this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
135 points (99.3% liked)
Canada
7230 readers
567 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
π Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It says this includes things like helping with grandkids schooling.
My parents started a university savings account for my kids the day they were born because they wanted to, I hardly consider it "supporting" me and my wife in any way. The kids won't need it for a decade still, and we could cover their costs without it just fine.
Helpful, sure, but the headline is misleading at best if it's including that in the 60%.
I cannot fathom why you wouldn't consider that support. It is by definition. I think the problem is you consider support a negative for some reason. You're supposed to support your family there's nothing wrong with it.
The first paragraph of the article states:
My parents have no negative impact on their finances, they can still afford to travel internationally 2-3 times a year for multiple weeks at a time, and yet they would be included in that percentage.
This makes the headline very misleading, since it implies that 60% of retirees are experiencing a negative impact upon their finances.
Instead, I'd like to see the percentage of retirees who think they are experiencing a negative impact upon their finances. That number would be more useful in determining what to do about the situation.
I don't see what that has to do with anything in either of our comments.
I'm also still not seeing why you immediately assume negative connotations.
I immediately assume negative connotations because the first sentence states "Negative Impact"
I don't know what part of that logic is confusing to you.