What It Takes to Be in the 1% Around the World

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The cream ALWAYS rises to the top. Talented people seldom do poorly. Should employment regulations be aimed at benefiting just the gifted, or the whole workforce?

I am not smart enough to answer your question as it is immensely complex. Free market was what I did respond to and you will find the talented, or those believing they are talented, all too happy to exert their free market opportunities. It is also my belief that collective bargaining is antithetical to the principles of the free market.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The cream ALWAYS rises to the top. Talented people seldom do poorly. Should employment regulations be aimed at benefiting just the gifted, or the whole workforce?

On the other hand, unions tend to protect the absolutely most useless employees and dead wood.

I don't know why, but they're always out there.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

It is also my belief that collective bargaining is antithetical to the principles of the free market.

It's a balancing act. Not every company looks out for or takes good care of their employees. (though many do). Some companies just want the most labour at the lowest cost and workers are disposable input.

No collective bargaining? Companies always have the upper hand.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

On the other hand, unions tend to protect the absolutely most useless employees and dead wood.

I don't know why, but they're always out there.

It happens. And some successful entrepreneurs/businessfolks are ethically challenged. Balance.

Even the worst stick of union deadwood is still a consumer and part of the economy. Would you rather they be collecting unemployment?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Even the worst stick of union deadwood is still a consumer and part of the economy. Would you rather they be collecting unemployment?

Yes...

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The cream ALWAYS rises to the top. Talented people seldom do poorly.

I've been lurking and while I'm in agreement with most of what you've said, if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

Cream rises to the top, but it doesn't have to deal with office politics, competitive coworkers, jealous bosses, etc.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's helped me understand why it's so hard for people like you to be willing to challenge their own beliefs. Thanks for reinforcing this lesson, over and over.

Instead of being so afraid, why not actually try and learn something?

Michael! You’re better than that.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Absolutely, but IF this data is accurate, there are other factors at play. Could be cultural, could be economic, could be a host of interconnected factors. Clearly it's not fully explained by proximity to water.

Not fully. But that combined with high urban wages does. Aside from Calgary, most major Canadian cities are on water. Blanket statement, Canadian professionals make a ton of money. That leaves more money to blow on boats. Look at Lake Champlain, it’s all Canadians.

Compare to USA which also has highly compensated urbanites, but there are big cities nowhere near the water.

Plus, statistically speaking, there are 230 million Americans and like 1000 Canadians, so there more error in the small Canadian population.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

I've been lurking and while I'm in agreement with most of what you've said, if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

Cream rises to the top, but it doesn't have to deal with office politics, competitive coworkers, jealous bosses, etc.

Ok, it sucks as a broad generalization. (Sh!t floats too, sometimes ) but in the narrower context of collective bargaining, a talented worker is seldom held back by there being a union or not.

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok, it sucks as a broad generalization. (Sh!t floats too, sometimes ) but in the narrower context of collective bargaining, a talented worker is seldom held back by there being a union or not.

And to that, I agree wholeheartedly.

[GordMay]

THE REAL-TIME BILLIONAIRES LIST [2022]

Forbes' Real-Time Billionaires rankings tracks the daily ups and downs of the world’s richest people.
The wealth-tracking platform provides ongoing updates on the net worth and ranking of each individual confirmed by Forbes to be a billionaire. The value of individuals’ public holdings are updated every 5 minutes when respective stock markets are open (there will be a 15-minute delay for stock prices). Individuals whose fortunes are significantly tied to private companies will have their net worths updated once a day. In cases where an individual owns a stake in a private company that accounts for 20% or more of his or her net worth, the value of the company will be adjusted according to an industry- or region-specific market index provided by our partners at FactSet Research Systems when available.
A rotating cast of the five biggest winners and losers* throughout the day is featured at the top of the page, followed by the complete list of [all 2,668] billionaires ranked in order of net worth.

Today’s Winners and Losers
Reflects changes since 5pm EST of prior trading day
➥ https://www.forbes.com/real-time-bil.../#ed6d0fe3d788

* Elon Musk [worth $268.2 B] LOST $1.5 B | -0.54%
Bernard Arnault & family [worth $161.5 B] LOST $5.3 B | -3.15%

Did Elon's loss, yesterday, have anything to do with his Twitter deal?
Less than two weeks after attempting a hostile takeover of Twitter, Elon Musk has clinched a deal to buy the social media giant, and take it private.
At $44 billion US, the deal will be one of the largest leveraged buyouts in corporate history. More than $25 billion US of the purchase price will be financed with debt.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Today’s Winners and Losers
Reflects changes since 5pm EST of prior trading day
➥ https://www.forbes.com/real-time-bil.../#ed6d0fe3d788

* Elon Musk [worth $268.2 B] LOST $1.5 B | -0.54%
Bernard Arnault & family [worth $161.5 B] LOST $5.3 B | -3.15%

Did Elon's loss, yesterday, have anything to do with his Twitter deal?
Less than two weeks after attempting a hostile takeover of Twitter, Elon Musk has clinched a deal to buy the social media giant, and take it private.
At $44 billion US, the deal will be one of the largest leveraged buyouts in corporate history. More than $25 billion US of the purchase price will be financed with debt.

I think he's still safely in the 1%.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by GordMay

THE REAL-TIME BILLIONAIRES LIST [2022]

Forbes' Real-Time Billionaires rankings tracks the daily ups and downs of the world’s richest people.
The wealth-tracking platform provides ongoing updates on the net worth and ranking of each individual confirmed by Forbes to be a billionaire. The value of individuals’ public holdings are updated every 5 minutes when respective stock markets are open (there will be a 15-minute delay for stock prices). Individuals whose fortunes are significantly tied to private companies will have their net worths updated once a day. In cases where an individual owns a stake in a private company that accounts for 20% or more of his or her net worth, the value of the company will be adjusted according to an industry- or region-specific market index provided by our partners at FactSet Research Systems when available.
A rotating cast of the five biggest winners and losers* throughout the day is featured at the top of the page, followed by the complete list of [all 2,668] billionaires ranked in order of net worth.

Today’s Winners and Losers
Reflects changes since 5pm EST of prior trading day
➥ https://www.forbes.com/real-time-bil.../#ed6d0fe3d788

* Elon Musk [worth $268.2 B] LOST $1.5 B | -0.54%
Bernard Arnault & family [worth $161.5 B] LOST $5.3 B | -3.15%

Did Elon's loss, yesterday, have anything to do with his Twitter deal?
Less than two weeks after attempting a hostile takeover of Twitter, Elon Musk has clinched a deal to buy the social media giant, and take it private.
At $44 billion US, the deal will be one of the largest leveraged buyouts in corporate history. More than $25 billion US of the purchase price will be financed with debt.

This does point out the difficulty of the world of taxation. These fluctuations are part of the market and are often an element of the statement of the person's wealth. If their portfolio grows on paper by $ 5 billion we, perhaps rightly, scream they should be taxed on that gain but I am sure you can see how difficult it would be to re-balance when the market goes down.

Currently we only tax the income which would be time at which they take money out of the market crystallizing the gain or loss. You can certainly complain to your government that the tax rates are inappropriate but please know that when they take the money out so they can spend it, the tax man is there to collect.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We are absolutely looking at the choice of political persuasions, it's simply that the persuasion that's the most indebted to big business has been in control of legislation.

Once again, I will refer you to your earlier quote about religion.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by danstanford

This does point out the difficulty of the world of taxation. These fluctuations are part of the market and are often an element of the statement of the person's wealth. If their portfolio grows on paper by $ 5 billion we, perhaps rightly, scream they should be taxed on that gain but I am sure you can see how difficult it would be to re-balance when the market goes down.

Currently we only tax the income which would be time at which they take money out of the market crystallizing the gain or loss. You can certainly complain to your government that the tax rates are inappropriate but please know that when they take the money out so they can spend it, the tax man is there to collect.

As I mentioned earlier, they should at least be taxed on the gains when they pass the money on through inheritances.


At the moment, the cost basis gets updated, and no tax has to be paid on those gains.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

As I mentioned earlier, they should at least be taxed on the gains when they pass the money on through inheritances.


At the moment, the cost basis gets updated, and no tax has to be paid on those gains.

Do you have any idea why they have structured the tax in this fashion?

I have read about the family farm circumstance where due to the gain on the value of the business the kids cannot pay the tax without selling the farm, but I am not sure if this is the driving force. Neither am I sure if the structure in Canada is the same.