Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[Renegade]

Didn't you read my post. The Fraser institute completely turns a blind eye to the benefits to the rich, and goes on to portray them as victims.... Which is a big lie. I think I answered it clearly...

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.

There are actually a few points here... First, the regressive 'value-added' taxes are not accounted for by the Fraser institute.... Again, they turn a blind eye to a huge reality so that their position seems more credible.

The rich do somewhat consume more.. but they get to write them off substantially too. Like I said, I always drive a new car... It's a business expense... so I get the GST back.... I don't pay tax on my cars... I dont pay tax on service, and I don't pay the GST on my gasoline... I get it back... You don't... Is that fair... Does you precious Fraser institute talk about stuff like that... I don't think so...

And then, the 'bigger houses'. You'll have to admit that they appreciate in value (most of the time). And when these rich folk sell their houses, often earning hundreds of thousands of dollars mark-up.... do they pay taxes on this income.... NO... they dont. Instead, the government collects this money (that they gave as a tax break on the capital gains) in the form of income taxes and value-added 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.

I would say that nearly all wealthier people get out of paying large chunks of what you seem to be assuming that they pay in taxes....

And you know this how???

They aren't being criminals..

You avoid the point that in your example that by evading taxes you are being criminal

loopholes that aren't really available to the lower income segment of the population...

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"???

Actually, if you are self-employed you get all these advantages. You have to make enough money to avail of the benefits though....

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".

I thought I gave you an example of one small fish... There's an ocean out there with an awful lot of bigger fish... Their ability to evade taxation puts a much greater burden on the lower income categories, and that has been my point...

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.

[Renegade]

Yep, the same legal tax loopholes that all businesses make avail of.... The fact that I may choose to put some of my 'tax savings' into what I feel are worthy causes probably distinguishes me somewhat from the majority.... I know that people who subscribe to the conservative that you advocate would "choose" not to help others, just their own self-centred interests.

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?

I couldn't help but notice how you changed the word "charities" to "programs"... Did you learn this type of mild deception from your Fraser Institute??

I advocate publicly funded social programs, and recommend that the government fix the tax system so that it is fairer to the lower and middle income citizens. ... the majority of the population.

You proport to advocate a "choice" for people who "don't want to pay" for health care, but it's only really a choice for the rich.... So I don't see that it's one that we should promote...

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?

You'd probably feel that you had more freedom of choice if you were taxed more fairly. That is, if some of the tax loopholes to the wealthier (and corporate Canada) were tightened, you wouldn't have to pay as much tax, and could enjoy a much better standard of social services. You would have more "choices" if you had a few more dollars left in your pocket....

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.

[Mad_Michael]

Mike Harris? We're still paying for his damage. Thankfully he's gone. There's a reason his chosen successor got trashed at the ballot box by an idiot.

[BHS]

Mike Harris?  We're still paying for his damage.  Thankfully he's gone.  There's a reason his chosen successor got trashed at the ballot box by an idiot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the reason was that Ernie Eves couldn't (or wouldn't) live up to what conservatives had come to expect from their party. As much as people love to trash Mike Harris, his government set a conservative agenda and stuck to it. Under Eves that all fell apart.

[Mad_Michael]

Mike Harris?  We're still paying for his damage.  Thankfully he's gone.   There's a reason his chosen successor got trashed at the ballot box by an idiot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the reason was that Ernie Eves couldn't (or wouldn't) live up to what conservatives had come to expect from their party. As much as people love to trash Mike Harris, his government set a conservative agenda and stuck to it. Under Eves that all fell apart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And it was that 'conservative agenda' that was completely rejected when Eves was defeated by a moron like McGwinty.

Indeed, we are still paying for the damages caused by Harris. That's only fair though - we are still paying for the damages caused by Rae and even still paying for the damage caused by Bill Davis and his 1967 educational 'reforms' and 1976 Catholic school funding decision.

Without a doubt, I judge politicians by how much damage they cause. Good politicians cause less damage.

[BHS]

And it was that 'conservative agenda' that was completely rejected when Eves was defeated by a moron like McGwinty.

Indeed, we are still paying for the damages caused by Harris.  That's only fair though - we are still paying for the damages caused by Rae and even still paying for the damage caused by Bill Davis and his 1967 educational 'reforms' and 1976 Catholic school funding decision.

Without a doubt, I judge politicians by how much damage they cause.  Good politicians cause less damage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was a big Mike Harris supporter, but I voted Liberal to get rid of Eves. I'm sure there are many, many other Harris supporters who did the same. That's my take on that election.

I'm not sure what the damages are that you're talking about. At least, not damages that aren't attributable to any number of factors other than politcal interference. I don't know that the province would be in any better or worse off with a different premier.

[err]

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.

The reality is, I don't have the time to spend scouring for studies, as you obviously do... What I thought that I did demonstrate is that the rich aren't so hard-up as the Fraser institute would portray them.... There are more than enough loopholes intentionally left in the system for them...

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.

Why don't you, who has ample time with nothing better to do, go and look up how much surplus there is in EI, premiums, and then look up who pays them..... Why don't you look up GST, and see if you can find some distributions of its sources... You'll find that businesses pay GST only on their profits.... but people pay it on just about everything they buy...

I would say that nearly all wealthier people get out of paying large chunks of what you seem to be assuming that they pay in taxes....

And you know this how???

They use accountants... That's an accountant's job... they can lose their license to practice if they don't do their job properly..

They aren't being criminals..

You avoid the point that in your example that by evading taxes you are being criminal

Actually, my finances are completely legitimate. My accountant makes sure of it. I pay him a fortune to... maybe he's the criminal....

loopholes that aren't really available to the lower income segment of the population...

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)

You're talking about the trickles for the poor, vs the rivers for the rich....

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"???

And who are they working "under the table" for ???

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.

Recommended reading: "Behind Closed Doors" by Linda McQuaig, talks about our tax system....

[err]

Mike Harris?  We're still paying for his damage.  Thankfully he's gone.   There's a reason his chosen successor got trashed at the ballot box by an idiot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the reason was that Ernie Eves couldn't (or wouldn't) live up to what conservatives had come to expect from their party. As much as people love to trash Mike Harris, his government set a conservative agenda and stuck to it. Under Eves that all fell apart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't blame Eves.

Harris jumped out of the driver seat just before the car was going to crash into the wall... Eve's didn't stand a chance... But then again, as Harris's finance minister, he didn't deserve one.....

[Renegade]

The reality is, I don't have the time to spend scouring for studies, as you obviously do... What I thought that I did demonstrate is that the rich aren't so hard-up as the Fraser institute would portray them.... There are more than enough loopholes intentionally left in the system for them...

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.

Why don't you, who has ample time with nothing better to do, go and look up how much surplus there is in EI, premiums, and then look up who pays them..... Why don't you look up GST, and see if you can find some distributions of its sources... You'll find that businesses pay GST only on their profits.... but people pay it on just about everything they buy...

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.

They use accountants... That's an accountant's job... they can lose their license to practice if they don't do their job properly..

Actually, my finances are completely legitimate. My accountant makes sure of it. I pay him a fortune to... maybe he's the criminal....

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."

You're talking about the trickles for the poor, vs the rivers for the rich....

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.

And who are they working "under the table" for ???

Probably other tax evaders like yourself.

Recommended reading: "Behind Closed Doors" by Linda McQuaig, talks about our tax system....

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.

[Guest eureka]

You may hold to your "Roght Wing" views, Renegade and your pomposity in asserting your moral probity. Your "the poor get a free ride" though, is way over the top.

The existence of an ever growing legion of the poor and their sinking deeper into poverty is shameful in any country. In this country, it is a crime against humanity perpetrated by you personally. You are at fault because it is you and your like thinkers who give "Conservative" governments the support that allows them to encourage and exacerbate poverty.

Stop asking for links to supporting stats. There is no one with eyes to read who does not know of this. Every media outlet has been commenting on it for decades.

[Mad_Michael]

I was a big Mike Harris supporter, but I voted Liberal to get rid of Eves. I'm sure there are many, many other Harris supporters who did the same. That's my take on that election.

That is the most outrageously absurd thing I've heard in a long time. You are telling me that a "big Mike Harris supporter" would vote for McGwinty???? That's hilarious. If you are actually being honest and not just making this up (as I suspect), then I'm sure you are the only one.

That's like telling me that Harper is going to cross the floor to the NDP...

I'm not sure what the damages are that you're talking about. At least, not damages that aren't attributable to any number of factors other than politcal interference.

Really? How about all those hospitals that were closed in such a hurry? Many of the ones that didn't get bulldozed have be reopened due to the mass shortage caused by the closings. And the cost of the forced hospital mergers have far exceeded any presumed fiscal benefit of the closures.

Same thing applies to the forced amalgamation of Toronto. The total cost of government and the size of the city government has actually increased under Harris' forced amalgamation. As a citizen of Toronto, I will continue to suffer for this decision for decades to come.

And how about those environmental regulations that Harris gutted? Ontario now has the lowest levels of environmental protection laws in Canada, putting us on a par with some of the most polluter-friendly states in the USA. And any resident or visitor to Toronto will tell you that in the last five years, smog has become a HUGE problem here.

I don't know that the province would be in any better or worse off with a different premier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah yes, seems like you are softening your position here. It is one thing to say Harris did an "okay" job, no worse than others - and saying he did a "great job".

I'll agree that Harris was not the worst Premier in Ontario history (Rae apparently holds that distinction). However, Harris did some good and some bad. On the whole, they cancel each other out and leave Harris' legacy as just a polarised electorate that hates two-tongued tories. On that basis, Harris has to be judged a failure for the same reason Mulroney was a failure. If your party gets trashed after your reign, you didn't do good.

[Mad_Michael]

And before any pedants get antsy, I'm perfectly aware that I'm misspelling McGwinty's name. It seems appropriate since it is hard to take McGwinty serious about anything, including the proper spelling of his name.

[Renegade]

You may hold to your "Roght Wing" views, Renegade and your pomposity in asserting your moral probity. Your "the poor get a free ride" though, is way over the top.

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?

The existence of an ever growing legion of the poor and their sinking deeper into poverty is shameful in any country. In this country, it is a crime against humanity perpetrated by you personally. You are at fault because it is you and your like thinkers who give "Conservative" governments the support that allows them to encourage and exacerbate poverty.

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.

Stop asking for links to supporting stats. There is no one with eyes to read who does not know of this. Every media outlet has been commenting on it for decades.

Absolutely I'll stop. The fact that none have been fortcoming is evidence enough for me that none exists.

[BHS]

That is the most outrageously absurd thing I've heard in a long time.  You are telling me that a "big Mike Harris supporter" would vote for McGwinty????  That's hilarious.  If you are actually being honest and not just making this up (as I suspect), then I'm sure you are the only one. 

That's like telling me that Harper is going to cross the floor to the NDP...

I think you're confusing me with a politician. I'm not a member of any political party. I'm an independant who leans "right" in my political viewpoint. I supported the Common Sense Revolution under Mike Harris, and as I stated previously it's my opinon that Ernie Eves was steering the Ontario government away from that philosophy. The Common Sense Revolution being a spent force, I voted not FOR McGuinty but AGAINST a PC government trending left, as a strategic vote. My hope is that the effect of the PC's losing power would be to wipe the Ernie Eves cadre from power within the party, which more or less happened. (That the wretched John Tory was selected for his replacement is another matter altogether, and nothing I had any say in.) You've apparently never considered anything other than a partisan political position for yourself. But do you really think it's that unusual for an informed voter to remain independant?

How about all those hospitals that were closed in such a hurry?  Many of the ones that didn't get bulldozed have be reopened due to the mass shortage caused by the closings.  And the cost of the forced hospital mergers have far exceeded any presumed fiscal benefit of the closures.

I have zero information about the structural condition of whatever hospitals were bulldozed, other than my own experience of public hospitals being run-down to the point of ruination. Blame Mike Harris for our current health care woes if you insist, but the problems you describe would have happened under any administration. It's the nature of the healthcare quagmire we've created. I blame Tommy Thompson.

Same thing applies to the forced amalgamation of Toronto.  The total cost of government and the size of the city government has actually increased under Harris' forced amalgamation.  As a citizen of Toronto, I will continue to suffer for this decision for decades to come.

Did it make sense for Toronto to function as seven different cities? Amalgamation is a painful process, but kind of inevitable.

And how about those environmental regulations that Harris gutted?  Ontario now has the lowest levels of environmental protection laws in Canada, putting us on a par with some of the most polluter-friendly states in the USA.  And any resident or visitor to Toronto will tell you that in the last five years, smog has become a HUGE problem here.

I lived in Toronto fifteen years ago, and smog was a HUGE problem back then too. So what do you think happened? Harris gutted the anti-pollution laws and suddenly all the cars being shipped to Ontario are built without regard for previous emissions standards?

Ah yes, seems like you are softening your position here.  It is one thing to say Harris did an "okay" job, no worse than others - and saying he did a "great job". 

I'll agree that Harris was not the worst Premier in Ontario history (Rae apparently holds that distinction).  However, Harris did some good and some bad.  On the whole, they cancel each other out and leave Harris' legacy as just a polarised electorate that hates two-tongued tories.  On that basis, Harris has to be judged a failure for the same reason Mulroney was a failure.  If your party gets trashed after your reign, you didn't do good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't recall saying he did a great job, though I think he did a good job considering the forces aligned against the changes he proposed and stuck to keeping. I went back to a post on the fourth page or so that explained why I voted against Ernie Eves, and if you hadn't read that far back in this thread I can't imagine that you'd read any further, so I'm assuming that I didn't say it at all. Who cares. I think I've done a reasonable job of explaining my position.

[BHS]

Maybe not the fourth page. I saw it back there somewhere.

[Guest eureka]

I do indeed dispute that the wealthy and the middle class pay for the services consumed by the "poor." The wealthy and the middle class benefit more fromthe economic machine because they set the valuation on labour - amongst other things. They decide that the work of a poor man is not worth enough to keep him from poverty. They decide on the valuation of their own labour; in the case of the wealthy using their economic power to provide an excessive reurn for themselves.

Thank you for "telling me before that it is the individuals reponsibility to earn their way out of poverty by making themselves a valuable commodity." That just about sums up the views of the "Right Wing." People are a commodity. You could almost make me join Hugo in his anarchism.

People are not a commodity. There are jobs that must be done and people who must do them. The "lower" end jobs will always be there and there will always be the same numbers in poverty doing them. That is, until we stop regarding people as a commodity and pay all the measure of their worth: worth that will not be decided by those who first estimate their own value and leave the crumbs for the rest.

For the other, I will not look for links to what is generally known and ought to be a given to one who assumes the competence to engage in this discussion. It is, a fact that, to use a legal expression, a judge can take judicial notice of. It is so widely known and has had so much publicity that it is indisputable. I will not waste time on such things.

[BHS]

eureka:

You must have a doctorate in economics from some pinko university. It's the only thing that explains how even the most basic concepts of economics could end up getting so muddled in your posts.

Maybe you should move to Cuba. I here Castro pays his people what they're worth.

[Guest eureka]

What economic concepts are muddled?

[Renegade]

I do indeed dispute that the wealthy and the middle class pay for the services consumed by the "poor." The wealthy and the middle class benefit more fromthe economic machine because they set the valuation on labour - amongst other things. They decide that the work of a poor man is not worth enough to keep him from poverty. They decide on the valuation of their own labour; in the case of the wealthy using their economic power to provide an excessive reurn for themselves.

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?

Thank you for "telling me before that it is the individuals reponsibility to earn their way out of poverty by making themselves a valuable commodity." That just about sums up the views of the "Right Wing." People are a commodity. You could almost make me join Hugo in his anarchism.

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.

People are not a commodity. There are jobs that must be done and people who must do them. The "lower" end jobs will always be there and there will always be the same numbers in poverty doing them. That is, until we stop regarding people as a commodity and pay all the measure of their worth: worth that will not be decided by those who first estimate their own value and leave the crumbs for the rest.

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).

For the other, I will not look for links to what is generally known and ought to be a given to one who assumes the competence to engage in this discussion. It is, a fact that, to use a legal expression, a judge can take judicial notice of. It is so widely known and has had so much publicity that it is indisputable. I will not waste time on such things.

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.

[cybercoma]

The tax structure should be reversed. The poor should be taxed at a higher rate than the rich to provide incentive for moving up the tax brackets.

[Guest eureka]

You simply don't get it. The market is a fiction: a description for interactions that are controlled by people. It is not a fixed "unseen hand." More like the moving finger that moves on. We do not merely respond to supply and demand: we create those and the division of the costs of labour is quite arbitrary.

Those who have the economic power do, indeed, decide what the rewards for any particular input (of labour) will be. And they do apportion it in their own favour. The CEO in the US who is pulling in millions, and who is usually not worth thousands in your way of reckoning, is the same one who is beating down the wages of his low end employees. Think WalMart.

The wages for the lower occupations are actually declining through the deliberate shifting of sources to 3rd. world countries. Union contracts are being renogiated all over the place to drive down wages because of the competition of the low wage employers. Think Loblaws.

And you subsidize those low wage employers through your taxes in welfare to the employed poor. You subsidize Sam Walton. You are paying as much of his obscene income as you are paying to the thousands of poor employees. The differnce in what those employees should get and what they do get is appropriated by the owners and executives and comes out of your pocket.

The proof of whatever it was that you want, can be found in any newspaper archive. It was such an absurd request for evidence that I could hardly believe you were serious.

[Renegade]

Those who have the economic power do, indeed, decide what the rewards for any particular input (of labour) will be. And they do apportion it in their own favour. The CEO in the US who is pulling in millions, and who is usually not worth thousands in your way of reckoning, is the same one who is beating down the wages of his low end employees. Think WalMart.

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.

The wages for the lower occupations are actually declining through the deliberate shifting of sources to 3rd. world countries. Union contracts are being renogiated all over the place to drive down wages because of the competition of the low wage employers. Think Loblaws.

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.

And you subsidize those low wage employers through your taxes in welfare to the employed poor. You subsidize Sam Walton. You are paying as much of his obscene income as you are paying to the thousands of poor employees. The differnce in what those employees should get and what they do get is appropriated by the owners and executives and comes out of your pocket.

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.

The proof of whatever it was that you want, can be found in any newspaper archive. It was such an absurd request for evidence that I could hardly believe you were serious.

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.

[Mad_Michael]

That is the most outrageously absurd thing I've heard in a long time.  You are telling me that a "big Mike Harris supporter" would vote for McGwinty????  That's hilarious.  If you are actually being honest and not just making this up (as I suspect), then I'm sure you are the only one. 

That's like telling me that Harper is going to cross the floor to the NDP...

I think you're confusing me with a politician. I'm not a member of any political party. I'm an independant who leans "right" in my political viewpoint. I supported the Common Sense Revolution under Mike Harris, and as I stated previously it's my opinon that Ernie Eves was steering the Ontario government away from that philosophy. The Common Sense Revolution being a spent force, I voted not FOR McGuinty but AGAINST a PC government trending left, as a strategic vote. My hope is that the effect of the PC's losing power would be to wipe the Ernie Eves cadre from power within the party, which more or less happened. (That the wretched John Tory was selected for his replacement is another matter altogether, and nothing I had any say in.) You've apparently never considered anything other than a partisan political position for yourself. But do you really think it's that unusual for an informed voter to remain independant?

Your strategic voting has given you a McGwinty government and control of the Ontario Conservative Party to John Tory who is even less a Harrisite than Eves. Doesn't seem like your strategy is very well founded.

I have zero information about the structural condition of whatever hospitals were bulldozed, other than my own experience of public hospitals being run-down to the point of ruination. Blame Mike Harris for our current health care woes if you insist, but the problems you describe would have happened under any administration. It's the nature of the healthcare quagmire we've created. I blame Tommy Thompson.

I'm not blaming Harris for current health care problems. I'm merely pointing out that Harris made existing problems worse.

Did it make sense for Toronto to function as seven different cities? Amalgamation is a painful process, but kind of inevitable.

No it is not. Have you ever studied any data on urban amalgamation? Probably not. Mike Harris didn't either.

According to a wealth of data from the USA where hundreds of cities were forced to amalgamate through the 1970's and 1980's, there is a notable trend in the results. Amalgamations where the resulting city size is less than 250,000 produce excellent results and large fiscal savings. Amalgamations where the resulting city size is more than 1 million population do not produce and additional efficiencies of scale and tend to cause more problems than they supposedly solve. All of this data was available prior to Mike Harris' election so one can only assume he and his advisors chose to ignore it.

Cost of government in Toronto and the total number of City employes has risen constantly in every year since amalgamation. Confusion still reigns 5-6 years later.

Bottom line is that Harris ordered Toronto amalgamation out of political spite in one of the stupidest and short-termed decisions of all time. Out of frustration with a left-leaning Toronto Council, Harris has created the largest popularly elected office in the country - one who's electoral power and moral authority is likely to make governing Ontario more difficult.

I lived in Toronto fifteen years ago, and smog was a HUGE problem back then too. So what do you think happened? Harris gutted the anti-pollution laws and suddenly all the cars being shipped to Ontario are built without regard for previous emissions standards?

The smog problems come mostly from Ontario Hydro coal-fired emissions with a majority of such coming from Ohio valley coal-fired emissions. Harris reduced the regulations on Hydro generating plant emission standards - allowing the old coal-fired plants to keep going and ignore required emission standards.

I don't recall saying he did a great job, though I think he did a good job considering the forces aligned against the changes he proposed and stuck to keeping. I went back to a post on the fourth page or so that explained why I voted against Ernie Eves, and if you hadn't read that far back in this thread I can't imagine that you'd read any further, so I'm assuming that I didn't say it at all. Who cares. I think I've done a reasonable job of explaining my position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, a reasonable job of explaining your position. But the bottom line is that Harris was a mediocre premier that did great damage to the political environment with his confrontational tactics contributing to an environment of distrust that persists to this day.

[Guest eureka]

Renegade, look at the Walmart thread for some information that might, just might, get through to you.

I had thought that you had some capacity for reason but you are so steeped in the neo-con mythology that it is impairing your thought processes.

Of course "slave-labout" in offshore sources puts downward pressure on wages here. Do we have to accept that? We did not in the past when our societies did very well financially and economically. We do not have to accept it now when it benefits neither us nor those offshore sources. They, too, have the downward pressure of keeping their labour costs artificially low because higher labour costs would rejunevate the competition from our domestic sources.

That is a "no-brainer." And it is the negative side of "Globalizatio." It is the power of money that creates the situation and is immoral and unfair. It does not have economic justification.

Of course the poor are paying more than their share of social costs. That is only arguable in your terms of whoever has the money sets the rules. If the poor were removed from poverty, they would pay a larger share of reduced social costs. The wealthy pay more only in absolute terms from their unconscionable acquisition of more than their just share of the economic pie.

And, once again, I will not search for links to what simple logic and reason makes clear. Or for what is widely known. This is not my life and there is more to do with time than that. Links are for obscure information; nothing else.

[Renegade]

Renegade, look at the Walmart thread for some information that might, just might, get through to you.

eureka, I had read the Walmat thread already, further Walmart was one of the business cases I studied extensively in business school. I am very familar with its business model. In truth its business model is not much different that what many other retailers aspire to, however Walmart succeeds because it is ruthelessly efficient in cutting costs.

I had thought that you had some capacity for reason but you are so steeped in the neo-con mythology that it is impairing your thought processes.

I am swayed by evidence which is consistant with theories. I do not try to label myself, but I have found the right-wing economic theories to be consistant with the facts. If irrefuatable arguments are presented to the contrary I stand ready to change my position, however I have yet to see them.

Of course "slave-labout" in offshore sources puts downward pressure on wages here. Do we have to accept that? We did not in the past when our societies did very well financially and economically. We do not have to accept it now when it benefits neither us nor those offshore sources. They, too, have the downward pressure of keeping their labour costs artificially low because higher labour costs would rejunevate the competition from our domestic sources.

Personaly I don't see any moral justification why someone is more morally deserving of a job just because they reside domestically instead of offshore. I disagree that it does not help offshore resources. If you take the example of many computer industry functions which have been offshored to Bangalore, India.

In this case, while those jobs have been lost domestically, the standard of living and income of those employed in Bangalore has increased dramatically.

That is a "no-brainer." And it is the negative side of "Globalizatio." It is the power of money that creates the situation and is immoral and unfair. It does not have economic justification.

"immoral" and "unfair" are subjective terms. Does Bill Gates deserve his billions? Do professional athletes deserve millions in salary? You have made a personal and subjective judgment that the wealthy are paid unfairly high and the poor are paid unfairly low. I can similarly, subjectively have a different opinion.

Of course the poor are paying more than their share of social costs. That is only arguable in your terms of whoever has the money sets the rules. If the poor were removed from poverty, they would pay a larger share of reduced social costs. The wealthy pay more only in absolute terms from their unconscionable acquisition of more than their just share of the economic pie.

Of course I would be more than pleased if the poor were removed from poverty and were paying more of their share of the services they consume, but the onus is on them take the actions necessary to remove themselves out of poverty.

You use the word "unconscionable". Again, this is subjective. Who are you to determine that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth?

Look, I know a great many people who have started in life penniless, but have improved themselves, improved their skills, relocated, and sometimes even shared accomodation while they saved for the future. In almost all cases they made it out of poverty into middle-class existances. There were some who didn't make it out. For many of them the factors were within their control, but for one reason or another (addictions, lifestyle choices, lack of ambition) have not yet made it out of poverty.

And, once again, I will not search for links to what simple logic and reason makes clear. Or for what is widely known. This is not my life and there is more to do with time than that. Links are for obscure information; nothing else.

Doesn't matter to me whether to post a link or not. My belief is such information does not exist. It makes no sense to me that in one breath you say that this informaiton is posted frequently in newspaper archives, and in another breath you say you have no time to post it. It would really seem to me that if the information were so readily available as you claim, it should take no more than an matter of seconds to post a link, but I'm not holding my breath waiting.