JBoyd said:looks like our neighbors to the south are getting a nice raise...
Swingline1984 said:They deserve it. Did you happen to look at their pay charts? A Sgt Major w/ over 20yrs active service is currently making $4821.60/mo, USD of course (not that it makes much difference nowdays).
Cheers,
ModlrMike said:True, but there are a number of allowances that don't factor into base pay. There are also deductions like EI that we make and they don't. Still, I would estimate that at best case they're about 85% of our current rate. I would suggest that the 15% is probably eaten up in our higher cost of living though.
SleighBelle the treetopping angel said:BUT, they are a different country so what is deducted or not has SFA to do with it.
SleighBelle the treetopping angel said:One word (no, two) for you wrt to EI --
******* healthcare. Hope your wife never has a kid in the States. : 15% my ***. Ours is free.
SleighBelle the treetopping angel said:I for one, am more than glad to see them get a raise the so richly deserve.
ModlrMike said:Your point is well made, but I was thinking of disposable income as a means of measuring equivalence. It is theoretically possible for a lower wage earner to have greater disposable income than a higher wage earner. Just look at our "progressive" tax structure.
JBoyd said:A note to the mods, It was not my intention to cause any sort of conflict...
284_226 said:No, unless there's some calculation I'm not aware of, it's impossible for a lower wage earner to have a greater disposable income than a higher wage earner. It's actually the "progressive" tax structure that ensures this.
284_226 said:It is therefore a myth that a small raise in pay that bumps one into the next higher tax bracket could possibly cause one to have less take-home pay. If one gets a raise - any raise - they will always make more take-home pay than before the raise, regardless of tax brackets.
Swingline1984 said:Nor was it mine (I never should have tried to compare apples to oranges). Can't we just agree that they deserve it and carry on? I hear JBoyd is offering free hugs if anyone is interested. ;D
Cheers,
I seem to recall (though my Google-fu has failed me) that the structure of Quebec's tax and benefits system means that breaking through certain income levels means the loss of certain benefits, so an increase can actually leave you with less take-home than before. It's not a common issue, but the greater complexity you build into a system the more possibility there is of unexpected interactions, or of unforeseen sub-optimal outcomes.284_226 said:No, unless there's some calculation I'm not aware of, it's impossible for a lower wage earner to have a greater disposable income than a higher wage earner.
dapaterson said:I seem to recall (though my Google-fu has failed me) that the structure of Quebec's tax and benefits system means that breaking through certain income levels means the loss of certain benefits, so an increase can actually leave you with less take-home than before. It's not a common issue, but the greater complexity you build into a system the more possibility there is of unexpected interactions, or of unforeseen sub-optimal outcomes.