
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I think if you just reframe it as gambling for kids, then it'd get a lot more traction.
Then again, with game companies having a big presence in Canada and getting lots of tax dollars, I wouldn't be surprised if there was lobbying to prevent any legislation anyway.
Then again, with game companies having a big presence in Canada and getting lots of tax dollars, I wouldn't be surprised if there was lobbying to prevent any legislation anyway.
I probably would frame it as gambling for goods. I remember when I was in Poland my little cousins would talk about gambling CS:GO skins and I though that was really weird. "I had a knife worth 40 euro but then I lost it but then I won...". I don't know how much of that is going on in Canada, but there doesn't seem to be anything preventing it.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I mean every game has it now. Japan is again ahead of the curve in having laws that deal specifically with gambling mechanics in games. Even China has at least tried to address it too by forcing people to reveal drop rates.
But I can see Ubisoft or EA saying, "Well if we can't put loot crates in our next game, maybe we'll close our Montreal campus and our next studio expansion will be in NYC" or whatever.
(But then again I just expect the worse out of everyone. lol)
(P.P.S look how fast Quebec caved to Uber lol)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked