Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

bush_cheney2004 · October 1, 2011

Indeed, if we look at it on a global scale, almost everyone living in Canada and the US would be classified as "ultra-rich". By jacee's policies, we'd all then have all our wealth confiscated and be forced to labor in "chain gangs".

True...if they really believe in what they are espousing, that would/should be their ultimate/desired outcome. It's really about getting more from those who already have more instead of closing a far larger and global "gap".

Bonam · October 1, 2011

You can be as greedy as you want, as long as you recognize that the wider society makes the fulfillment of that greed possible, and you basically owe a debt, as every man, woman and child since the dawn of time has owed to his or her society since long before there were human societies.

A society is an abstract concept, not a living breathing entity. One can owe a debt to individuals, for example to those individuals who helped to shape one's life and make their opportunities possible. One cannot owe a debt to an abstract concept. You can make the argument that a billionaire would not have gotten to where he was without other people: his parents and teachers, the people that employed his parents, the people that funded the school he went to, etc. No where on that list does the welfare bum appear, and no debt is owed to that bum.

An argument from "debt" can not be used to justify social programs in the way that you hope.

One can use a utilitarian argument to justify such programs (i.e. by stating that it is cheaper to pay welfare than to deal with crime, or that a society where the poor are taken care of is more stable than it would be otherwise, etc). But you cannot argue that people who contribute nothing have some moral claim over the wealth produced by the successful.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Bonam

bush_cheney2004 · October 1, 2011

...One can use a utilitarian argument to justify such programs (i.e. by stating that it is cheaper to pay welfare than to deal with crime, or that a society where the poor are taken care of is more stable than it would be otherwise, etc). But you cannot argue that people who contribute nothing have some moral claim over the wealth produced by the successful.

Yes, this is the practical outcome, both politically and economically. Society protects its gains by mitigating such risks as a matter of self preservation, not any explicit or implicit debt.

Frankly, I have much more "disdain" for a "poor" thug who would assault and rob me than any rich bastard on the Forbes Top 100 list.

Edited October 1, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

maple_leafs182 · October 1, 2011

The gold standard did not prevent infamous events like the South Sea Bubble or the Great Depression. The economy isn't simply built on printing money, but rather on monetary systems that reflect economic activity, as opposed to how much gold and other precious metals you've got stored away.

The gold standard was abused in the 20's. There was a huge expansion of credit which fueled the stock market bubble. If there was a true gold standard you wouldn't be able to have things like fractional reserve banking which allows banks to create credit out of nothing. Also, the Fed was established in 1913, it played a key role in expanding the money supply in the 20's.

Look at what happened in 71 or 72 when Nixon took America off the gold standard...there was more dollars in circulation then the amount of gold America had to back it which means the gold standard was being abused prior to that.

In fact, precious metals are vulnerable to deflation. My favorite example was the vast expenditures of silver coinage by China in the 17th and 18th century, so much that it actually deflated the value of silver on a global scale.

I don't understand exactly what happened but let me see if I got this, China minted or spent so many silver coins that it lead to silver devaluing? So there was an increase in the amount of silver circulating...that is supply and demand, the more supply the less it is worth. That is a result of inflating the money supply not deflating it.

Look, you're not going to convince me simply by repeating Ron Paul's idiocies. He's not an economist, his knowledge of history is utterly out to lunch.

It isn't just Ron Paul, it is Austrian Economics.

Edit: Wait, a gold standard is free market capitalism.

Edited October 1, 2011 by maple_leafs182

CPCFTW · October 1, 2011

Yes... this is why we have the term "basic" cable - it's the minimum one can expect to have in our society and still be entertained. A small price for the government to pay, don't you think, to keep potential criminals off the streets ?

Wow... you can't be serious?

The minimum standard is to have basic cable to be entertained? Are you insane? You actually believe that's what "basic" denotes? :lol:

I lived for years without cable so I could save money and pay off debt/invest. You think my tax dollars should go to unemployed "criminals" so they can be more entertained than me?

Sickening.

CPCFTW · October 1, 2011

Yes... this is why we have the term "basic" cable - it's the minimum one can expect to have in our society and still be entertained. A small price for the government to pay, don't you think, to keep potential criminals off the streets ?

Wow... you can't be serious?

The minimum standard is to have basic cable to be entertained? Are you insane? You actually believe that's what "basic" denotes? :lol:

I lived for years without cable so I could save money and pay off debt/invest. You think my tax dollars should go to unemployed "criminals" so they can be more entertained than me?

Sickening.

jacee · October 1, 2011

Indeed, if we look at it on a global scale, almost everyone living in Canada and the US would be classified as "ultra-rich". By jacee's policies, we'd all then have all our wealth confiscated and be forced to labor in "chain gangs".

You invalidate your own argument by misrepresenting my position.

Nobody said "all" the wealth of the uber-rich should be "confiscated", nor that they should "labor (sic) in chain gangs".

What I do believe is that the uber-rich should at least pay the same proportion of their income in taxes as the 'ordinarily wealthy'.

Because they don't, and they don't pay as much (proportionately) as the working/middle class either.

Instead, the very wealthiEST pay a similar or smaller proportion of their income in taxes as the lowest income Canadians.

jacee · October 1, 2011

Wow... you can't be serious?

The minimum standard is to have basic cable to be entertained? Are you insane? You actually believe that's what "basic" denotes?

I lived for years without cable so I could save money and pay off debt/invest. You think my tax dollars should go to unemployed "criminals" so they can be more entertained than me?

Sickening.

I'm afraid Michael's post was misleading. Nobody is guaranteed cable. It is specifically not included in welfare calculations.

I myself choose not to have cable. A few over-the-air major network channels is enough for me, and I can choose what movies I watch.

Rocky Road · October 1, 2011

It is a controversial subject that is for darn sure.

Taxing the rich would be a benefit, but the rich see it as an assault on their values.

I would say that -the top 1%- should be interested in philanthropy because

they have so much value that their responsibility becomes so all-encompassing.

Oleg Bach · October 1, 2011

In the old days the gap was caused by one group or person waging war on the other and pludering the other into poverty - at least this was honest and you could see the ones responsible for entrenched poverty. Today it is more insidious - predators are respected and as they plunder no one dare say a thing - cos they are conditioned like dogs to be screwed.

CPCFTW · October 1, 2011

I'm afraid Michael's post was misleading. Nobody is guaranteed cable. It is specifically not included in welfare calculations.

I myself choose not to have cable. A few over-the-air major network channels is enough for me, and I can choose what movies I watch.

It doesn't matter what is enough for me or you. The point is cable tv shouldn't even be part of the conversation. If you are unemployed, you shouldn't have an expectation for society to provide you with a minimum entertainment level. Entertain your damn self finding a job. We shouldn't encourage people to be unemployed by making them sufficiently comfortable and entertained.

TV isn't some sort of fundamental need. I would argue access to internet is FAR more important, but I still wouldn't agree to providing it for it individually because there is already plenty of access available at unemployment offices and libraries.

Edited October 1, 2011 by CPCFTW

cybercoma · October 1, 2011

We shouldn't encourage people to be unemployed

This is the most obnoxious misconception of poverty and social assistance.

bush_cheney2004 · October 2, 2011

...What I do believe is that the uber-rich should at least pay the same proportion of their income in taxes as the 'ordinarily wealthy'.

It's not that simple, starting with income from tax free government bonds, charitable contributions, and other tax policies used to achieve a social or economic objective. Further, the expansion of consumption taxes skews the numbers for "proportionality", and begins to go after wealth in addition to just income.

CPCFTW · October 2, 2011

This is the most obnoxious misconception of poverty and social assistance.

When we're talking about providing cable tv for those on social assistance, it is not a misconception.

bush_cheney2004 · October 2, 2011

I'm afraid Michael's post was misleading. Nobody is guaranteed cable. It is specifically not included in welfare calculations.

Sorry folks...MH and I were having a little fun and did not literally mean "basic cable" as an entitlement. It was a modern metaphor for what many do gooders define as an entitlement to be funded by government and financed by taxes. Before addressable digital set top boxes, we would just steal cable, right?

Shady · October 2, 2011

What I do believe is that the uber-rich should at least pay the same proportion of their income in taxes as the 'ordinarily wealthy'.

Sweet. Another proponent of a flat tax. Soon there will be enough Canadians to make that happen!

jacee · October 2, 2011

When we're talking about providing cable tv for those on social assistance, it is not a misconception.

Nobody's talking about that. It doesn't happen.

bush_cheney2004 · October 2, 2011

Sweet. Another proponent of a flat tax. Soon there will be enough Canadians to make that happen!

Indeed....a flat tax would quickly reveal just how skewed the revenue burden is on the rich.

Moonlight Graham · October 2, 2011

It doesn't matter what is enough for me or you. The point is cable tv shouldn't even be part of the conversation. If you are unemployed, you shouldn't have an expectation for society to provide you with a minimum entertainment level. Entertain your damn self finding a job. We shouldn't encourage people to be unemployed by making them sufficiently comfortable and entertained.

Your assumption, like many, is that those on social assistance are all able-bodied adults who are just "lazy". True for some cases unfortunately, and I wouldn't give those people a dime if there were jobs available for them, let alone cable tv.

But what about the elderly? Disabled/sick? Single-mothers, especially those whose husbands suddenly up & leave? People who work full-time minimum wage but still can't stay above the poverty line? People who are in a period where they legit can't find a job despite best efforts?

The last 3 would be controversial to get cable tv (or have enough to afford it), the first 2 probably not.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

CPCFTW · October 2, 2011

Your assumption, like many, is that those on social assistance are all able-bodied adults who are just "lazy". True for some cases unfortunately, and I wouldn't give those people a dime if there were jobs available for them, let alone cable tv.

But what about the elderly? Disabled/sick? Single-mothers, especially those whose husbands suddenly up & leave? People who work full-time minimum wage but still can't stay above the poverty line? People who are in a period where they legit can't find a job despite best efforts?

The last 3 would be controversial to get cable tv, the first 2 probably not.

That's a shame but they should be free to entertain themselves with their social assistance cheque. If they want to allocate a portion of that cheque to cable tv, then that's up to them. It is not some sort of necessity. A disabled person (or any of the above) may prefer to have internet, or to play video games, or just to spend $50/mo more on food, or something else. Cut them a cheque and end it, we don't need the government to set minimum entertainment standards for us now.

Edited October 2, 2011 by CPCFTW

Moonlight Graham · October 2, 2011

Sweet. Another proponent of a flat tax. Soon there will be enough Canadians to make that happen!

I have to admit Shady, that was a pretty good one! :lol:

Moonlight Graham · October 2, 2011

That's a shame but they should be free to entertain themselves with their social assistance cheque. If they want to allocate a portion of that cheque to cable tv, then that's up to them. It is not some sort of necessity. A disabled person (or any of the above) may prefer to have internet, or to play video games, or just to spend $50/mo more on food, or something else. Cut them a cheque and end it, we don't need the government to set minimum entertainment standards for us now.

I agree, but is that the way it even works?

jacee · October 2, 2011

Sweet. Another proponent of a flat tax. Soon there will be enough Canadians to make that happen!

Not likely, and let me rephrase that ...

The lazy richEST 1% don't even pay proportionately as much in taxes as the hard working ordinary rich guy, or the hard working ordinary working guy.

On average the lazy richEST guys pay about the same rate of taxes as the "lazy" welfare families.

Yup, that's right folks ...

Some of the richEST people in Canada pay taxes at welfare rates.

But not all of them ...

Many in the top 0.01% [ie, top one tenth of one percent] of the distribution face an effective tax rate of over 45%, while some pay as little as 10%.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2007109/article/4096885-eng.htm

So a few of the richest of the richest, who control the halls of power, or at least tax policy, have used that power only for their own benefit. It benefits no other rich people but themselves.

And then there is untaxed wealth stashed offshore ...

And then there is corporate welfare ...

And then there is the power to control trading laws and policies that allowed (eg) GoldmanSachs to reap megaprofits 'hedging' against their own products that they first sold off to suckers.

That's considered smart on Wall Street. <_<

It's a money issue, but mostly a power issue. Subprime mortgages that could have been renegotiated to minimize losses and keep people in their homes, were instead foreclosed so that those 'in the know' - ie, pulling the strings - could reap megaprofits betting that the mortgages would fail.

And they did fail, and banks with them but for taxpayer bailouts. So (eg) GoldmanSachs and its investors made money on the subprime mortgages twice, and the second time it was the taxpayers who paid the rich people, the same people who manipulated the system for personal benefit, without regard for the entire financial system nor for the entire country of people impacted.

And that's considered 'smart' on Wall Street.

There's a relative few ultrarich predators without human values controlling lawmakers and laws and policies for their own personal benefit only, benefits like tax rates not even shared by others in the same very high income levels.

Sociopathic predators without conscience are 'smart' ... and dangerous.

We let THEM control politicians to set tax policies for themselves? :huh:

Enough.

Edited October 2, 2011 by jacee

bush_cheney2004 · October 2, 2011

On average the lazy richEST guys pay about the same rate of taxes as the "lazy" welfare families.

Yup, that's right folks ...

Sounds fair to me....lazy welfare families and lazy rich pay at the same rate. Makes for a nice bell curve.

blueblood · October 2, 2011

Not likely, and let me rephrase that ...

The lazy richEST 1% don't even pay proportionately as much in taxes as the hard working ordinary rich guy, or the hard working ordinary working guy.

On average the lazy richEST guys pay about the same rate of taxes as the "lazy" welfare families.

Yup, that's right folks ...

Some of the richEST people in Canada pay taxes at welfare rates.

Good god its like reasoning with a brick wall.

Even with the lower percentages the rich person pays far more dollars in taxes than a poor person. That rich person deserves a lower rate because the fact of him being rich helps out more people than the average joe by hiring, investing, spending, saving in a bank etc.

And to say rich people don't work hard is proposterous. They work hard and play harder.