Should Canada teach financial literacy earlier in schools?

I think there is enough literacy and its cost being charged by the Institutions and rest is being done by the Governement in form of making money through GAS prices. What need to focus on is raise
the wage rate.so that people could afford living. I am not saying 25 cents increase mininmum should be $15 an hour.

Lol at the Guy above.

Obviously if you are earning minimium wage you didn't get any financial knowledge in school.

It is highly evident that financial literacy in this country is greatly lacking. Most individuals struggle to make even basic budgetting decisions and forget talking about leverage, diversified investing or 20 year retirement plans. Given the number of inconsequencial items that are taught in school it is amazing that basic finance isn't being taught (Trigonometry jumps to mind).

A simple financial course taught thoughout a student's life could add a lot of value to their future life.

@Western Guy... I couldn't have said it better myself.
@Guy.. ah yes, put the blame on everything but yourself, then expect to get more for doing less.

Learning financial literacy is critical but I am not sure that the schools are up to the task. They are overwhelmed as it is and are failing to teach the three 'R's to all children. Expecting teachers who aren't competent to teach the basics to also financial literacy is a very bad idea.

I mean, look at the failure in education on the Praries where the people don't seem to understand that reducing taxes on business means an increase in personal taxes or an increase in Provincial/National Debt.

Ummm SP your concept of reduced taxes has a somwhat shortsighted view. Reducing taxes on business increases capital available to the business which reinvest which creates more jobs. Also lower tax rates will attract more businesses to setup in your area which will again boost jobs. More jobs (due to a combination of the two aforementioned items) will lead to more tax being paid. Also more jobs will lead to less unemployment claims which will reduce government spending.

This is why Alberta, which has the lowest personal tax rate (for people over 100K income) and lowest business tax rate also has $0 provincial debt, the lowest unemployment, and is now considered the only "have" province. You will likely say it is because of our oil but Saskatchewan has similar deposits of oil and other provinces have their own perks (B.C mining / lumber / fishing / tourism) (Sask same as Alberta) (Ont. has manufacturing and the east coast has fishing etc). Alberta got the capital investment because of the low tax regime.

Looking internationally this has worked for other places as well. Look at the Cayman islands, Bermuda, The Shetland Islands, Antigua, Saudi Arabia etc. Each has had tremendous financial boosts from being low tax zones.

So no, lower business taxes don't necessarily lead to more personal taxes. Your view is obviously simplistic and reeks of a view of us versus them when considering businesses.

It isn't 'us versus them' it is based upon history, average corporation tax rates have fallen from the low 40%s in the 1960s to somewhere in the low 20%s today.

Alberta produces 68% of Canada's crude and 78% of it's Natural gas, this accounts for 40% of provincial revenue whereas Sask produces 20% of CDN prod oil & gas which accounts for 17% of it's prov revenue. (so much for the Tea Party delusions of low taxes being what makes Alberta Solvent).

Onto Bermuda / Antigua / Shetlands etc which are tax havens: "WILLIS Group, the world's third-largest insurance broker, has joined a growing list of US companies moving their tax bases to Ireland from Bermuda. The move comes a few months after US President Barack Obama said he planned to crack down on corporate tax havens. While Ireland was named in an initial list of tax havens, few experts believe Ireland will be included when the US draws up legislation in 2011." We will have to wait to see how rich the North & South Shetland islands / Bermuda etc are in a few years after US tax law changes.

Pre World War 1 Canada's income tax level was 0%, even after two world wars in the 1960's with our 'free' healthcare it was still below 35%, where as now it is 50%+ (funny, it almost seems as corp taxes have gone down personal taxes have gone... UP, along with national debt).

This is my point of financial literacy. People need to understand the long term big picture if they are able to discern how a nuance in public or tax policy can create a massive structural problem (the Butterfly effect if you will). If more people were properly taught finance they would have seen how Reaganomics leads more towards Mexico and less towards Norway.

A famous American once said "The measure of a man's success in life is not the money he's made. It's the kind of family he has raised". Is our society fostering good families or WorldCom's?

Again SP you show great ignorance. Corporate tax rates are about 15% today on the first 400 thousand (and only for some types of privately owned businesses with all public entities paying full rate from dollar 1). After that the rate goes up to around 32%. So low corporate taxes really only apply to small owner managed businesses. These are the "big businesses" that you seem to refer to.

Also another fact is that while corporate taxes have gone down slightly dividend taxes and capital gains taxes have increased (before 1972 they were 0%). These are the taxes for an individual to remove value from a company as an owner. When you net out dividend taxes and cpaital gains with the corporate taxes already paid small business owners pay about as much tax to get an earned dollar to their pocket as their employees do (in some cases more).

Now on too Alberta. Saskatchewan has nearly equivalent proven reserves to Alberta (norhtern heavy oil extends into Alberta, they have a huge southern bakken play and a lot of shallow gas and crude inbetween. The difference has been with the much lower tax rate and better royalty regime Alberta has attracted much more capital which has better developed the industry. You say Alberta does better because of oil. I say we do better because our lower tax rate allowed for the better development of our oil industry which created our prosperity. Your point actually proves my case.

Ireland is a semi-tax haven and has enjoyed huge economic boost from it. Their corporate tax rate is 12% on large corporations (verus the EU average of 30%). This has lead to a lot of US businesses locating their european headquarters in Ireland (think google which has over 1,200 highly paid employees in Ireland). Without the low tax rate google would not have based their business there and all 1200 of those jobs would not exist (not even counting the huge economic spin-off of those individuals). Again your point actually proves my case.

Now on to your tax comments. Individual tax at 50%? On what planet? We have a GRADUATED tax system. Top rates (39% in alberta, 44% in Ontairo) only apply to INCOME OVER 120,000. An individual at $50,000 a year pays around 20% tax, an individual at 75,000 pays about 24% and an individual at 100,000 pays about 28% NET TAX (this isn't calculating child benefits, stay at home spouses, dual incomes earning this etc. which lowers the tax considerably. Now I know you will bring out HST. Yes it is 12%. Do you know that it applies to approximately only 20% of an individual's spending? So realistically it is around a 2.5% increase in taxes. For good measure throw in another 1% for surcharge taxes (sin taxes) and 2.5% for property taxes and your average $50,000 a year individuals has a tax rate of 26%. About 1/2 what you figured. Don't FACTS hurt?

Lastly it is a great quote. Made by Joseph Kennedy. He made the Kennedys by becoming a multi-millionaire in the 1920s (while in his early 30s) by investing in the stock market (for purchasing power remember at this time lunch cost $0.30, a car was $1,200 and a million dollars was serious money). He maanged this after getting a harvard education in finance (his family paid his way through that). He is not exactly a poster boy for higher taxes on owner managed businesses now is he?

So your facts are wrong, your conclusions worse and your quote was worst. Congrats.

I'll let Western Guy and SP measure their pseudo-intellectual penis'...... I take exception to the throw-away line of unknowing arrogance foisted on us by SP - "failing to teach the three R's...who aren't competent to teach the basics..".
I've been teaching in the public system for twenty-one years (music/grade 1-3) and in the private system for eleven summers (ESL to International students) and I've learned this - private schools don't have students from low socio-economic backgrounds for obvious reasons (can't afford) but the public system takes all comers...kids from drug-addicted drop-out parents who (bless their little souls) are intellectually damaged to kids from foreign countries that don't speak a word of English...and we are charged with teaching them all and helping them attain grade-level benchmarks across the curriculum continuum. Hey SP, maybe try being accountable for that alphabet soup before you criticize what you obviously have NO understanding of.
As far as financial literacy, a six-figure RRSP and a TFSA at 17,000 (before this years 5,000 contri) demonstrates that this 47 year-old "incompetent" teacher has more financial saavy than many in my peer group and in this country.
Want me to share my knowledge with your grandkids?

To Teacher/Investor, we'll start with some background:

Over 15 years teachers salaries have increased 71% (education.alberta.ca)
K-12 Education spending accounts for 69.6% of Education budget (Stats' Can)
- YET -
Alberta High school graduation rates 5 year average is only 67% 2009 (Auditor General)
- - - now.. - - -
Only 38% of Canadian workers now have a workplace pension plan (but 100% of public school teachers).
Your statement of your net worth is merely indicative of how far you are inside the trough and how competent your union negotiators are, not proof of any skills on your part. My little sister is a public high school teacher and my children had been to the public schools for a bit, so I feel fairly confident in my assessment. Your socio-economic background point brought to mind an old, old saying:

"A poor tradesman always blames his tools"

Perhaps we should provide the tools and help our children become autodidact (they pretty much have to be in modern public schools now anyway).

I believe at the High School level we should have manditory Electives Grade 9-12 where students learn everything about finances! Mortgages, RRSP, Pensions, Money/ Investing Strategies etc. Could you imagine if our children graduated with this type of knowledge what it would do over time to the average wealth of a Canadian.!

It seems that the answers so far provided aren't really answering the question. Yes - children need to learn, as part of the regular school programs from grade 1-12 some basic fundamentals, not just the mathematics. They need to know that if you have a dollar, you can spend a dollar. They need to know the difference between wants and needs. They need to be taught the long term ramifications of spending beyond their means. Within these lessons are the mathematics of basic finances. Teaching these concepts, hopefully, might end the "entitlement, gotta have it now", attitudes that have come to be the norm over the past 40-50 years. Once upon a time - and not so long ago, credit was something people didn't consider outside of the purchase of a house!

Children have to start learning it, but who is going to teach it. I am sure that teachers fall in the same catagory as most Canadians. But it is really not to hard.
Its not what you make, it is what you spend, and don't spend more than you make.
Pay yourself first.

@Western Guy... BTW, Joseph Kennedy made most of his millions bootlegging booze into the USA from the Bronfman Brothers in Canada during prohibition. He was connected to the Chicago mafia family under Sam Giancana and nearly got "wacked" due to his "turnaround" when John F was elected on the back of Millions of $$$ from the mob. He may have turned some of those millions into the stock market when he got "clean?" but it was dirty money from the get go.

NO its simple, how much money do you have to work with, what needs to be paid, pay it and quit living beyond your means...if you still don't have enough money to live a basic life then you begin to see how the world is slowly causing the people to worry about the furture 'Should Canada teach financial literacy earlier in schools?' who's going to create the literacy for these children to learn, GOVERNMENT, lol

What's the point? Let them consume, we do, whether it be on credit or not. I once heard a phrase that you've never lived until you've taken them for a million dollars in credit.

Government Guy is an idiot. Raising the minimum wage doesn't increase living standards. It lowers them by devaluing money and increasing inflation.

I believe this blog got started due to the results of stats, namely that Canadians are going deeper and deeper in debt. Now is that the result of financial illiteracy, I believe that's unlikely. Why not take the cheap and easy credit if it's being offered. Obviously that's they way the majority feel, or the stats wouldn't look the way they do. Besides, if your children don't take up large debt obligations whose going to pay the interest on your investments, you know the ones you've been saving for your retirement.

uhhhh freemarket, if you want to devalue your currency and increase inflation it's easy, just print alot more of it.

of course you have to print it faster than everybody else

Oh, and to teach financial literacy earlier would be parents listing the costs of everyday living, the prices of food, education, wants, and the BIG ONE: GOVERNMENT TAXES and INCOME TAXES' and taxes ON ALL OF THE ABOVE so children what you make may not be enough to keep the politians sipping champagne, and eating caviare. And we will always pay for their penisons!