Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[Argus]

Actually, 100 years ago Canada WAS my dream of a free market libertarian state, so I don't think it's that unlikely it could happen again. History is not always an onwards and upwards march towards progress. Sometimes we regress.

100 years ago children were freezing to death in the dark because their father died in a logging accident and there was no more money for food or firewood, and no welfare, and no unemployment insurance, no mothers allowance or social service agencies. 100 years ago when children got sick and their parents had no money the children simply died, and nobody else much cared.

[Zachary Young]

The testament to an economic system is not how conditions were under it, but how they were changing. Things were terrible 100 years ago - but what were they like 120 years ago, and 80 years ago? Back then things were rapidly getting better - look at how wealthy we are today. Where do you think this wealth came from? But today wages are stagnating, we have high unemployment, no one can save any more because of confiscatory tax rates and interventionist economic and monetary and foreign policy are laying our economy to waste. Canada is on a decline, precisely because we have abandoned the liberal values of free trade and free enterprise that once heralded a new age of prosperity.

[Zachary Young]

Does anyone seriously think that all that is needed for prosperity in a third world nation like Somalia is for their central government to take what little money the population has and create a gigantic welfare state? This would mean economic disaster. It is only the market economy that can build stores of capital, that can lead to the gargantuan creation of wealth that western societies have seen.

[Argus]

Does anyone seriously think that all that is needed for prosperity in a third world nation like Somalia is for their central government to take what little money the population has and create a gigantic welfare state? This would mean economic disaster. It is only the market economy that can build stores of capital, that can lead to the gargantuan creation of wealth that western societies have seen.

The main reason Somalia is in the mess it's in is because of a lack of a central authority which both maintains peace and order, and provides infrastructure. Without those no real business can take place, and so there is nothing but massive poverty and death while petty warlords fight it out for territory.

Somalia, in essence, is what your system would bring to Canada. You imagine there would be massive wealth, but without an organized structure which provides law, order and infrastructure all you have is anarchy.

[Squeakbox]

I think we need to understand that there's rick and poor gaps EVERYWHERE in the world, and we, as a country, need to better ourselves from that and actually HELP people - which seems to be what the government is incapable of!

[Zachary Young]

There are no shortages of centralized governments in Africa, yet that continent remains desperately poor. No, if we want to look at how African nations can become prosperous it would behoove us to observe the example of Botswana - the worlds fastest growing economy for much of the latter half of the 20th century. Botswana achieved their radical gains the old fashioned way - through strictly limited government and free market capitalism. Likewise when America had strictly limited government - between 1776 and 1913 you saw standards of living skyrocketing, not just for the elite - who do well under any system - but also for the poorest of the poor. Hong Kong is another great example of how limited government, free trade and free enterprise helps the poor.

[cybercoma]

There are no shortages of centralized governments in Africa, yet that continent remains desperately poor.

You have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. Sure there are centralized governments if you look at the nations that aren't doing horribly (Egypt, Morocco, South Africa, even Namibia in the last couple decades). However, the problem areas of Africa are precisely because there are no central governments and warlords battle for power to reap the reward of foreign "aid". It is precisely for the reasons that Argus stated that some African states are doing well, while others are not.

[jacee]

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/

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

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?

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

Let's just put it this way:

Government spending cuts?

Yes ... all corporate subsidies will be cancelled.

All salary raises for the political wing of the public sector will not exceed those of the public service. All 'expenses' of the public service and political wing will be carefully scrutinized for necessary reimbursements to the public coffers.

Tax increases?

Perhaps ... but first ...

All wealth acquired (from earnings or investments) in Canada will be fairly taxed in Canada according to current laws.

NO tax amnesty for overseas funds.

IF the 'hidden' wealth of wealthiEST is used to provide capital for businesseses, (as suggested by CPFPW) there are already tax breaks for that.

Canadian banks providing 'tax haven' services will be scrutinized for illegal and unethical practices. Where necessary, laws and regulations will be corrected

If we don't address the issue of hidden wealth, then what message does that send to the rest of the Canadian taxpayers?

If there are valid justifications for not taxing - eg - money used for capital investment in Canadian companies - then these justifications should be built in to tax law (and I believe they are).

And if 'ordinarily wealthy' Canadians want to protect the superrichEST's practice of hiding wealth from Canadian taxation, then the 'ordinarily wealthy' can pick up the tax tab for them.

But Canadians of average-and-below incomes and wealth are NOT paying the (debt and deficit) tab for the bailouts through increased taxation or government spending cuts (job losses, service reductions, etc).

IF overseas untaxed money exists - eg for capital projects - then it should have been used for the bailouts, NOT heavily financed (ie, nonexistent) public money.

In the current environment of inequity and civil unrest, threatening those with average-and-below incomes and 'wealth', who are already struggling just to pay for necessities (food, shelter, transportation), with increased job loss, taxation and service reductions is just ... stooooooopid!

HOW THE HELL ARE THOSE OF US BELOW THE AVERAGE, WITH ONLY

6% OF THE WEALTH SUPPOSED TO BAILOUT THE ABOVE AVERAGE CABAL, WHO HOLD 94% OF THE WEALTH GENERATED FROM OUR COMMONLY HELD RESOURCES????????????

WE CAN'T!!!!!!!

(And those commonly held resources belong to each of us in equal measure, regardless of income/wealth.)

So like I said,

if the above average 49% of Canadians, who hold 54% of the reported wealth of Canada

want to pick up the tax tab for the other 1%, who hold 40% of the reported wealth,

then fill yer boots.

Let them laugh at YOU suckers this time all the way to the Caymans.

In other words, it is time for the above average earners/wealth holders to have a serious conversation among themselves about how they intend to pay down the public debt/deficit.

It has absolutely nothing to do with those of average-and-below income/wealth this time.

It's all on you guys.

Edited September 18, 2011 by jacee

[Zachary Young]

The problems in Africa are not because of a lack of government. They have an excess of government. It is because there is no respect for the rule of law, because there is no respect for private property. There is no capitalism. That is why they are desperately poor - because of an excess of statism.

[Pliny]

The problems in Africa are not because of a lack of government. They have an excess of government. It is because there is no respect for the rule of law, because there is no respect for private property. There is no capitalism. That is why they are desperately poor - because of an excess of statism.

True. Somalia's politicial structure, if you can call it that is under assault by those factions that would prefer a central authority in the form of a social democracy or theocracy or socialist state.

I don't know how cybercoma thinks South Africa and Egypt aren't doing horribly. Morocco is probably okay and is well known for it's open market. South Africa is rebuilding itself as a socialist state and Egypt is in revolt.

[Pliny]

Let's just put it this way:

If we don't address the issue of hidden wealth, then what message does that send to the rest of the Canadian taxpayers?

Who is we? There are some that feel taxation is "theft". You are a part of a portion of society that believes in high taxes especially from the rich. The Marxist concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need(as determined by the central authority of course)"

In other words, it is time for the above average earners/wealth holders to have a serious conversation among themselves about how they intend to pay down the public debt/deficit.

It has absolutely nothing to do with those of average-and-below income/wealth this time.

It's all on you guys.

Who is "you guys"? Left liberals often use the term "we, the people" as though there are no other views and "You guys" need to get in step with "we, the people". After all, "we" are "we, the people". When they lose on issues through majority votes or whatever then it is time to give everyone voice and change the system to one that is more representative of the differing views. So as long as liberals get elected things are fine but as soon as Conservatives get elected then it is time to change the system because some people are not being represented and we see a push for electoral reform. Funny how that is!?

[CPCFTW]

Let's just put it this way:

Government spending cuts?

Yes ... all corporate subsidies will be cancelled.

All salary raises for the political wing of the public sector will not exceed those of the public service. All 'expenses' of the public service and political wing will be carefully scrutinized for necessary reimbursements to the public coffers.

Tax increases?

Perhaps ... but first ...

All wealth acquired (from earnings or investments) in Canada will be fairly taxed in Canada according to current laws.

NO tax amnesty for overseas funds.

IF the 'hidden' wealth of wealthiEST is used to provide capital for businesseses, (as suggested by CPFPW) there are already tax breaks for that.

Canadian banks providing 'tax haven' services will be scrutinized for illegal and unethical practices. Where necessary, laws and regulations will be corrected

If we don't address the issue of hidden wealth, then what message does that send to the rest of the Canadian taxpayers?

If there are valid justifications for not taxing - eg - money used for capital investment in Canadian companies - then these justifications should be built in to tax law (and I believe they are).

And if 'ordinarily wealthy' Canadians want to protect the superrichEST's practice of hiding wealth from Canadian taxation, then the 'ordinarily wealthy' can pick up the tax tab for them.

But Canadians of average-and-below incomes and wealth are NOT paying the (debt and deficit) tab for the bailouts through increased taxation or government spending cuts (job losses, service reductions, etc).

IF overseas untaxed money exists - eg for capital projects - then it should have been used for the bailouts, NOT heavily financed (ie, nonexistent) public money.

In the current environment of inequity and civil unrest, threatening those with average-and-below incomes and 'wealth', who are already struggling just to pay for necessities (food, shelter, transportation), with increased job loss, taxation and service reductions is just ... stooooooopid!

HOW THE HELL ARE THOSE OF US BELOW THE AVERAGE, WITH ONLY

6% OF THE WEALTH SUPPOSED TO BAILOUT THE ABOVE AVERAGE CABAL, WHO HOLD 94% OF THE WEALTH GENERATED FROM OUR COMMONLY HELD RESOURCES????????????

WE CAN'T!!!!!!!

(And those commonly held resources belong to each of us in equal measure, regardless of income/wealth.)

So like I said,

if the above average 49% of Canadians, who hold 54% of the reported wealth of Canada

want to pick up the tax tab for the other 1%, who hold 40% of the reported wealth,

then fill yer boots.

Let them laugh at YOU suckers this time all the way to the Caymans.

In other words, it is time for the above average earners/wealth holders to have a serious conversation among themselves about how they intend to pay down the public debt/deficit.

It has absolutely nothing to do with those of average-and-below income/wealth this time.

It's all on you guys.

You have no idea what you're talking about... When you are one of the superrich, you are not paying down the debt.. You are the provider of loans.

These people don't have 40% of Canada's wealth stored under their mattresses.

The wealth is invested in stocks and bonds, including government bonds, to pay for your beloived welfare. You want to seize the wealth from the holders of Canada t-bills, etc, to pay off the very same t-bills. Are you retarded? Why not just default on the loans?

Your suggestion is akin to saying you want to seize mastercard's wealth to pay off everyone's mastercard bill.

Can you be more circuituous?

Nevermind that you keep ignoring the fact that these people are not bound by borders. They control 40% of the world's wealth and you think our nearly bankrupt governments can go after them? Come on, how delusional are you? Other than China, these people are the government's creditors.

And Canadian banks have nothing to do with swiss bank accounts, wtf are you even bringing them up for?

[cybercoma]

True. Somalia's politicial structure, if you can call it that is under assault by those factions that would prefer a central authority in the form of a social democracy or theocracy or socialist state.

I don't know how cybercoma thinks South Africa and Egypt aren't doing horribly. Morocco is probably okay and is well known for it's open market. South Africa is rebuilding itself as a socialist state and Egypt is in revolt.

It's a matter of degree. You think they're much better off in Somalia, Sudan or Congo?

[Zachary Young]

South Africa is only some sort of a success story if you think 42% unemployment rates is somehow desirable. What's next, are you guys going to tell me all about the success of Zimbabwe's central bank?!?!?

[Argus]

There are no shortages of centralized governments in Africa, yet that continent remains desperately poor.

Centralized governments are like an education. Having one is no guarantee of success. But having none is pretty much a statistical guarantee of failure.

Besides, the central governments in Africa tend to be corrupt and incompetent. And despite that they're a vast improvement over having nothing, as can be seen by comparing Somalia with any other African state.

No, if we want to look at how African nations can become prosperous it would behoove us to observe the example of Botswana - the worlds fastest growing economy for much of the latter half of the 20th century.

When you're down to nothing, almost any improvement causes great, statistical leaps. Zimbabwe is actually the fastest growing economy in Africa right now. Big whoop. It's still a hole.

Hong Kong, btw, is ruled by Communist China. There's no limit to its government.

[Argus]

(And those commonly held resources belong to each of us in equal measure, regardless of income/wealth.)

Nice fantasy.

[jacee]

Who is we? There are some that feel taxation is "theft". You are a part of a portion of society that believes in high taxes especially from the rich. The Marxist concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need(as determined by the central authority of course)"

Who is "you guys"? Left liberals often use the term "we, the people" as though there are no other views and "You guys" need to get in step with "we, the people". After all, "we" are "we, the people". When they lose on issues through majority votes or whatever then it is time to give everyone voice and change the system to one that is more representative of the differing views. So as long as liberals get elected things are fine but as soon as Conservatives get elected then it is time to change the system because some people are not being represented and we see a push for electoral reform. Funny how that is!?

Yer askin me? Libs and Cons are peas in a pod to me.

Mainstream politics really isn't my thing because politicians of all political stripes have a huge stake in maintaining the system as it is because that's the system they've trained for, schmoozed for, and been elected in. ... but ...

Someone posted a graph of debt under the Libs and Cons, and public debt rose under the Cons (corporate welfare?) And peaked and fell under the Libs.

Who benefits from that public debt? Obviously the banks/big investors who collect the interest. Logically, it would make much more sense for governments to do what we strive to do, which is to put something aside during the good times to collect interest and carry us through the bad times. But our governments don't do that successfully. Why is that? Is it because big investors - who build their megawealth from investments without producing one damn job or product - benefit greatly from that cycling of debt?

Ya think?

And do we all know for sure that those reaping windfall profits from our public debt are 1) paying full taxes on those profits? And/or 2) reinvesting in ways that actually produce jobs and products/services?

Or are their windfall profits just going offshore, untaxed?

Clearly I don't know everything I'm talking about. That's why I'm asking questions of 'you guys' - above average earners/wealth holders - and digging for information myself (eg evidence of offshore untaxed money in Swiss banks).

Because what I do think I know is that average-and-below earners/wealth holders cannot pay down this debt and deficit. So if above-average earners/wealth holders refuse to pay more in taxes, that leaves the superrich to do it. But 'you guys' are telling me they shouldn't have to either, even on the wealth they've stolen from our common resources and labour and never given back payment ... our 'royalties' in the form of public taxation.

To the extent that the 'hidden' wealth of the superrich comes back as reinvestment in Canadian enterprise producing jobs and product, I have no problem with it as that's covered in tax breaks under Canadian tax law.

But I doubt it all gets recycled that way, and meanwhile above average earners (but not superrich) are going to take the brunt of it this time.

Personally, I think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Obama, and the wealthiest people in France are really onto something that resonates with the vast majority of people. It is time for the rich, especially the richEST, to pay a bigger share of taxes: Time for them to bail us out of the mess they created through greed.

And as we see in history, when the gap between richEST and the other 99% of us gets too big, revolutions happen, heads roll, and chaos reigns until new systems stabilize.

I know what my preference is: Moderate though my means are, I like my life the way it is. Chaos doesn't appeal to me at all.

Edited September 19, 2011 by jacee

[eyeball]

Who defines what is reasonable?

The public obviously, the people who own the resource. I'd quantify that further by saying those communities of people adjacent to (including above or below) the natural resource in question have a greater stake in determining what's reasonable, especially when it's extraction or use impacts the natural ecosystems these people live in and rely on for other things.

Call it an adjacency principle.

[Guest Derek L]

The public obviously, the people who own the resource. I'd quantify that further by saying those communities of people adjacent to (including above or below) the natural resource in question have a greater stake in determining what's reasonable, especially when it's extraction or use impacts the natural ecosystems these people live in and rely on for other things.

Call it an adjacency principle.

Does the “public” hold the titles/deeds/leases and mineral rights to the land that these resources are being extracted on?

I dare you to find a lawyer that would argue that case…..

[Guest Derek L]

Yer askin me? Libs and Cons are peas in a pod to me.

Mainstream politics really isn't my thing because politicians of all political stripes have a huge stake in maintaining the system as it is because that's the system they've trained for, schmoozed for, and been elected in. ... but ...

Someone posted a graph of debt under the Libs and Cons, and public debt rose under the Cons (corporate welfare?) And peaked and fell under the Libs.

Who benefits from that public debt? Obviously the banks/big investors who collect the interest. Logically, it would make much more sense for governments to do what we strive to do, which is to put something aside during the good times to collect interest and carry us through the bad times. But our governments don't do that successfully. Why is that? Is it because big investors - who build their megawealth from investments without producing one damn job or product - benefit greatly from that cycling of debt?

Ya think?

And do we all know for sure that those reaping windfall profits from our public debt are 1) paying full taxes on those profits? And/or 2) reinvesting in ways that actually produce jobs and products/services?

Or are their windfall profits just going offshore, untaxed?

Clearly I don't know everything I'm talking about. That's why I'm asking questions of 'you guys' - above average earners/wealth holders - and digging for information myself (eg evidence of offshore untaxed money in Swiss banks).

Because what I do think I know is that average-and-below earners/wealth holders cannot pay down this debt and deficit. So if above-average earners/wealth holders refuse to pay more in taxes, that leaves the superrich to do it. But 'you guys' are telling me they shouldn't have to either, even on the wealth they've stolen from our common resources and labour and never given back payment ... our 'royalties' in the form of public taxation.

To the extent that the 'hidden' wealth of the superrich comes back as reinvestment in Canadian enterprise producing jobs and product, I have no problem with it as that's covered in tax breaks under Canadian tax law.

But I doubt it all gets recycled that way, and meanwhile above average earners (but not superrich) are going to take the brunt of it this time.

Personally, I think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Obama, and the wealthiest people in France are really onto something that resonates with the vast majority of people. It is time for the rich, especially the richEST, to pay a bigger share of taxes: Time for them to bail us out of the mess they created through greed.

And as we see in history, when the gap between richEST and the other 99% of us gets too big, revolutions happen, heads roll, and chaos reigns until new systems stabilize.

I know what my preference is: Moderate though my means are, I like my life the way it is. Chaos doesn't appeal to me at all.

Your argument of a perceived democratic deficit holds no water…….the 1%ers have a single vote in every election, just as the other 99% does…Just as the limit allowed to donate to a political party….I would think if there was such a demand for “change” more people would vote…..How many votes did the Communist party of Canada get in the last election?

[fellowtraveller]

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.

Bad example, France is a place of little to no economic hope for youth and minorities. It is a fine place to live if you are white and well off.

Two young economic refugees from France had been living with me for the last 3 months, both now have jobs, a car, a place to live and a reasonable chance of a future- all of which were really, really hard to get in France for young people.

[eyeball]

Does the “public” hold the titles/deeds/leases and mineral rights to the land that these resources are being extracted on?

I dare you to find a lawyer that would argue that case…..

You're saying Canadians don't own Canada?

[Guest Derek L]

You're saying Canadians don't own Canada?

Yup.....Do you own my house? Do I own yours?

[eyeball]

Yup.....Do you own my house? Do I own yours?

Nope....but neither do we own the land they're on to the extent we can do anything we like on it without taking one another's interests into account.

Ever tried building a nuclear reactor in your backyard?

[Guest Derek L]

Nope....but neither do we own the land they're on to the extent we can do anything we like on it without taking one another's interests into account.

Ever tried building a nuclear reactor in your backyard?

Sure, but are you saying , for example, Syncrude is not allowed to conduct it’s day to day operations on the land that it holds? What about Walmart? They have lots of nifty Tvs in there, so by your reasoning, we should be entitled to anything within the store…..since it’s our (collective) land...