OECD: Canada's richest get richer...

[Remiel]

I always thought the left's position was that the success of society is more important than the success of individuals.

That sounds more like the position of a totalitarian.

I would contend that the " left " position is (edit: closer to) that a society is a success only if it can be succesful for every individual.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Remiel

[bush_cheney2004]

I always thought the left's position was that the success of society is more important than the success of individuals.

Yes...that's how ant colonies and bee hives work too.

[jacee]

Horseshit.

The crux off o this lefty's position is that anyone who's success is predicated on the playing field being tilted in their direction is a waste of skin.

Well said. Fact is unfettered capitalism is rule by the rich and powerful oligarchy, a clear violation of democracy.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well said. Fact is unfettered capitalism is rule by the rich and powerful oligarchy, a clear violation of democracy.

Not true...pure democracy is tyranny by the majority.

[jacee]

Not true...pure democracy is tyranny by the majority.

You refer erroneously to representative democracy which is itself the tool of the oligarchy. "Pure" democracy, some would argue, is participatory democracy that does not give away its power to the puppets of the oligarchy as we do. Our adversarial forms of 'democracy' are created to serve the oligarchy by dividing and conquering the people with fear propaganda, lulling them into believing they live in a democracy. The proof is in the transfer of wealth generated by labour of the people into the pockets of the few oligarchs, the income disparity that is the topic of this thread. Edited July 26, 2011 by jacee

[M.Dancer]

You refer erroneously to representative democracy which is itself the tool of the oligarchy. "Pure" democracy, some would argue, is participatory democracy that does not give away its power to the puppets of the oligarchy as we do. Our adversarial forms of 'democracy' are created to serve the oligarchy by dividing and conquering the people with fear propaganda, lulling them into believing they live in a democracy.

Yeah, that's it...the road to enfranchisement was a conspiracy!

[CPCFTW]

I always thought the left's position was that the success of society is more important than the success of individuals.

And that's the problem. The left lives in a fantasy world where there is unlimited wealth to be redistributed. Like another poster said earlier in the thread, what if we raised taxed to 90% so that we could redistribute wealth to africa? How hard would people work? What would unemployment be like? I'm guessing slave labour would have to be used to get people to work while only taking home 10% of their income. Paint it whichever way you like, there is no greater tyranny than taxation. I'm not saying we should have 0% tax, but it's undeniable that higher taxation = lower freedom and overall wealth.

The right is forward-looking and wants to get to the point where there is actually enough wealth in the world to eliminate poverty. (eg. A rising tide lifts all boats). The left wants the future now (eg. no child left behind, unions, living wage) and looks for boogeymen like corporations and ceos to blame for poverty.

[bush_cheney2004]

You refer erroneously to representative democracy which is itself the tool of the oligarchy.

No...I stated no such thing. Pure democracy is tyranny far worse than any oligarchy.

Our adversarial forms of 'democracy' are created to serve the oligarchy by dividing and conquering the people with fear propaganda, lulling them into believing they live in a democracy. The proof is in the transfer of wealth generated by labour of the people into the pockets of the few oligarchs, the income disparity that is the topic of this thread.

Nope...you are free to dedicate your labour as you please to any end, irrespective of "democracy". Your ideas have already been postulated in much greater detail as labour theory of value (LTV).

[eyeball]

And that's the problem. The left lives in a fantasy world where there is unlimited wealth to be redistributed.

Again, that's horseshit.

This lefty lives on a finite planet whose wealth is being concentrated without limit into as few hands as possible. The solution is to redistribute the power.

[CPCFTW]

Again, that's horseshit.

This lefty lives on a finite planet whose wealth is being concentrated without limit into as few hands as possible. The solution is to redistribute the power.

The solution is for the nanny state to save us all from the boogeymen.

[eyeball]

The solution is for the nanny state to save us all from the boogeymen.

The problem is you right-wingers see boogeymen everywhere you look.

[Jack Weber]

The solution is for the nanny state to save us all from the boogeymen.

'Cause it's the free market that's going to save us all...

Uncle Milty would be so proud of his little sycophant....

[jacee]

And that's the problem. The left lives in a fantasy world where there is unlimited wealth to be redistributed. Like another poster said earlier in the thread, what if we raised taxed to 90% so that we could redistribute wealth to africa? How hard would people work? What would unemployment be like? I'm guessing slave labour would have to be used to get people to work while only taking home 10% of their income. Paint it whichever way you like, there is no greater tyranny than taxation. I'm not saying we should have 0% tax, but it's undeniable that higher taxation = lower freedom and overall wealth.

Only for the richest few. For the rest of us more taxation of them is more freedom for us.

The right is forward-looking and wants to get to the point where there is actually enough wealth in the world to eliminate poverty. (eg. A rising tide lifts all boats). The left wants the future now (eg. no child left behind, unions, living wage) and looks for boogeymen like corporations and ceos to blame for poverty.

There is enough wealth in the world to eradicate poverty but it is hoarded by the richest few who have no intention of sharing it and will never have 'enough'. It is evident from the data that their plan is not to eradicate poverty but to cause poverty in 99 percent of the population and extreme wealth for themselves.

Surely you don't really believe that old trickle down crap! It's what they've been feeding us all the time they've been hoarding the wealth for themselves! It's the scam that led to the income disparity described in the OECD report.

You really think the motives of the wealthiest 1 percent are altruistic!? Hahahahahaha ... that's rich!!

[Shwa]

The solution is for the nanny state to save us all from the boogeymen.

You are, of course, referring to the corporate bailouts, right?

[Bonam]

Only for the richest few. For the rest of us more taxation of them is more freedom for us.

The "richest few"? By this you mean anyone with a half-decent paying job?

There is enough wealth in the world to eradicate poverty

BS. Throwing numbers around in electronic accounts doesn't just "eradicate poverty".

but it is hoarded by the richest few who have no intention of sharing it and will never have 'enough'. It is evident from the data that their plan is not to eradicate poverty but to cause poverty in 99 percent of the population and extreme wealth for themselves.

Surely you don't really believe that old trickle down crap! It's what they've been feeding us all the time they've been hoarding the wealth for themselves! It's the scam that led to the income disparity described in the OECD report.

You really think the motives of the wealthiest 1 percent are altruistic!? Hahahahahaha ... that's rich!!

Altruism isn't what drives economic growth.

[CPCFTW]

There is enough wealth in the world to eradicate poverty but it is hoarded by the richest few who have no intention of sharing it and will never have 'enough'. It is evident from the data that their plan is not to eradicate poverty but to cause poverty in 99 percent of the population and extreme wealth for themselves.

The world population is almost 7 billion and the world gdp is $60 trillion. That's $8500 - $9000 per person in the world. I sure as hell don't want to do my job for $8500/yr... do you?

Obviously the owners of the companies who took on the investment risk to help generate that GDP would have to be relieved of their ownership interest and gladly accept their handsome $8500/yr cheque.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet sure seem to want to cause poverty in 99 percent of the population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

You people are sick. Like I said in my first post of the thread, you guys live in a fantasy world where everyone who makes money is "evil".

If it's so easy why don't you just invent something?

This is the crux of the left's position: jealousy. Anyone who is more successful than them is "evil".

Edited July 27, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Shwa]

You people are sick.

[bloodyminded]

You people are sick. Like I said in my first post of the thread, you guys live in a fantasy world where everyone who makes money is "evil".

You say a lot of things. But not all of them reach this level of dumb-assedness.

[Jack Weber]

You say a lot of things. But not all of them reach this level of dumb-assedness.

I think he's Shady's cousin...

[eyeball]

You people are sick. Like I said in my first post of the thread, you guys live in a fantasy world where everyone who makes money is "evil".

Horsepoo.

We live in the real world where some people make money evil, not everyone, but enough to screw it up for just about everyone else.

[jacee]

The "richest few"? By this you mean anyone with a half-decent paying job?

I mean the fact that the richest 1percent of Canadians who hoard 40 percent of the wealth while 50 percent of us share 1percent of it, as reported in the OECD report.

BS. Throwing numbers around in electronic accounts doesn't just "eradicate poverty".

Redistributing wealth more fairly in Canada can.

Altruism isn't what drives economic growth.

Obviously not since it drives right into the pockets of the richest.

[Bonam]

I mean the fact that the richest 1percent of Canadians who hoard 40 percent of the wealth while 50 percent of us share 1percent of it, as reported in the OECD report.

No. You said that only the "richest few" benefit from tax decreases. I am far from the top 1%, very far, and yet I would benefit from tax decreases.

Redistributing wealth more fairly in Canada can.

I'd rather my wealth be "distributed" to me by the company I work for in exchange for my service to them, if it's all the same to you.

Altruism isn't what drives economic growth.

Obviously not since it drives right into the pockets of the richest.

Not sure what this means in the context of what you quoted...