|
Post by TheDeuce on Nov 1, 2011 14:01:59 GMT -6
No, that's not like questioning the right of, or need for, governments to tax. Governments need to tax the citizenry to provide common goods and services which are either impossible or impractical to acquire on an individual basis. Roads and bridges, public buildings, police, and the military are all legitimate areas of government involvement. However, what you seem to be advocating is a confiscation of assets from those whom you apparently deem to be unworthy of retaining that which they have legally and legitimately acquired in order to distribute to those who, while having done nothing to entitle themselves to those assets, you deem to be worthy of those assets. I have yet to hear a rational argument in favour of this proposal. I've seen numerous references to how wealth is distributed disproportionately and how obscene some might find it to pay $40,000 for a bottle of wine, but no one is either willing or able to justify this notion that people who earn a certain value of assets should have those assets taken away and given to those who did not earn those assets. I find the repeated references to the theoretical $40,000 bottle of wine to be disingenuous considering that every member of this forum would, I suspect, not hesitate to spend that much or more over the next few years on season tickets. At least that bottle of wine may go up in value and provide a return on investment in five years. Our ST's will be worth exactly zero in that same timeframe. m. Whatever man you aren't listening to me. I am over it. Maybe we need to settle this with a beer.....or wine maybe Beer, if you please. Standard Lager, the (formerly) Manitoba classic. But we won't be able to 'settle' it, only discuss it. After all, you won't even answer a question that inquires into the foundation of your argument. Pretty simple question IMHO... m.
|
|
|
Post by labatt50 on Nov 1, 2011 14:47:18 GMT -6
Whatever man you aren't listening to me. I am over it. Maybe we need to settle this with a beer.....or wine maybe Beer, if you please. Standard Lager, the (formerly) Manitoba classic. But we won't be able to 'settle' it, only discuss it. After all, you won't even answer a question that inquires into the foundation of your argument. Pretty simple question IMHO... m. Please allow me to counter one of your points: "...you seem to be advocating is a confiscation of assets from those whom you apparently deem to be unworthy of retaining that which they have legally and legitimately acquired in order to distribute to those who, while having done nothing to entitle themselves to those assets, you deem to be worthy of those assets." No one is suggesting that there should be a direct transfer of wealth from the pockets of the top 1% to the pockets of the bottom 99%. Rather, the top 1% should be responsible for paying back some of the excessive wealth that they have accumulated in the past 30 years (while the average Canadian has seen his wages stagnate in the same period) and putting it back in the public coffers to improve not only the economy, but society. If the bottom 99% has excellent healthcare, subsidized post-secondary education, strong social safety net, etc, then they will be able to prosper just like the top 1%. And since it is the wealthiest Canadians who have been reaping the benefits of neoliberal economic policy for the past 30 years while the rest of us gets left behind, don't you think that its fair for them to pay a little bit more tax to ensure that the 99% at the bottom get a chance to succeed just like the top 1%?
|
|
|
Post by Hannu Smail on Nov 1, 2011 15:00:31 GMT -6
Beer, if you please. Standard Lager, the (formerly) Manitoba classic. But we won't be able to 'settle' it, only discuss it. After all, you won't even answer a question that inquires into the foundation of your argument. Pretty simple question IMHO... m. Please allow me to counter one of your points: "...you seem to be advocating is a confiscation of assets from those whom you apparently deem to be unworthy of retaining that which they have legally and legitimately acquired in order to distribute to those who, while having done nothing to entitle themselves to those assets, you deem to be worthy of those assets." No one is suggesting that there should be a direct transfer of wealth from the pockets of the top 1% to the pockets of the bottom 99%. Rather, the top 1% should be responsible for paying back some of the excessive wealth that they have accumulated in the past 30 years (while the average Canadian has seen his wages stagnate in the same period) and putting it back in the public coffers to improve not only the economy, but society. If the bottom 99% has excellent healthcare, subsidized post-secondary education, strong social safety net, etc, then they will be able to prosper just like the top 1%. And since it is the wealthiest Canadians who have been reaping the benefits of neoliberal economic policy for the past 30 years while the rest of us gets left behind, don't you think that its fair for them to pay a little bit more tax to ensure that the 99% at the bottom get a chance to succeed just like the top 1%? So you're advocating a "success tax"? That's incentive for progress. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole here, but that's also approaching communism. The wealthy (or 1%) already do pay a little bit more tax than the rest.... scratch that, a lot more than the rest.... in the form of higher marginal tax rates applied on a much larger income base. They would pay more with the same rates as the rest, for the same services, on the basis of their annual income alone. You're almost making it sound like someone making $20K a year is paying the same taxes as someone making $2M. In reality, what would the $20K salary pay annually in taxes? A few thousand? Versus the $750K or so the $2M earner would pay? That's not enough of a difference? edit: for some perspective on what the rich vs working poor, for lack of better terms, would pay in annual taxes in Canada, go plunk some figures into this calculator: lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-taxtry my $20K vs $2M example. $2700 vs $900,000 paid in taxes... for the same services. You're right, that doesn't seem fair.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Nov 1, 2011 15:18:19 GMT -6
Please allow me to counter one of your points: "...you seem to be advocating is a confiscation of assets from those whom you apparently deem to be unworthy of retaining that which they have legally and legitimately acquired in order to distribute to those who, while having done nothing to entitle themselves to those assets, you deem to be worthy of those assets." No one is suggesting that there should be a direct transfer of wealth from the pockets of the top 1% to the pockets of the bottom 99%. Rather, the top 1% should be responsible for paying back some of the excessive wealth that they have accumulated in the past 30 years (while the average Canadian has seen his wages stagnate in the same period) and putting it back in the public coffers to improve not only the economy, but society. If the bottom 99% has excellent healthcare, subsidized post-secondary education, strong social safety net, etc, then they will be able to prosper just like the top 1%. And since it is the wealthiest Canadians who have been reaping the benefits of neoliberal economic policy for the past 30 years while the rest of us gets left behind, don't you think that its fair for them to pay a little bit more tax to ensure that the 99% at the bottom get a chance to succeed just like the top 1%? So you're advocating a "success tax"? That's incentive for progress. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole here, but that's also approaching communism. The wealthy (or 1%) already do pay a little bit more tax than the rest.... scratch that, a lot more than the rest.... in the form of higher marginal tax rates applied on a much larger income base. They would pay more with the same rates as the rest, for the same services, on the basis of their annual income alone. You're almost making it sound like someone making $20K a year is paying the same taxes as someone making $2M. In reality, what would the $20K salary pay annually in taxes? A few thousand? Versus the $750K or so the $2M earner would pay? That's not enough of a difference? edit: for some perspective on what the rich vs working poor, for lack of better terms, would pay in annual taxes in Canada, go plunk some figures into this calculator: lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-taxtry my $20K vs $2M example. $2700 vs $900,000 paid in taxes... for the same services. You're right, that doesn't seem fair. This basically comes down to saying "should we raise taxes for high income tax brackets or not". What's the right answer? Hard to say, but the one point I'll give the Occupy Movement is this - single countries can not raise income taxes too much, because it would drive investment/business out of the country and into lower tax countries. That is the main arguement for not raising taxes, and a fair one. But what the Occupy movement is saying (or I assume they are, I haven't really paid much attention until it showed up in this forum!) is that if EVERY country raised taxes on the wealthy, there would be more of a gain to society as a whole. Which again, I agree with. And no, I wouldn't say that a super rich person uses the same amount of services as a poor person. Public roads is the best (direct) example - without public roads most businesses would not be as profitable, thus the rich would not have made as much money. So they do profit from many government services in a round-about way. Overall, I agree that the rich should be taxed higher, but it only works if every industrialized country in the world does it, and that's a pretty lofty goal. Even most uber-rich people agree, that's why most of them give so much money away through philanthropy.
|
|
|
Post by labatt50 on Nov 1, 2011 15:36:17 GMT -6
Please allow me to counter one of your points: "...you seem to be advocating is a confiscation of assets from those whom you apparently deem to be unworthy of retaining that which they have legally and legitimately acquired in order to distribute to those who, while having done nothing to entitle themselves to those assets, you deem to be worthy of those assets." No one is suggesting that there should be a direct transfer of wealth from the pockets of the top 1% to the pockets of the bottom 99%. Rather, the top 1% should be responsible for paying back some of the excessive wealth that they have accumulated in the past 30 years (while the average Canadian has seen his wages stagnate in the same period) and putting it back in the public coffers to improve not only the economy, but society. If the bottom 99% has excellent healthcare, subsidized post-secondary education, strong social safety net, etc, then they will be able to prosper just like the top 1%. And since it is the wealthiest Canadians who have been reaping the benefits of neoliberal economic policy for the past 30 years while the rest of us gets left behind, don't you think that its fair for them to pay a little bit more tax to ensure that the 99% at the bottom get a chance to succeed just like the top 1%? So you're advocating a "success tax"? That's incentive for progress. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole here, but that's also approaching communism. The wealthy (or 1%) already do pay a little bit more tax than the rest.... scratch that, a lot more than the rest.... in the form of higher marginal tax rates applied on a much larger income base. They would pay more with the same rates as the rest, for the same services, on the basis of their annual income alone. You're almost making it sound like someone making $20K a year is paying the same taxes as someone making $2M. In reality, what would the $20K salary pay annually in taxes? A few thousand? Versus the $750K or so the $2M earner would pay? That's not enough of a difference? edit: for some perspective on what the rich vs working poor, for lack of better terms, would pay in annual taxes in Canada, go plunk some figures into this calculator: lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-taxtry my $20K vs $2M example. $2700 vs $900,000 paid in taxes... for the same services. You're right, that doesn't seem fair. Communist? Really? I realize you're using hyperbole, but we're much closer to a corporate oligarchy than we are to communism...let alone socialism. I guess us lefties will just have to disagree with you righties on the issue. We think that every Canadian deserves the chance for success, and that workers shouldn't have the boot-heel of multi-national corporations on their throats. Meanwhile, if we continue along the way of the right wing, we can look forward to: -our healthcare system run by companies whose sole interest is denying coverage in order to make more profit -continuing to increase defense spending while education spending is plumeting -doing away with publicly funded elections, so that corporations can pump millions into the system and influence public discourse even more than they already do Basically, us lefties want Canada to be like Canada used to be; and you righties want Canada to be like the USA is today.
|
|
|
Post by labatt50 on Nov 1, 2011 15:39:25 GMT -6
Great debate we're having here, by the way. Nice to be able to have a civilized conversation with someone without name-calling and all that other internet BS (eg Wpg Free Press comment section). Keep it up!
|
|
|
Post by JordyRamone on Nov 1, 2011 15:49:02 GMT -6
Ya and how is that turning out for the USA. I was wondering when some one would toss out the commie word. Another scare tactic. The problem is the rich is getting way too powerful and is running parts of our country when it should be the government whose intentions should be to help the people and not help business.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Nov 1, 2011 15:55:58 GMT -6
Great debate we're having here, by the way. Nice to be able to have a civilized conversation with someone without name-calling and all that other internet BS (eg Wpg Free Press comment section). Keep it up! I was thinking just that. Every one is debating the fact and pounding the points, not insulting each other. Agree or not, I've got respect for the participants in this discussion. m.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Nov 1, 2011 16:02:53 GMT -6
So you're advocating a "success tax"? That's incentive for progress. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole here, but that's also approaching communism. The wealthy (or 1%) already do pay a little bit more tax than the rest.... scratch that, a lot more than the rest.... in the form of higher marginal tax rates applied on a much larger income base. They would pay more with the same rates as the rest, for the same services, on the basis of their annual income alone. You're almost making it sound like someone making $20K a year is paying the same taxes as someone making $2M. In reality, what would the $20K salary pay annually in taxes? A few thousand? Versus the $750K or so the $2M earner would pay? That's not enough of a difference? edit: for some perspective on what the rich vs working poor, for lack of better terms, would pay in annual taxes in Canada, go plunk some figures into this calculator: lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-taxtry my $20K vs $2M example. $2700 vs $900,000 paid in taxes... for the same services. You're right, that doesn't seem fair. Communist? Really? I realize you're using hyperbole, but we're much closer to a corporate oligarchy than we are to communism...let alone socialism. I guess us lefties will just have to disagree with you righties on the issue. We think that every Canadian deserves the chance for success, and that workers shouldn't have the boot-heel of multi-national corporations on their throats. Meanwhile, if we continue along the way of the right wing, we can look forward to: -our healthcare system run by companies whose sole interest is denying coverage in order to make more profit -continuing to increase defense spending while education spending is plumeting -doing away with publicly funded elections, so that corporations can pump millions into the system and influence public discourse even more than they already do Basically, us lefties want Canada to be like Canada used to be; and you righties want Canada to be like the USA is today. In what way do multi-national corporations have their heel on our throats? Opportunity abounds for those who are willing to put in the time and effort to realize success, and neither Walmart nor the Royal Bank nor Sony are holding us back. On the contrary, those very companies are buying the goods and services that small companies are selling, making small-business success stories possible. The obstacles standing in the way of savvy business owners are not the multi-national corporations. It's the red-tape loving bureaucracy and intrusive government policy and onerous taxation holding us back. Want to grow and sell lettuce in the USA? Get ready to comply with 177 pages of agricultural policy to keep legal. m.
|
|
|
Post by Hannu Smail on Nov 1, 2011 16:22:28 GMT -6
Great debate we're having here, by the way. Nice to be able to have a civilized conversation with someone without name-calling and all that other internet BS (eg Wpg Free Press comment section). Keep it up! Indeed... was thinking the same. Kudos.
|
|
|
Post by Hannu Smail on Nov 1, 2011 16:24:32 GMT -6
Ya and how is that turning out for the USA. I was wondering when some one would toss out the commie word. Another scare tactic. The problem is the rich is getting way too powerful and is running parts of our country when it should be the government whose intentions should be to help the people and not help business. See, me throwing out a hyperbolic "commie" is no more (or less) a scare tactic than you throwing out the "the right's goal is to become the USA" warning. That simply isn't true, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by labatt50 on Nov 1, 2011 21:04:16 GMT -6
Communist? Really? I realize you're using hyperbole, but we're much closer to a corporate oligarchy than we are to communism...let alone socialism. I guess us lefties will just have to disagree with you righties on the issue. We think that every Canadian deserves the chance for success, and that workers shouldn't have the boot-heel of multi-national corporations on their throats. Meanwhile, if we continue along the way of the right wing, we can look forward to: -our healthcare system run by companies whose sole interest is denying coverage in order to make more profit -continuing to increase defense spending while education spending is plumeting -doing away with publicly funded elections, so that corporations can pump millions into the system and influence public discourse even more than they already do Basically, us lefties want Canada to be like Canada used to be; and you righties want Canada to be like the USA is today. In what way do multi-national corporations have their heel on our throats? Opportunity abounds for those who are willing to put in the time and effort to realize success, and neither Walmart nor the Royal Bank nor Sony are holding us back. On the contrary, those very companies are buying the goods and services that small companies are selling, making small-business success stories possible. The obstacles standing in the way of savvy business owners are not the multi-national corporations. It's the red-tape loving bureaucracy and intrusive government policy and onerous taxation holding us back. Want to grow and sell lettuce in the USA? Get ready to comply with 177 pages of agricultural policy to keep legal. m. The only example I should have to give is the one that everyone is familiar with: Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart was so concerned with the well being of their workers, then why not let them organize and form a union? Instead, when Wal-Mart employees in Quebec were finally able to cut through the corporate propaganda being thrown at them and actually unionize, Wal-Mart shut down the store, citing "financial reasons". Do you really believe that Wal-Mart's profits are so tedious that they had to immediately shut a store down because the presence of a union made it suddenly unprofitable? Of course not. The reason the store was shut down was because Wal-Mart had to set an example; they were not about to let other stores respect the democratic and legal rights of workers to organize. So basically, scores of workers were suddenly unemployed because Wal-Mart did, in fact, have their boot heel on the throat of the workers. Note: what Wal-Mart did was 100% legal, which is another example of how the balance between capital and workers is tilted way too far in one direction. And to your point about regulation: deregulation (particularly financial deregulation in the USA in the form of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act) is the main reason the world is in such dire economic straits right now. THANK GOD that Canada hasn't followed down the path of the US in this regard; Canada's banking system is the envy of the world. The reason? Because Canada's banking system is so heavily regulated! Would anyone like to switch spots with the US when it comes to banking? I sure as hell hope not. GO JETS GO, by the way!
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Nov 3, 2011 14:10:36 GMT -6
In what way do multi-national corporations have their heel on our throats? Opportunity abounds for those who are willing to put in the time and effort to realize success, and neither Walmart nor the Royal Bank nor Sony are holding us back. On the contrary, those very companies are buying the goods and services that small companies are selling, making small-business success stories possible. The obstacles standing in the way of savvy business owners are not the multi-national corporations. It's the red-tape loving bureaucracy and intrusive government policy and onerous taxation holding us back. Want to grow and sell lettuce in the USA? Get ready to comply with 177 pages of agricultural policy to keep legal. m. The only example I should have to give is the one that everyone is familiar with: Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart was so concerned with the well being of their workers, then why not let them organize and form a union? Instead, when Wal-Mart employees in Quebec were finally able to cut through the corporate propaganda being thrown at them and actually unionize, Wal-Mart shut down the store, citing "financial reasons". Do you really believe that Wal-Mart's profits are so tedious that they had to immediately shut a store down because the presence of a union made it suddenly unprofitable? Of course not. The reason the store was shut down was because Wal-Mart had to set an example; they were not about to let other stores respect the democratic and legal rights of workers to organize. So basically, scores of workers were suddenly unemployed because Wal-Mart did, in fact, have their boot heel on the throat of the workers. Note: what Wal-Mart did was 100% legal, which is another example of how the balance between capital and workers is tilted way too far in one direction. And to your point about regulation: deregulation (particularly financial deregulation in the USA in the form of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act) is the main reason the world is in such dire economic straits right now. THANK GOD that Canada hasn't followed down the path of the US in this regard; Canada's banking system is the envy of the world. The reason? Because Canada's banking system is so heavily regulated! Would anyone like to switch spots with the US when it comes to banking? I sure as hell hope not. GO JETS GO, by the way! Counterpoint - the presence of a union in any workplace does not ensure the well-being of the workers in said workplace. I spent enough years as a shop steward with UFCW to become oh-so-disillusioned with what unions are all about. However, why shouldn't Walmart be able to close any of their stores for any reason they like? It's their business, it's their operation, it's their decision to keep a store open or closed. Given the damage that unions have done to the auto industry and the public sector, it's no wonder Walmart would want to do what it can to keep the union powers at bay. As far as the repeal of the Glass-Stegall act goes, the connection to said repeal and the economic meltdown is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. The repeal didn't mandate the wild increase in sub-prime mortgage offerings, the wholesale default of which was a primary cause of the crisis. Interestingly enough, the lefties were lauding the ease of which debt was being offered to sub-prime clients. They bemoaned the difficulty which their 'poor, disempowered' fanbase had in securing loans to pay for houses and lifestyles that they couldn't afford. Fine, the banks that were reluctant to give loans to those individuals gave out said loans, and shockingly, those loans were defaulted on. Now it's the banks' fault that these people defaulted on their loans? The Canadian banking system survived by ensuring that only those who can afford to service their mortgages were issued mortgages and requiring meaningful savings and down payments before such mortgages were provided. m.
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Nov 3, 2011 14:25:23 GMT -6
The only example I should have to give is the one that everyone is familiar with: Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart was so concerned with the well being of their workers, then why not let them organize and form a union? Instead, when Wal-Mart employees in Quebec were finally able to cut through the corporate propaganda being thrown at them and actually unionize, Wal-Mart shut down the store, citing "financial reasons". Do you really believe that Wal-Mart's profits are so tedious that they had to immediately shut a store down because the presence of a union made it suddenly unprofitable? Of course not. The reason the store was shut down was because Wal-Mart had to set an example; they were not about to let other stores respect the democratic and legal rights of workers to organize. So basically, scores of workers were suddenly unemployed because Wal-Mart did, in fact, have their boot heel on the throat of the workers. Note: what Wal-Mart did was 100% legal, which is another example of how the balance between capital and workers is tilted way too far in one direction. And to your point about regulation: deregulation (particularly financial deregulation in the USA in the form of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act) is the main reason the world is in such dire economic straits right now. THANK GOD that Canada hasn't followed down the path of the US in this regard; Canada's banking system is the envy of the world. The reason? Because Canada's banking system is so heavily regulated! Would anyone like to switch spots with the US when it comes to banking? I sure as hell hope not. GO JETS GO, by the way! Interestingly enough, the lefties were lauding the ease of which debt was being offered to sub-prime clients. They bemoaned the difficulty which their 'poor, disempowered' fanbase had in securing loans to pay for houses and lifestyles that they couldn't afford. Fine, the banks that were reluctant to give loans to those individuals gave out said loans, and shockingly, those loans were defaulted on. Now it's the banks' fault that these people defaulted on their loans? The Canadian banking system survived by ensuring that only those who can afford to service their mortgages were issued mortgages and requiring meaningful savings and down payments before such mortgages were provided. m. I witnessed this first hand while living in PA the last 6 years. Two personal friends (families) I knew were getting in over their heads. If I could tell it was going to wind up in foreclosure (I'm not a financial expert), how could the banks not see this! Both families took $$$ from credit cards for a down payment! Within 2 years both houses were foreclosed on.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Nov 3, 2011 14:31:01 GMT -6
If taxing the rich and corporations was so bad for the economy, how do you explain the post WWII Keynesian boom? The 1950's absolutely enjoyed a boom - but it was brought about after 10+ years of hardship and minimal domestic government spending. It was also characterized by responsible government behaviour, living within one's means, and the reliance on oneself that conservatives laud. That said, calling it a 'Keynesian' boom is misleading. Those years were characterized by a tight-fisted monetary policy advocated by the then Bank of Canada governor, James Coyne. The lefties didn't like the policy and submitted a round-robin letter advocating his dismissal, effectively an academic conspiracy to fire the guy for his responsible behaviour. Of course, the Diefenbaker government botched Coyne's dismissal, giving him a martyr's day in court before he was replaced, so no meaningful conclusion can be drawn about the effect his termination had. But it cannot be denied that the economic growth and strength that had been the hallmark of conservative fiscal policy quickly petered out once he was replaced by the left-friendly Louis Rasminsky, which saw an end to the good times of the 1950's and the beginning of the economic messes of the 1960's and beyond. (I'm not saying that there's a direct causation link there {given the social upheaval at the time, no one can make conclusive statements vis a vis causation} but at the very least there is powerful correlation - and that cannot be denied). Last word on Keynesian economics: The theory is that governments should up their spending in bad times to offset the negative forces of economic recession, and reign in spending during the good times to recoup the overspending they did during recessions. Basically it's a policy of supluses in good times, deficits in bad times. What it became in reality was deficits in bad times AND deficits in good times. Ominously, we are seeing it right now from the federal NDP. The Canadian Economic Action Plan was put in place by the Harper government as a Keynesian goosing of our economy to help us weather the sub-prime storm. Now that we've weathered said storm, the NDP is demanding that the program be continued. A perfect example of following one-half of the Keynesian plan. m.
|
|