BALANCED TRADE

[Oleg Bach]

Balanced trade with China would be nice. Once they get some quality control people in place and their garden rakes are good for more than just one drag across the garden. China's primary function in the long term is to over fill our land fill sites.

[Michael Hardner]

If I have to donate 50% of my wealth, why should I have to work harder than a poor person who has to give up much less?

Because you still get more in the end - assuming you are only motivated by money.

[Oleg Bach]

Because you still get more in the end - assuming you are only motivated by money.

Money as a fuel to motivate. What an interesting concept. You had better have a purpose for all that money once you get it. Personally I believe money is like bannanas...it's only use is to toss a few bits of fruit at aggressive apes to keep them busy so you can buy some peace and security.

[blueblood]

Because you still get more in the end - assuming you are only motivated by money.

This is one of the not seeing the forest for the trees statements when people justify high taxes. This would be an adequate statement if I and others were to have stacks of cash in a vault behind some painting. This does not happen nowadays. People with money put their money to work and in doing so make other people richer. The govt taking 50% of somebody's paycheck and blowing it on consumption spending (which nowadays consists most of govt spending) is proposterous. The economy is taxed as a whole, the govt is going to get paid anyway, its far better for money to be flowing through the economy than straight to the govts coffer for consumption. Govts should look at it that way than pillaging rich people.

I don't see what's wrong with a flat tax. Everyone pays their fee for the govt. Rich people still pay more dollars, but have far more dollars in the bank to put to work.

[dre]

If I have to donate 50% of my wealth, why should I have to work harder than a poor person who has to give up much less?

If I have to donate 50% of my wealth, why should I have to work harder than a poor person who has to give up much less?

Yeah but you make a hundred times as much money as you would WITHOUT government, so its still a sweet deal.

[dre]

And the govt gets a sweet deal by having rich people living in said country and in order to prevent emmigration needs to make the country more appealing than others. Hugo chavez is learning this lessn the hard way.

How much do you think the govt needs to cost? Rich people don't have a problem paying taxes, we just don't like getting ripped off.

What's wrong with everyone paying the same rate? I'd still be paying more than the average joe?

That would create a highly regressive environment that would not be stable, and where neither you or your property would be safe. Even our CURRENT system of taxation is too regressive to be stable for long.

And the govt gets a sweet deal by having rich people living in said country and in order to prevent emmigration needs to make the country more appealing than others. Hugo chavez is learning this lessn the hard way.

Interesting you brought up Chavez because theres a real good lesson there for you. How did a guy like Chavez get into power? Simple... the wealthy in Venezuela refused to pay for programs that would ease poverty and help the underclass. It got to the point where there was a large underclass of extremely impoverished people living in tent cities, which is exactly where your regressive flat tax scheme would lead us. And those people started VOTING and they voted for the first guy who promised to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Our society and our government are already just about completely purposed around youre ability to aquire wealth... its an easier place for a wealthy person to get wealthier than almost any civilization in human history. And most of what the government does is done to serve the wealthy and provide a framework for commerce to it stands to reason that the people who benefit from that are gonna pay most of the bills.

[bush_cheney2004]

....You do know who built most of North America's, including Canada's, initial railway systems right?

You sure don't....North America is a very big place.

[GWiz]

You sure don't....North America is a very big place.

Your point?

[blueblood]

That would create a highly regressive environment that would not be stable, and where neither you or your property would be safe. Even our CURRENT system of taxation is too regressive to be stable for long.

Interesting you brought up Chavez because theres a real good lesson there for you. How did a guy like Chavez get into power? Simple... the wealthy in Venezuela refused to pay for programs that would ease poverty and help the underclass. It got to the point where there was a large underclass of extremely impoverished people living in tent cities, which is exactly where your regressive flat tax scheme would lead us. And those people started VOTING and they voted for the first guy who promised to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Our society and our government are already just about completely purposed around youre ability to aquire wealth... its an easier place for a wealthy person to get wealthier than almost any civilization in human history. And most of what the government does is done to serve the wealthy and provide a framework for commerce to it stands to reason that the people who benefit from that are gonna pay most of the bills.

And the wealthy have fled venezuela which has left that country amounting to a pile of monkey crap. Everywhere else is richer in latin america but venezuela. They cooked the golden goose and are paying for it. Stupid is as stupid does.

Rich people pay the bills, its when buffoons like obama, chavez, lenin, castro, and layton think that they should pay more is when there's a big problem. Its also easier for the average person to get by because of rich people putting their money to work in the economy, not by government punishing them with taxes.

The USSR was the biggest failure of the 20th century, why do people want to copy such a pathetic system like that?

[Michael Hardner]

This is one of the not seeing the forest for the trees statements when people justify high taxes. This would be an adequate statement if I and others were to have stacks of cash in a vault behind some painting. This does not happen nowadays. People with money put their money to work and in doing so make other people richer.

If you can provide a link that shows where this money goes, I'd be interested.

The govt taking 50% of somebody's paycheck and blowing it on consumption spending (which nowadays consists most of govt spending) is proposterous. The economy is taxed as a whole, the govt is going to get paid anyway, its far better for money to be flowing through the economy than straight to the govts coffer for consumption. Govts should look at it that way than pillaging rich people.

Let's have a link !

I don't see what's wrong with a flat tax. Everyone pays their fee for the govt. Rich people still pay more dollars, but have far more dollars in the bank to put to work.

The problem with the economy now, though, is that the money isn't being spent on consumption. It's sitting there. Isn't it ?

[Michael Hardner]

If I have to donate 50% of my wealth, why should I have to work harder than a poor person who has to give up much less?

Oh... also to add - you don't "have" to work harder. You can work very little or not at all and see what happens.

[Oleg Bach]

Chevez is an interesting phenomena in the fact that he appears to be of pure aboriginal blood. Kind of like a Canadian native leader that learned all the nasty tricks that white people used - and opened a casino...made a lot of cash -and then bought the Prime Ministership.

[Pliny]

I'll remind you that the metric we're talking about is relative poverty. Income disparity has increased immensely in China.

Ohh...I thought it was poverty relative to earlier times when everyone was poor and also relative to other countries that were relatively rich. We aren't really talking about relative poverty then we are talking about income disparity within a specific nation at a particular time. I'll have to admit there is more income disparity in China now than before when everyone except the Chairman was poor.

Deregulation and cuts to social programs have had a lot to do with it, I think, so you have to look at the big picture.

Of course, you think that deregulation and cuts to social programs have had a lot to do with it. Especially in China.

Power has many means - brute force and otherwise - to execute its will.

And if it is oppressive then it will meet opposition.

What you're saying is that it's legitimate to use power to protect wealth, but not to enforce distribution of wealth.

Yes. It isn't protected and no one is safe if someone has the power to distribute it as he sees fit.

Yes because government includes checks and balances on power, and something called democracy.

Well, when you are Prime Minister you can get around those checks and balances by getting the people to think they can vote better favours for themselves - and they can. But that would never happen?

[sarcasm]Look at that worthless piece of paper the American Constitution as an example. It's a dinosaur that needs to be laid to rest. We need a more compassionate government that allows people to vote for bigger and better things from their government.[/sarcasm]

Yes, we can ... because that is effective and it maximizes the ability of the people to pursue happiness. If the wealthy voluntarily donated 50% of their income across the board then we wouldn't have this problem, but they don't.

Well, the government takes 50% of their income, now don't tell me that the rich don't pay any taxes, so everything should be peachy.

Wealth redistribution just means that it doesn't pay and isn't safe to be wealthy. It pays to be irresponsible in our pursuit of happiness - it's a promise we can always look forward to more of other people's money.

[blueblood]

If you can provide a link that shows where this money goes, I'd be interested.

Let's have a link !

The problem with the economy now, though, is that the money isn't being spent on consumption. It's sitting there. Isn't it ?

Just google what rich people do with their money. They do all sorts of things with it. I couldn't find stuffing money in a wall safe behind a painting. Even putting money in the bank helps out the economy by providing more liquidity to the banks for lending. Stuffing money in a wall safe is the stupidest thing a person can do, our best friend inflation reduces its value and I can't get any returns from money sitting in a wall safe vs putting it in the bank, investments (expansion, stocks, bonds, etc.), or spending on something that gives satisfaction.

Companies flush with cash are spending money on investments and mergers and acquisitions. That might mean spending money overseas.

If I work less than I do now, the economy takes a small hit. But its all right because somebody will pay my way? I'd be able to survive, but my input dealers lose out on what I could be spending there.

[Michael Hardner]

Ohh...I thought it was poverty relative to earlier times when everyone was poor and also relative to other countries that were relatively rich. We aren't really talking about relative poverty then we are talking about income disparity within a specific nation at a particular time. I'll have to admit there is more income disparity in China now than before when everyone except the Chairman was poor.

Yes. Miscommunication there.

So, income disparity can/will generally increase after deregulation/market liberation, then ? Just checking. Next, do you expect that poorest x% will do better/worse after such changes ? What is x ?

And if it is oppressive then it will meet opposition.

We have seen how that goes down in China.

Yes. It isn't protected and no one is safe if someone has the power to distribute it as he sees fit.

But people are safe if the wealthiest and most powerful combine to fix wages and prices to suit them ?

Wealth redistribution just means that it doesn't pay and isn't safe to be wealthy. It pays to be irresponsible in our pursuit of happiness - it's a promise we can always look forward to more of other people's money.

The people as a whole have helped build a system whereby the rich profit. The laws of the land protect their patents, allow them to create corporations and so on so that they can profit. Why shouldn't they be expected to pay back into the system that has helped them so much ?

[Michael Hardner]

Just google what rich people do with their money. They do all sorts of things with it.

We're talking about economic arguments here - so we need an analysis. Furthermore, we need one that's written in plain language. Googling what people do with their money doesn't do it.

I would say they put their money in the bank, they send it offshore are two things that come to mind. Would that money be better in a wage earner's hands where it goes into the economy right away ?

Maybe.

Companies flush with cash are spending money on investments and mergers and acquisitions. That might mean spending money overseas.

If I work less than I do now, the economy takes a small hit. But its all right because somebody will pay my way? I'd be able to survive, but my input dealers lose out on what I could be spending there.

You have the personal choice to work as much as you want or as little as you want, is all I'm saying. If you're asking me why you should work hard, I can't answer for you.

The economy obviously works better if there's less unemployment - which is why it pays more to work than to not work.

[dre]

And the wealthy have fled venezuela which has left that country amounting to a pile of monkey crap. Everywhere else is richer in latin america but venezuela. They cooked the golden goose and are paying for it. Stupid is as stupid does.

Rich people pay the bills, its when buffoons like obama, chavez, lenin, castro, and layton think that they should pay more is when there's a big problem. Its also easier for the average person to get by because of rich people putting their money to work in the economy, not by government punishing them with taxes.

The USSR was the biggest failure of the 20th century, why do people want to copy such a pathetic system like that?

And the wealthy have fled venezuela

Right and by calling for severely regressive taxation schemes like a flat tax youre asking for the same thing to happen here.

If the wealthy in Venezuela could go back in time, and fund social programs to help raise the baseline standard of living and avoid the socialist revolution, they would do it in a second. They were cheap and now theyre paying for it.

You have things exactly backwards. Our taxation scheme isnt too progressive its way to REGRESSIVE. Its incredibly easy for wealthy people to make a mountain of dough in our system, but a lot harder for people in poverty to get out of it.

Our whole government is basically an engine to help wealthy people get more wealthy. Social programs are merely there to keep our society stable, and avoid having a huge underclass thats big enough to vote in a real socialist government.

[Bonam]

Right and by calling for severely regressive taxation schemes like a flat tax youre asking for the same thing to happen here.

If the wealthy in Venezuela could go back in time, and fund social programs to help raise the baseline standard of living and avoid the socialist revolution, they would do it in a second. They were cheap and now theyre paying for it.

You have things exactly backwards. Our taxation scheme isnt too progressive its way to REGRESSIVE. Its incredibly easy for wealthy people to make a mountain of dough in our system, but a lot harder for people in poverty to get out of it.

Our whole government is basically an engine to help wealthy people get more wealthy. Social programs are merely there to keep our society stable, and avoid having a huge underclass thats big enough to vote in a real socialist government.

This argument has some merit, that social programs exist to provide for stability and placate an otherwise unruly underclass. But the question is, why does there necessarily have to be an underclass at all? The faster our economy is growing, the less unemployment there is, and the more demand there is even for low skilled labour. Economic growth shrinks the underclass, and faster economic growth is stimulated by reduced regulations and reduced taxes.

If the main argument for social programs and taxes is to prevent a socialist revolution, then one must ask, what is the minimum amount required to prevent that outcome? And the answer is probably a lot less than we have in Canada. Consider the US, which is much less of a welfare state than Canada is, and yet they are not any closer to a socialist revolution than we are. That would suggest we could cut back substantially on social programs without put Canada in danger of a revolution.

To justify the continual increase in social spending and entitlements that we have seen in most Western nations over the last several decades, you need something more than the utilitarian revolution-prevention argument, because our social programs are already far beyond what is necessary to prevent revolution.

[dre]

This argument has some merit, that social programs exist to provide for stability and placate an otherwise unruly underclass. But the question is, why does there necessarily have to be an underclass at all? The faster our economy is growing, the less unemployment there is, and the more demand there is even for low skilled labour. Economic growth shrinks the underclass, and faster economic growth is stimulated by reduced regulations and reduced taxes.

If the main argument for social programs and taxes is to prevent a socialist revolution, then one must ask, what is the minimum amount required to prevent that outcome? And the answer is probably a lot less than we have in Canada. Consider the US, which is much less of a welfare state than Canada is, and yet they are not any closer to a socialist revolution than we are. That would suggest we could cut back substantially on social programs without put Canada in danger of a revolution.

To justify the continual increase in social spending and entitlements that we have seen in most Western nations over the last several decades, you need something more than the utilitarian revolution-prevention argument, because our social programs are already far beyond what is necessary to prevent revolution.

Thats definately a fair point. The social safety net has been a key ingredient to the stability of western democracies but that certainly doesnt mean that any ammount is acceptable. And it obviously has to be based on your revenue and what you can afford.

My feeling is that the current level of taxation is somewhere close to reasonable, and that government should have to work with the revenue it has now. The problem is that my opinion is of course subjective, and that there isnt very much consensus among the voters which services need to be cut if we decide we can fund our current levels through taxation. As soon as you go there then you need to look at everything the government does and try to prioritize. Some people will say cut education, healthcare, social security... others might say cancel that 20+ billion dollar luxury fighterjet purchase.

Its a real problem obviously and the "culture war" is causing a lot of overspending by western governments... I dont know how to fix it though We could try to find some citizens that are willing to compromise and care more about the country as whole than winning the culture war... but not sure what we would do with the 30 million folks we have now.

[Machjo]

I have for along time now been a strong believer in getting out of all free trade agreements. Instead we should be perusing balanced trade as an alternative. Balanced trade would not be subject to any tariff complaints as there would be non. The way it works is based on currency values,trade is then balanced on goods and service values. If an importer wants to bring a billion dollars worth of goods into Canada he must first secure a billion in sales to export. The same with outsourcing tech jobs, if you send the work to a foreign country you must find a product to export to balance the value of exported value. The net effect is if he can find the sales we create wealth and jobs in this country. If the product he wants to import has a demand we might just have to make it hear. Imagine that we could actually build up our own manufacturing again and create jobs here. The other benefit is we might get tech support that we can understand what they are saying.

Highly inefficient. A better solution: Share a common currency, link free labour movement to free trade, have ministries of education establish common educational standards for various trades and professions, and bingo, should jobs move anywhere, the workers can follow them just as easily.

[Machjo]

Your idea defeats the purpose of world trade altogether. The idea is to create economies of scale and have different areas building expertise and volume in different products. One country might not need anything from another, yet that other country may need something from it.

Where the problem lies in unfair 'advantages' developing nations have in terms of labour costs and in the west's exploiting of these nations. If you want to solve the problem, you have ensure that there is a relatively level playing field. Either you insist on fair employment standards for foreign labour or you impose tarrifs. That's really the only way North Americans with (barely) high school educations will get their monkey jobs back pressing buttons and lifting stuff.

Or better yet, introduce universal compulsory year-round education for 5-15-year-olds let's say, along with quality education in trades and professions for all. That way where they can't compete in wages, they can compete in skills.

[Pliny]

Yes. Miscommunication there.

So, income disparity can/will generally increase after deregulation/market liberation, then ? Just checking. Next, do you expect that poorest x% will do better/worse after such changes ? What is x ?

You have to get over the idea that income disparity is a problem. Without it what would government need to tax?

There always will be income disparity. What we need is income for everyone. That means jobs not handouts. Granted there is a very small percentage of people who won't or can't work - 5% is probably the highest percentage at the worst.

Economically, when the majority are doing better the minorities will do better.

And if it is oppressive then it will meet opposition.

We have seen how that goes down in China.

Yes. China's corporations are quite oppressive to their people. That's communism not a free market. I can't believe you are making that connection.

But people are safe if the wealthiest and most powerful combine to fix wages and prices to suit them ?

They can't, and shouldn't, fix wages and prices. Try doing that, it's a road to failure. Unions attempt to fix wages and benefits and eventually they drive a business into the ground or out of the country.

If you mean they try and extract as much as they can from the business without other market considerations that doesn't work for long either. Anyone looking after the business and concerned about it's future adjusts to the conditions necessary to do continue business.

The people as a whole have helped build a system whereby the rich profit. The laws of the land protect their patents, allow them to create corporations and so on so that they can profit. Why shouldn't they be expected to pay back into the system that has helped them so much ?

If the people have helped build a system then do they not profit at all? I don't think they helped for nothing and if they felt unrewarded they probably left. The ones who stayed are still getting remuneration they feel is fair or at least worth the effort or they too would leave or unionize or do something.

The whole idea of giving back to the system is a political ploy that makes no sense when you tink about it at all. It's akin to saying because you benefit from society you should contribute to society but there is no society if most aren't contributing to it already. Excuse me, I worked hard contributing to society and now you want me to contribute to society? Give something back to the system that has helped me so much?

A person contributes to society by being a part of it, if he isn't contributing to it he is generally an outcast. Usually a person being a memeber of society is rewarded in proportion to his contribution to society. Sometimes, if that society is prosperous, a person will charitably contribute to his interests in society, helping the community, the nation, or what ever those interests are. But the way it sounds when you say one should give back to the system it's as though he never did anything for the system at all. The system is the system and it works only because everyone contributes not because those that are rich don't contribute enough and need to give back.