🚀 go-pugleaf

mary@electro.net wrote:

> Does anyone know what the law says with regard to the exact number
> of years in age a "heterosexual" must be to collect pension, and the
> amount of income he/she must be earning?  Also, does anyone know
> when these changes were enacted in parliament?

   The regulation is certainly not *secret*. You must be at least 
35 years of age to qualify for a surviver's pension, regardless of 
your gender or sexual orientation. 
   It's no different than having to be 65 to qualify for an Old Age 
Pension. 
   35 does seem an arbitary age, why not 30, 0r 25 or 19 ? some have 
argued that 35 is far TOO young, that it should be 45 or 50 ! Questions 
like; why should a young "survivor" get a pension when they are still 
young enough to have a good chance at enteringor re-entering the work 
force come to mind.

...Ken

--------------30CAD7A2C3DC975FA2A1FF8A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Ken & Laura Chaddock wrote:

> mary@electro.net wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know what the law says with regard to the exact number
> > of years in age a "heterosexual" must be to collect pension, and the
> > amount of income he/she must be earning?  Also, does anyone know
> > when these changes were enacted in parliament?
>
>    The regulation is certainly not *secret*. You must be at least
> 35 years of age to qualify for a surviver's pension, regardless of
> your gender or sexual orientation.
>    It's no different than having to be 65 to qualify for an Old Age
> Pension.
>    35 does seem an arbitary age, why not 30, 0r 25 or 19 ? some have
> argued that 35 is far TOO young, that it should be 45 or 50 ! Questions
> like; why should a young "survivor" get a pension when they are still
> young enough to have a good chance at enteringor re-entering the work
> force come to mind.
>
> ...Ken

I believe one has to earn (in wages not dividends interest or capital gain
income) under $8500 in order to claim the pension. At least this is the
supposed level for those claiming the CPP early. I say "supposed" because I
have seen many people earn wages in excess of $8500 without paying any
extraordinary penalty while collecting an early pension.  I imagine that
these rules would apply no matter what sexual orientation the couple
happened to be (that's why it is called equality).


--------------30CAD7A2C3DC975FA2A1FF8A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Ken &amp; Laura Chaddock wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>mary@electro.net wrote:
<p>> Does anyone know what the law says with regard to the exact number
<br>> of years in age a "heterosexual" must be to collect pension, and
the
<br>> amount of income he/she must be earning?&nbsp; Also, does anyone
know
<br>> when these changes were enacted in parliament?
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; The regulation is certainly not *secret*. You must be at
least
<br>35 years of age to qualify for a surviver's pension, regardless of
<br>your gender or sexual orientation.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; It's no different than having to be 65 to qualify for
an Old Age
<br>Pension.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; 35 does seem an arbitary age, why not 30, 0r 25 or 19
? some have
<br>argued that 35 is far TOO young, that it should be 45 or 50 ! Questions
<br>like; why should a young "survivor" get a pension when they are still
<br>young enough to have a good chance at enteringor re-entering the work
<br>force come to mind.
<p>...Ken</blockquote>
I believe one has to earn (in wages <b>not</b> dividends interest or capital
gain income) <i>under</i> $8500 in order to claim the pension. At least
this is the supposed level for those claiming the CPP early. I say "supposed"
because I have seen many people earn wages in excess of $8500 without paying
any extraordinary penalty while collecting an early pension.&nbsp; I imagine
that these rules would apply no matter what sexual orientation the couple
happened to be (that's why it is called <i>equality</i>).
<br>&nbsp;</html>

--------------30CAD7A2C3DC975FA2A1FF8A--

seeking a pension is far easier for some than seeking employment or careers.
they should raise the age to 45.

--
------------------------------------------------
Calgary , Alberta / Canada
appaloosa@telusplanet.net

>
> So they're basing that on wealth, or a person's chance of re-etering
> the work force.  Does that mean that the wealthy wives of
> politicians wouldn't receive  their husband's pensions when they die
> then?

why should they ?  do wealthy people really beed $1300 more per month from
the government ?  im not saying they should be denied $1300 because they are
rich, only that it comes from the government and it could be used more
effectivly for people who need the money.  Wealthy people should not be
sucking money from the goverment.

Robb

In article <__283.6435$8%6.504326@news1.telusplanet.net>, 
appaloosa@telusplanet.net says...
> seeking a pension is far easier for some than seeking employment or careers.
> they should raise the age to 45.
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Calgary , Alberta / Canada
> appaloosa@telusplanet.net

I disagree. I was 33 when my wife, 35 at the time, passed away, in 1989. 
We had a child who was 8 at the time. She was disabled throughout her 
adult life. I was, by necessity, the sole breadwinner for the latter 
years of her life. The financial aspect was quite a strain, on top of her 
worsening medical condition at the time. She was on CPP Disability 
benefits.

When she passed away, I was able to collect survivor and orphan's 
benefits. It came in handy, indeed. It was only under $300 then, and is a 
bit over $400/month now. This is taxable income. 

I'm on the other side of the fence, and while it is not greener, I do not 
mind the gov't paying out benefits to any spouse, regardless of age. If 
they, or their deceased spouse, paid into it, then they should certainly 
get some money out of it.

It's a lot better than UIC (or whatever it's called now), aka, Maternity 
Insurance, because just about the only way you can collect that is if the 
woman decides to get pregnant, and therefore the state subsidizes her 
choice with our dollars, imho.

In article <3761415E.E0A78387@cadvision.com>, doduckr@cadvision.com 
says...
> >
> > So they're basing that on wealth, or a person's chance of re-etering
> > the work force.  Does that mean that the wealthy wives of
> > politicians wouldn't receive  their husband's pensions when they die
> > then?
> 
> why should they ?  do wealthy people really beed $1300 more per month from
> the government ?  im not saying they should be denied $1300 because they are
> rich, only that it comes from the government and it could be used more
> effectivly for people who need the money.  Wealthy people should not be
> sucking money from the goverment.
> 
> Robb

Who is to judge what "wealth" is? Whatever happened to working hard and 
accumulating your rewards as you go? If you earn more, then you should 
get more, no? I really would not want the government to determine who 
needed money more or less than my family does. How would they know?

In can.legal me <vaxguy@home.com> wrote:
: In article <__283.6435$8%6.504326@news1.telusplanet.net>, 
: appaloosa@telusplanet.net says...
:> seeking a pension is far easier for some than seeking employment or careers.
:> they should raise the age to 45.
:> 
:> --
:> ------------------------------------------------
:> Calgary , Alberta / Canada
:> appaloosa@telusplanet.net

: I disagree. I was 33 when my wife, 35 at the time, passed away, in 1989. 
: We had a child who was 8 at the time. She was disabled throughout her 
: adult life. I was, by necessity, the sole breadwinner for the latter 
: years of her life. The financial aspect was quite a strain, on top of her 
: worsening medical condition at the time. She was on CPP Disability 
: benefits.

: When she passed away, I was able to collect survivor and orphan's 
: benefits. It came in handy, indeed. It was only under $300 then, and is a 
: bit over $400/month now. This is taxable income. 

: I'm on the other side of the fence, and while it is not greener, I do not 
: mind the gov't paying out benefits to any spouse, regardless of age. If 
: they, or their deceased spouse, paid into it, then they should certainly 
: get some money out of it.

I suppose that this could be done.  But would people think that increasing
CPP premiums to cover the additional expense would be acceptable.

Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:

> In can.legal me <vaxguy@home.com> wrote:
> : In article <__283.6435$8%6.504326@news1.telusplanet.net>,
> : appaloosa@telusplanet.net says...
> :> seeking a pension is far easier for some than seeking employment or careers.
> :> they should raise the age to 45.
> :>
> :> --
> :> ------------------------------------------------
> :> Calgary , Alberta / Canada
> :> appaloosa@telusplanet.net
>
> : I disagree. I was 33 when my wife, 35 at the time, passed away, in 1989.
> : We had a child who was 8 at the time. She was disabled throughout her
> : adult life. I was, by necessity, the sole breadwinner for the latter
> : years of her life. The financial aspect was quite a strain, on top of her
> : worsening medical condition at the time. She was on CPP Disability
> : benefits.
>
> : When she passed away, I was able to collect survivor and orphan's
> : benefits. It came in handy, indeed. It was only under $300 then, and is a
> : bit over $400/month now. This is taxable income.
>
> : I'm on the other side of the fence, and while it is not greener, I do not
> : mind the gov't paying out benefits to any spouse, regardless of age. If
> : they, or their deceased spouse, paid into it, then they should certainly
> : get some money out of it.
>
> I suppose that this could be done.  But would people think that increasing
> CPP premiums to cover the additional expense would be acceptable.
>

What is interesting is that the private sector already does an excellent job of
this.  The above should be a wake up call to many people to check out life
insurance and disability insurance no matter how much we hate insurance sales
people :-)



>
> Best regards,
>
> Stephen Jenuth
> (jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)
>
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

In article <3761AF8D.376A17A1@bc.sympatico.ca>, 
Jason_Moore@bc.sympatico.ca says...
> 
> 
> jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
> 
> > In can.legal me <vaxguy@home.com> wrote:
> > : In article <__283.6435$8%6.504326@news1.telusplanet.net>,
> > : appaloosa@telusplanet.net says...
> > :> seeking a pension is far easier for some than seeking employment or careers.
> > :> they should raise the age to 45.
> > :>
> > :> --
> > :> ------------------------------------------------
> > :> Calgary , Alberta / Canada
> > :> appaloosa@telusplanet.net
> >
> > : I disagree. I was 33 when my wife, 35 at the time, passed away, in 1989.
> > : We had a child who was 8 at the time. She was disabled throughout her
> > : adult life. I was, by necessity, the sole breadwinner for the latter
> > : years of her life. The financial aspect was quite a strain, on top of her
> > : worsening medical condition at the time. She was on CPP Disability
> > : benefits.
> >
> > : When she passed away, I was able to collect survivor and orphan's
> > : benefits. It came in handy, indeed. It was only under $300 then, and is a
> > : bit over $400/month now. This is taxable income.
> >
> > : I'm on the other side of the fence, and while it is not greener, I do not
> > : mind the gov't paying out benefits to any spouse, regardless of age. If
> > : they, or their deceased spouse, paid into it, then they should certainly
> > : get some money out of it.
> >
> > I suppose that this could be done.  But would people think that increasing
> > CPP premiums to cover the additional expense would be acceptable.
> >
> 
> What is interesting is that the private sector already does an excellent job of
> this.  The above should be a wake up call to many people to check out life
> insurance and disability insurance no matter how much we hate insurance sales
> people :-)
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Stephen Jenuth
> > (jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)
> >
> > Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
> 

The above is NOT a wake-up call at all. Because my wife was disabled with 
a congenital condition, she was *uninsurable*. The private sector, just 
as the government, has it's own weaknesses. We looked into all the 
possibilities we could think of, and the only one that came through in 
any wat whatsoever, was the CPP. 

However, were we to have bought insurance while we were young (21 or so), 
before her disability manifested itself, we would have been able to get 
insurance. But how many 21 yr olds get life/disability insurance, unless 
it is offered through work?

me wrote:

> In article <3761AF8D.376A17A1@bc.sympatico.ca>,
> Jason_Moore@bc.sympatico.ca says...
> >
> >
> > jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
> >
> > > In can.legal me <vaxguy@home.com> wrote:
> > > : In article <__283.6435$8%6.504326@news1.telusplanet.net>,
> > > : appaloosa@telusplanet.net says...
> > > :> seeking a pension is far easier for some than seeking employment or careers.
> > > :> they should raise the age to 45.
> > > :>
> > > :> --
> > > :> ------------------------------------------------
> > > :> Calgary , Alberta / Canada
> > > :> appaloosa@telusplanet.net
> > >
> > > : I disagree. I was 33 when my wife, 35 at the time, passed away, in 1989.
> > > : We had a child who was 8 at the time. She was disabled throughout her
> > > : adult life. I was, by necessity, the sole breadwinner for the latter
> > > : years of her life. The financial aspect was quite a strain, on top of her
> > > : worsening medical condition at the time. She was on CPP Disability
> > > : benefits.
> > >
> > > : When she passed away, I was able to collect survivor and orphan's
> > > : benefits. It came in handy, indeed. It was only under $300 then, and is a
> > > : bit over $400/month now. This is taxable income.
> > >
> > > : I'm on the other side of the fence, and while it is not greener, I do not
> > > : mind the gov't paying out benefits to any spouse, regardless of age. If
> > > : they, or their deceased spouse, paid into it, then they should certainly
> > > : get some money out of it.
> > >
> > > I suppose that this could be done.  But would people think that increasing
> > > CPP premiums to cover the additional expense would be acceptable.
> > >
> >
> > What is interesting is that the private sector already does an excellent job of
> > this.  The above should be a wake up call to many people to check out life
> > insurance and disability insurance no matter how much we hate insurance sales
> > people :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Stephen Jenuth
> > > (jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)
> > >
> > > Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
> >
>
> The above is NOT a wake-up call at all. Because my wife was disabled with
> a congenital condition, she was *uninsurable*. The private sector, just
> as the government, has it's own weaknesses. We looked into all the
> possibilities we could think of, and the only one that came through in
> any wat whatsoever, was the CPP.
>
> However, were we to have bought insurance while we were young (21 or so),
> before her disability manifested itself, we would have been able to get
> insurance. But how many 21 yr olds get life/disability insurance, unless
> it is offered through work?

Hence the unfortunate wake up call.  Anyone, particularly young people (I'm 25 and have
to go out and get myself life and disability insurance soon as I haven't done this
since I changed jobs). If something were to happen to me before I received my insurance
policy it is NOT the private sectors fault that I was too lazy or unthinking to protect
myself.

Interestingly the gov't creates other problems that would be a significant weakness. I
have been married for over a year now (lived together for 5 years) and if my wife
didn't have insurance and I didn't have insurance and something happened to one of us
we wouldn't be able to get the CPP benefit because we are under 35. This does not mean
that it is the gov't's fault for not protecting us through the CPP. Once again the
fault lies with us for not looking after our own interests.

RD <doduckr@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:3761415E.E0A78387@cadvision.com...
> >
> > So they're basing that on wealth, or a person's chance of re-etering
> > the work force.  Does that mean that the wealthy wives of
> > politicians wouldn't receive  their husband's pensions when they die
> > then?
>
> why should they ?  do wealthy people really beed $1300 more per month from
> the government ?  im not saying they should be denied $1300 because they
are
> rich, only that it comes from the government and it could be used more
> effectivly for people who need the money.  Wealthy people should not be
> sucking money from the goverment.
>
> Robb
>

So you get to define what wealthy is, to decide how much to pick their
pockets for, and you also get to decide that they have no right to ever get
any of it back?  It does NOT come from the government, it comes from the
taxpayer, and what I see defined as rich in many of these newsgroups is
ridiculous.

Receiving back a small percentage of what is paid in is NOT sucking money
from the government.  It is having a thief return you enough money from your
wallet to make your way home.

Not hard to tell where your politics are.

Gerry Carter wrote:

> RD <doduckr@cadvision.com> wrote in message
> > why should they ?  do wealthy people really beed $1300 more per month from
> > the government ?  im not saying they should be denied $1300 because they
> are
> > rich, only that it comes from the government and it could be used more
> > effectivly for people who need the money.  Wealthy people should not be
> > sucking money from the goverment.
> >
> > Robb
> >
>
> So you get to define what wealthy is, to decide how much to pick their
> pockets for, and you also get to decide that they have no right to ever get
> any of it back?  It does NOT come from the government, it comes from the
> taxpayer, and what I see defined as rich in many of these newsgroups is
> ridiculous.
>
> Receiving back a small percentage of what is paid in is NOT sucking money
> from the government.  It is having a thief return you enough money from your
> wallet to make your way home.
>
> Not hard to tell where your politics are.

where are my politics exactly ?

i have no idea how you define rich.  but i still dont see why a person who lives
in a multi million dollar house and then lives 6 months in Palm Springs, should
be elegible for a $1300 per month check from the taxpayers.

Robb

RD <doduckr@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:37659095.57C891A0@cadvision.com...
>
>
> Gerry Carter wrote:
>
> > RD <doduckr@cadvision.com> wrote in message
> > > why should they ?  do wealthy people really beed $1300 more per month
from
> > > the government ?  im not saying they should be denied $1300 because
they
> > are
> > > rich, only that it comes from the government and it could be used more
> > > effectivly for people who need the money.  Wealthy people should not
be
> > > sucking money from the goverment.
> > >
> > > Robb
> > >
> >
> > So you get to define what wealthy is, to decide how much to pick their
> > pockets for, and you also get to decide that they have no right to ever
get
> > any of it back?  It does NOT come from the government, it comes from the
> > taxpayer, and what I see defined as rich in many of these newsgroups is
> > ridiculous.
> >
> > Receiving back a small percentage of what is paid in is NOT sucking
money
> > from the government.  It is having a thief return you enough money from
your
> > wallet to make your way home.
> >
> > Not hard to tell where your politics are.
>
> where are my politics exactly ?
>
> i have no idea how you define rich.  but i still dont see why a person who
lives
> in a multi million dollar house and then lives 6 months in Palm Springs,
should
> be elegible for a $1300 per month check from the taxpayers.
>
> Robb
>

First of all, the individual you are talking about is a taxpayer as well,
and will pay more in a year than some will in a lifetime.  They are as
entitled to benefit from what is often touted as a universal program as
anyone, particulalry since they are footing so much of the bill.  It is not
a gift to them; it is a return to them of a portion of their gift to the
rest of us.

Nonetheless, the amount paid to such people is small, as they are few in
number and this is not my point anyway;  my point is that the number I have
most often seen tossed around in these newsgroups as defining rich and a
loss of entitlement to a say in anything to do with taxation is $60k.
Quibble about the number, and the definition might get raised as high as
$80k.  This is still far from rich, and only qualifies as comfortable in
today's economy.

This is the segment of the taxpaying public bearing the biggest piece of the
cost as a group, and receiving the least benefit back.

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:13:03 GMT, "Gerry Carter"
<gerrycarter@home.com> wrote:


>
>First of all, the individual you are talking about is a taxpayer as well,
>and will pay more in a year than some will in a lifetime.  They are as
>entitled to benefit from what is often touted as a universal program as
>anyone, particulalry since they are footing so much of the bill.  It is not
>a gift to them; it is a return to them of a portion of their gift to the
>rest of us.
>
Just to let you know, I think that if one pays into a system, one
should be allowed to receive their payments from the government.

>Nonetheless, the amount paid to such people is small, as they are few in
>number and this is not my point anyway;  my point is that the number I have
>most often seen tossed around in these newsgroups as defining rich and a
>loss of entitlement to a say in anything to do with taxation is $60k.
>Quibble about the number, and the definition might get raised as high as
>$80k.  This is still far from rich, and only qualifies as comfortable in
>today's economy.

I said in the above what I said so that you would realize that I do
not believe in discrimination, whether they are rich or not.

You say that if a household has $80k coming in that it is really only
comfortable. I have to tell you that you are not living in the real
world at all or you live in California. In most of this country, the
US, if a household is bringing in anything over $30k, they have no
bitch. I do consider a household that is making $80k as rich comparing
them to most who are struggling to bring in $30k or less. Get off of
your high horse and learn how people are truly living in this country
and you will learn that what you said above is truly way out of whack.

Spirit Explorer


If you are looking for a great present...try giving some Chuck Wagaon Sourdough Starter!
We also have recipes and other links of interest.
             http://www.zianet.com/witchy/

Spirit Explorer <purple-ram@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:376ecd59.35577263@news.zianet.com...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:13:03 GMT, "Gerry Carter"
> <gerrycarter@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >First of all, the individual you are talking about is a taxpayer as well,
> >and will pay more in a year than some will in a lifetime.  They are as
> >entitled to benefit from what is often touted as a universal program as
> >anyone, particulalry since they are footing so much of the bill.  It is
not
> >a gift to them; it is a return to them of a portion of their gift to the
> >rest of us.
> >
> Just to let you know, I think that if one pays into a system, one
> should be allowed to receive their payments from the government.

We agree here.

>
> >Nonetheless, the amount paid to such people is small, as they are few in
> >number and this is not my point anyway;  my point is that the number I
have
> >most often seen tossed around in these newsgroups as defining rich and a
> >loss of entitlement to a say in anything to do with taxation is $60k.
> >Quibble about the number, and the definition might get raised as high as
> >$80k.  This is still far from rich, and only qualifies as comfortable in
> >today's economy.
>
> I said in the above what I said so that you would realize that I do
> not believe in discrimination, whether they are rich or not.

We agree here.

>
> You say that if a household has $80k coming in that it is really only
> comfortable. I have to tell you that you are not living in the real
> world at all or you live in California. In most of this country, the
> US, if a household is bringing in anything over $30k, they have no
> bitch. I do consider a household that is making $80k as rich comparing
> them to most who are struggling to bring in $30k or less. Get off of
> your high horse and learn how people are truly living in this country
> and you will learn that what you said above is truly way out of whack.
>
> Spirit Explorer
>

Ah, here is the major problem - you are talking US, and I am talking Canada.
Your $30k is about $45k here; your taxes are lower; you can deduct mortgage
interest; you are taxed on family income, not individual income; etc.  The
list goes on.

And I am well aware of the real world.  I do not suggest that $80k would
fall at the low end of the scale, but I do believe that $80k (CDN, in Canada
VBG) may be near the high end of comfortable, but is still far from rich
(especially at a 50% marginal tax rate!!!), and still does not deserve the
abuse heaped by some in these newsgroups.

It appears that our disagreement is not on the principle involved, but
merely on where lies the line.

Once again, though, that line is not really what I am primarily concerned
with here; it is the attitude expressed by some that they are entitled to my
paycheck, and I that am being unreasonable if I ever request some of it
back.  I view this as a disfunctional attitude whether I am making $10k or
$100k or $1,000k.

On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 02:32:15 GMT, "Gerry Carter"
<gerrycarter@home.com> wrote:
>
>Ah, here is the major problem - you are talking US, and I am talking Canada.
>Your $30k is about $45k here; your taxes are lower; you can deduct mortgage
>interest; you are taxed on family income, not individual income; etc.  The
>list goes on.

I had no idea you were speaking about Canada. Sorry about that. 
>
>And I am well aware of the real world.  I do not suggest that $80k would
>fall at the low end of the scale, but I do believe that $80k (CDN, in Canada
>VBG) may be near the high end of comfortable, but is still far from rich
>(especially at a 50% marginal tax rate!!!), and still does not deserve the
>abuse heaped by some in these newsgroups.
>
>It appears that our disagreement is not on the principle involved, but
>merely on where lies the line.
>
>Once again, though, that line is not really what I am primarily concerned
>with here; it is the attitude expressed by some that they are entitled to my
>paycheck, and I that am being unreasonable if I ever request some of it
>back.  I view this as a disfunctional attitude whether I am making $10k or
>$100k or $1,000k.

I agree with you here.

Spirit Explorer
>
>


If you are looking for a great present...try giving some Chuck Wagaon Sourdough Starter!
We also have recipes and other links of interest.
             http://www.zianet.com/witchy/

> Ah, here is the major problem - you are talking US, and I am talking
Canada.
> Your $30k is about $45k here; your taxes are lower; you can deduct
mortgage
> interest; you are taxed on family income, not individual income; etc.  The
> list goes on.
>
> And I am well aware of the real world.  I do not suggest that $80k would
> fall at the low end of the scale, but I do believe that $80k (CDN, in
Canada
> VBG) may be near the high end of comfortable, but is still far from rich
> (especially at a 50% marginal tax rate!!!), and still does not deserve the
> abuse heaped by some in these newsgroups.

A pension is designed for "after you retire" not "while the kids are at
home".

Most people that work all their lives will have their house paid off after
20-25 years.

You have a LOT less expenses at that point.

A senior or even a family with no housing payments can do quite well on $30K
per year.  certainly you won;t go on nice vacations every year and eat out
two or three times a week, but that is far different from not living quite
well.

If you figure the average family of 4 in Canada earns say $45K (or whatever
the stats are, but it's close to that) then AFTER you pay taxes you pay your
housing, THEN you get to spend the rest, you can do pretty well if you can
pay off your house.  If you can; pay off your house in that time, you likely
needn't worry about exceeding the upper limit of $55K or whatever it was
when this thread started.

On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:28:54 -0300, "David Skene" <dskene@usa.net>
wrote:

>> Ah, here is the major problem - you are talking US, and I am talking
>Canada.
>> Your $30k is about $45k here; your taxes are lower; you can deduct
>mortgage
>> interest; you are taxed on family income, not individual income; etc.  The
>> list goes on.
>>
>> And I am well aware of the real world.  I do not suggest that $80k would
>> fall at the low end of the scale, but I do believe that $80k (CDN, in
>Canada
>> VBG) may be near the high end of comfortable, but is still far from rich
>> (especially at a 50% marginal tax rate!!!), and still does not deserve the
>> abuse heaped by some in these newsgroups.
>
>A pension is designed for "after you retire" not "while the kids are at
>home".
>
>Most people that work all their lives will have their house paid off after
>20-25 years.
>
>You have a LOT less expenses at that point.
>
>A senior or even a family with no housing payments can do quite well on $30K
>per year.  certainly you won;t go on nice vacations every year and eat out
>two or three times a week, but that is far different from not living quite
>well.

Suffice it for me to say that a Senior or even a couplke can actually
live damn well off of $20k when they aren't worrying about house
payments. But you might want to know that most seniors and older
couples that I know here in New Mexico do pay home payments, so there
you go.

Spirit Explorer
>
>If you figure the average family of 4 in Canada earns say $45K (or whatever
>the stats are, but it's close to that) then AFTER you pay taxes you pay your
>housing, THEN you get to spend the rest, you can do pretty well if you can
>pay off your house.  If you can; pay off your house in that time, you likely
>needn't worry about exceeding the upper limit of $55K or whatever it was
>when this thread started.
>
>
>


If you are looking for a great present...try giving some Chuck Wagaon Sourdough Starter!
We also have recipes and other links of interest.
             http://www.zianet.com/witchy/