Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[Rick]

Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada than the U.S., study finds

But I'm sure Harper's tea party terrrorist supporters will jump right in here to defend the rights of the rich....

[CPCFTW]

Why do we continue to demonize the top 1%?

In elementary school, high school, university, and post-grad we write standardized tests and hopefully try to make it to the top 1%. When it comes to income, attitudes change.

Hate to break it to you guys, there's always going to be a top 1%. The only thing we can do is discourage people from trying to make it there by taking as much of their income as possible and redistributing to the poor.

Unfortunately this has two effects: 1. People won't apply themselves as hard in an effort to get there. 2. People will try to evade paying taxes.

A reasonable tax rate for all is the solution. I will never demonize people for working harder and being more successful than me.

Income inequality is not a problem. It is a sign of a society that strives for excellence.

Edited September 13, 2011 by CPCFTW

[eyeball]

Why do we continue to demonize the top 1%?

We're not, we're demonizing the rate at which the gap between the top 1% and everyone else is spreading.

It's over the top, way way way over the top.

[Rick]

Why do we continue to demonize the top 1%?

In elementary school, high school, university, and post-grad we write standardized tests and hopefully try to make it to the top 1%. When it comes to income, attitudes change.

Hate to break it to you guys, there's always going to be a top 1%. The only thing we can do is discourage people from trying to make it there by taking as much of their income as possible and redistributing to the poor.

Unfortunately this has two effects: 1. People won't apply themselves as hard in an effort to get there. 2. People will try to evade paying taxes.

A reasonable tax rate for all is the solution. I will never demonize people for working harder and being more successful than me.

Income inequality is not a problem. It is a sign of a society that strives for excellence.

There is a very real 3rd effect.

Sooner than later there will be a civil war within this country where your kind will be the target by the growing numbers of Canadians fed up with the arrogance of the rich who continue to profit from more and more tax breaks all while exploiting the working class through lower or stagnant wages.

History always repeats itself.

Tick tock.....

[Boges]

We're not, we're demonizing the rate at which the gap between the top 1% and everyone else is spreading.

It's over the top, way way way over the top.

I'd venture to say if you could be poor 50 years ago and poor today, you'd rather be poor today.

[jacee]

Why do we continue to demonize the top 1%?

In elementary school, high school, university, and post-grad we write standardized tests and hopefully try to make it to the top 1%. When it comes to income, attitudes change.

Hate to break it to you guys, there's always going to be a top 1%. The only thing we can do is discourage people from trying to make it there by taking as much of their income as possible and redistributing to the poor.

Unfortunately this has two effects: 1. People won't apply themselves as hard in an effort to get there. 2. People will try to evade paying taxes.

A reasonable tax rate for all is the solution. I will never demonize people for working harder and being more successful than me.

Income inequality is not a problem. It is a sign of a society that strives for excellence.

People can use their "top 1 percent" status for good or evil.

People who evade taxes are criminals.

People who toady to such criminals are goofs.

A reasonable tax rate for the richest, and enforcement of it, is the solution. If they get wealthy off Canadian resources and people, they pay accordingly.

Income gaps such as we currently have simply demonstrate that the wealthiest are abusing their privilege and taking more than their share.

Such income gaps give rise to civil unrest and disobedience, as is currently occurring everywhere..

Defend them if you like, but I can assure you they could care less about you.

The sociopaths who are sucking the people of Canada dry will be long gone to the Caymans ... while our economy lies in shreds.

You are either the top 1 percent, or you are not.

If you are, you'd better leave quick. If you are not, stop defending them: They will NEVER defend you.

[Black Dog]

Why do we continue to demonize the top 1%?

In elementary school, high school, university, and post-grad we write standardized tests and hopefully try to make it to the top 1%. When it comes to income, attitudes change.

Hate to break it to you guys, there's always going to be a top 1%. The only thing we can do is discourage people from trying to make it there by taking as much of their income as possible and redistributing to the poor.

Unfortunately this has two effects: 1. People won't apply themselves as hard in an effort to get there. 2. People will try to evade paying taxes.

Ah yes, the old social mobility myth again.

A reasonable tax rate for all is the solution. I will never demonize people for working harder and being more successful than me.

Income inequality is not a problem. It is a sign of a society that strives for excellence.

"Reasonable" as determined by the top 1% and their sycophants, no doubt.

[CPCFTW]

People can use their "top 1 percent" status for good or evil.

People who evade taxes are criminals.

People who toady to such criminals are goofs.

A reasonable tax rate for the richest, and enforcement of it, is the solution. If they get wealthy off Canadian resources and people, they pay accordingly.

Income gaps such as we currently have simply demonstrate that the wealthiest are abusing their privilege and taking more than their share.

Such income gaps give rise to civil unrest and disobedience, as is currently occurring everywhere..

Defend them if you like, but I can assure you they could care less about you.

The sociopaths who are sucking the people of Canada dry will be long gone to the Caymans ... while our economy lies in shreds.

You are either the top 1 percent, or you are not.

If you are, you'd better leave quick. If you are not, stop defending them: They will NEVER defend you.

There's civil disobedience because of the recession (and it has been a big one), not because of income inequality.

[eyeball]

I'd venture to say if you could be poor 50 years ago and poor today, you'd rather be poor today.

I don't know about that. 50 years ago we'd still have an abundance of natural capital compared to what remains now to work with.

[CitizenX]

Why do we continue to demonize the top 1%?

In elementary school, high school, university, and post-grad we write standardized tests and hopefully try to make it to the top 1%. When it comes to income, attitudes change.

Hate to break it to you guys, there's always going to be a top 1%. The only thing we can do is discourage people from trying to make it there by taking as much of their income as possible and redistributing to the poor.

Unfortunately this has two effects: 1. People won't apply themselves as hard in an effort to get there. 2. People will try to evade paying taxes.

You don't seem to attribute any other factors other than hard work for this income gap.

What about

lack of access to education or learning disabilities

gender

racism

innate ability

family, and personal background

Income inequality is not a problem. It is a sign of a society that strives for excellence.

It's not a problem? ( I think that's what was being said just before the french revolution)

Research has shown an inverse link between income inequality and social cohesion. In more equal societies, people are much more likely to trust each other, measures of social capital suggest greater community involvement, and homicide rates are consistently lower.

Widening income gap hurts us all - By David Olive Business Columnist

Edited September 13, 2011 by CitizenX

[CPCFTW]

You don't seem to attribute any other factors other than hard work for this income gap.

What about

lack of access to education or learning disabilities

gender

racism

innate ability

family, and personal background

All things that can be overcome with enough hard work. Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouths. From my experience, most people who inherit wealth, end up losing it within a few generations. I think there's actually a Chinese saying to that effect. It's easier to make excuses than to actually work hard.

[Black Dog]

All things that can be overcome with enough hard work.

There's a word for this: bullshit.

[CitizenX]

All things that can be overcome with enough hard work. Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouths. From my experience, most people who inherit wealth, end up losing it within a few generations. I think there's actually a Chinese saying to that effect. It's easier to make excuses than to actually work hard.

I agree most things can be overcome with hard work, But I'm talking about natural/unnatural disadvantages due to inequality that limit advancement. These are not excuses, these are facts.

Yes hard work makes you appreciate the things you have earned. This is a mute point.

I think it's easier to claim that you made it to the top through hard work rather than admitting that multiple factors had more to do with it. Maybe you came from a supportive family that was not abusive. Maybe your parents were able to send you to better schools. Maybe you were born with natural talents.

Edited September 13, 2011 by CitizenX

[Moonlight Graham]

Hate to break it to you guys, there's always going to be a top 1%. The only thing we can do is discourage people from trying to make it there by taking as much of their income as possible and redistributing to the poor.

Income inequality is not a problem. It is a sign of a society that strives for excellence.

Huh? Yes there is always going to be a top 1%, just as there will always be a bottom 1%. But if the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 1% goes higher and higher, how is that good for society? It means the have-nots are being left behind compared to the haves, with more money being concentrated into the hands of a few.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know about that. 50 years ago we'd still have an abundance of natural capital compared to what remains now to work with.

Yep...you would sure know that score very well.

[William Ashley]

Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada than the U.S., study finds

But I'm sure Harper's tea party terrrorist supporters will jump right in here to defend the rights of the rich....

I advocate for a relatively simple way of drastically reducing poverty.

1. The Right to work program - this program gives people an income that sits above the poverty line - with the opportunity for a work share bonus. These funds are raised from any surpluses created by the program itself and an across the board cycling. Cycling is done 1 cent for an income of $30,000 and 1 cent for every subsequent $10,000. It would cost approximately 50 billion to run the program give or take for employment costs. However the difference between it and action plan, is that it is geared to return on investment projects such as natural resources, affordable housing (which will provide sustainable income for the program, essential goods such as food and clothing, where as food is rising dramatically.) This program thus not only aims to remove poverty but to lower the cost of living, and thus poverty line (and cost of the program itself - thus reducing the cost to run, and increasing continuously the value of the program through re-inheritance of the funds into investment in the program). Likewise the program would provide training, and coordinate skills.

It is not a bad thing that people are rich, it is an unfortunate thing that we aren't all rich. Being rich is good. It is just that there tends to be a limitation on how many rich people there are.

Part of the proactive measure is to remove the war tax introduced in WWI called income tax. To do this everyone would pay back their personal share of the public debt or have that share confiscated as an estate tax on their death, pay it in life or death. But the idea is to pay down your debt in your life time (or just at the end of your lifetime). Of course concerns for hardship would be taken into account (also taken into account for other paid for by cycling programs). At minimum in life people would be required to pay their personal interest on the debt, instead of income taxes until it was paid, then pay for services, with some subsidies given to the poor. (Meanwhile corporations would pay an equal share to the annual debt interest divided from net profit of all companies combined (equal sum to share of wealth) instead of income tax until the debt was eliminated which oddly sits at about 15% but this amount would decrease by 1% or more per year as the debt decreased). The benefit to paying down more than the interest is that when you pay down the principle the cost on the interest reduces. Once the principal is paid in full - not interest tax. You pay nothing. Better yet with a price tag on citizenship sitting at the personal debt cost of citizens, all new citizens pay the same price that old citizens pay. So no one can say they don't pay their way. With 1 million new Canadians a year this represents some 30 billion in debt reduction just from new citizenship. With an immigration cap tied into the growth rate more or less this allow upto 100 billion or more in debt reduction from new citizens although one might think that number would be difficult to reach. However with unemployment reduced through right to work efficiency and thus growth might be increased allowing more debt paydown faster.

What is important is not the divide itself but insuring that the bottom of the line has a standard and quality of life that we should all expect. Other than that the public body must channel ways of utilizing the public resources and wealth to improve the quality of life of society.

The other measure of course is inflation - done by "printing" if the value of currency is decreasing people will be forced to spend their wealth or loose it, or transfer it into commodities, land etc.. or transfer it to another currency. This is "wealth transfer".

We don't need to steal the past and a rightful legacy and right of their work and determination or grace, what however we can do is take right now and create a system where people are encouraged to only keep what they need, and reinvest the rest back into society to stimulate employment. Even if they are rich, as long as they are investing back in the public they are sharing their wealth so we can all grow as a society.

As a government we control today, and we can work with yesterday.

(Other measures are stopping government securities sales such as tresury and bonds, and other measures, such as the Payfor System and the Second Bank Initiative)

http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1

Edited September 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

But I'm sure Harper's tea party terrrorist supporters will jump right in here to defend the rights of the rich....

Are wealthy people to be denied rights?

[cybercoma]

Are wealthy people to be denied rights?

Yes.

[jacee]

And MAYBE the richEST have ripped some people off along the way, ya think?

The richEST get richer - thus the increasing gap between richEST and the rest of us - using their wealth to control the governments, to keep their taxes low and profits high.

[g_bambino]

Yes.

Interesting...

[fellowtraveller]

People who evade taxes are criminals.

And MAYBE the richEST have ripped some people off along the way, ya think?

Wealthy people are all criminals and thieves then?

Maybe we should just kill them all and sell their BMWs to people and give the money to the poor and then kill the fascists who bought the BMWs andf give that money to the poor too.

[jacee]

Are wealthy people to be denied rights?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19471&view=findpost&p=708359

"We need to have an adult conversation about income distribution before we’re forced into an unruly one."

Hmmmm ... better hurry!

Edited September 13, 2011 by jacee

[jacee]

Wealthy people are all criminals and thieves then?

Maybe we should just kill them all and sell their BMWs to people and give the money to the poor and then kill the fascists who bought the BMWs andf give that money to the poor too.

NOBODY is talking about personal violence ... except you.

We are only targeting the wealthiEST, the top 1 percent who have 40 percent of the wealth and all of the power.

Edited September 13, 2011 by jacee

[Argus]

Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada than the U.S., study finds

But I'm sure Harper's tea party terrrorist supporters will jump right in here to defend the rights of the rich....

Sooo, clearly you really have no interest in discussing the gap between rich and poor. Clearly all you want to do is post inflammatory bullshit in hopes of having a flamewar, right?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think the way money is accumulating at the top end of the social strata is definitely something intelligent people ought to be discussing.

I just don't see you as one of those intelligent people.

[Argus]

Why do we continue to demonize the top 1%?

In elementary school, high school, university, and post-grad we write standardized tests and hopefully try to make it to the top 1%. When it comes to income, attitudes change.

Hate to break it to you guys, there's always going to be a top 1%.

Perhaps it hasn't occured to you but most of the 1% in academia aren't given all the answers before the tests begin. They don't have straight A's marked next to their names all the way through college while they're still attending grade four.