Renegade

How do you determine a CEO's worth? I'll tell you: it's exactly what Walmart is willing to pay him. The CEO cannot arbitrarily set the wages of low end employees, if he set them too low, the employees would leave to do something else which was higher paid. Of course wages are declining for jobs which can be offshored. It is only natural. Doesn't that exactly prove the point that the wages rates are set by the market. In this case the availability of a close substitute (offshore labour) increases the supply drivng prices down. If a Walmart chooses to locate in my community and offers jobs, this is a benefit to the community. Without those additional jobs I and other taxpayers would pay the full costs of employment and welfare benefits to those potential Walmart employees. In your peverse logic, I should be paying a lot less taxes if there were no low wage employers. Truth is if all the low-wage employers shut down, many of the jobs woudl be lost altogether, resulting in a substantially increased burden on the tax base. Your argument defies logic. I've read tons of newspaper article. I have yet to read an article or paper which proves that the poor are paying their share. I have read lots of opinions that we should do more to help the poor, however these are exactly that, opinions, which are based upon campassion for the poor. I can understand a compassionate arguement to help the poor. What I'm stating is that there is no economic argument, and in pure economic terms the poor are recieving more than their share.

The services the poor consume are provided by the government and paid for by taxes. The poor pay less taxes and the taxes they pay do not cover the cost of providing those services. These services are subsidized by taxing the middle-class and the wealthy. The wealthy and middle-class do not set the value on labour themselves. The value of the labour is set by the market for labour. The market is made of people from every class, including the poor. Do you think when a poor individual hires someone (for example an auto mechanic), he value the labour at as low a price as he can get? Your welcome. I'll be happy to say it again till it gets through. I fully expect I might have to continue saying it. People are not a commodity, labour is. There is a difference. Why is it a difficult concept for you to grasp that labour is one input into an engine of production, and has a price just like any other input? BTW, if you do go join Hugo, it will be a step up for you. Of course there will always be lower end jobs. The onus is not on the world to value the job you do according to what you want to be paid. The onus is on you to do a job which is valuable to the world. If I decide to be a landscape painter, and no one assigns much value to my work and as such I live in poverty. Are you suggesting I should blame the world for not paying me enough to do this job? Why should I not be blaming myself for choosing to do something I am obviously bad at? You are painting a picture of some fantasy world where a few decide their own salaries and decide how much everyone else is paid. Where do you live that such a world exists? In the world I know, labour rates are mostly set by supply and demand (outside of a few execptions such as public sector). No big surprise here. I'm not holding my breath of any of you to come up with backing for what you are claiming. I have already concluded your lack of hard evidence is due to its non-exisitance. Nice excuse though. I'll have to remember it for the future.

Two classes? Not at all. I think any two consenting adults should be able to commit to a civil union, regardless whether they are hetrosexual, homosexual, related by blood or unrelated. I don't know where you got the impression that I am advocating two classes. You ask what is the distinction from marriage. "Marriage" in an arrangement which a set of exclusions and responsibilities which potentially a civil union does not. The gender of each partner in the marriage is only one of the issues and is the one currently broached. But "marriage" as it known, also implies a sexual relationship. For the purposes of the govenment creating a legal structure, why bother with these extraneous responsibilities? If there was no sexual context in a civil union, what justification would a government have for excluding blood relatives? Proves the point don't you think? At this point, I think marriage has become too overloaded a term to use to define a relationship which is not the norm. (such as same-sex blood relatives). This is why I would favour redefining the structure under a civil-union. True, that the example of brothers may have some of the goals, but they do not have others. For example, do you think a brother can claim "equivalent-to-spouse" deduction on their taxes. Do you think a surviving brother can claim survivor benefit under CPP? In any case regardless if we use the example of two brothers or two unrelated straight persons, the point is that a civil-union can be defined free of the connotations and restrictions of marriage. Face it, its the word "marriage" that causes so many people a hard time. In my view, marriage should be self-declaratory. Of course a person can delegate to a church to do such a declaration if they so choose. The validity of a civil-union has not been tested in courts because the govenment has not defined one. I expect it will have the same legal security as would a marriage. I fully understand and appreciate that gay people have felt treated as unequal, and rightly so. The government can treat all people equaly if it stays out of the definition of marriage.

When I say "the poor get a free ride", I mean that the services they consume are for the most part paid for by the middle class and the wealthy. Do you dispute this? As I've told you before, its each individual's responsiblity to earn their way out of poverty by makeing themselves a valuable commodity. Governments, regardless of party, have not be the ones to impede the progress of the poor. "crime against humanity??? you mean like the Holocaust, or the Killing fields, or Rawandian genocide? Now, who's going over the top??? Frankly there have been very few govenments in power in Canada who have represented my views, so its hard to see you fault me for someone elses proverty. Absolutely I'll stop. The fact that none have been fortcoming is evidence enough for me that none exists.

Stephen Harper is a self-righteous idiot. The gay-rights advocates are right. The religious right are not fighting for their rights, they are fighting to trample on the rights of others.

Yes, as I suspected, it's going to be pretty hard for you to find a study to back up what you say. I can see why you don't have the hours and hours it would take to find one. I'll take that as a concession that you don't have any facts to back up what you say and all you have is speculation. What's you point here? That working people pay EI and GST? Of course I agree that is true, but I'm not going to do your research for you. You want to make unsubstantiated allegations, we'll take them for what they are. Rants with no basis in fact. Yes, the mafia and drug dealers use accountants and lawyers too to hide their money. Glad you joined the club. The criminial code says you are responsible for your tax return you file regardless of who prepares it. Go ask your accountant if you can tell CRCA that your wife is not actually working but is on the payroll as an employee. If he tells you that is legitmate, you should find another accountant. (Of course I'm assuming you want to be on the right side of the law). Start practiciing this line: "But judge, my accountant made me do it." Again you are speculating with no basis in fact. Show me numbers and I'll believe you. By YOUR argument a $1000 deduction means a lot more to someone poor than to someone who is rich. The poor pay far less in taxes than they consume in services, plus the fixed costs of running a govenrment. The poor for the most part get a free ride which the rest of us in society have to pay for. Probably other tax evaders like yourself. I've read Linda McQuaig's articles but not the book. If the book is like the articles, I think I will skip it. I can see how you would empathize with her, as she too likes to jump to conclusions not based in fact.

I agree with you completly I think that politics and religion should be completly seperate and marrige is religion. I myself am a christian but thats besides the point. You say save the term for religious people but how come gays and lesbians want it to be called marrige and don;t want it called civil union? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You miss the point. What they want is not the word "marriage". They want EQUALITY. They want the same conditions as hetrosexual couples. I'm sure if hetrosexual couples would agree to call it strictly civil unions, and not marriage, homosexual couples would too.

Why does the commitment have to be consummated?

It is different in that "marriage" is understood to be a conjugal union. Why not create a civil union which would give a legal structure to any two consenting adults. For example if two brothers wish to form a civil uniion, for the purposes of being a legal beneficiary or pooling their assets, or taking advantage of a tax status, why should they not be able to do so. Would this be permitted in the status quo?

I think this 'solution' causes more problems than it solves and I'm not aware of any significant problems with the status quo that require a solution. So, if marriage is to be taken from the jurisdiction of our governments, whom do you propose shall regulate the game - or am to be allowed to marry my 10 yo neice and my 11yo cousin next week? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would certainly agree that the definition of marriage be taken out of the jurisdiction of the government. Government can decide the rights, obligations and definition of a legal (civil) union. The purpose of this union would be for civil issues, such as survivor benefits, joint ownership of assets, family income, how assets should be split in the event of a dissolution of the civil union. Presumably the government would also set an age limit for entering a civil uniion. By this definition, you are free to have a civil union with your neice if you choose provided she is of an age which allows her to enter a civil union.

Care to explain how banks now have their highest level of employment, since according to you they fired half their staff.

As I have pointed out and you have chosen to ignore, what you are doing is tax evasion and fraud. It is not legal Just because you and your well-off colleagues are breaking the law and evading taxes, it doesn't mean that everyone else is. Your statement is pompus and self-righteous in that you presume that only you should have the privilege of deciding how funds should be spent because others would act in their own interest. Who the hell made you God? While I agree that the middle-class are more than paying their share, you have not showed that the poor are being unfairly taxed. Again, you are hypocritical in that you condenm others having a choice which you yourself take advantage of. BTW, why is it that it is only a choice for the rich? Could it be because the rich (and middle class) are the ones providing the funding? Frankly, you didn't address my question on why you should have a choice but not others. Despite that, I will give you the courtesy of a response. Yes I feel I should be taxed more fairly, but you and I would disagree on what was fair. Of course I want loopholes tightned and tax evasion such as you have admitted to, stopped. There are some areas of spending we have no or very little choice in (eg interest payments, defence), and I'm fine paying with my taxes for those. But for the most part I am against the government ramming services down my throat and forcibly extorting my money to pay for it.

I read yours, did you read mine???? You claim that the Fraser Insitute is biased in their interpretation of the stats. Have you provided any stats? Show me the dollar amount a poor family pays in total tax. Show me the dollar amount a middle class and rich pays in total tax. If you want to dispute the stats provided, reference your own, instead of just ranting on how bias the Fraser Institute is. You have provided not one shred, exept to admit how you collude with you company to evade taxes. Again telling anecdotes proves nothing. Show me stats that the the rich are avoiding their tax burden from YOUR sources as you don't like using the Fraser Institute. No sources? I wonder why. Could it be you don't have any backup for your claim. And you know this how??? You avoid the point that in your example that by evading taxes you are being criminal You seem to ignore the fact that there are all kinds of deductions and credits which are targeted at the poor (disability tax credit, old age security, gst tax credit, child tax benefit, property tax rebate, sales tax rebate, equivalent-to-spouse deduction, etc) Further, tax evasion is not the exclusive domain of the rich. Are you aware of the number of service people who work "under-the-table"??? I fully understand self-employment also let's you take advantage. As I've said before, I agree that we need better parity between individuals, self-employed and corporate on how income is calculated. Interesting enough, not all self-employed individuals are "rich". A self-employed plumber can take advantage of all the same tax deductions as the "rich". At least you have finally admitted that you evade taxes. As I have said, tax evasion and taking advantage of loopholes, and benefits happens at all income levels. Unless you have credible stats or other evidence that the rich are not paying their share, your argument is just speculation. Anecdotes are not evidence.

So your accountant "talked you" into taking tax breaks you don't really feel you deserve, so that you could put the savings where your heart tells you is the right place? Doesn't it sound to you that you chose not to give the government the tax dollars but instead you opted to spend it on programs and political organizations of your own choosing? Isn't this exactly the same option you advocate not allowing everyone else??? It does seem pretty hypocritical that by your actions you demonstrate a behaviour that you then want to condemn of others. Could it be that you don't want to give others the freedom to choose, because they would make choices different than the ones you want? But isn't that what freedom of choice is about?

Sorry, BHS, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I take what you are saying as welfare is a system which as a society is a "nice thing to do" but not an obligation. I agree with you that welfare is not a right. My only deviation from you is that I think there is a practical reason to pay welfare (ie to keep the peace), and that any other purpose of welfare is basiclly charity. IMO charity should be the realm of voluntary giving and not forced taxation.

Despite your respect for the Fraser Institute, you have not disputed the statistics provided, nor have you provided any other stats to back up your claims. What's your point? That the poor shouldn't pay for all the government services they consume??? If the poor are really paycheque to paycheque, a large percentage of their major expenses (food, rent) are free from GST & PST. Show me a dollar amount that the average poor person is paying and I will show you that he is consuming far more in services than he is ever paying for. Does it not seem logical to you that the wealthy consume more in society (eg bigger houses, more expensive cars, etc) and so the dollar amount of taxes they pay are more? You are unbelievable. You are EVADING taxes. If your wife is on the payroll but is not actually working, you are comitting both fraud and tax evasion which are criminal offences, and you further perpetuate the fraud by writing off recreational trips to Boston as "business". If you think this is all above board and permitted, then I dare you to provide the CCRA with EXACTLY the same verbage as you have written above. I guarantee yourself an audit and you will likely have some tax reversals, as well as fines. So if I understand your argument above, you evade taxes, and so you assume that all the rich do so as well. That is an idotic argument and you provide no stats or numbers to back up your claim. All we have is your admission that you evade taxes. Having said that I do agree with you that there are inequities in the tax system. One of them is that a company gets taxed on income where an individual get taxed on revenue. You are taking advantage of this above by hiding your revenue to minimize your income. This however is not an option for people who are not self-employed or have a similar arrangement with their company. I rarely get "pissed off", and certainly your ramblings don't do it. It amuses me more than anything else. Since you've made allegations, show me some evidence. Show me how much the rich actually pay after the tax deductions, and including GST, PST, and whatever other taxes. Until you do, all you are doing is ranting "make the rich pay" using different words.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my wording and you have misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that you and I aren't allowed to make moral decisions for ourselves. In fact we should be the only ones making moral decisions for ourselves. I'm suggesting we shouldn't be allowed to make moral decisions for others, and the government should be making those determinations for anyone. Just because we eat animals doesn't mean they don't have rights. That is why we have animal cruelty laws. There are some that argue that roasting an animal and eating it should be a criminal offence. Animals have been accorded rights by common agreement. Those rights, while not as extensive as that provided humans, still do protect the animal from abuse and rape. It does not protect the animal from being consumed as a meal. Of course it is arbitrary. We all know that a newborn doesn't have the capacity to decide. We all know that an adult does ( or is presumed to anyway). Somewhere between being a newborn and being an adult we have to determine when people are competent to be responsible for their own decisions. We use a somewhat arbitrary age as the factor. As you point out this is not foolproof. (Witness the hoards of 18 year-olds who act irresponsibly). If there were a "maturity test" we'ed use it, but unfortunatly there doesn't seem to be a simple bias-free way to know when someone has developed the capacitiy to be responsible for their actions and make their own decisions. Our society did, and still does, for the most part consider public display of the breast to be "immoral". That has not changed. Yet the law has changed. My point is that we should not be drafting these laws upon which the sole basis is the morality of the act, even if we change the laws as morality changes. It is very rare you will get unanimous agreement on what is moral. Are you willing to let a majority impose its view of morality on the minority. If the government drafted a bill saying you MUST attend church every Sunday, would you not agree that the government has overstepped its bounds? To be honest we (society) is largely responsible for the crimes that are associated with prostitution. Our sense of morality has caused us to procecute it and drive it underground. The result is that pimps and other unscrupulous characters become involved. All of the crimes you outline above ARE criminal (kidnapping, assault, fraud, theft, etc). BTW, prostitution IS LEGAL in Canada. Solicitation is not. The Supreme Court has been inconsistent in its rulings. For example it ruled that lap-dancing is illegal. IMO, we should only crimminalize the acts which actually cause or have a high potential to directly infringe on others rights. Prostitution doesn't fit in that category. Other juristctions agree, as you will note that there are many places where prostitution is permitted. You're right. I had omitted property rights, but just the same, it is not made to determine what is moral. We've probably digressed for long enough. You have stated that society should be providing welfare for moral reasons. Does your logic not then follow that reciepients have a right to welfare?

It is my, and every other person's PERSONAL responsibility to make sure we are valuable to society. The measure of if we are successful in this is if we are paid for our employment. If we cease to be valuable, (for example if we are replaced by a machine), the onus is on us to adapt by aquiring skills and experience which would make us employable. To answer your question, no I wouldn't be happy, but I would consider it my problem to adapt. It is neither the machine's problem nor that of the employer who has purchased the machine.

No, I'm not ignoring them. Polygamy and bigamy, when held between consenting adults should not be a criminal offence. As I've said these are laws which are a throwback to a previous time. How can I or you, let alone the government decide that these are immoral. beastiality, "statutory" rape and child pornography (with "willing" "underage" participants), is not between consenting adults and does infringe on indivdual rights. Why?, because we deem minors not to have the decision-making capability to give informed consent. Like what? As I said I'm not disagreeing that these laws exist. I'm opinioning that they shouldn't if their only reason for being is to legislate moral behaviour. Do you remember the case of Gwen Jacobs? She paraded around topless and then challenged the law that convicted her. Yet again where the goverenment has tried to legislate morality they have failed. Oddly enough the ruling did not result in hordes of women prancing naked in the streets of Ontario. The government did not need to legislate morality. People's own sense of public nudity was enough. The "Broken Windows" policy was a deliberate attempt to prosecute minor crimes, with the tactic that it would discourage major crime. It really doesn't apply to the situation we are discussing. Honestly, I don't think that legislating morality works. Either to deter major crime nor to prevent the moral transgression to begin with. Witness how long prostitution has been with society, regardless of laws, or attempted enforcement.

BHS, Something to think about. I don't agree that criminal law is based upon morality. Each of us by mutual agreement has individual rights (right to security of person, freedom of religion, etc). Criminal law is a result of making sure we don't infringe on each other's rights. There is no moral determination involved. There are a host of behaviours which are currently defined as criminal which do not infringe on anyones rights. (eg prostitution, smoking pot, sucide). The justification that these should be criminal offenses is currently a contested issue. Many of these laws are residual from a more patriarchal society when the government felt its purpose was to decide what was moral right and what was morally wrong. There are many acts which most if not everyone would consider immoral, however are not criminal or even illegal. (For example, cheating on a spouse) When the government has tried to define morality as "right", it has usually landed in trouble. (Witness the SSM muddle the government ended up in, because it coded in law what it thought was the morally correct definition of marriage.) The idea of government dictating to me what is morally right and wrong, is repugnant, and IMO the government should not be the one to make that designation.

BHS, (and maybe Argus), That's a pretty slippery slope to go down. You are advocating having the govenment draw moral line. Government has frequently proved that where it is incapable of defining a morality which doesn't trangress someone elses vision of what is moral. I am for paying baisc subsistance welfare, but not for moral reasons. In fact, I advocate that the government stay out of moral determinations completely. I am for subsistance welfare payments because they serve a practical purpose. They give those who qualify a stake in the system. If they didn't have a stake, and they had nothing to lose, they are more apt to resort to violence and crime. This would then lead to increased policing and security costs. So by actually paying out on welfare we may be saving ourselves money in the long run. I know you consider this blackmail, but I just consider it human nature. Now mind you I have no evidence to prove this economic argument, and it is conjecture on my part.

err, there is no reason for a human to do what a machine can do quicker, easier, and cheaper. In the case of the self-checkout. It serves a purpose for those who have a few simple items to check-out. I use both the self-checkout and the manned cashier depending upon the lenght of the line and what I have purchased. You should consider becoming a Luddite. You'd fit right in. I take that back, maybe you already are one. Actually no, not if I had a choice, I wouldn't be paying for either in their present form.

Just because you can't get your mind around how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Have you ever done your taxes? They keep track of dozens of things about you. CNIL, Unclaimed Capital Losses, RRSP limit, RRSP overcontribution, Marital Status, whether you netfiled, ... I could go on. And you claim they couldn't keep track of a few binary choices??? Cmon give me a better argument than this. Don't let real numbers get in the way of the fantasy you have written. Let me present some numbers and quotations. The Relative Tax Burden The following are excerpts: So if you've got some real evidence that the rich are not paying more than their share, lets see it. Otherwise, I think we can all conclude this is more conjecture on your part without any basis in fact.

You are quite right that the status quo is that we have no choice. And just because it is the status quo doesn't it make it right. I for one am advocating change and choice. The biggest reason you are against it is that you favour the choice of the factory default radio. Further you are against anyone having their own choice. Why not advocate dictatorship so that you can force your choices down everyone else's throat. Sure I too can play what if. What if there was no safety net and my boss was forced to take a lower paid job then he otherwise would. Suppose he thrived in that job and developed his career to what it is today. What if there was no safety net and the government didn't have to go into debt in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Then the interest saved would have lowered taxes and resulted in a booming economy. You see we can all play 'what if' forever. But as I have said, you have not one backup of your claim. Sure name calling, sure is a compelling argument!!!! But I guess it is in line with the rest of your argument: nothing more than speculation and opinion without any basis in fact. So if I understand what your response is, you would give away when it makes you feel good to do so, however you won't give away if it causes you or your family pain, despite the fact that those actions would be in line with your philosphy??? Hmm sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Argus, not that I'm disagreeing, but why do you think so?