Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[jacee]

If you realistically want to change something, without having adverse affects on taxes (and the economy) under the current system……….cut-out the loopholes/havens/deductions etc, but also decrease all current rates a few percentage points (5%) for everyone…………You have to practice give and take…………If required, add a point to the current HST/GST to offset any loss in revenue.

Why change taxes? Just collect what's owing

And change the laws and oversight so Canadian bankers can't hide peoples money offshore.

The more equal animal line, is in reference to a book (animal farm) written by (George Orwell) a socialist………..It’s meaning? The “dichotomy” of society as seen by someone that purports to adhering to a political philosophy (Socialism) that places everyone as equal.

I’m in favour of equal rights and equal (earned) opportunity, but that will never make all people equal, regardless of the metric that you use to rank them as such………To think different, well perhaps noble in aspiration, is naïve in practice.

"Equal" does not mean "same", as for example, men and women are equal, but they are not the same.

Net monetary worth is not a measure of the worth of a person.

Take babies for example ... most of us would die to save one, suggesting that somehow they have more worth than ourselves, are "more equal".

Someone who got D's in school and cleans your pool for peanuts might be the one who does the Heimlich just before you drop dead choking on steak.

What would his worth be to you then? Priceless?

The poorest Canadians have negative wealth. Try getting more from them!

Tax the working poor more and they won't be able to pay for transportation to work so they become unemployed or bankrupt.

The middle income people are fast disappearing into the unemployed or working poor categories, even faster if 'cutbacks' decimate the public services.

That leaves the well-off to rich people to consume enough goods and services to keep the economy floating, AND to pay down the debt and deficit.

Now wouldn't you rather we get the superrich to just pay their fair and legal share instead?

Bill Gates is right - They are damn lucky to get superrich with the support of governments - ie, TAXPAYERS.

Warren Buffett is right.

The superrich of France are right.

Time for the superrich of Canada to step up and do the right thing too.

And those featured in Macleans would be just the poster boy examples to start the trend.

Edited September 17, 2011 by jacee

[dre]

A gold standard would put an end to the business cycle. Instead of prices going up every year we would have a slow and healthy deflation.

No you wouldnt. Commodity based currency would lead to massive deflation and then depression just like it always has in the past. It would also discourage trade, investment, economic growth, and transactions between individuals.

[Jack Weber]

I see no reason why income inequality is undesirable. Without inequality of wealth our society could not function. If the egalitarians got their way, who would build sky scrapers or other such capital intensive projects? We should be far more concerned with how we can make the poor rich, not by being obsessed by how much richer some people are than others. What is really at issue though is the justice of wealth. In particular, wealth can either be created (the means of the market) or it can be stolen (the governmental method). It is immoral to steal or redistribute wealth, so anyone who gets rich because of the government should be condemned. But those who get rich by creating wealth deserve every dime in their pockets.

The Koch Bros.,the NAM,Milton Friedman,Fredrich Von Hayek,AND,the National Citizens Coalition thank you for your undying devotion and support!

[Zachary Young]

To understand why a gold standard would put an end to the business cycle, we must first understand what causes business cycles. Entrepreneurs are tasked with forecasting changes in the economy; and they are a good at it, difficult though the task may be, because those who are not quickly go broke. Most entrepreneurs profit. Yet every once in a while they are fooled en masse into making uneconomic decisions. Did they all suddenly lose their marbles? Or is there another, more likely explanation?

The cluster of errors can be explained by entrepreneurs being misled into believing the time preference of consumers has changed. Bank credit expansion distorts the price signal and makes them think that consumers are saving more of their income then they actually are. This leads to malinvestment in capital goods industries. Thus, during the boom capital goods industries benefit greatly. This aritifical bubble must eventually come to an end, however, and when it does capital good industries fail much harder than those of consumer goods industries. Ironically, the bust is actually the healthy part of the boom - bust cycle, despite the short term pain, because the market is getting back on it's feet.

Government invariably attempts to remedy the bust, retarding recovery and making the problem so much worse. Thus government attempted no shortage of cures for the Great Depression, and it went on and on and on. Obama attempted no shortage of cures for the current economic crises and the Americans are sliding back into a double dip recession. Harper was slow to do any sort of stimulus and as a result Canada suffered less and recovered faster than the Americans.

[CANADIEN]

The Koch Bros.,the NAM,Milton Friedman,Fredrich Von Hayek,AND,the National Citizens Coalition thank you for your undying devotion and support!

What I find particularly fascinating is that taxation is a form of theft, but that the theft of private intellectual property is OK.

[Zachary Young]

What I find particularly fascinating is that taxation is a form of theft, but that the theft of private intellectual property is OK.

Well, with taxation something is stolen. The taxpayer's money. With intellectual property "theft" nothing is stolen. No one has less of something than before. Intellectual property 'copying' is more appropriate. That's what I am doing - copying something. Believe it or not, but the record company doesn't have a right to me purchasing their product.

[Sir Bandelot]

My God, you are so anti-wealth is it sickening. You are literally a caricature of the unemployed and uneducated leftist rebel without a clue wearing the Che Guevara t-shirt and lionizing Castro and the "beautiful healthcare system" of Cuba. People like you really sicken me.

I find it refreshing. But to be honest, jacee is probably not as anti-wealth as I am. I interpret the will to extreme wealth as being similar to mental illness. There is no way to explain the desire to hoard more wealth than you would ever need in this life, as with multi-millionaires and billionaires, other than a completely compulsive obsession that is destructive. It should be illegal to be so wealthy. If it were up to me I would not force rich people to give up their wealth, but would make it mandatory that they get psychiatric therapy.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Zachary Young]

Then we should all thank God it is not up to you.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes you can thank your god, which is, you know, down...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that taxation is the key. For everyone, tax reform is the best move. Governments need secure revenue streams, business needs less impediments to profits and individuals require greater take home pay. The only way to truly deal with the issues are to look at taxes, the one way governments influence economies.

[Zachary Young]

Governments influence the economy with more than just taxes. Regulations and subsidies both have market distorting effects as well. Tariffs as well - although I suppose in a general sense that is just another tax. Monetary policy also influences the economy, even foreign policy has a great deal of impact.

[CANADIEN]

Well, with taxation something is stolen. The taxpayer's money. With intellectual property "theft" nothing is stolen. No one has less of something than before. Intellectual property 'copying' is more appropriate. That's what I am doing - copying something. Believe it or not, but the record company doesn't have a right to me purchasing their product.

Taxation is not theft, no matter how you put it.

And with intellectual property THEFT, the results of someone's (an individual or a corporation) works is being stolen. It belongs to them as much as a car, or a house, or their money. They produced it, and they are entitled to make as much money out of it as the market and the law will allow.

A records company doesn't have the right to force you to buy their product. But a car dealer doesn't have a right to force you to buy its cars either. Yet, noone, including you, would argue that I can just go to a car dealership and take one of their cars for a ride.

[Zachary Young]

Of course taxation is theft. The government is saying "give us 1/3rd of your income or we will throw you in jail". That is armed robbery. There is no way to spin it in which it is not theft, try as hard as you might.

As a matter of fact you can go to pretty much any car dealership and take their car for a ride. It's called a test drive, and they are quite happy to do so in hopes that you buy their product. But of course STEALING a car is wrong. But if you went to a car company, looked at their cars, and then built a car yourself, from your own raw materials, copying their design, I don't see anything wrong with that. Yes, companies should be able to make as much money as THE MARKET will allow. But not as much money as the government will grant them. You don't get to own ideas. Intellectual property is anti-competitive, it's just another way for the government to grant a monopoly to someone, to say 'no one can compete with you'. Well capitalism doesn't work without competition. It's just mercantalism at that point. Competition is everything that is great about capitalism. It's what gets us lower prices and higher quality. If someone invents something, that's great, but the next step is to get that something to the consumers for lower prices and with some improvements, and if someone else can do that better than the guy who invented it, all the better for everyone else.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Zachary Young

[Zachary Young]

Besides... the people who make the latest widget and then patent it, they are just as much stealing ideas as the guy who wants to copy their work. Take the example of an author. Did they invent the concept of plot? Of character development? Did they invent English? No. They saw what other people did and borrowed what worked. That's how we progress. Why would we want to retard this progress by saying you can't copy other people? Why should someone else not be able to do to this guy what he did to the greats who proceeded him?

[Sir Bandelot]

I think that taxation is the key. For everyone, tax reform is the best move. Governments need secure revenue streams, business needs less impediments to profits and individuals require greater take home pay. The only way to truly deal with the issues are to look at taxes, the one way governments influence economies.

We've been talking about that for so long, it will never happen. Rather the reverse, the peoples tax money is given to the rich in the form of bailouts when their business ventures fail. And the fail, due to excessive greed. Yes, we have reached that point of absurdity in the system. In the past there was at least an attempt to portray a modicum of fairness, but with the coffers now bare there is no time for that illusion anymore. Today we see the elite unabashedly taking public money for themselves, in a frenzy to grab whatever is left. They legislate for themselves the right to steal. As we continue down this road it won't surprise me to see riots such as we've seen in London and elsewhere, with the disenfranchised performing their own garish version of smash and grab.

[Zachary Young]

I think Badelot has a strong point here. All too often businessmen want to socialize the risk while keeping the profits to themselves, and this is wrong. On the other hand, if we didn't have so many tax dollars floating around this couldn't happen, so I say we cut all taxes dramatically or preferably eliminate them.

[CPCFTW]

Why change taxes? Just collect what's owing

And change the laws and oversight so Canadian bankers can't hide peoples money offshore.

"Equal" does not mean "same", as for example, men and women are equal, but they are not the same.

Net monetary worth is not a measure of the worth of a person.

Take babies for example ... most of us would die to save one, suggesting that somehow they have more worth than ourselves, are "more equal".

Someone who got D's in school and cleans your pool for peanuts might be the one who does the Heimlich just before you drop dead choking on steak.

What would his worth be to you then? Priceless?

The poorest Canadians have negative wealth. Try getting more from them!

Tax the working poor more and they won't be able to pay for transportation to work so they become unemployed or bankrupt.

The middle income people are fast disappearing into the unemployed or working poor categories, even faster if 'cutbacks' decimate the public services.

That leaves the well-off to rich people to consume enough goods and services to keep the economy floating, AND to pay down the debt and deficit.

Now wouldn't you rather we get the superrich to just pay their fair and legal share instead?

Bill Gates is right - They are damn lucky to get superrich with the support of governments - ie, TAXPAYERS.

Warren Buffett is right.

The superrich of France are right.

Time for the superrich of Canada to step up and do the right thing too.

And those featured in Macleans would be just the poster boy examples to start the trend.

You have a rather simplistic view of the economy. All that "hidden" wealth is invested in stocks and bonds which provides capital to companies to create jobs.

I'm sorry but I trust the market to allocate capital more efficiently and productively than governments. The solution isn't to tax the source of this capital more (hidden or not), the solution is to cut back on government spending. The superrich shouldn't have to hide their capital, it is government's fault for making it prudent for them to do so.

If there really is that much hidden wealth, the the obvious solution is to REDUCE taxes to a level where the costs of offshoring are more than the taxes. It's better to tax some of that investment income than tax none of it and spend even more borrowed money from China trying to track down the hidden wealth. The solution IS NOT to try to out-regulate the superrich. Do you honestly think governments can compensate regulators enough for them to be immune to coersion by the people who control 40% of the world's wealth? How naïve.. :lol

[Zachary Young]

Finally someone is talking some sense on these forums.

[CANADIEN]

Of course taxation is theft. The government is saying "give us 1/3rd of your income or we will throw you in jail". That is armed robbery. There is no way to spin it in which it is not theft, try as hard as you might.

On the contrary. I do not know on what planet you leave, but on the one I live on there is a mode of governance called a democracy. Not a perfect one, and i am not naive to the point of thinking that we have fits the model, but here how it goes.

Citizens (i know, a word you probalby abhor, but a great concept nonetheless) choose people to manage things that they consider should be run by the public and for the public (from schools and transportation to the police and court system). Those same people puts laws in place. This costs money, and taxation is the way those things are payed for.

Now, you can argue what you want that too many things are owned by the Government for the public. That some of the laws are unfair, or unnecessary. That some things should be privately owned. That some of the money coming from taxes is wasted. That the tax system is unfair. Go ahead.

But keep arguing that taxatuion, period, is a form of theft, and don't be surprised if you are treated the way people with non-sense ideas are treated.

BTW, in your ideal world where there is no government, and law enforcing is private and where there is no government, the "laws" will first be dicted by those with the most money, then by those with the more weapons. You think that those private judgeships and polices will simply abide by what ever rules and enforce whatever laws they can their clients will want. It will work that way... until they realize they can make a lot more money and have a lot more power if they set the rules and the laws and force their former "clients" to abide by them before they're the ones with the guns. When (or rather if) that happens, taxation will looks like a garden party compared to what you'll be forced to endure unless you're the one with the most weapons.

[CANADIEN]

As a matter of fact you can go to pretty much any car dealership and take their car for a ride.

Actually, I was talking about somebody who shows up in the middle of the night, breaks in, take a car and jsut use it until he has enough.

But of course STEALING a car is wrong. But if you went to a car company, looked at their cars, and then built a car yourself, from your own raw materials, copying their design, I don't see anything wrong with that. Yes, companies should be able to make as much money as THE MARKET will allow. But not as much money as the government will grant them. You don't get to own ideas. Intellectual property is anti-competitive, it's just another way for the government to grant a monopoly to someone, to say 'no one can compete with you'. Well capitalism doesn't work without competition. It's just mercantalism at that point. Competition is everything that is great about capitalism. It's what gets us lower prices and higher quality. If someone invents something, that's great, but the next step is to get that something to the consumers for lower prices and with some improvements, and if someone else can do that better than the guy who invented it, all the better for everyone else.

You cannot have competition unless there are products offered. And what is the incentive for someone in producing something new if somebody else is gonna rip the benefits they could get from it. To push your "logic" to its extreme, there would be nothing wrong with me going to a car dealership in the middle of the night with a bunch of associates, get all the cars we want, and then the next day selling them in the open for half of the price. that would be competition and reducing costs.

[CANADIEN]

Besides... the people who make the latest widget and then patent it, they are just as much stealing ideas as the guy who wants to copy their work. Take the example of an author. Did they invent the concept of plot? Of character development? Did they invent English? No. They saw what other people did and borrowed what worked. That's how we progress. Why would we want to retard this progress by saying you can't copy other people? Why should someone else not be able to do to this guy what he did to the greats who proceeded him?

If the English language is the example you want to use to justify the theft of intellectual property, than we gonna have a lot of fun... at your expense, every time you bring it. Frankly.

[Zachary Young]

Democracy is a scam, and a dangerous one at that. It is dangerous because it blankets the state in legitimacy. If it is wrong for me to steal, it is wrong for you to steal, and it is wrong for any organization to steal. If ten of your friends take a vote and decide to steal my wallet, they are still in the wrong, despite having a majority of the votes. The state was born in conquest and exists through exploitation.

You may argue that the theft by government that is taxation is necessary - though you would be wrong - but unless you change the definition of theft there is simply no way out for the advocates of taxation. Simply because it is the government doing something does not change the reality of what they are doing. Taxation is theft. It is the government, without my consent, taking my property. That is the exact definition of theft. By what tortorous logic can you redefine theft in such a manner that taxation does not fit the bill? The fact that there are some ancillary benefits from this theft is wholely irrelevant to the question of whether or not taxation is theft. It is.

On the market place people can only make money by serving consumers. You are wrong in thinking that businesses on the market would mimic the state. You are locked into the current mode of thinking. The governmental means of acquiring wealth through theft is not the means of individuals on the market place. Corporations do not steal from you. They trade with you. The government steals from you, dictates to you, forces you to obey arbitratry rules and regulations. You are wrong in thinking that businesses which mimic the few necessary functions of government would also mimic the evil and unecessary functions of the state. That's the whole point of anarcho-capitalism, to end once and for all the exploitation of man by man, to organize society upon voluntary lines, to do away with theft, fraud, coercion and violence - in short, to abolish government.

Might makes right is the philosophy of the state. We must serve the consumer is the philosophy of the market place.

[Guest Derek L]

Why change taxes? Just collect what's owing

And change the laws and oversight so Canadian bankers can't hide peoples money offshore.

Sure, but with the same token, you do that, and many of those with wealth in the Caymans, will just follow their wealth………..You forget, the “rich” (like corporations)are highly mobile……….If the “rich” leave, then who do think the tax burden falls on? And when they start to leave………….You have South Africa post apartheid……

Here's a intresting piece from the "Torygragph" :

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100007918/tax-exodus-begins/

"Equal" does not mean "same", as for example, men and women are equal, but they are not the same.

Net monetary worth is not a measure of the worth of a person.

Take babies for example ... most of us would die to save one, suggesting that somehow they have more worth than ourselves, are "more equal".

Someone who got D's in school and cleans your pool for peanuts might be the one who does the Heimlich just before you drop dead choking on steak.

What would his worth be to you then? Priceless?

I never suggested someone’s wealth should be used to “value” their “worth” to society………What I was referring to, in layman’s terms, is that not all people have what it takes to become wealthy (insert what you feel it takes) and/or are wealthy………..

And to add……the pool cleaner, might not be working if it wasn’t for the rich person’s pool

Chicken or the egg

The poorest Canadians have negative wealth. Try getting more from them!

Tax the working poor more and they won't be able to pay for transportation to work so they become unemployed or bankrupt.

The middle income people are fast disappearing into the unemployed or working poor categories, even faster if 'cutbacks' decimate the public services.

That leaves the well-off to rich people to consume enough goods and services to keep the economy floating, AND to pay down the debt and deficit.

Now wouldn't you rather we get the superrich to just pay their fair and legal share instead?

What happens when the rich leave the country? Then their domestic companies are now foreign owned? You go after their companies? What happens when they leave?

Bill Gates is right - They are damn lucky to get superrich with the support of governments - ie, TAXPAYERS.

Warren Buffett is right.

The superrich of France are right.

Time for the superrich of Canada to step up and do the right thing too.

And those featured in Macleans would be just the poster boy examples to start the trend.

If they leave the country you’ll receive zero in tax revenue from them………..there are many other countries in the world with friendlier tax laws and a better climate

[Zachary Young]

Why do people invent new things? No shortage of reasons. Could be a tinkerer who simply enjoys the challenge. Or a business that has a great idea and thinks they can make money with it. But this idea that no one can possibly do anything without the government giving them an incentive to do it is foolish and shows how out of touch with reality the statist viewpoint is. We don't need the government to promote every little thing we want done. The market can do it. Man has been inventing things since he first started walking up right. We see ideas and we combine them. Of course it is wrong for you to steal cars. It is wrong to take anothers property. It's not wrong to look at what other people are doing and say "oh hey, that's a good idea". You can own things. You cannot own ideas. You cannot dictate to me what I can or cannot do with my property. That's the crucial distinction you are unable or unwilling to grasp.

[CANADIEN]

Why do people invent new things? No shortage of reasons. Could be a tinkerer who simply enjoys the challenge. Or a business that has a great idea and thinks they can make money with it. But this idea that no one can possibly do anything without the government giving them an incentive to do it is foolish and shows how out of touch with reality the statist viewpoint is. We don't need the government to promote every little thing we want done. The market can do it. Man has been inventing things since he first started walking up right. We see ideas and we combine them. Of course it is wrong for you to steal cars. It is wrong to take anothers property. It's not wrong to look at what other people are doing and say "oh hey, that's a good idea". You can own things. You cannot own ideas. You cannot dictate to me what I can or cannot do with my property. That's the crucial distinction you are unable or unwilling to grasp.

Not surprisingly, you don't even understand what intellectual PROPERTY is.Intellectual property is not synanymous with ideas, and in fact copyright laws, to take one example, go to a great lenght in making it clear that ideas is not what is being protected. The product of those ideas is what is being protected. And no, you cannot do whatever you want with my property - including making copies of a book I have written without my consent or marketing a drug I have developed and patented without compensating me.

You'll also notice that the protection of intellectual property is usually limited in time. The goal is to allow the creator or inventor to benefit from the product he/she has made, while making sure this does not turn into a perpertual monopoly.