• God_Is_Love@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    This honestly seems low for the way things are, I suspect it will increase in the next couple years as real estate and rental prices catch up to people who have been less effected so far

    • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah this is so wrong. I read stats claiming only the top 30% make $70k annually or more. That’s basically $4k a month take home. Given rent and bills, that actually likely leaves people with like $1,500 for food and other. Given the cost of food, I can’t see anyone eating on a budget of $200 a month. Even eating moderately costs about $400-500 and you’re likely making most of your meals from scratch.

      And that’s the top 30%. What are the other 70% living like? Because I buy a dozen eggs, some milk, a loaf of bread and I’m down like $20.

      • saigot@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you are looking at individual income where household is more appropriate. The median after tax household income is 68k. So that’s still 50% doing worse, but it’s a little better than you make out.

        • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry how is 68k annually per household better than 70k per person? Your figures make the situations worse.

          • saigot@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            70k per household is the top 50% of renters not the top 30 like you say.

            • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes but out of a household of 4, you’d theoretically have two people earning $70k annually if per person right? So your stats half the household incomes but only drop the population by 15% give or take. Thats far more bleak.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The solution: Policies that increase incomes

    Reducing food insecurity requires income solutions such as higher minimum wage, higher social assistance rates and lower income tax rates for the lowest income households.

    While I do agree that these should be in place, the reality is that it’s not only the lowest income households who are struggling with the cost of living.

    Support should be given to all households who aren’t outright wealthy or else you’re ignoring the majority of Canadians.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      NDP want their policies to be universal

      Liberals want it to only apply to the lowest class

      Cons don’t want any

      Based on popularity, most people seem to be between none and bare minimum