Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[jacee]

Is there ever any reprocussions when the government commits fraud with our money?

We certainly hope so.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/19/pol-g8-ndp-clement.html

Municipal documents obtained by the New Democrats show Clement met with local mayors and councillors in the midst of the 2008 election campaign. They discussed how to dentify projects that could be eligible for the egacy funding.

Twelve days after that meeting, a local news outlet reported that Clement had posted video endorsements from "local townspeople, mayors and council members" on his campaign website."It gave him a major advantage over the other candidates," New Democrat MP Charlie Angus said in an interview Thursday"I think the question has to be asked: Was this a $50 million price of an election?"

Clement, who had barely won his Parry Sound- Muskoka riding by a margin of only 28 votes in 2006, easily won re-election two years later with a whopping margin of almost 11,000 votes.

...

(Former Liberal MP Marlene) Jennings asked the Mounties in mid-April to nvestigate whether the irregular way in which the legacy fund was set up violated the Appropriations Act and the Financia Administration Act. She was interviewed by three Mounties in June and received notification from the force on Thursday that its "review of the matter is continuing."

.

[Bob]

It sickens me the way people think they can attack and steal from the rich just because they are rich. Why don't you focus on improving your life and not on ruining the lives of others?

Yup. Let's just get enough votes together and take this and that from everyone we want. They have something we want? Let's just vote and take it from them!

[CANADIEN]

Not paying your taxes is not fraud, because there's no justification for taxation in the first place.

Thank you for reminding us that we do not need courts, the police, the army...

I would have added shcools and roads (for starters) but i suspect you think that there is no justification for those being in public hands.

[fellowtraveller]

The 1%ers REPORTED income skews the data even without their UNREPORTED income included.

Ah yes, a return to the notion that anybody with money is a criminal.

[Zachary Young]

Let's not be fooled by this idea that simply because the government currently provides a service that is the only way it can possibly be provided. Just because I am against the government having a monopoly on roads, schools etc. doesn't mean i am against roads and schools. It means I think there are more efficient and moral means of allocating scarce resources than government fiat. Let's get real. Socialism doesn't work. It didn't work in the USSR, it didn't work in China, it doesn't work in Cuba and it's not going to work here in Canada. The market economy does work. And it works for everyone. ANd it works a heck of a lot more efficiently than some government bureaucracy.

[jacee]

Jacee ... this directly reminded me about an article related to Sarkozy and Warren Buffet in France. Warren Buffet was part of a group "Tax Us", ~~~~~

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/08/wsj-.html

~~~~~ ,that called for an increase in taxation of the rich.

Very relevant Wm. And it's very interesting that some of the richest people in France have signed a petition asking the gov. To raise taxes on the wealthiest.

Wealthy powermongers in the US are grumbling and refusing.

Maybe if Canada's wealthiEST follow France's excellent example, it will tip the scales in the US too.

[bloodyminded]

Thank you for reminding us that we do not need courts, the police, the army...

I would have added shcools and roads (for starters) but i suspect you think that there is no justification for those being in public hands.

That's exactly what he thinks. He's a believer in anarcho-capitalism.

[Zachary Young]

The last thing we need is higher taxes on our rich. The more money the government has the less freedom we as a society have.

[Guest Derek L]

The 1%ers REPORTED income skews the data even without their UNREPORTED income included.

Statscan source is now included in the post with the table I created from their data.

My point in creating that table is to demonstrate in simple terms that the 1%ers are different from the ordinarily wealthy people of Canada.

They hide 20% of Canada's total wealth UNREPORTED, OFFSHORE UNTAXED, while their REPORTED income still makes them far FAR wealthier than the next wealthiest Canadians, whom I'm calling the ordinarily wealthy.

In fact, they hold the ordinarily wealthy Canadians to ransom: Since they don't pay their taxes on 1/3 of their income from Canada, the rest of us have to make up for it either through increased taxation or reductions in services and JOBS. And since the poor have no wealth to pay taxes and the middle class is fast disappearing, who's going to be on the hook for this round, to pay the taxes the megarich have avoided? It's the ordinarily wealthy Canadians, the ones who 'defend' the rights of the megarich.

The "austerity" agenda that came out of the G20 in Toronto last summer and is now being implemented around the world and CAUSING RIOTS is about balancing budgets. IF the megarich were paying ALL of the taxes owing, we wouldn't have a federal debt or deficit.

See the big scam now? And who do you think is making money on the interest on the federal debt and deficit? It's a Ponzi scheme for the megarich!

It's not the first time around this path and it won't be the last, unless we ENFORCE OUR CURRENT LAWS and make all Canadians pay their allotted share of taxes on ALL of the wealth they suck out of Canada's resources including the hard work of 99% of Canadians.

And who do you think 'owns' our government and its 'austerity' agenda?

Who do you think represented Canada at the G20?

The megarich ... along with their willing servants in government, whose salaries WE PAY to represent our interests ... but they don't represent 99% of us: They represent only the 1%ers.

So keep in mind when the civil unrest comes ... It isn't about the ordinarily wealthy Canadians - It's about the megarich 1%ers who not only have the majority of Canada's wealth, but also wield the power to keep it that way.

And it has nothing to do with who's in power, LIB-CON same story. Remember Paul Martin's 'austerity' campaign? And where do you think his wealth is hoarded? Where are his CSL ships registered? Liberia? Not in Canada, that's for sure!

We of the other99% are virtually all their puppets.

Eta ...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24679

Who are the wealthiEST people in Canada?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadians_by_net_worth

How do you know what percentage and amount of income is, well, hidden?

Do the stats also take into account when finding their average, how many Canadian households pay no or very little tax? Wouldn’t that also skew the numbers downwards? Or what about retired people? Some are equity rich but revenue poor.

As someone posted earlier, near 70% of Canadians are home owners…….Can’t be as bad a picture as you’re painting if this is the case.

As for Buffet, as many have said before, no one is stopping him from making out a cheque with a lot of zeros on the end to the government…….

As for your “list of people”, do you have any evidence to suggest that any or all of them are breaking Canadian tax law? Though I wouldn’t go as far as to say that I’m “friends”, I’ve worked for/with and met a few of these people on the list (Golf tournaments, fund raisers etc)….one of them, Jim Pattison, just donated 5 million to the new Surrey hospital….amongst all the other charities Mr Pattison donates to……Unless you have evidence pointing to the contrary, I’d suggest you ease off on calling people that you’ve never met crooks….Them 1%ers have really good lawyers

As for the revolution, have you any idea when it’s happening? I’d like to book off (Would a week be good enough?) some time to witness the shit show

Do University classes start soon, I wonder since we have one person calling for an end to all forms of taxation and other calling for a revolution against the rich….it must be getting close to that time of year

[cybercoma]

I see no reason why income inequality is undesirable.

Then perhaps you should go read up on it.

[Zachary Young]

Without income inequality we would all be very poor indeed. What I don't understand is some people think we should all suffer, rather than see some excel more than others. Egalitarians would rather hurt the poor, so long as they don't help the rich, than have us all prosper.

[dre]

Without income inequality we would all be very poor indeed. What I don't understand is some people think we should all suffer, rather than see some excel more than others. Egalitarians would rather hurt the poor, so long as they don't help the rich, than have us all prosper.

What a horrible strawman.

Nobody is saying there shouldnt be income inequality. Some people are just acknowledging a rather obvious fact that it can only go so far before you have problems with stability.

And the highest standard of life exists in countries that realize this. Look at any modern wealthy nation, and youll see mechanisms to cycle lots of this wealth back into the pool. Progressive taxrates, estate taxes, property taxes, etc.

If you didnt... then pretty soon EVERYONE would be poor.

[Bob]

What a horrible strawman.

Nobody is saying there shouldnt be income inequality. Some people are just acknowledging a rather obvious fact that it can only go so far before you have problems with stability.

And the highest standard of life exists in countries that realize this. Look at any modern wealthy nation, and youll see mechanisms to cycle lots of this wealth back into the pool. Progressive taxrates, estate taxes, property taxes, etc.

If you didnt... then pretty soon EVERYONE would be poor.

Income equality has nothing to do with "stability". "Standard of living" is just another subjective leftist idea, anyways. It's irrelevant what some organization defines as the measurement for "standard of living", and the countries we always see topping those lists are largely homogenous populations, anyways (although many of them are rapidly committing cultural and economic suicide by importing massive amounts of third-worlders from backwards societies who refuse to integrate and bleed the welfare state).

[CPCFTW]

Without income inequality we would all be very poor indeed. What I don't understand is some people think we should all suffer, rather than see some excel more than others. Egalitarians would rather hurt the poor, so long as they don't help the rich, than have us all prosper.

I made this point on the 1st reply of this thread.

What's the problem with having a society that rewards those who excel? If you are in the top 1% of generating personal wealth, then you should have a right to keep that wealth.

There are laws or rules in place that govern how one can go about acquiring that wealth. I can't go around robbing banks or selling people sugar pills for a million dollars a piece and say it will cure cancer.

The top 1% of Canadians did a lot more for Canada in terms of creating companies, providing services, paying taxes, etc. than the rest of Canadians. It doesn't make any sense how demonized they are.

[Zachary Young]

I am very much concerned with raising the standard of living for the poor. And if you look at where this has been accomplished it wasn't in societies concerned with egalitarianism but rather with societies concerned with the preservation of property rights. In America during the 18th and 19th century there was laissez-faire capitalism and you saw standards of living for the very poor rising faster than at any other time period in any other society.

As Milton Friedman said - if you put equality above liberty, you end up with neither, but if you put liberty above equality you end up with a good measure of both. I personally do not think it is good to have people closer together in wealth or income. I think that if wealth is stolen, then it is unjust and should be returned, but if wealth is created it belongs to whoever created it. Someone like Bill Gates, that bought personal computers to the world, deserves his billions. You want wealth - go out and create some, but don't use the goveernment to steal it from someone else to give it to you. They're going to keep it for themselves anyway, it won't work.

[jacee]

How do you know what percentage and amount of income is, well, hidden?

Good questions.

Blogs and comments. Not sure of the source of the info yet, a couple of clues to follow.

Posting this now ... to be continued.

A Reuters blog comment ...

he middle-class meltdown | The Great Debate 8 Sep 2011 … Do you feel the solid world melting?.... rich who are benefiting from this speculation are keeping more and more of their money off- shore, untaxed. Over 1 /3 of the world's wealth s held off-shore. … blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/... - Options Euro Zone Crisis | Reuters Breakingviews 2 days ago … The world's upper 1% keeps nearly 1/3 of their wealth off … blogs.reuters.com/columns/tag/e... - Options Reute

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/09/08/the-middle-class-meltdown/

A Huffington post blog comment ...

cap 10:50 PM on 1/17/201 I heard on Dylan Ratigan today that 1/3 of the worlds wealth (I think the guests name was Ravi- reporter from England) and untaxed. For those who think the poor are wanting to take from the rich. http://www ­.lcurve.or ­g/ The US population is represente ­d along the length of the football field, arranged in order of ncome

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/armand-f-pereira/globalization-and-modern-slavery_b_809765.html

Do the stats also take into account when finding their average, how many Canadian households pay no or very little tax? Wouldn’t that also skew the numbers downwards? Or what about retired people? Some are equity rich but revenue poor.

As someone posted earlier, near 70% of Canadians are home owners…….Can’t be as bad a picture as you’re painting if this is the case.

And they'd be mostly two parent families with children, your suggestion of 'average' family income.

Yes the 'average' tpfwc incomes we've been comparing, for comparison purposes, are above the average of all Canadians incomes due to factors you've identified above.

For best clarity, average incomes are not the best indicators to report because of skews in the data.

I reported MEDIAN Canadian tpfwc aftertax incomes, for better accuracy in representing the bulk of the people of Canada, in fact the middle person on the full distribution of all (reported) incomees. Mr/Ms middle Canadian.

The low income skew ... we are talking about the relationship of wealth distribution amongst all reporting Canadians. The .1% (ie, .001) of the wealth held simply doesn,t weigh enough to cause a ripple in the averages.

The skew is effects of the many more heavier and especially heaviest wealth holders, noticeable outliers the top 1%.

As for Buffet, as many have said before, no one is stopping him from making out a cheque with a lot of zeros on the end to the government…….

Looks like he's looking for company.

As for your “list of people”, do you have any evidence to suggest that any or all of them are breaking Canadian tax law?

Macleans list of pretty well known people and connections reflects only the top .1% of wealth holders in Canada, a snapshot of lifestyles of the rich and famous, for an example to distinguish from 'ordinarily wealthy' Canadians.

We all wonder how they live, the wealthiest and all the rest of the 114,900 or so households that make up the top 1% of wealth holders.

The question raised by the international data catches one's ayyention and begs the question of the good faith taxpaying of our own high wealth holders, the top 1% (115,000 households). In our own statscan data, mega high incomes do appear to skew the data of twoparentwithchildren by $20,000 aftertax dollars.

Average $85,000,

Median $65,000.

Both stats are useful in combination, but we have to and did (much appreciated), compare apples and apples, and not cherry-pick for conflicting information.

IF as recorded 1% of taxreporting world people have 20% of the world's wealth - resources and people's hard work - untaxed ...

It warrants some questioning by intelligent people whether extraordinary and growing wealth has outstanding taxes due in Canada, with the media reporting on what's globally being called the "missing wealth of nations".

Though I wouldn’t go as far as to say that I’m “friends”, I’ve worked for/with and met a few of these people on the list (Golf tournaments, fund raisers etc)….one of them, Jim Pattison, just donated 5 million to the new Surrey hospital….amongst all the other charities Mr Pattison donates to……Unless you have evidence pointing to the contrary, I’d suggest you ease off on calling people that you’ve never met crooks….Them 1%ers have really good lawyers

Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised and all of Canada's wealth will be accounted for.

Perhaps the research is already being done. The discussion of possible amnesty to bring money home occurs here and there, though, and you might have not disagreed that their might be some. Lol

As for the revolution, have you any idea when it’s happening? I’d like to book off (Would a week be good enough?) some time to witness the shit show

Do University classes start soon, I wonder since we have one person calling for an end to all forms of taxation and other calling for a revolution against the rich….it must be getting close to that time of year

Not sure about Zachary but I'm not that young and I don't sleep on the ground.

I believe tomorrow Sept 17 was the #occupyWallstreet tweet.

Not much media hype ....

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/16/technology/occupy_wall_street/index.htm?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+%28Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+International

Edited September 17, 2011 by jacee

[dre]

I made this point on the 1st reply of this thread.

What's the problem with having a society that rewards those who excel? If you are in the top 1% of generating personal wealth, then you should have a right to keep that wealth.

There are laws or rules in place that govern how one can go about acquiring that wealth. I can't go around robbing banks or selling people sugar pills for a million dollars a piece and say it will cure cancer.

The top 1% of Canadians did a lot more for Canada in terms of creating companies, providing services, paying taxes, etc. than the rest of Canadians. It doesn't make any sense how demonized they are.

What's the problem with having a society that rewards those who excel? If you are in the top 1% of generating personal wealth, then you should have a right to keep that wealth.

What the hell are you on about? Who is saying society should not reward people who excel? Why dont you guys stop having a conversation with imaginary people in your head, and talk to the people in this thread?

[Zachary Young]

Because the imaginary people in my head are far more eloquent and not nearly as whiny.

[dre]

I am very much concerned with raising the standard of living for the poor. And if you look at where this has been accomplished it wasn't in societies concerned with egalitarianism but rather with societies concerned with the preservation of property rights. In America during the 18th and 19th century there was laissez-faire capitalism and you saw standards of living for the very poor rising faster than at any other time period in any other society.

As Milton Friedman said - if you put equality above liberty, you end up with neither, but if you put liberty above equality you end up with a good measure of both. I personally do not think it is good to have people closer together in wealth or income. I think that if wealth is stolen, then it is unjust and should be returned, but if wealth is created it belongs to whoever created it. Someone like Bill Gates, that bought personal computers to the world, deserves his billions. You want wealth - go out and create some, but don't use the goveernment to steal it from someone else to give it to you. They're going to keep it for themselves anyway, it won't work.

Someone like Bill Gates, that bought personal computers to the world, deserves his billions.

Bill gates was able to make the kind of money that he did because of the kind of stable society he lives in, and making sure we dont have extreme wealth concentration is one of the most important factors in that stability. He also made his money in a field that the public had poured massive ammounts of money into, hired workers that had recieved subsidized educations, and used public infrastructure funded by taxes.

Lets ask him!

There's nowhere else in the world, nowhere else in the world, that people can accrue the kind of fortunes that happen here. And that's because of the kind of country we have.

And the kind of country we have is a function of the taxes that we pay to provide security, we have a stable market, you can predict next week will be pretty much like the week before.

We have the most immense investment being made by our government in advancing businesses by supporting the enormous research industry that's going on in this country. And it's that piece of government expenditure that which has everything to do with the health and robustness of our economy.

He said that in an interview during his fight to stop the estate tax from being abolished, and the revenue collected from it replaced by borrowed chinese money.

MOYERS: Why shouldn't you be able to direct your money to where you want it to go in your will or however you want to do it? I mean, you earned it.

GATES: "You earned it" is really a matter of "you earned it with the indispensable help of your government."

You earned it in this wonderful place. If you'd been born in West Africa, you would not have earned it. It would not have occurred. Your wealth is a function of being an American.

GATES: The huge disparity in wealth that's happening, is something that is, I think, really dangerous.

MOYERS: Why?

GATES: Wealth is power, Bill. And it just is not a good situation. And the examples of the aristocracies of Europe are so clear. We don't want to have a country like that. Who was it that said, it was Louis Brandeis who said...

MOYERS: Justice of the Supreme Court...

GATES: Yes, indeed. And he said, you know, we can either have a situation where we have a small number of people with a huge amount of wealth or we can have a democracy. But we can't have both. That's clear wisdom.

MOYERS: Are we living in a new gilded age...do you fear that we're living in that kind of time again?

GATES: I do. I do. You know, the data is very clear. We have this enormous accretion of wealth in the top levels, and it's hugely out of balance. The disparity is very disturbing.

And hes ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

Nobody is saying that there should be income equality, or that there shouldnt be rich people.

[dre]

Because the imaginary people in my head are far more eloquent and not nearly as whiny.

Quite possibly, the problem is that they arent REAL. Youre arguing against a position that nobody is even taking. Its really nothing more than garden variety logical fallacy and intellectual dishonesty.

[Zachary Young]

Bill Gates is not an economist. He is unqualified to comment on this subject.

[dre]

Bill Gates is not an economist. He is unqualified to comment on this subject.

Yes he IS qualified. He built one of the biggest businesses in history and he understands the relationship between taxes, the government, and business. You dont. And he understands that despite all your whining about the poor rich getting picked on that this is the easiest place to get wealthy in human history, and nobody gets a better deal than the wealthy here. Almost everything the government DOES is centered around helping people get wealthy and helping wealthy people get wealthier.

And you dont need an economist to tell you that extreme concentration of wealth is dangerous. You just need a little history lesson. You also dont need an economist to tell you that all the richest places in the world have some combination of progressive taxation, estate taxes, social programs etc. These things all ENCOURAGE the generation of wealth, and make it EASIER to be wealthy.

Edited September 16, 2011 by dre

[CPCFTW]

What the hell are you on about? Who is saying society should not reward people who excel? Why dont you guys stop having a conversation with imaginary people in your head, and talk to the people in this thread?

Everyone is demonizing the "top 1%" for having all most of the wealth and not paying enough taxes. Everyone is concerned about the wealth disparity. Did you bother reading the thread?

[CANADIEN]

Bill Gates is not an economist. He is unqualified to comment on this subject.

And you are an economist?

You brought Bill Gates in the discussion. sorry, but you don't get to dismiss him now that you have realized h doesn't agree with you.

Edited September 16, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Zachary Young]

If you want to discuss the best ways of starting up a company, if you want to discuss the best methods of building a GUI, then bill gates is your guy. On the topic of economics he is clearly unschooled. Then again, so are most economists! Only the austrian school really understands how the economy functions and what is the best method or organizing society (along voluntary lines w/ respect for private property).