2 ms·

There's a questionable point they brought up though. Not just questionable, but outright false: The fraction of income received by the 1% of Canadians with the

There's a questionable point they brought up though. Not just questionable, but outright false: The fraction of income received by the 1% of Canadians with the highest incomes has been dropping every year for the past decade. Unfortunately the Liberal party policy process doesn't include any mechanism for introducing evidence or debating facts; I'm hoping that this will be corrected (a new party constitution was approved over the weekend which will result in a new policy formulation process).

zxcvvcxz 10y ago
Interesting. Can you provide a source? Would definitely add another dimension to the mincome debate.
- cperciva 10y ago
  A source for the fraction of income received by the top 1% dropping in Canada? Statistics Canada, CANSIM table 204-0001. There doesn't seem to be any way to link to an extract of data from their website, but I've taken a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/dWJJr6J.png http://i.imgur.com/dWJJr6J.png
wux 10y ago
Unfortunately, you're simply not correct. The fraction of income received by the top 1% of Canadians did not decrease from 2012 to 2013, nor did it decrease from 2010 to 2011. Source: Statistics Canada http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=2040001&&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=31&tabMode=dataTable&csid= http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&i...
- cperciva 10y ago
  Rounding.
  - gruez 10y ago
    Elaborate?
    - cperciva 10y ago
      Those numbers are rounded to one decimal place. Given the trendline, it's far more likely that the actual numbers were 10.63, 10.58, 10.34, 10.26 rather than 10.6, 10.6, 10.3, 10.3.